The Creationism Museum

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
If you're God, the children shall be held responsible for the sins of their parents - forever. Re: Original sin.

How's THAT for tough love?

Kid steals from the cookie jar, you don't just swat his wrist. You banish him from the house and condemn him and all of his offspring, and theirs, and so on, to a life of suffering and toil.
Then child protection services shows up.

...so... God made us sinful. On purpose. Original sin is God's fault. God should be held responsible.

Hmm. Interesting.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Jeff7
If you're God, the children shall be held responsible for the sins of their parents - forever. Re: Original sin.

How's THAT for tough love?

Kid steals from the cookie jar, you don't just swat his wrist. You banish him from the house and condemn him and all of his offspring, and theirs, and so on, to a life of suffering and toil.
Then child protection services shows up.

...so... God made us sinful. On purpose. Original sin is God's fault. God should be held responsible.

Hmm. Interesting.

And then Jesus "saved" us and supposedly absolved our sins.
Yet we all still suffer the effects of original sin - toiling in the dirt for food, pain during childbirth, and aging and death.
Thanks for nothing.

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett
It's not my argument, it's God's argument. You see, its written in His Word.

God's Word contradicts itself a lot, though. How are we to deal with the contradictions?

I completely disagree. It does not contradict itself.

Well, what about these verses here:

Isaiah 14:21: "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."

Deuteronomy 24:16: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

The first says that children should be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

The second says that children should NOT be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

I'm not sure which one I'm supposed to believe.

Like you said, you don't believe ANY of it, so you seem to be all set. If you really want an answer, I suggest you seek out an Old Testament scholar.

Well, I took three classes with an Old Testament scholar who was a rabbi.

He told me that the Bible shouldn't be interpreted as "infallible" because it was full of contradictions, and any honest person would agree to that.

So... now what do I do?

Also, please don't just brush aside my inquiries. For all you know, I'm struggling with my faith, here.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett
It's not my argument, it's God's argument. You see, its written in His Word.

God's Word contradicts itself a lot, though. How are we to deal with the contradictions?

I completely disagree. It does not contradict itself.

Well, what about these verses here:

Isaiah 14:21: "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."

Deuteronomy 24:16: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

The first says that children should be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

The second says that children should NOT be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

I'm not sure which one I'm supposed to believe.

Like you said, you don't believe ANY of it, so you seem to be all set. If you really want an answer, I suggest you seek out an Old Testament scholar.

Well, I took three classes with an Old Testament scholar who was a rabbi.

He told me that the Bible shouldn't be interpreted as "infallible" because it was full of contradictions, and any honest person would agree to that.

So... now what do I do?

Also, please don't just brush aside my inquiries. For all you know, I'm struggling with my faith, here.

Let me correct myself, I would suggest you go speak with an Old Testament Scholar that believe in the entire Bible, not just the Old Testament.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

WTF, get real. You actually believe a random explosion created everything and we evolved from Apes?

I don't know if the Big Bang theory is correct but common sense tells me that the myth those Bronze Age Sheep Herders came up with for our origins is laughable. Hey believe what you want, your beliefs are meant to give you comfort, obviously you need it

And you obviously need the comfort in knowing you know more than we mere Christians.

Given the recent trend amongst American Christians to be willfully ignorant, Red Dawn will be comforted indeed.

There you go again with the name-calling again. Who are the close-minded ones again?

Its true... and I am guilty of the same... In our defense, its not easy to remain mature and not sink to name calling when dealing with such hard headed ignorance.

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett
It's not my argument, it's God's argument. You see, its written in His Word.

God's Word contradicts itself a lot, though. How are we to deal with the contradictions?

I completely disagree. It does not contradict itself.

Well, what about these verses here:

Isaiah 14:21: "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."

Deuteronomy 24:16: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

The first says that children should be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

The second says that children should NOT be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

I'm not sure which one I'm supposed to believe.

Like you said, you don't believe ANY of it, so you seem to be all set. If you really want an answer, I suggest you seek out an Old Testament scholar.

Actually, I think being scholarly about it doesn't help. I'm curious---how do you deal with the contradiction of the above two verses? Scholars know a lot more than I do, obviously, and everyone can't be a scholar.

