/b/ and evolution

Why do you believe in evolution if you are a Christian? I'm pretty sure it contradicts a lot christian teachings. I'm not mad, just wanted to know.

There are some of us who are Christian, but still believe in scientific fact.

I would find it very hard to believe in both.

That awkward moment when thousands of christian inventors developed modern day inventions before atheism really took a new rise. Science is simply the study of phenomena on earth. If god created earth and people. Science and the use of it is basically observing Gods works and trying to better understand them (in a christian sense.)

Nothing wrong with it, in fact, I would argue there is something wrong with ignoring it.

Logic; you have it.

A rare thing among humans.

Good point.

>become athiest in order to become "less of a crowd follower and more intelligent"
>assume that the majority of theists are dumbasses

>Where the hell did i state that i became an atheist for that reason? i simply don't believe in gods. simple enough. if there were gods would there be half the problems there are?
>trust me if you've met half of the religious people i have you'd assume the same. though i know there are exceptions to that "rule"

you implied it with "a rare thing among theists"

no. for one thing im an atheist.. and secondly base that view upon what i see today and what has already happened.

I get your point. I know Christians like Plank, Schrodinger, and Newton did contribute significantly to scientific progress. However you have to remember science and atheism are not the same. One is a skeptical way of dealing with the world, the other is a philosophy with many branches and other theories parallel to it. I see the other man's point as well, it seems completely contradictory to take all of the bible's teaching and science as coexisting within the same reality.

In Gensis (I think, I read the bible once), it states clearly the Christian God created all the living things on Earth. Then again: n what way, it does not specify, but it does say in one day. But in more references, one in Psalm, another in Exodus, and another in Matthew - it references this event; stating God created each being for it's own purpose and that those Noah saved will be here forever in God's plan. We do know some of this to be untrue, natural selection is a deciding factor of extinction, and the average lifespan of a mammal species is 1,000,000 years (we have only a few thousand years left).

Regardless, the bible was not written down. It was past down orally. It was edited by the church at times. It can be interpreted differently. So there are many factors to consider. Regardless of which, I respect your religious affiliation. I would hope you respect my lack thereof. And we could work together to build a better tomorrow with science.

Species Lifespan:
[url deleted]

I never said it was necessarily. I was making a comment to someone saying "Scientific fact and Religion can't go together." Which in itself suggests atheism is brought on by science.

I basically argued that was false. I know Atheism has many deeper philosophical reasons for its belief.

I think we see eye to eye primarily. And you are a pretty cool guy. =)

A grammatical correction for myself:
"*However, you have to remember..."

Thank you. There is a video on the Big Think channel on Youtube where Neil DeGrass Tyson argues more descriptively with data how religion and science can go together. He looks a little bored in the video, as if he's been asked this several times already. Anyhow, I apologize the link was deleted - it was an article about the lifespans of species and a lot of interesting information on the subject, if you'd like I could send you a link in a message.

Here is the video of Tyson:
[url deleted]

WHY DOES IT REMOVE MY URLS!?

Just search "Neil DeGrasse Tyson Science and Faith."

what about the dark ages, when christians decided to fuck the concept of technology?

The mixture of government powers and religion is at a constant argument. Personally, I see that as a dark age for the church as well. Where it became corrupt. It is odd. But as a catholic I am happy the protestant reformation happened. Because it showed us that some of our little practices were fairly corrupt, and that the way we were running the christian state was very wrong.

Why can't Faith and science go hand in hand? Must there always be opposition from one to another? Must we chose one or the other? Why not both as the young girl once said as the deciding factor for soft and hard tacos. Why not both?

Gif unrelated.

well the biggest reason is that scientific fact contradicts many of the bibles teachings. such as the age of the earth or the origin of man

Sometimes it is. In times of hardship I do tend to turn more to my faith to help me get through things, and I personally believe there is a God above and that his son died for our sins, but I also cannot dispute proven scientific fact. Sometimes it can really be a challenge to do decide between God or Science. I personally agree with those people who try to combine science AND Christianity. Oh, and I hope this isn't you setting up some sort of troll/flame. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt though and just assume you were curious :)

I'm not trying to troll, I just like to know peoples opinions and ideas. Although anytime people on FJ talk about religion everyone thinks its a flame war.

