Prove there's a god.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#623029 May 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's talk about truth. This is what the article say's.
While most species today are terrestrial, there is little evidence that any of the earliest tetrapods could move about on land, as their limbs could not have held their midsections off the ground and the known trackways do not indicate that they dragged their bellies around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod#Lungs_...
I stand corrected. That's what it says word for word copied from the text.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#623030 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, KittyLitter!! I.....I....I don't know what to say!!!!
It would be nice if you would just admit you don't know something, but religious people don't like to do that.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#623031 May 11, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be nice if you would just admit you don't know something, but religious people don't like to do that.
I believe that God is responsible for life as we know it but not fanatical like some folks so don't confuse me with the others. Your questions are what were confusing. A pirhana is a fish and a shark is classified as a fish. Dolphins are mammals and eels are, well, something.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#623032 May 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
One of my nephews did the same things and wore his mothers shoes around the house. He is gay so is the kid you speak of, he is just suppressing it. I would bet on it, boys and girls that behave that way are doing it for a reason. Though it may be harder to spot the Chaz in the family.
What you wear when you're a child does not make you gay. You're either homosexual or you're not.

When I was little I wore a lab coat and carried a doctor case complete with a stethoscope and a big plastic syringe.

Guess what? I'm not a medical doctor.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#623033 May 11, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
What you wear when you're a child does not make you gay. You're either homosexual or you're not.
When I was little I wore a lab coat and carried a doctor case complete with a stethoscope and a big plastic syringe.
Guess what? I'm not a medical doctor.
Not a good analogy

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#623034 May 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Civil rights aren't about sexuality, they're about human rights. And yes that is where you start teaching
them. I suppose I would really have to see exactly what they were teaching them to really make an informed opinion on it.
But when we talk about gay rights we have crossed a line into sex education, and have to consider what the appropriate age in teaching sex education is.
Huh? What do you mean? Again, I think you're conflating "sexuality" with sexual orientation. If you would agree that the rights of minorities (blacks, hispanic, etc) count as civil rights, and therefore human rights, I don't see how you can forgo extending the same civil/human rights to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

I disagree that teaching people about the history of the gay rights movement and about notable gay rights activists/people in general counts as "sex education." No one is going to be describing in explicit detail how gay people have sex, or even talk about sex at all. I assume they will be taught about it in the same way that kids are taught about the various civil rights movements. There's nothing explicit or sexual about mentioning someone's sexual orientation.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#623035 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that God is responsible for life as we know it but not fanatical like some folks so don't confuse me with the others. Your questions are what were confusing. A pirhana is a fish and a shark is classified as a fish. Dolphins are mammals and eels are, well, something.
"Responsible" doesn't answer how life got as diverse as it is, the theory of evolution answers the real questions of "how," the important question. Saying "god dun it" does not answer anything, it literally answers nothing because there is no evidence that there is a god, there is no evidence that anything outside of natural influences has had any effect on the universe, and knowing "who" does not tell you anything.

Does knowing your computer is built by Apple explain to you how it was built? Does knowing your car is manufactured by Nissan explain to you how to built an internal combustion engine or how that engine works?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#623036 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
Anyone ever wondered how whatever it was that came out the ocean to become a land walker survived? I mean that the creature would have to become extinct before the so-called jump in evolution would allow for the time to grow lungs made for breathing air. How could it have been possible for this creature to survive through the time that evolution says is needed for such a "transformation" to occur without becoming extinct through blind ambitions? Such a notion would be equivalent to stating as a fact that if a man were to convert from living on land to living in water and overtime trained himself to breath in a little water at a time until he's able to stay alive on a little oxygen with his lungs filled to capacity with water would somehow over millions of years eventually grow organs that would process oxygen more efficiently and thus resulting in a better being.
The problem is that any man, creature, or beast that attempted such a feat would surely become extinct before any such "transformation" even inkled to occur. So why does this supposedly work in the opposite direction as creatures with gills made for oxygenated water evolving into air-breathing beasts? Seems as if each creature was designed to function in their own way and stayed that way throughout their lives which is what the real evidence points to.(Let's focus on the questions if anyone has their own explanation)
Do you think that evolution occurs by animals "trying" to transform into something else?

Blind ambitions? WTF?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#623037 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
While U're researching devote about 20 or so minutes of your time to check this out. And like some idiots are accustomed to doing, don't judge it until U've viewed it and understood even if U so happen to disagree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Gjvuwne0RrEXX&feature=you tube_gdata_player
Ahahahah. Evolution "violates" entropy and the "law of biogenisis." You can't, on the one hand, come in here and say that you understand evolution, and then post crap like this. He started out instantly with the most easily debunked fallacies that apologists always try to use. Evolution has *nothing* to do with the 2nd law. And there is no "law of biogenisis."

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#623038 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a good analogy
Actually, it's a very apt analogy. But let's give you another:

Most little girls wear teeshirts and jeans, yet most are not lesbians. If what you wore did impact it, they'd all be lesbians. Male actors wear makeup all the time, yet most male child stars grow up straight, if what they wore had an impact they'd all be gay.

Let's expand that more ....

Almost all gay people are told growing up that being homosexual is "evil" or "wrong," they are forced to deny themselves, told they are not suppose to be "like that." Yet they grow up to be one of two things, either gay, or bigots who eventually get "busted" for something that forces them out of the closet. If how they were raised had an impact on their sexuality, there would be no gay people on the planet. That bears repeating, if how a child is raised impacts their sexuality, there would be NO, as in none at all, gay people on the planet.