Should I just ignore the verses? That seems to be the best solution.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Let me correct myself, I would suggest you go speak with an Old Testament Scholar that believe in the entire Bible, not just the Old Testament.

But what if Judaism is the one true religion, and you're totally wrong by believing Satan's lure in the New Testament?

Satan tempted Eve with the gift of knowledge. Maybe Satan tempted the world into accepting a false savior.

Who's to say that's incorrect? Satan deceived humanity once before, right? What's to stop him from doing it again?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett
It's not my argument, it's God's argument. You see, its written in His Word.

God's Word contradicts itself a lot, though. How are we to deal with the contradictions?

I completely disagree. It does not contradict itself.

Well, what about these verses here:

Isaiah 14:21: "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."

Deuteronomy 24:16: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

The first says that children should be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

The second says that children should NOT be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

I'm not sure which one I'm supposed to believe.

Like you said, you don't believe ANY of it, so you seem to be all set. If you really want an answer, I suggest you seek out an Old Testament scholar.

Actually, I think being scholarly about it doesn't help. I'm curious---how do you deal with the contradiction of the above two verses? Scholars know a lot more than I do, obviously, and everyone can't be a scholar.

Should I just ignore the verses? That seems to be the best solution.

Well you seem to ignore the rest, so yeah, that seems to be working well for you.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
But it was written by men and men are fallible.

But the Bible is not, nor is what is written in it.

Says so right on the cover.

The Bible says it is fallible on the cover? Pics?

As fun as it would be to whip out RealDraw and add those words, I'm just too lazy. I was responding to the idea that the bible is infallible because the bible was written by a god and we know it was written by a god because the bible says so. Basically the bible is its own tautology.

Sigh. The Bible was written by men, and inspired by God. It's the infallable Word of God.

Yep, says so right on the cover.

You really don't see the flaw in your argument do you? You've made a totally unsupportable assertion that the bible is written (inspired if you wish) by a god. Yet the only "evidence" you can offer to back it up is the bible itself. I can shorten your argument to "This sentence is true." As a reasoned position it carried as much weight as claiming a divine origin for the bible.

It's not my argument, it's God's argument. You see, its written in His Word.

Do I smell a troll? I find it hard to believe anyone is so stupid as to use this as a argument and still have the skills to understand written language.

You have my respect for a good show though.

-Edit- Typo -edit-

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: roboskier

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Corbett
My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Umm... The bible does say god created man in his image. Science has proven that we all evolved apes. Proof. Now go bible thump elsewhere to a less intelligent audience.

You and Dewelon keep ignoring facts like the fact that DNA, geologic, and fossil evidence prove that evolution happened... But then again, ignoring facts is a pre-requisite for being Christian these days. I can understand that in the first 18-19 hundred years AD, but today, we know better.,

Is that why evolution is still considered a THEORY?

Creationism and ID aren't theories, they haven't been tested.

And evolution IS a theory. Therefore, Evolution has not PROVEN anything.

No, sorry. It has been proven, time and time again. Its easy to say something is not true if you ignore it. Here is an example for you. Go turn on your TV to the local news. Now stick your fingers in your ears and say LALALALALALALALA as loud as you can.

Now you can (by your definition) say that the news story you just watched never happened, and isnt proven. Very simple. Your head is in the sand and you ignore proof that proves that which you dont want to be true.

On the bright side I will give you a compliment... you are a good christian.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
o I smell a troll? I find it hard to believe anyone is so stupid as to use this as a argument and skill have the skills to understand written language.

You have my respect for a good show though.

The exceptional brevity of all his answers is also rather intriguing.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
But it was written by men and men are fallible.

But the Bible is not, nor is what is written in it.

Says so right on the cover.

The Bible says it is fallible on the cover? Pics?

As fun as it would be to whip out RealDraw and add those words, I'm just too lazy. I was responding to the idea that the bible is infallible because the bible was written by a god and we know it was written by a god because the bible says so. Basically the bible is its own tautology.

Sigh. The Bible was written by men, and inspired by God. It's the infallable Word of God.

Yep, says so right on the cover.

You really don't see the flaw in your argument do you? You've made a totally unsupportable assertion that the bible is written (inspired if you wish) by a god. Yet the only "evidence" you can offer to back it up is the bible itself. I can shorten your argument to "This sentence is true." As a reasoned position it carried as much weight as claiming a divine origin for the bible.