Alright, well in that case thanks for being so open minded and accepting of other peoples faith/beliefs. A lot of my friends are atheist/agnostic, and I tell them the same thing; I respect your right to not believe in my God, as long as you respect my right to believe in him myself. I think if the world followed that golden rule, things would be much better :)

Christianity and science go hand in hand, like mother and daughter.

Evolution isn't science though, it has nothing to do with it. Evolution is allowing people who do not or cannot believe in a god to feel secure, it has many, many holes and is far from scientific fact.

There are sections of the bible which are allegorical or subject to interpretation, the important aspects of the bible are not scientific, but morals and faith taught through a God.

I look at genesis as a why, not a how to. Why would god give us the answers on how existence was created? Especially when you see how destructive we can be with simple things such as cars.

If god is an all intelligent being, why couldn't he use some method of evolution to get man kind to its location in time? He would be a master engineer if he is omnipotent. Science very well can be something we can use to explain the glories of how God works.

Can you site some teachings that it is wrong to follow evolution?

the best way i can explain Evolution and Christianity as being incompatible is like this (please ignore any typos):

First off, the seven days (which the word for really means periods of time, yes) had mornings and evenings (and it was morning and evening the first day, morning and evening the second day, etc.) making it fairly clear the bible meant literal days. this portion also set up for the Jewish work week, six of work and one of rest, another good argument for it being seven literal days. ("and as God labored for six days and rested on the seventh, so too shall man labor for six days and rest upon the seventh")

Second, man's sin brought death into the world, according to the bible, a rather important point. yet with evolution, there was death, pain, and sickness before man was ever alive, so what was the evil in sin, and why did Christ have to die for it?

and third, how can a loving and just god allow for a 99.9% extinction rate to create humanity, and call it good all along? ('And god looked upon the earth he had created, and he saw it was good")

and how did man live to be hundreds of years older than any other natural creature, inside of a normal world and just after evolving from a monkey which lived to be twenty at most? ages were far too specific in genesis for poetry or anything other than a real record.

those are my views on how the two cannot coexist, though there are others with better arguments and who put it better. i simply believe there are far too many points in which evolution and Christianity cannot fit, one must be wrong, and for me that's evolution, and i have very good arguments against that, too.

where are you getting your infomation? man didn't just one day evolve from a monkey like a fucking pokemon. believe it or not that is not how it works. it takes billions of years for the change to occur. and as for your 'argument' for the age difference that was caused by modern medicine. hundreds of years ago most people didn't live past 30

I concede I don't know enough about this situation. And it will require further looking into.

I suppose my mind set is that because of the limited understanding the Jews had at the time of creation their concepts of time were limited. After thousands of years of existing, man kind finally can conceptualize existence in better means of understanding.

As for Adam and eve and the problem of evil. You have me at this one. I suppose the best argument I have is that man kind wasn't supposed to die at least in terms of what God wanted. We could argue that if Adam and eve didn't have this so called "forbidden fruit" their bodies would be immune to disease.

Third. god gave animals life. the fact that 99% of existence died out is not inherently a bad thing. It was good that they existed. A blessing, as it is to be alive now.

Four. I really don't know enough on ages.

You did well. I am actually at a stopping point of my knowledge and feel bested.

this is directed at the third paragraph beginning with "As for Adam and eve"

i was mainly talking about how the fossil record (which i believe is false, due to dating method inaccuracies and the like, evidenced by the fact that a 5 thousand year old tree was found in a 5 million year old rock, according to carbon dating and uranium dating, respectively) shows violence, disease, and starvation, these were all supposed to be penalties of man's sin, yet they came before man, so why were there penalties?

