-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
V
@Kerry
"Which species other than Man?"
Well you’ve already noted that ants farm aphids.
1) Damselfish Grow Algae
2) There are some Sea Anemones that hermit crabs attach to their back for protection and the anemones get to eat the crabs leftovers
3) The Goby Fish provides protection to the near-blind Snapping shrimp who shares its home
4) African Oxpeckers eat ticks from the backs of zebras, elephants, and other large animals. They act as a personal danger alarm, in return the animal allows them to rest on its back and help itself to blood from tick-wounds
5) fish like wrasses, catfish and gobies gorge on parasites and dead tissues from larger fish (parrotfish, damselfish and sharks). In return for the ‘cleaning’ service they don’t eat them. Some of these fish will even enter the mouths of the larger fish to clean them.
6) the Honeyguide Bird leads the honey-badger to bees-nests. After the badger eats the bees and the honey the bird gets the beeswax
7) The Nile crocodile allows the Egyptian plover to clean its mouth (the plover clears out the leaches)
Heck if you did a quick google search you’d be bound to find more to add to the list.
"Which species other than Man?"
Well you’ve already noted that ants farm aphids.
1) Damselfish Grow Algae
2) There are some Sea Anemones that hermit crabs attach to their back for protection and the anemones get to eat the crabs leftovers
3) The Goby Fish provides protection to the near-blind Snapping shrimp who shares its home
4) African Oxpeckers eat ticks from the backs of zebras, elephants, and other large animals. They act as a personal danger alarm, in return the animal allows them to rest on its back and help itself to blood from tick-wounds
5) fish like wrasses, catfish and gobies gorge on parasites and dead tissues from larger fish (parrotfish, damselfish and sharks). In return for the ‘cleaning’ service they don’t eat them. Some of these fish will even enter the mouths of the larger fish to clean them.
6) the Honeyguide Bird leads the honey-badger to bees-nests. After the badger eats the bees and the honey the bird gets the beeswax
7) The Nile crocodile allows the Egyptian plover to clean its mouth (the plover clears out the leaches)
Heck if you did a quick google search you’d be bound to find more to add to the list.
There is a difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Evolution, as far as I can tell, is observable in creatures with DNA. However, the Theory of Evolution brings a lot more to the plate that is not proven or observable yet. That's why it's still a theory. But the process of evolution, itself, I think is observable.
M
If you actually take the time to acknowledge and research all of them instead of pretending a rational Christian perspective doesn't exist when it's been presented to you, then all of them.
Of course you've never heard an atheist admit to it (or at least not many), because that wouldn't look intellectually honest. It's their behavior that points to it, and maybe asking some specific key questions.
I think you underestimate people's pride and unwillingness to humble themselves and admit to God that they're wrong and He's right. Then again, I could also be overestimating that, as in my opinion, pride is the biggest sin issue for people to deal with (not sure if I'm phrasing that the best, but can't think of how else to explain it at the moment).
I wouldn't say they give it up so they can sin, more like, they have some sins they enjoy and don't want to give up those sins and humble themselves and confess to God they were wrong. Once again, pride.
As for fearing hell, any atheist that fears hell is inconsistent with their beliefs. At best you could say they're doubting their atheism. Atheists (specifically the ones you find discussing God all the time) spend so much time trying to disprove the Bible to Christians, saying it's just a book of fairy tales, but the fact is they aren't going to convince anyone with tired old typical tactics like that. In fact, it makes them look like they're still struggling to convince themselves, because they don't want the Bible to be true. When I was an atheist, I was consistent with my atheist views. I didn't believe in heaven or hell, and I certainly didn't fear hell, because that just looks silly coming from an atheist (an atheist fearing hell adds credibility to the Bible btw). My view on death was that death was the end, nothing came after it, and that's the only thing that stopped me from killing someone when I was an atheist. I viewed death as coming on quick and painless, almost as a reward. If someone crossed me in a way I didn't like, I wouldn't want to kill them, because who would that really hurt? Just their friends and family, who I didn't have a beef with. Instead, I wanted them alive to inflict pain and suffering on them. (Btw, that's a scary place to be, and I'd hope to see others escape from such places)
While I haven't read any of the accounts you're referring to, I have talked with many many atheists (in the hundreds at least). And hence comes my 99% generalization, because the 99% I refer to are all so similar, they're basically the same. I am/was (haven't been going there recently) a moderator for another Christian chat room, and started seeing the "typical atheist talk" I found other patterns that would generally hold true. For instance, they were all ex-Christian, err, specifically ex-catholic (with very few exceptions), and they subscribe to the whole "God is evil" nonsense arguement, which only comes about by people not liking the fact that God judges sin (yet these same people would also call God evil if God allowed Hitler into heaven, but that's just one of the many ways these people contradict themselves).
