No, that's completely relevant?
You are arguing how justified it is, I'm arguing how he isn't.
You're original post is also obviously defending God - therefore I am using a MUCH better argument against the "grace" of God than the OP.

Way to avoid an argument when you're losing (if you don't feel you are, feel free to step in, it'll only take a couple minutes of typing).

Not defending god, I actually didn't even say god in my original comment. I was countering the poor logic used in the original post. I also didn't argue that it was justified. I am also not losing an argument that I am not a part of.
You are obviously a butt-hurt anti-religion person and started imposing other arguments into the conversation that don't belong.
There are dozens of places for you to argue that if you want, this isn't one of them. You are even so vain as to think you are "winning" the non existent discussion.
Go ahead and keep arguing something that no one else has even mentioned if it makes you feel better.

And addressing the "winning" topic - I never said I was winning, merely that you were losing. In a rational debate, if one party cannot or will not form a counter to the arguments provided by another, they lose. You avoided the argument entirely - therefore you are losing the argument.

You keep repeating that I am dismissing an argument as if I have to respond to your inane and unrelated arguments. You brought in an entirely different topic to my thread. That means you joined my conversation and instead of discussing what I was already discussing you interjected something else and I simply told you it was off topic and didn't bother starting a separate debate.

Several comments later you are still arguing those same irrelevant points and are still declaring yourself the winner (if there is a loser, there is a winner) of an argument that doesn't exist. List all points that you'd like, I didn't mention God but you did and since you mentioned it you have relentlessly counter argued it.

As for your very poor tie in to religion ( that I used morality) I did not even argue that point. I made a sarcastic point about their forewarning which was then attempted to be belittled when someone compared it to some insane muslim. To which I replied a man who brought multiple plagues and claimed they were from a divine being said they had to protect their children, which would give validity to his words. Despite information being largely word of mouth, the entire town was beset with plagues and that would be sufficient first hand experiences to be considered evidence.

My response to the post, regardless of who the perpetrator in the story was, had no points or direct references to God. In fact, my comment was about the the poor logic used and had nothing to do with the religion associated with the content at all.

I also made no personal attacks against you, I simply stated fact, that you are arguing against yourself and trying to force me into it by twisting my words. Now you are simply trying to attack my character with false accusations. Honestly I am sick of reading your responses. If you really feel like you need to continue to talk to yourself feel free because I won't be reading your responses anymore.

Who said I'm anti-religious? I'm fine with religion; it's very important to human life. I'm not fine with faulty logic or lying.

The logic of the OP is completely valid. God killed all the non-Jews because all the Jews would believe Moses, the Egyptians would not. This was completely expected.

Then you counter it and defend the morality of it by saying they were warned in advanced. This is obviously interpreted as a defense of the religious event and the morality of the God enacting such.

When I argue that your example is completely irrelevant because it doesn't take into account the most important factors of the situation. You proceeded to argue for your point, again.

So when I address the problem you had with my example, I also addressed the problems you may find by technicalities or so on, and provide a parallel topic to be discussed which reflects the same exact values of the OP that you argued against (at least in everybody elses minds). Here, I have pretty much solidified my point.

You then completely dismiss all arguments and say you aren't going to talk anymore. This is easily interpreted contextually as an avoidance to address the topic at hand. You also use a logical fallacy in your argument (attacking me personally). In the next sentence you say this isn't about God, which is OBVIOUSLY untrue. This is ALL about God.

And now, you tell me you aren't defending God and it wasn't justified? You are countering completely valid logic provided by the OP? And you go on to slur me with numerous personal attacks (more logical fallacies). And you go on to say I'm vain for addressing the fact you aren't arguing against an unarguable point. I even add that if you don't feel I'm winning, feel free to step in.

Therefore, all of my posts are justified and 100% relevant and your personal attacks are just unnecessary and immature.

No, Moses didn't go up to them individually, they heard it through word of mouth.