I believe Adam lived to be over nine hundred years old. my church has done several creationist-oriented programs, and it is their belief and mine that a canopy of water vapor existed high in the atmosphere (this is also mentioned in the bible, actually, Genesis 1:6-7 "And god said ' let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the' water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse 'Sky.' And ther ewas evening and there was morning---the second day") the vapor canopy blocked out the aging effects of UV radiation, and increased the air pressure, helping healing processes (like a Hyperbaric Chamber in hospitals.) When the flood came, this was a supply for about a fourth of the water, it was triggered by enormous volcanic eruptions, shooting sediment for fossilizing creatures and creating Condensation Nuclei high in the atmosphere, making it rain. this also triggered plate movement. At this point, i and many other creationists believe Pangea existed, and was broken up to form the current continents. The Ring of Fire was the coastline of Pangea, and the fuel for most of the seismic activity. it boiled the water and forced up the continents above sea level, and deepened the ocean basins, a perfectly logical process for the formation of today's world.

i hope i explained that pert well, too. i had similar thoughts, so i began to probe and these are the things i discovered.

So you LITERALLY believe there used to be a man who lived 900 years? In an age before modern medicine, basic understanding of germs, lack of decent oral hygiene, plagues,...

And how nice of God to randomly choose who gets to live 900 years and who doesn't.

Don't try to mix your crazy belief with pseudoscience. Religion and science don't mix.

he lived 900 years because he stayed young 870 years, or thereabouts. people age because of UV damage to our DNA that stops it from perfectly replicating itself, building up damage until we cannot repair it any further. he also lived in world like a chamber doctors put people in to triple their recovery rate if they have severe injuries. and you say i don't use science?

Yes you use science, in a disgusting, extremely warped way. Please do me a favor: if you ever get really sick (I mean like cancer), please do not go to doctors, but pray to your god. And JUST your God. People like you don't deserve the benefits of what modern science has done for man.

Biggieboy, I think you are getting a little to upset over something. I have seen one atheist come back and give a rebuttal. If you think he is wrong, provide the evidence.

disgusting and extremely warped? please tell me what about what i said is incorrect scientifically. and you do realize that most of the great doctors and scientists who created "Modern Science" where christian, don't you? Louis Pasteur, inventor of Pasteurization and Vaccines was christian.

40% expressed belief in a deity


http://atheismexposed.tripod.(COM)/modernscientistand_god.htm

I suppose these are good theories. I remember hearing that there was an issue with the sand. That at the rate at which sand erodes is far quicker than mountains grow. Which would suggest everything would be in the ocean if it was really was as much time as geologists think there was.

I think evolution is a good theory, not that it is complete though in itself a For example. Genetics make sense to me. The combination of two animals in reproduction make a new animal with combined traits. Natural selection isn't a bad set of logic. We go after what people with certain "good" traits, in hopes that our children will also have good traits.

well, for me the main thing is that, for evolution, it requires multiple assumptions. it requires Spontaneous Generation, and the odds of that are mathematically zero (anything with odds less than 1/ 1x10^100 is mathematically impossible, in this time and space and the odds of Spontaneous generation of a single protein are about 1/ 1x10^285, or something along those lines. it's 50 factorial.)

along with that, if evolution actually happened, wouldn't missing links be the standard creature, rather than the ones we have never found? and why would it take only fifteen million years for an ape to acquire fifty thousand encyclopedias' worth of purely beneficial information by random chance?

those are two of my main reasons for doubting evolution in itself, though i have a few more. i believe in Genetics and Natural selection, but i do not believe it can add up to create a new species, and i do not believe everything is getting more perfect, only more specified and less able to adapt.

Evolution does not require Spontaneous Generation. The concept of evolution is to explain the mechanism in place once things came to be, it is not the theory of Origin.

Your 1st reason for doubting evolution is nonsensical, 'missing links' imply they are 'missing' i.e. not there.

Your 2nd reason for doubting evolution is a gross exaggeration. It would take fifteen million years for an ape to experience a series of genetic mutations that allow for it to be more 'fit' than the other ape. It turns out that genetic mutation allowed for increased intelligence, and that intelligence allowed for it to pass along its DNA.

If you believe in Natural Selection, then you believe in evolution, as Natural Selection is the mechanism of Evolution. If you believe in Genetics but don't understand how a genetic mutation can result in a different species, then you are not grasping the concept.