It's not my argument, it's God's argument. You see, its written in His Word.

Do I smell a troll? I find it hard to believe anyone is so stupid as to use this as a argument and skill have the skills to understand written language.

You have my respect for a good show though.

You smell a troll because you are obviously one. What I meant, and you seem to have missed is that God's Word says its entirety is infallable.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: roboskier

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Corbett
My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Umm... The bible does say god created man in his image. Science has proven that we all evolved apes. Proof. Now go bible thump elsewhere to a less intelligent audience.

You and Dewelon keep ignoring facts like the fact that DNA, geologic, and fossil evidence prove that evolution happened... But then again, ignoring facts is a pre-requisite for being Christian these days. I can understand that in the first 18-19 hundred years AD, but today, we know better.,

Is that why evolution is still considered a THEORY?

Creationism and ID aren't theories, they haven't been tested.

And evolution IS a theory. Therefore, Evolution has not PROVEN anything.

No, sorry. It has been proven, time and time again. Its easy to say something is not true if you ignore it. Here is an example for you. Go turn on your TV to the local news. Now stick your fingers in your ears and say LALALALALALALALA as loud as you can.

Now you can (by your definition) say that the news story you just watched never happened, and isnt proven. Very simple. Your head is in the sand and you ignore proof that proves that which you dont want to be true.

On the bright side I will give you a compliment... you are a good christian.

And again, I'm not "ignoring" anything. But thanks for the complement.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
But it was written by men and men are fallible.

But the Bible is not, nor is what is written in it.

Says so right on the cover.

The Bible says it is fallible on the cover? Pics?

As fun as it would be to whip out RealDraw and add those words, I'm just too lazy. I was responding to the idea that the bible is infallible because the bible was written by a god and we know it was written by a god because the bible says so. Basically the bible is its own tautology.

Sigh. The Bible was written by men, and inspired by God. It's the infallable Word of God.

Yep, says so right on the cover.

You really don't see the flaw in your argument do you? You've made a totally unsupportable assertion that the bible is written (inspired if you wish) by a god. Yet the only "evidence" you can offer to back it up is the bible itself. I can shorten your argument to "This sentence is true." As a reasoned position it carried as much weight as claiming a divine origin for the bible.

It's not my argument, it's God's argument. You see, its written in His Word.

Do I smell a troll? I find it hard to believe anyone is so stupid as to use this as a argument and skill have the skills to understand written language.

You have my respect for a good show though.

You smell a troll because you are obviously one. What I meant, and you seem to have missed is that God's Word says its entirety is infallable.

Well you got me convinced, it was a fun read.

 

[Jeff7]

Sweet, I'm going to write this on my test:

"This student deserves a 100% on this test. This is the word of God." -God

God inspired me to write it.
Irrefutable.

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett
It's not my argument, it's God's argument. You see, its written in His Word.

God's Word contradicts itself a lot, though. How are we to deal with the contradictions?

I completely disagree. It does not contradict itself.

Well, what about these verses here:

Isaiah 14:21: "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."

Deuteronomy 24:16: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

The first says that children should be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

The second says that children should NOT be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

I'm not sure which one I'm supposed to believe.

Like you said, you don't believe ANY of it, so you seem to be all set. If you really want an answer, I suggest you seek out an Old Testament scholar.

Actually, I think being scholarly about it doesn't help. I'm curious---how do you deal with the contradiction of the above two verses? Scholars know a lot more than I do, obviously, and everyone can't be a scholar.

Should I just ignore the verses? That seems to be the best solution.

Well you seem to ignore the rest, so yeah, that seems to be working well for you.

It's not working very well at all, actually. I have an obsessive personality; I like to resolve conflicts when they come up.

So: sins of the father. Are children responsible or not?

Also, this one bothers me quite a bit:

Psalm 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon."

Isaiah 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come."

Should I even bother being righteous? The Bible says two different things! Help!

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: roboskier

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Corbett
My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Umm... The bible does say god created man in his image. Science has proven that we all evolved apes. Proof. Now go bible thump elsewhere to a less intelligent audience.