Fine - I'll fix my story. He tells you that the government is going to kill you Friday, not just that you'll die. Of course, I'm sure the first question you would ask is "shouldn't the government care about it's citizens, not kill them for things that are really completely out of their control?"

And if you insist that your God is great and justified in all his actions - go read Job. It's not like he brutally murders animals and slaves and Job's entire family then gives him a plague just to win a bet. "Oh he gives him new stuff afterwards" yeah - I'm sure that comforts the people and animals mindlessly murdered.

You are too angry and ranting about irrelevant things. This isn't even a discussion on God. Take it elsewhere, I am uninterested.

No, that's completely relevant?
You are arguing how justified it is, I'm arguing how he isn't.
You're original post is also obviously defending God - therefore I am using a MUCH better argument against the "grace" of God than the OP.

Way to avoid an argument when you're losing (if you don't feel you are, feel free to step in, it'll only take a couple minutes of typing).

Not defending god, I actually didn't even say god in my original comment. I was countering the poor logic used in the original post. I also didn't argue that it was justified. I am also not losing an argument that I am not a part of.
You are obviously a butt-hurt anti-religion person and started imposing other arguments into the conversation that don't belong.
There are dozens of places for you to argue that if you want, this isn't one of them. You are even so vain as to think you are "winning" the non existent discussion.
Go ahead and keep arguing something that no one else has even mentioned if it makes you feel better.

And addressing the "winning" topic - I never said I was winning, merely that you were losing. In a rational debate, if one party cannot or will not form a counter to the arguments provided by another, they lose. You avoided the argument entirely - therefore you are losing the argument.

You keep repeating that I am dismissing an argument as if I have to respond to your inane and unrelated arguments. You brought in an entirely different topic to my thread. That means you joined my conversation and instead of discussing what I was already discussing you interjected something else and I simply told you it was off topic and didn't bother starting a separate debate.

Several comments later you are still arguing those same irrelevant points and are still declaring yourself the winner (if there is a loser, there is a winner) of an argument that doesn't exist. List all points that you'd like, I didn't mention God but you did and since you mentioned it you have relentlessly counter argued it.

As for your very poor tie in to religion ( that I used morality) I did not even argue that point. I made a sarcastic point about their forewarning which was then attempted to be belittled when someone compared it to some insane muslim. To which I replied a man who brought multiple plagues and claimed they were from a divine being said they had to protect their children, which would give validity to his words. Despite information being largely word of mouth, the entire town was beset with plagues and that would be sufficient first hand experiences to be considered evidence.

My response to the post, regardless of who the perpetrator in the story was, had no points or direct references to God. In fact, my comment was about the the poor logic used and had nothing to do with the religion associated with the content at all.

I also made no personal attacks against you, I simply stated fact, that you are arguing against yourself and trying to force me into it by twisting my words. Now you are simply trying to attack my character with false accusations. Honestly I am sick of reading your responses. If you really feel like you need to continue to talk to yourself feel free because I won't be reading your responses anymore.

Who said I'm anti-religious? I'm fine with religion; it's very important to human life. I'm not fine with faulty logic or lying.

The logic of the OP is completely valid. God killed all the non-Jews because all the Jews would believe Moses, the Egyptians would not. This was completely expected.

Then you counter it and defend the morality of it by saying they were warned in advanced. This is obviously interpreted as a defense of the religious event and the morality of the God enacting such.

When I argue that your example is completely irrelevant because it doesn't take into account the most important factors of the situation. You proceeded to argue for your point, again.

So when I address the problem you had with my example, I also addressed the problems you may find by technicalities or so on, and provide a parallel topic to be discussed which reflects the same exact values of the OP that you argued against (at least in everybody elses minds). Here, I have pretty much solidified my point.

You then completely dismiss all arguments and say you aren't going to talk anymore. This is easily interpreted contextually as an avoidance to address the topic at hand. You also use a logical fallacy in your argument (attacking me personally). In the next sentence you say this isn't about God, which is OBVIOUSLY untrue. This is ALL about God.

