Evilution: the Descent of Man

DeletedUser

I know there are three of us. I simply didn't realize that 3 people = offensive.

You just found yourself a new prejudice!
 

DeletedUser

I said that Virginia offended me, so she said:

"How can I be offensive when there are three of you?"

So I got a little confused, and tried to make sense of her ramblings.
 

DeletedUser

Virginia said:
Allen, how am I offending you. I'm just stating my beliefs, just as you and the other's are. One woman against three guys, and yet I am the offending one.
Click to expand...

Oisinallen said:
I know there are three of us. I simply didn't realize that 3 people = offensive.

You just found yourself a new prejudice!
Click to expand...

It's better than your prejudice: one woman = offensive.
 

DeletedUser

I don't understand what your gender or quantity has to do with anything. One person, male or female, can easily offend thousands of people, both male and female.
 

DeletedUser

Virginia said:
It's better than your prejudice: one woman = offensive.
Click to expand...
Is it racist that I hate Osama Bin Laden? Is it age-ist that I hate Robert Mugabe?

You offend me because of what you say, not your sex. If I was offended by all women, how could I possibly get engaged?

You fundies need to stop crying "prejudice!", when it is one of the most hypocritical things on this planet.
 

DeletedUser

It's not funny if oyu have to explain it.

Wich I do belive has been mentioned previously.
 

DeletedUser

oisinallen said:
I said that Virginia offended me, so she said:

"How can I be offensive when there are three of you?"

So I got a little confused, and tried to make sense of her ramblings.
Click to expand...

Well maybe you are like god, jesus and the holy ghost? 3 but 1. You are awesome Oisin...you should take that show to Las Vegas. Now that's what I call evolution.
 

DeletedUser

Random post granted, but anybody remember that great western comedy Evil Roy Slade?
 

DeletedUser

It's not funny if oyu have to explain it.

Wich I do belive has been mentioned previously.
Click to expand...

*scowls at JR* It's not my fault he didn't get it; you would've understood it.
 

DeletedUser

Denisero said:
Well maybe you are like god, jesus and the holy ghost? 3 but 1. You are awesome Oisin...you should take that show to Las Vegas. Now that's what I call evolution.
Click to expand...
You're my new favourite forumer!
 

DeletedUser

I thought I was everyone's favorite.

Billy I don't think I've seen Evil Roy Slade (thought I'd answer since everyone else ignored you).

Now, to stay on topic, this is what a former priest told me the other day:

God: " I am going to create a man and a woman with original sin. Then I am going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child so that I can be born. Once alive, I will have myself murdered as a sacrifice to myself, thus saving you from the sin I originally condemned you to......TA DAH!"

Yes, that is totally more believable than changes over millions/billions of years based on a particular species survival needs.
 
nashy19

nashy19

Nashy (as himself)
Breaking News: VFX has accepted the Scientific method and says he loves what it produces.

Understandably, I'm utterly confused.
 

DeletedUser

Hmm...we need another debate....how about this:

Virginia said:
The Law of Cause-and-Effect:
“No effect is ever greater nor qualitatively superior to its cause. An effect can be lower than its cause but never higher.”

The First Law of Thermodynamics:
“Energy can be converted from one form into another, but can neither be created nor destroyed.”

It therefore teaches quite conclusively that the universe did not create itself; there is nothing in the present structure of natural law that could possibly account for its own origin. However, energy must have been created someway because it exists. The Law of Cause-and-Effect clearly shows that universe could not have been its own cause.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
“Every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder.”

This law clearly requires the universe to have has a beginning. The previous laws prelude it having begun itself. The only possible reconciliation of this problem is that the universe was created by a Cause transcendent to itself. It’s obvious by definition that neither the big-bang theory nor the steady-state theory has any observational basis. In fact, they contradict both Laws of Thermodynamics. This is just another reason why they are philosophical speculations, not science, secondary assumptions to avoid the contradictions implicit in the evolutionary model.

Whether or not you prefer to believe in God, you must still belive in some kind of uncaused first cause. You must either postulate matter coming into existence out of nothing or else matter itself becomes its own cause, and then I may ask: "But, then, who made matter?" In either case, therfore, one must simply believe in eternal, omnipotent matter or else in an eternal, omnipotent Creator God. However, if matter created everything, then we are back to the law of cause-and-effect. It just doesn't work.
Click to expand...
 

DeletedUser

Uncaused First Cause = Big Bang

Not omnipotent. Not even sentient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top