You and Dewelon keep ignoring facts like the fact that DNA, geologic, and fossil evidence prove that evolution happened... But then again, ignoring facts is a pre-requisite for being Christian these days. I can understand that in the first 18-19 hundred years AD, but today, we know better.,

Is that why evolution is still considered a THEORY?

Creationism and ID aren't theories, they haven't been tested.

And evolution IS a theory. Therefore, Evolution has not PROVEN anything.

No, sorry. It has been proven, time and time again. Its easy to say something is not true if you ignore it. Here is an example for you. Go turn on your TV to the local news. Now stick your fingers in your ears and say LALALALALALALALA as loud as you can.

Now you can (by your definition) say that the news story you just watched never happened, and isnt proven. Very simple. Your head is in the sand and you ignore proof that proves that which you dont want to be true.

On the bright side I will give you a compliment... you are a good christian.

And again, I'm not "ignoring" anything. But thanks for the complement.

Um.... OK. Whatever. There is no point arguing it any further, you are ignoring facts, and have proven you will continue to ignore facts. Let me beat you to your next post... LALALALALALALALALALALA

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett
It's not my argument, it's God's argument. You see, its written in His Word.

God's Word contradicts itself a lot, though. How are we to deal with the contradictions?

I completely disagree. It does not contradict itself.

Well, what about these verses here:

Isaiah 14:21: "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."

Deuteronomy 24:16: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

The first says that children should be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

The second says that children should NOT be held responsible for the sins of their fathers.

I'm not sure which one I'm supposed to believe.

Care to post it in context with the surrounding verses?

 

[IronWing]

Say Corbett, by chance does the god of your bible pretty much share your worldview?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Corbett

Your argument thet evoultion is just a theory proves that you know little about modern science.

Once upon a time, scientists assigned the term "law" to explanations that seemed to be complete and foolproof. The "laws" of physics and thermodynamics are good examples. Then along came relativity, quantum mechanics, cryogenics, etc.. These showed that there were things happening outside of the human senses ability to detect that didn't quite fit the old laws. The old laws were still perfectly good for the calculating duration of a fall from 100 meters, a mortar shell trajectory, or how dry ice will react.

But scientists learned a lesson, and they stopped naming things "laws". They decided that the word "theory" was a much better term. They use the word "hypothesis" for what you consider "theory" to mean. After compiling enough evidence to prove the hypothesis to be correct and functional, they refer to it as a theory, as in "theory of evolution". And it is perfectly acceptable to refine the theory in light of any new evidence that may be forthcoming.

Once you understand the correct definition of terms as used in science, you can see how ludicrous the argument is that evolution is just a theory. It is very easy to consider you ignorant of the subject when you argue like that.

Your contention that there should be untold millions of fossil records also highlights your ignorance of plate tectonics, geology, erosion, sea level change, fossil formation, etc..

When you use obviously invalid arguments to bolster your case, is it any wonder that you are so easily dismissed?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: roboskier

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: roboskier
Point is, creationism can't be tested; it's faith. Evolution CAN actually be tested.

Both can be tested, neither can be PROVEN

OK tell me how creationism can be tested.

I'll save the argument and just recant that part.

and then I'll repeat

NEITHER CAN BE PROVEN

Lol noob. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Science works with facts and evidence.

Evolution can be demonstrated, and it makes specific predictions which have been confirmed by observation.

None of that is true of creationism.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Corbett

Your argument thet evoultion is just a theory proves that you know little about modern science.

Once upon a time, scientists assigned the term "law" to explanations that seemed to be complete and foolproof. The "laws" of physics and thermodynamics are good examples. Then along came relativity, quantum mechanics, cryogenics, etc.. These showed that there were things happening outside of the human senses ability to detect that didn't quite fit the old laws. The old laws were still perfectly good for the calculating duration of a fall from 100 meters, a mortar shell trajectory, or how dry ice will react.

But scientists learned a lesson, and they stopped naming things "laws". They decided that the word "theory" was a much better term. They use the word "hypothesis" for what you consider "theory" to mean. After compiling enough evidence to prove the hypothesis to be correct and functional, they refer to it as a theory, as in "theory of evolution". And it is perfectly acceptable to refine the theory in light of any new evidence that may be forthcoming.