Evolution, i do not believe in, evolution i do. there is a difference. "big E" means tyrannosaurus to chicken, "little e" means wolf to chihuahua. i do not believe a new species can be made by natural selection. allow me to specify. Atheistic Evolution, the theory of how we are here, that requires spontaneous generation. there must have been a first life, and that cannot have happened by chance with the math we use to prove everything else.

by "missing links" i meant the life that fills the gaps between species, that perfectly transitions between the two, we haven't found a single one that is as equally monkey as man, for example. Evolution suggests gradual change, and we haven't found any animals in that state of change. there should be millions of species that cannot be classified, and yet there aren't any.

There is no scientific designation between Evolution and evolution, that is contrived. Atheistic Evolution is a term coined by Christians, and is once again, not scientific. There is just one word, evolution, and what it means is as follows.

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Terms like 'little e-evolution' and 'micro-evolution' were coined by religious fundamentalists in order to skew the definition of the word and give them an escape to the argument.

instead of "micro-evolution" i'll use Natural Selection, then. Natural Selection is proven and verified, by that so is Evolution. but, i do not believe massive genetic changes can take place to the extent that a wolf becomes anything fundamentally more than it is, or a cell either for that matter. i believe this because mutations are the least likely way to create new, beneficial data, and it's the only way for anything to add information randomly.

That is an understandable standpoint from someone like you or I that have done little to no hands-on research on the matter. The difference is that your thought patterns were discussed in the 1700's and there have been 300 or so years of scientific thought put into this matter since then.

In regards to the 'median point' or the 'life that fills in the gaps': The mechanism of natural selection is meant to be a brutal benchmark on what is 'fit' to continue passing its genetics to the next level. In the human condition there are plenty of 'sub-species' or species that are lesser than humans on the evolutionary ladder that have been found.

Current evolutionary theory is hinged on trends between species, and that took a foothold in the 1920's. I would recommend doing some research on "Evolutionary developmental biology" to see where current thought patterns came from and how they themselves have evolved. :)

i mainly meant the fossil record shows nothing of what should be a majority of creatures, just to put that out.

Problem is that the fossil record is an incomplete data set and will always be incomplete. Does this mean I should discard it completely? I don't think so. Given the steady progression of time, it is unreasonable to think that we will be able to record every aspect of evolution by finding fossils/bones and reconstructing them. Scientists don't hinge everything on one data set, and science is meant to follow a strict method in order to weed out false data.

For example, carbon/uranium dating while not perfect, is still a solid tool. Your previous point of the 5000 yr old tree on a 5million yr old rock seems perfectly logical to me and could be explained in a scientific matter (if it actually occurred, I did not see a source and had difficulty finding any evidence online).

The issue with creationism is there are a high concentration of pseudo-scientists that expend all their energy trying to either dis-prove things already vetted, or trying to prove things documented in their holy book. This is flawed science and in my opinion a step backwards.

Well said again. =) I don't think there is enough evidence in random genetic mutation to make that theory solidified yet. That doesn't mean it is wrong, it just means it isn't statistically significant.

I like you.

Bravo sir.

What about previous species. I wouldn't say they never existed and it just happens to be coincidence. But I take you are a creationist?

i am a creationist, yes. Previous species, i assume you mean creatures that are ancestors of others, or seem to be, correct?

Yes, mammoths, trilobites. Etc. Creationism suggests god guides these flaws in evolutionary thought. So that would mean that they did exist. I like you. You may have made me think about looking into creationism.

At the end of the day, it should be understood that how we are made is not nearly as important as why we are made.

man is very creative, when we want to believe something we can find a way to make it true. if a species seems like it could have come before another, and you wish to believe evolution, you can easily make yourself believe it did. i believe they all existed at the same time. also, look up the Cambrian Explosion, it's when millions of species appeared suddenly and died off almost immediately, and it's nearly inexplicable. the tree that is the fossil record has been narrowing, not widening, and that is something evolution cannot explain. species are dying off, and new ones are not emerging.

yes, how we got here doesn't matter nearly as much as why we are here, but if we can't trust what we are told about how, we can hardly trust the why.