Perhaps I should be more clear. I wasn't actually making that as an arguement against evolution. Rather, I was pointing out how atheists contradict themselves when they say that the Bible is false because it was written by man. I was simply exposing their contradiction by pointing out how they believe things that were written by man, thus nullifying their pathetic attempt at disproving the Bible yet again.
That all sounds good in theory. In practice however, the 99% of atheists don't debate, they just deny. It's nothing like the pretty flowers you make it out to be. The 99% make claims they never back up, but quickly resort to insulting Christians for not believing their claims. Meanwhile, they refuse to acknowledge that a perspective other than atheism could even be so much as rational. Hence they like to live in a fantasy world where "Christians can't answer their questions" and "if Christians avoid a conversation, the ONLY explaination is that they're afraid of losing their faith, because after all, the atheists are always right."
I gave you a list of possible reasons. Christians (including myself sometimes) don't care to continue conversing with the 99% that I've been referring to. It's not because they're right or we Christians are afraid of "being challenge." It's because we don't care to waste time with people who plug their ears to any perspective other than their own.
Your whole "he doesn't want to talk with me because he's afraid of losing his faith" is a quality of the 99% I've been refering to. You don't want me to group you with the typical atheists, then don't act like them. Show me something different, something unique, something that isn't the standard typical ear plugging atheist. You could start by acknowledging that maybe there's other reasons he doesn't want to converse with atheists. For instance, you could acknowledge that the 99% of atheists aren't the most pleasent people to try and converse with. It's certainly a possiblity, despite the typical atheist mindset that "the Christians are weak and afraid of losing their faith" is the only possible reason.
If you're not part of the 99%, that's great. But the fact is, your comment that he "want to safeguard his frail faith" makes you come off as high and mighty, arrogant, and close-minded to any possiblities other than your own view. Yeah, you could go through my post and make the same comparisons, but here's the difference between me and you. I'll openly admit that I've become close-minded to Christianity, and that you have no shot of convincing me of atheism (or any other religion for that matter). Feel free to ask me why. And if you still want to converse with me knowing that, I'm game (for now) as your one comment is the only thing right now that links you to the 99% generalizations I make, and everything else I've seen/skimmed of yours thus far wouldn't have me group you with them.
Of course you've never heard an atheist admit to it (or at least not many), because that wouldn't look intellectually honest. It's their behavior that points to it, and maybe asking some specific key questions.
I think you underestimate people's pride and unwillingness to humble themselves and admit to God that they're wrong and He's right. Then again, I could also be overestimating that, as in my opinion, pride is the biggest sin issue for people to deal with (not sure if I'm phrasing that the best, but can't think of how else to explain it at the moment).
I wouldn't say they give it up so they can sin, more like, they have some sins they enjoy and don't want to give up those sins and humble themselves and confess to God they were wrong. Once again, pride.