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#623039 May 11, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
What you wear when you're a child does not make you gay. You're either homosexual or you're not.
When I was little I wore a lab coat and carried a doctor case complete with a stethoscope and a big plastic syringe.
Guess what? I'm not a medical doctor.

Well in his case it seems to have been an indicator.
But pretending to be doctor and actually becoming one is a far cry from pretending to be a girl and becoming gay.
Not sure if it even requires schooling to achieve that goal. lol

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#623040 May 11, 2013
Sorry, memphis, I'm not trying to insult you, but that video was just laughable. You insult the intelligence of everyone here when you say you "understand evolution," and then ask us to seriously consider something that clearly shows a total lack of understanding on your part.

I recommend you really try to get an understanding of what the TOE says. Once you do, you can go back and watch that video and get a good laugh out of it. Not only from the fact that that guy is a complete tool, but because what he says is totally absurd.

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#623041 May 11, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Huh? What do you mean? Again, I think you're conflating "sexuality" with sexual orientation. If you would agree that the rights of minorities (blacks, hispanic, etc) count as civil rights, and therefore human rights, I don't see how you can forgo extending the same civil/human rights to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.
I disagree that teaching people about the history of the gay rights movement and about notable gay rights activists/people in general counts as "sex education." No one is going to be describing in explicit detail how gay people have sex, or even talk about sex at all. I assume they will be taught about it in the same way that kids are taught about the various civil rights movements. There's nothing explicit or sexual about mentioning someone's sexual orientation.
Um you can't say gay or straight without a sexual implication.
I'm just saying I think first graders aren't ready to be taught this concept at all. When you say gay to a six year old you will then have to explain what it is.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#623042 May 11, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it's a very apt analogy. But let's give you another:
Most little girls wear teeshirts and jeans, yet most are not lesbians. If what you wore did impact it, they'd all be lesbians. Male actors wear makeup all the time, yet most male child stars grow up straight, if what they wore had an impact they'd all be gay.
Let's expand that more ....
Almost all gay people are told growing up that being homosexual is "evil" or "wrong," they are forced to deny themselves, told they are not suppose to be "like that." Yet they grow up to be one of two things, either gay, or bigots who eventually get "busted" for something that forces them out of the closet. If how they were raised had an impact on their sexuality, there would be no gay people on the planet. That bears repeating, if how a child is raised impacts their sexuality, there would be NO, as in none at all, gay people on the planet.
Very true. Even if they were raised in a completely accepting, loving family, they still wouldn't turn out to be gay, because there is no way they could avoid the message of society at large: being gay is wrong. If people really could choose their sexual orientation, no one would choose the one that leads to them getting hated and discriminated against.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#623043 May 11, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think that evolution occurs by animals "trying" to transform into something else?
Blind ambitions? WTF?
What do U mean WTF?! Isn't that what evolution states?! That one animal evolves into another for the purpose of adaptation and survival?! That fish evolved and grew lungs for air and started living on land?! For U to ignore the real questions and pick out "trying" just shows that U don't have as much faith in the theory as U think and the tactic of avoidance is all U have, oh, and Wikipedia!!

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#623044 May 11, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Ahahahah. Evolution "violates" entropy and the "law of biogenisis." You can't, on the one hand, come in here and say that you understand evolution, and then post crap like this. He started out instantly with the most easily debunked fallacies that apologists always try to use. Evolution has *nothing* to do with the 2nd law. And there is no "law of biogenisis."
Actually there is.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_...

But this was to counter the notion that flies sprang from nothing in dead animals, and has nothing to do with modern abiogenesis.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#623045 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a good analogy
Is there a good analogy for wearing shoes and being homosexual?

Enlighten me.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#623046 May 11, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Responsible" doesn't answer how life got as diverse as it is, the theory of evolution answers the real questions of "how," the important question. Saying "god dun it" does not answer anything, it literally answers nothing because there is no evidence that there is a god, there is no evidence that anything outside of natural influences has had any effect on the universe, and knowing "who" does not tell you anything.
Does knowing your computer is built by Apple explain to you how it was built? Does knowing your car is manufactured by Nissan explain to you how to built an internal combustion engine or how that engine works?
Funny U should ask! Let me tell ya! As far as the last part goes, I'd probably not know exactly how my computer was built but I would know that it was built by Apple.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#623047 May 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Well in his case it seems to have been an indicator.
But pretending to be doctor and actually becoming one is a far cry from pretending to be a girl and becoming gay.
Not sure if it even requires schooling to achieve that goal. lol
You don't become gay.

You are or you are not gay.

It's as simple as that.

I don't understand the confusion.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#623048 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
What do U mean WTF?! Isn't that what evolution states?! That one animal evolves into another for the purpose of adaptation and survival?! That fish evolved and grew lungs for air and started living on land?! For U to ignore the real questions and pick out "trying" just shows that U don't have as much faith in the theory as U think and the tactic of avoidance is all U have, oh, and Wikipedia!!
Again, evolution doesn't "say" anything.

Also, that's not even what the theory of evolution says, that's what creationists say.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 16 min Clearwater 87,945
Yanbu Gays (May '15) 17 min octafus 19
Weed Dundee Scotland (Mar '16) 35 min Randyballs 4
Blacks need to be deported NOW! (Oct '10) 37 min Johnny 198
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 44 min God Is Dead 619,172
Forbidden sex 49 min sinaa158 8
Ladies what's your size preference 51 min sinaa158 9
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr truth 665,182
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr Pegasus 284,497
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 6 hr Devil number 666 466
The Future of Politics in America Sat Insults Are Easier 176
More from around the web