Fair enough. You know your stuff. Any suggested reads?

i can only really remember one, and that partially. it has Icons of Evolution in its name, and it takes ten major pillars and topples them each. most of my stuff i leanred from my church's resident rocket scientist, Stew Turner. he has a DVD series, i remember, but not the name f it

Cool. Thanks man

How do you know which parts of the bible to interpret yourself and which to take at face value?

Well that is important. I am catholic, that should be understood.

There are certain parts of the bibles which are just straight poems. Am I supposed to read those like they happened straight up? It isn't as clear as. Word for word we have to follow. You have to interpret some aspect of it. It isn't just a history book, it is a book of worshiping, a book of metaphors (Jesus gospels), and a book of faith.

How you interpret could get distorted. Anyone who says that is absolutely correct. This is why I am catholic. I believe that there is an authority on these teachings. This authority is initiated by Christ to Peter. This authority means the church can teach on things such as morals and faith infallibly.

Can you help me? In Leviticus 18, 22 it says the following:


22Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.

Is it to be taken literally, or "to be interpreted?"

It is up to interpretation. Almost all things are in the bible. There is a certain aspect of literalness we should consider. But behind every line or sentence is a reason for that line.

First of all you have to understand what context. Leviticus were a set of human laws established by the Jews. They are not inherently bad laws. The purpose for this particular under Leviticus is not only the religious reasons, but the practical reasons. It was bad at that period to not be having sex with the opposite sex, because they were at war, and they needed babies to repopulate. So laying with men was even more of a no-no then. Then it is now.

On the issue of homosexuality now, Leviticus is important, but is still considered mans law, not gods law. The reason for Gods law is god created us in his image. For a purpose. A penis has multiple purposes. So does a vagina. They are for sexual pleasure and for reproduction. If you violate that, especially for the pleasure of the body, then you are basically going against creation. Which is sinful.

Does that mean homosexuals are bad? No. Does that mean they can't share a loving relationship between each other? No. God gave them free will, it only hurts themselves, they are legally free to act upon each other. If they want to live a holy, pious life, the they should pick up their cross and abstain from sexuality. And if they do, I would have more respect for them than any "real" christian out there.

why would God make a book that is hard to interpret lol?

How do you tell a child what the big bang is without them distorting the thought?

God an all intelligent being, is trying to talk to the intelligence level of something which is not even comparable to an Adult to a child, we are considerably less capable than that comparison.

So you have to make it metaphorical, compare it to things we understand, just so we can begin to comprehend the vastness of this logic. Thus it becomes easy to have different interpretations.

but no one interpreted it this way before Darwin proved it?

Sure. Why not? Human intelligence expands. "You didn't think evolution was real when you were born. How could you possibly think of it that way now!"

There are still mysteries to the bible. They deserve questioning.

It doesn't go against the bible, it's just that a lot of christian dumbasses think it does because it wasn't literally in the bible. They take shit too literal.

Some Christians believe that evolution exists, but God is the reason why it happens.

I'm catholic and I believe in evolution..just not that we came from monkeys cause that's retarded.

No, it doesn't... necessarily.

The bible never says anything specifict that forbids you from believing in science or to use it.

The extremist and fanatics are always the ones trying to force their ways on others... and unfortunately they become the stereotype.

yup

Thanks for the nice comments.

The second I saw this post was about religion I knew I could count on nois to have another great comment

Kitties!

Come h're little fella

Don't you have homework to do?

I think this game would be hilariously awesome.

I tought you had homework to do ?

DUNT YEW HAVE HOMEWURK TO DO LOL?!

just kidding. throwback. Anyway yeah you present a very valid point, there are a lot of christian stereotypes that only apply to a minority of christians (I'm agnostic but this applies to my christian buddies).

yeah, then this is not aimed at you...

To be fair it did say "christian pokemon edition" and I am a christian. But I know part of it is humor.

Someone's butthurt.

Jimmies Russstled?

Your eyes are so pretty.

I once tried to convince a local priest that this could be true, he told me i was going to burn in hell :l

That's how I've thought for years. Is there like a name for this like sub-religion?

Tardism? I don't see how people of the same world-view as me can think that science is evil. It allows us to see distant galaxies that God made, that are absolutely beautiful, and lets us see how intricate this world it. I think that's pretty friggin' awesome.