As for fearing hell, any atheist that fears hell is inconsistent with their beliefs. At best you could say they're doubting their atheism. Atheists (specifically the ones you find discussing God all the time) spend so much time trying to disprove the Bible to Christians, saying it's just a book of fairy tales, but the fact is they aren't going to convince anyone with tired old typical tactics like that. In fact, it makes them look like they're still struggling to convince themselves, because they don't want the Bible to be true. When I was an atheist, I was consistent with my atheist views. I didn't believe in heaven or hell, and I certainly didn't fear hell, because that just looks silly coming from an atheist (an atheist fearing hell adds credibility to the Bible btw). My view on death was that death was the end, nothing came after it, and that's the only thing that stopped me from killing someone when I was an atheist. I viewed death as coming on quick and painless, almost as a reward. If someone crossed me in a way I didn't like, I wouldn't want to kill them, because who would that really hurt? Just their friends and family, who I didn't have a beef with. Instead, I wanted them alive to inflict pain and suffering on them. (Btw, that's a scary place to be, and I'd hope to see others escape from such places)
While I haven't read any of the accounts you're referring to, I have talked with many many atheists (in the hundreds at least). And hence comes my 99% generalization, because the 99% I refer to are all so similar, they're basically the same. I am/was (haven't been going there recently) a moderator for another Christian chat room, and started seeing the "typical atheist talk" I found other patterns that would generally hold true. For instance, they were all ex-Christian, err, specifically ex-catholic (with very few exceptions), and they subscribe to the whole "God is evil" nonsense arguement, which only comes about by people not liking the fact that God judges sin (yet these same people would also call God evil if God allowed Hitler into heaven, but that's just one of the many ways these people contradict themselves).
Perhaps I should be more clear. I wasn't actually making that as an arguement against evolution. Rather, I was pointing out how atheists contradict themselves when they say that the Bible is false because it was written by man. I was simply exposing their contradiction by pointing out how they believe things that were written by man, thus nullifying their pathetic attempt at disproving the Bible yet again.
That all sounds good in theory. In practice however, the 99% of atheists don't debate, they just deny. It's nothing like the pretty flowers you make it out to be. The 99% make claims they never back up, but quickly resort to insulting Christians for not believing their claims. Meanwhile, they refuse to acknowledge that a perspective other than atheism could even be so much as rational. Hence they like to live in a fantasy world where "Christians can't answer their questions" and "if Christians avoid a conversation, the ONLY explaination is that they're afraid of losing their faith, because after all, the atheists are always right."
I gave you a list of possible reasons. Christians (including myself sometimes) don't care to continue conversing with the 99% that I've been referring to. It's not because they're right or we Christians are afraid of "being challenge." It's because we don't care to waste time with people who plug their ears to any perspective other than their own.
Your whole "he doesn't want to talk with me because he's afraid of losing his faith" is a quality of the 99% I've been refering to. You don't want me to group you with the typical atheists, then don't act like them. Show me something different, something unique, something that isn't the standard typical ear plugging atheist. You could start by acknowledging that maybe there's other reasons he doesn't want to converse with atheists. For instance, you could acknowledge that the 99% of atheists aren't the most pleasent people to try and converse with. It's certainly a possiblity, despite the typical atheist mindset that "the Christians are weak and afraid of losing their faith" is the only possible reason.
If you're not part of the 99%, that's great. But the fact is, your comment that he "want to safeguard his frail faith" makes you come off as high and mighty, arrogant, and close-minded to any possiblities other than your own view. Yeah, you could go through my post and make the same comparisons, but here's the difference between me and you. I'll openly admit that I've become close-minded to Christianity, and that you have no shot of convincing me of atheism (or any other religion for that matter). Feel free to ask me why. And if you still want to converse with me knowing that, I'm game (for now) as your one comment is the only thing right now that links you to the 99% generalizations I make, and everything else I've seen/skimmed of yours thus far wouldn't have me group you with them.
I
have you ever learned a helpful new trick? have you ever learned how to make things with your hands? have you ever learned how to play a sport? card game? board game? video game? how to shoot a gun/ hunt?
God gave man a mind just like He gave animals a mind to know how to survive, even if their situations change. that doesnt mean what they learn and adapt to will make them evolve into a different species. thats rubbish.
God gave man a mind just like He gave animals a mind to know how to survive, even if their situations change. that doesnt mean what they learn and adapt to will make them evolve into a different species. thats rubbish.
This is a dishonest copout excuse and doesn't answer the question. Specifically, which arguments
of atheism have been refuted? Knowledge can be demonstrated and unless you can show which
arguments have been refuted then you have no idea what you're talking about.
"They just want to sin."