And now, you tell me you aren't defending God and it wasn't justified? You are countering completely valid logic provided by the OP? And you go on to slur me with numerous personal attacks (more logical fallacies). And you go on to say I'm vain for addressing the fact you aren't arguing against an unarguable point. I even add that if you don't feel I'm winning, feel free to step in.

Therefore, all of my posts are justified and 100% relevant and your personal attacks are just unnecessary and immature.

they're living in egypt, where they revere their leader as a god.

and the whole point of the plagues was a reaction to that man's stubbornness and a show of just how powerless he actually was.

i get what you're saying now, i derped for a moment

No, that's not the same at all.

You see, this wasn't a man giving a warning of a viable thing. It was spread through the mouths of normal people saying that this one guy heard it from a GOD. Now these people were lower-class slaves AND had a different religion that the Egyptians had. Why would the Egyptians give up their thousand year old religion and tradition and sacrifice a very important piece of their lives because a couple of their slaves said this one guy heard from a God they don't believe in that they needed to or bad things would happen?

Let me just ask a simple question: If an (almost) homeless Muslim man walked up to you and said "I've heard the voice of Allah - give me $1,000 or you're kids are going to die Friday!" would you do it? Of course not. That's freaking ridiculous.

They were told by a man who brought 9 plagues onto the city from his god that a tenth one was coming. Your story is not comparable.

No, Moses didn't go up to them individually, they heard it through word of mouth.

Fine - I'll fix my story. He tells you that the government is going to kill you Friday, not just that you'll die. Of course, I'm sure the first question you would ask is "shouldn't the government care about it's citizens, not kill them for things that are really completely out of their control?"

And if you insist that your God is great and justified in all his actions - go read Job. It's not like he brutally murders animals and slaves and Job's entire family then gives him a plague just to win a bet. "Oh he gives him new stuff afterwards" yeah - I'm sure that comforts the people and animals mindlessly murdered.

You are too angry and ranting about irrelevant things. This isn't even a discussion on God. Take it elsewhere, I am uninterested.

No, that's completely relevant?
You are arguing how justified it is, I'm arguing how he isn't.
You're original post is also obviously defending God - therefore I am using a MUCH better argument against the "grace" of God than the OP.

Way to avoid an argument when you're losing (if you don't feel you are, feel free to step in, it'll only take a couple minutes of typing).

Not defending god, I actually didn't even say god in my original comment. I was countering the poor logic used in the original post. I also didn't argue that it was justified. I am also not losing an argument that I am not a part of.
You are obviously a butt-hurt anti-religion person and started imposing other arguments into the conversation that don't belong.
There are dozens of places for you to argue that if you want, this isn't one of them. You are even so vain as to think you are "winning" the non existent discussion.
Go ahead and keep arguing something that no one else has even mentioned if it makes you feel better.

And addressing the "winning" topic - I never said I was winning, merely that you were losing. In a rational debate, if one party cannot or will not form a counter to the arguments provided by another, they lose. You avoided the argument entirely - therefore you are losing the argument.

You keep repeating that I am dismissing an argument as if I have to respond to your inane and unrelated arguments. You brought in an entirely different topic to my thread. That means you joined my conversation and instead of discussing what I was already discussing you interjected something else and I simply told you it was off topic and didn't bother starting a separate debate.

Several comments later you are still arguing those same irrelevant points and are still declaring yourself the winner (if there is a loser, there is a winner) of an argument that doesn't exist. List all points that you'd like, I didn't mention God but you did and since you mentioned it you have relentlessly counter argued it.

As for your very poor tie in to religion ( that I used morality) I did not even argue that point. I made a sarcastic point about their forewarning which was then attempted to be belittled when someone compared it to some insane muslim. To which I replied a man who brought multiple plagues and claimed they were from a divine being said they had to protect their children, which would give validity to his words. Despite information being largely word of mouth, the entire town was beset with plagues and that would be sufficient first hand experiences to be considered evidence.