I mean qwopfailure's POV not the priest's.

Ohhhhhhh. Okay. I still like Tardism for stupid people. I don't see why enjoying science and religion should have a sub-religion. If you look at the Bible, we're called to take care of the creation, and in order to do that you must understand how things work. Otherwise you're kind of ignoring an important part of the world and religion.

I believe it;'s called being a theistic evolutionist

There's Deism. It's the belief in a God, but rationality and reason are the primary focus of the faith. Look it up

But if that's the case, why would he allow people to think science was not His way of explaining things?

Free will, God gave it to us because he wanted us to be different. That is why there is the devil and people do things that they do.

But free will usually results in those who believe in God telling others that they are going to hell. Why give free will to us if it will only result in eternal torment?

The Bible tells Christians right and wrong and given free will they are able to decide to follow them or not. Doing so will result in Eternal Life as in Heaven and not following them can result in going to Hell. The Bible says "Love Thy Neighbor" and Christians themselves should not be judging others, however it does say things like gays are wrong (Personally I have no problem with them) and will be sent to Hell. But even so we should still treat everyone the same even though beliefs are different.

Why give us the choice to do what is wrong if God truly loves us? Wouldn't he want us to not have to go through that kind of suffering as a result from bad choices?

Because if we weren't given a choice, it wouldn't be love. It's basically date rape then.

I'm going to sound like a hypocrite for saying this, but it's not rape if we choose to accept his "love". And if he did truly love us, and we love him back, why would we do anything other than what is "right" anyways? Why give us free will if what is "right" is all we're supposed to do?

Exactly, you can't choose to accept it if you don't have free will. How boring would it be if nobody had free will? We'd live like ants.

I'm still agnostic, but thumbed you because it's something new

You worded this entirely to well.

I cant understand christians. Just take a step back , imagine yourself starting a new life with no memory or expirience , just logical mind. You take a look at christianity and other religions and then u look at science and atheism. Why would you believe in christianity if it seems so unreal ?

Finally! Somebody with the same views as me. Thumbs up for you sir.
(I have no suitable reaction, so here's Dark Magician)

but the explanation would be that God made it work lol

I got the new agnostic version of pokemon red
I couldn't decide which starter to pick

Empty inside? What are you saying with that?

Atheism is pretty much nothing but a sense of superiority
i thought joke was clear

umm... ok. I was talking about the feeling empty bit. I used to be christian but left because I thought it was absolute hypocritical bullshit. Not that I care if you're a christian, I for one left. But what do you mean with empty inside?

It was empty, not I was empty

What makes you say atheism is empty, that is what I was asking.

because there is nothing to atheism. Atheism = nothing
Atheism is a lack of belief, IE nothing

Did someone say...... IE?

And how will that make someone feel empty inside?

The comic is there to play off of stereotypes. A common stereotype is that atheists are empty inside because they do not have anything to live for. Thus, the joke is that he is making fun of how many people consider atheists to not have any sense of hope, or direction in life.

I kind of knew but I wanted him to say it. Thanks anyway for the answer.

that wasnt the point

the point is a lack of belief system

you sir, fail at life

i never said it did

rethink this a few time

"It was empty inside". What were you trying to say with that comment, can you not beat about the bush here?

in fact, ive already told you several times what i meant

"Atheism is pretty much nothing but a sense of superiority "
"because there is nothing to atheism. Atheism = nothing, Atheism is a lack of belief, IE nothing "

It is a refuting of beliefs after considering all other forms and rejecting them due to the improbabilities of said belief systems being true. It isn't just a sense of superiority, it is taking a lot of evidence into account and then saying no, this cannot be, I'll put 100% of my faith in science.

theism = belief in something greater (for lack of a better phrase)
a- = a prefix denoting something is the opposite
atheism = lack of belief. lack of belief and refuting of belief are pretty much the same.

quick question: Why are you so against my joke? You don't hear me bitching that not all christians are creationist.