The following are strategies to counter this assertion:
1. You can simply dismiss it, as it's not really an argument to begin with. You might choose to counter-assert that a desire to sin plays no role in your atheism. The theist cannot reasonably deny your claim, as he or she has no access to your inner motivations.
2. You can point out that any given notion of sin is not universal among all theists or deists. For instance, you could well choose to be a deist, while still giving yourself the leeway to sin.
3. You can point out that if maximizing hedonistic pleasure is the goal of an atheist, this desire would form a poor basis for him or her to reject a theistic religion that promises eternal bliss. After all, is an eternity of bliss not more hedonistic (pleasure-maximizing) than several decades of “sin”?
4. You could counter by pointing out that you could level an equally facetious assertion against them. Examples include, "You're not a Muslim because you just want to draw pictures of people," or “You’re not Amish because you just want to accumulate worldly possessions.”
5. You could point out that many theists commit behaviors that various theistic traditions widely regard as sinful (e.g., excessive consumption of alcohol, cheating, theft, premarital sex, etc.). Of course, this fact does not invalidate arguments for theism, but it does point out that many forms of theism and “sin” are apparently compatible. In fact, the Protestant Christian religion holds that faith alone earns one a place in Heaven; no strict moral codes required!
That's how you refute an argument.
of atheism have been refuted? Knowledge can be demonstrated and unless you can show which
arguments have been refuted then you have no idea what you're talking about.
"They just want to sin."
The following are strategies to counter this assertion:
1. You can simply dismiss it, as it's not really an argument to begin with. You might choose to counter-assert that a desire to sin plays no role in your atheism. The theist cannot reasonably deny your claim, as he or she has no access to your inner motivations.
2. You can point out that any given notion of sin is not universal among all theists or deists. For instance, you could well choose to be a deist, while still giving yourself the leeway to sin.
3. You can point out that if maximizing hedonistic pleasure is the goal of an atheist, this desire would form a poor basis for him or her to reject a theistic religion that promises eternal bliss. After all, is an eternity of bliss not more hedonistic (pleasure-maximizing) than several decades of “sin”?
4. You could counter by pointing out that you could level an equally facetious assertion against them. Examples include, "You're not a Muslim because you just want to draw pictures of people," or “You’re not Amish because you just want to accumulate worldly possessions.”
5. You could point out that many theists commit behaviors that various theistic traditions widely regard as sinful (e.g., excessive consumption of alcohol, cheating, theft, premarital sex, etc.). Of course, this fact does not invalidate arguments for theism, but it does point out that many forms of theism and “sin” are apparently compatible. In fact, the Protestant Christian religion holds that faith alone earns one a place in Heaven; no strict moral codes required!
That's how you refute an argument.
Last edited:
Hello Aristocat. I am a bit confused by your statement. I bolded your comment on the usage of the word theory because I don't think you are using it in the way a scientist would. I find that when I talk with creationists about evolution they use the word theory as if to mean some hair-brained notion dreamt up after a night of drinking (to paraphrase Issac Asimov). You stated that evolution is spoken of as a theory because a lot of it is not provable yet. That is not what the scientific community means by the word theory.
Have you heard of Germ Theory?
“The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause a disease. "Germ" may refer to a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, or prion. Microorganisms that cause disease are called pathogens, and the diseases they cause are called infectious diseases. Even when a pathogen is the principal cause of a disease, environmental and hereditary factors often influence the severity of the disease, and whether a particular host individual becomes infected when exposed to the pathogen.” (Wikipedia)
Would you say Germ Theory is called a theory because a lot of it is not proven yet? No, of course you wouldn’t. The majority of people accept germ theory pretty much as a truth. I will state the obvious: germ theory is composed of numerous hypotheses, not all of which are proven, but the theory remains well grounded and is as close to fact as is possible to get in the study of science.
So too is evolutionary theory.
In summing up, theory is a term that conveys a well established body of evidence that is supported by numerous lines of research, often from more than one scientific discipline; it is not used to denote a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.
I am not asking anyone to accept the truth of evolutionary theory, I only ask that the word ‘theory’ be used properly. Is that too much to ask?
Perhaps what is really needed is a thread just on the meaning of this one word, because it is misused by such a large number of people.