Once you understand the correct definition of terms as used in science, you can see how ludicrous the argument is that evolution is just a theory. It is very easy to consider you ignorant of the subject when you argue like that.

Your contention that there should be untold millions of fossil records also highlights your ignorance of plate tectonics, geology, erosion, sea level change, fossil formation, etc..

When you use obviously invalid arguments to bolster your case, is it any wonder that you are so easily dismissed?

Science does not understand how a species' gives birth to another species' with different DNA.

Beneficial genetic mutations have never been found, yet harmful ones are everywhere. Current species can adapt to an enviornment, sure, but that information is already present in their DNA.

Modern science cannot even begin to predict what type of offspring a Walleye fish will have. It can't even predict it will have any different offspring other than more walleye in billions of years.

There should be millions or at least 1 transitional fossil, yet we have none today.

Evolution as a theory is a good theory, for what it's worth, but to call it proven is just a lie. The notion that evolution is scientific proven fact is nothing but a mantra, repeated enough by godless men who want nothing more than to believe they will have nobody to account their lives to.

 

[Duwelon]

On the converse you have a world that logically screams "designed by x". A world that has laws, which our logical brains can't even begin to comprehend how exactly they even exist or why the speed of light is the speed it is.

Our bodies are full of organs, each with a function, every square inch of our bodies has a use, whether functional, aesthetic, or both. We have no lumps as a species that have no use. No vestigial organs of any kind. Some have more important, yet all are beneficial. All we've observed in all our years studying "evolutioN" is things breaking down. Loss of information, not gaining of new.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Corbett

Your argument thet evoultion is just a theory proves that you know little about modern science.

Once upon a time, scientists assigned the term "law" to explanations that seemed to be complete and foolproof. The "laws" of physics and thermodynamics are good examples. Then along came relativity, quantum mechanics, cryogenics, etc.. These showed that there were things happening outside of the human senses ability to detect that didn't quite fit the old laws. The old laws were still perfectly good for the calculating duration of a fall from 100 meters, a mortar shell trajectory, or how dry ice will react.

But scientists learned a lesson, and they stopped naming things "laws". They decided that the word "theory" was a much better term. They use the word "hypothesis" for what you consider "theory" to mean. After compiling enough evidence to prove the hypothesis to be correct and functional, they refer to it as a theory, as in "theory of evolution". And it is perfectly acceptable to refine the theory in light of any new evidence that may be forthcoming.

Once you understand the correct definition of terms as used in science, you can see how ludicrous the argument is that evolution is just a theory. It is very easy to consider you ignorant of the subject when you argue like that.

Your contention that there should be untold millions of fossil records also highlights your ignorance of plate tectonics, geology, erosion, sea level change, fossil formation, etc..

When you use obviously invalid arguments to bolster your case, is it any wonder that you are so easily dismissed?

Science does not understand how a species' gives birth to another species' with different DNA.

Beneficial genetic mutations have never been found, yet harmful ones are everywhere. Current species can adapt to an enviornment, sure, but that information is already present in their DNA.

Modern science cannot even begin to predict what type of offspring a Walleye fish will have. It can't even predict it will have any different offspring other than more walleye in billions of years.

There should be millions or at least 1 transitional fossil, yet we have none today.

Evolution as a theory is a good theory, for what it's worth, but to call it proven is just a lie. The notion that evolution is scientific proven fact is nothing but a mantra, repeated enough by godless men who want nothing more than to believe they will have nobody to account their lives to.

I'm going with walleye. Also, your false dichotomy of either or evolution or believing in a god who cares what we do is a bit silly.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
On the converse you have a world that logically screams "designed by x". A world that has laws, which our logical brains can't even begin to comprehend how exactly they even exist or why the speed of light is the speed it is.

Our bodies are full of organs, each with a function, every square inch of our bodies has a use, whether functional, aesthetic, or both. We have no lumps as a species that have no use. No vestigial organs of any kind. Some have more important, yet all are beneficial. All we've observed in all our years studying "evolutioN" is things breaking down. Loss of information, not gaining of new.

You're peaking too soon. Take time to warm up, do some stretches, slowly reel in the suckers, then work up to the ludicrous. Posts like this just rip the hook out of their mouths.