TBH, a true christian would be creationist as part of the belief system is based on how God made man. If you decide to cherry pick then you create your own form of christianity which is fine. The fact that the bible states that all things were made in 7 days and haven't changed means that evolution couldn't happen. If you go against that then you aren't a 100% believer, no matter how devout.

I'm going to quote a wise man

"There are sections of the bible which are allegorical or subject to interpretation, the important aspects of the bible are not scientific, but morals and faith taught through a God.

I look at genesis as a why, not a how to. Why would god give us the answers on how existence was created? Especially when you see how destructive we can be with simple things such as cars.

If god is an all intelligent being, why couldn't he use some method of evolution to get man kind to its location in time? He would be a master engineer if he is omnipotent. Science very well can be something we can use to explain the glories of how God works.

Can you site some teachings that it is wrong to follow evolution? "

funnyjunk.com/channel/4chan/b+and+evolution/XerLGKr/46#46

I'm not going to look it up because it is almost midnight and I've been studying all day for my exams soon. I was saying how evolution contradicted genesis and therefore believing in it meant you didn't believe in everything in the bible. That said it's a lot better if you don't take genesis literally, or most of the bible. Leviticus included.

leviticus is a set of instructions for the levites, not us

and read the quote, thats all you need to do

Can you understand the joke like a normal person

im not going to baby you, you can figure it out like a big boy

The whole point of it was to try and stimulate a debate by getting you to say it then I could contradict and have a proper discussion, but you refused to answer a straight question. This whole feeling empty thing is a retarded concept. I don't feel empty at all and I'm an atheist.

You are trying to have a straw man argument. I never said atheism makes you feel empty inside. I never implied it. You should stop trying to create an argument when there isn't one present.

Well then why say that the pokemon game was empty inside, you clearly said it and if you meant lack of a belief system then you clearly frased it wrong as being empty inside and not believing in a divine being are completely different.

I did say the pokemon game was empty inside.

"I bought the new atheist pokemon red"
in this sentence, the atheist pokemon red game is in the accusative case, because it is being "verbed" upon.
"It was empty inside"
it refers to the previous accusative object, because it would be silly for me to refer to myself as it.

Grammar, it dictates things like the spelling of the word "phrasing."

Grammar doesn't dictate spelling. I'm portuguese, in portugal the word is with an f. I'm still assuming that you meant empty inside as a reference to lack of belief, which I think is wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar

and assumptions make an ass out of u and me. Your assumptions are wrong, and your energy is being wasted. You are acting like a true theist, my friend/

I had to assume as you didn't answer my question. The link said composition of phrases for example. That is also why there are Grammar Nazis and the Spelling Spetsnaz

the link also said the composition of words

I thought that grammar was only for structure of sentences, I guess I was wrong.

meh, no big deal

this argument has really died down, im gonna go sleep a bit

Christians don't believe in evolution

Why is this guy getting thumbed down?

Can you explain it....it can't be as obvious as the guy that replied to you?

krakarot pls.

Some Christians believe that evolution isn't true so since it it the Christian version of Pokemom the Charmander will not ever evolve.

That's too obvious...and not very funny...I must be missing something here haha but thx anyway

Yea, I think what OP was trying to do was to sound confused about it, making the joke sound funnier.

Ohhhh I see...*facepalm*

>my face when when

?

I had a long night last night.

I know that feel. It's a pretty cool feel.

Props to someone who didn't fail the ignorance test.

If God is a master creator, omnipotent and knows everything.

Then all of it creation would be perfect and good

Yet he got upset at his creation and unleashes a great flood.

FUCK YOU LOGIC!!!!

or maybe he forsaw that there would be changes, so he made us so that we can change. no matter how perfect you create something, it still isn't a perfect one size fits all.

That's because the change takes place over many generations. I'll stick you in a deep freezer over night. If you live I'll take back everything I just said.

you can freeze me anytime, and i don't care if i die, for i will resurrect after 3 days because god is a fucking masterful at making shit that won't break.

I smell a troll...

with the help of the great seven mystical dragon balls even the non christians can be resurrected especially those who were killed by Cell.

By 813!

**bnixisbest rolls 745** Try for 813?

Hell, I'd go gay for that Jesus

Yes, you do.

im sorry what?