My response to the post, regardless of who the perpetrator in the story was, had no points or direct references to God. In fact, my comment was about the the poor logic used and had nothing to do with the religion associated with the content at all.

I also made no personal attacks against you, I simply stated fact, that you are arguing against yourself and trying to force me into it by twisting my words. Now you are simply trying to attack my character with false accusations. Honestly I am sick of reading your responses. If you really feel like you need to continue to talk to yourself feel free because I won't be reading your responses anymore.

Who said I'm anti-religious? I'm fine with religion; it's very important to human life. I'm not fine with faulty logic or lying.

The logic of the OP is completely valid. God killed all the non-Jews because all the Jews would believe Moses, the Egyptians would not. This was completely expected.

Then you counter it and defend the morality of it by saying they were warned in advanced. This is obviously interpreted as a defense of the religious event and the morality of the God enacting such.

When I argue that your example is completely irrelevant because it doesn't take into account the most important factors of the situation. You proceeded to argue for your point, again.

So when I address the problem you had with my example, I also addressed the problems you may find by technicalities or so on, and provide a parallel topic to be discussed which reflects the same exact values of the OP that you argued against (at least in everybody elses minds). Here, I have pretty much solidified my point.

You then completely dismiss all arguments and say you aren't going to talk anymore. This is easily interpreted contextually as an avoidance to address the topic at hand. You also use a logical fallacy in your argument (attacking me personally). In the next sentence you say this isn't about God, which is OBVIOUSLY untrue. This is ALL about God.

And now, you tell me you aren't defending God and it wasn't justified? You are countering completely valid logic provided by the OP? And you go on to slur me with numerous personal attacks (more logical fallacies). And you go on to say I'm vain for addressing the fact you aren't arguing against an unarguable point. I even add that if you don't feel I'm winning, feel free to step in.

Therefore, all of my posts are justified and 100% relevant and your personal attacks are just unnecessary and immature.

Oh that's right.
I forgot it's morally right to kill people so long as you put a condition in place (say for example slaughtering some of your livestock) for avoiding being murdered.
Of course it's perfectly acceptable to kill people when they won't do what you tell them to.

they thought it was empty threats, no man could have invented a weapon with that much of an impact, or so they thought.

A man warns them an omnipotent being would kill their children if they didn't follow instructions to save them. Who would believe that? Thus my reason for saying it reminded me of it.

they're living in egypt, where they revere their leader as a god.

and the whole point of the plagues was a reaction to that man's stubbornness and a show of just how powerless he actually was.

i get what you're saying now, i derped for a moment

try and make*

The problem isn't with the span of time.
Evolution can, in theory, occur very quickly, and a metamorphosis could take a long time.

The problem with calling it evolution is that evolution occurs only in populations whereas a metamorphosis takes place for an individual.
Unless it's pokemon, because pokemon is a work of fiction and can assign whatever definition to evolution they please.

That makes more sense. The second half of the comment clarified it very well.

Time is the greatest factor in terms of evolution. A new trait that is needed through adaptation takes generations of breeding to achieve it. Microevolution is the one that has been proven. Macroevolution is too similar to metamorphosis.

You are wrong.
Wrong wrong wrongity wrong wrong.

Evolution does take long time, but according to its definition, doesn't have to take a long time.

"Evolution is the change in the allele frequency of a population"
-Evolutionary Analysis, Freeman & Herron (Look at this flashy bastard with his references)

Evolution occurs in populations, metamorphosis occurs in individuals.
That is why pokemon don't evolve, if one relies strictly on the real world scientific definition.

caterpillars
ant lions
frogs

They don't go through some sort of mutation.

Evolution is actually small mutations within the offspring of a species that takes place over many, many generations over a very long time.

Thanks for telling me what was already clear to me.

Evolution is slowly gaining a new trait through the generations until the species has that trait. If Dragonair was to get the new traits that Dragonite has, the next time it breeds it's offspring will have:
-a slightly thicker body
-a few nubs where the limbs would be
-a couple nubs where the wings would be
-the wings on it's head would have receded a bit
-there would be nubs on it's head where the antennae would be
and with every generation of breeding the features would be more defined and Dragonite-like until eventually the Dragonair species begame the Dragonite species.

The Dragonair all of a suddenly becoming the Dragonite is metamorphic transformation, or metamorphosis.

So it is simply because of the time span it takes? When I heard about macro vs micro evolution (common creationist explanation for their reasoning with evolution) I heard atheists laughing at the concept but if time is the variable then those terms are completely viable.

The problem isn't with the span of time.
Evolution can, in theory, occur very quickly, and a metamorphosis could take a long time.

The problem with calling it evolution is that evolution occurs only in populations whereas a metamorphosis takes place for an individual.
Unless it's pokemon, because pokemon is a work of fiction and can assign whatever definition to evolution they please.

That makes more sense. The second half of the comment clarified it very well.

Time is the greatest factor in terms of evolution. A new trait that is needed through adaptation takes generations of breeding to achieve it. Microevolution is the one that has been proven. Macroevolution is too similar to metamorphosis.

You are wrong.
Wrong wrong wrongity wrong wrong.

Evolution does take long time, but according to its definition, doesn't have to take a long time.

"Evolution is the change in the allele frequency of a population"
-Evolutionary Analysis, Freeman & Herron (Look at this flashy bastard with his references)

Evolution occurs in populations, metamorphosis occurs in individuals.
That is why pokemon don't evolve, if one relies strictly on the real world scientific definition.

Some kinda look like they are different stages of evolution, like your example, but they still go through metamorphic transformations, technically.

Evolution would be mutations that result in dramatic changes. A serpent growing limbs and wings and changing it's natural habitat would be more evolution than metamorphic. At least in my opinion.

caterpillars
ant lions
frogs

They don't go through some sort of mutation.

Evolution is actually small mutations within the offspring of a species that takes place over many, many generations over a very long time.

Thanks for telling me what was already clear to me.

Evolution is slowly gaining a new trait through the generations until the species has that trait. If Dragonair was to get the new traits that Dragonite has, the next time it breeds it's offspring will have:
-a slightly thicker body
-a few nubs where the limbs would be
-a couple nubs where the wings would be
-the wings on it's head would have receded a bit
-there would be nubs on it's head where the antennae would be
and with every generation of breeding the features would be more defined and Dragonite-like until eventually the Dragonair species begame the Dragonite species.

The Dragonair all of a suddenly becoming the Dragonite is metamorphic transformation, or metamorphosis.

So it is simply because of the time span it takes? When I heard about macro vs micro evolution (common creationist explanation for their reasoning with evolution) I heard atheists laughing at the concept but if time is the variable then those terms are completely viable.

The problem isn't with the span of time.
Evolution can, in theory, occur very quickly, and a metamorphosis could take a long time.

The problem with calling it evolution is that evolution occurs only in populations whereas a metamorphosis takes place for an individual.
Unless it's pokemon, because pokemon is a work of fiction and can assign whatever definition to evolution they please.

That makes more sense. The second half of the comment clarified it very well.

Time is the greatest factor in terms of evolution. A new trait that is needed through adaptation takes generations of breeding to achieve it. Microevolution is the one that has been proven. Macroevolution is too similar to metamorphosis.

You are wrong.
Wrong wrong wrongity wrong wrong.

Evolution does take long time, but according to its definition, doesn't have to take a long time.

"Evolution is the change in the allele frequency of a population"
-Evolutionary Analysis, Freeman & Herron (Look at this flashy bastard with his references)

Evolution occurs in populations, metamorphosis occurs in individuals.
That is why pokemon don't evolve, if one relies strictly on the real world scientific definition.

yea

i don't understand all the hate on this, seems pretty related. . .

I don't know. This has happened to me a few times. I even got thumbed down on my explanation. Not a single words as to why though. Maybe people were confused by it? The world may never know.

I know that's how Chinese works, and FUCK KANJI!