Have you heard of Germ Theory?
“The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause a disease. "Germ" may refer to a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, or prion. Microorganisms that cause disease are called pathogens, and the diseases they cause are called infectious diseases. Even when a pathogen is the principal cause of a disease, environmental and hereditary factors often influence the severity of the disease, and whether a particular host individual becomes infected when exposed to the pathogen.” (Wikipedia)
Would you say Germ Theory is called a theory because a lot of it is not proven yet? No, of course you wouldn’t. The majority of people accept germ theory pretty much as a truth. I will state the obvious: germ theory is composed of numerous hypotheses, not all of which are proven, but the theory remains well grounded and is as close to fact as is possible to get in the study of science.
So too is evolutionary theory.
In summing up, theory is a term that conveys a well established body of evidence that is supported by numerous lines of research, often from more than one scientific discipline; it is not used to denote a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.
I am not asking anyone to accept the truth of evolutionary theory, I only ask that the word ‘theory’ be used properly. Is that too much to ask?
Perhaps what is really needed is a thread just on the meaning of this one word, because it is misused by such a large number of people.
Evolutionary theory does not state the anything learns to adapt. That is not how natural selection is claimed to work. You are making a statement about evolution that evolutionists don't even think is true.
Variation in gene populations are present in every species, and these variations exist as a result of random mutations. Chance mutations occurs in all individuals of every species; figures exist as to the number of new mutations present in every living person. Mutations may be useful, deleterious, or neutral, but the key is they are totally random. Biologists have never claimed that organisms learn to adapt, as you mistakenly put it.
Variation in gene populations are present in every species, and these variations exist as a result of random mutations. Chance mutations occurs in all individuals of every species; figures exist as to the number of new mutations present in every living person. Mutations may be useful, deleterious, or neutral, but the key is they are totally random. Biologists have never claimed that organisms learn to adapt, as you mistakenly put it.
In Scripture, and I emphasize ORIGINAL Scripture! NOT ANY transliterated version of it, ESPECIALLY the bull____ Oops their I go again (sure it must get monotonous lol) ; ESPECIALLY the English transliteration of them, the Word that is used to describe the cloning of Et'hadam to form! (Not create separately; as in the 6th Day of this creation) Eve from Et' hadam, IS NOT, rib.
IT IS the Word curve. Now at this time, unlike ANY generation before us, we now KNOW about the Helix curve (DNA) thinking that it is the greatest discovery of our time. (and it IS significant to help us, to understand, and not just believe/ have faith; in The Word)
Their WERE ONLY 2 tribes of the 13, that were under extreme Marital ordinances of The Law; to the extremity of actually stoning a women to Death/Satan, publicly.
These were the tribes of Judah, the king linage, and the tribe of Levi, the priest linage; as Et'hadam and Eve were the FIRST humans, to be Ambassadors to the rest of the world, to inform them, WHO the Get Over Death, GOD of Israel IS!
Et'hadam = The Man, NOT mankind as in Adam) being the FIRST human flesh man; to KNOW, and Not just believe; WHO IT IS that EVERYTHING belongs to; and WHO to THANK/PRAISE for it; The FIRST JEW! as all that any man IS! that praises The GOD of Israel, IS a Jew; as that's what JEW means, PRAISE, ANY man or woman that PRAISES the ONE TRUE GOD.
Et'hadam/Adam the FIRST of the human flesh of the king linage; the last race of humans, that were NOT! created upon this earth, but rather planted by Our Father's hand.
"For Eve IS the mother of ALL living" according to Our Father's Word! and HEY! even in bull____, I mean English. (sigh) as when studied with understanding, one would KNOW the complete statement and not just part of it.
In Hebrew; " Eve, IS the mother of ALL living/hoping/having faith; in the promise of Our Father;s Word, of the coming Messiah/Christ."
Eve, the First of the Levitical Priest linage, because, through her ambillical cord to ambillical cord, would ultimately come the birth of, in this flesh, the Messiah/Christ, the LAST High Priest . For ONE & ALL . The Last Prophet . The Chief Apostle .
NOT! born of this flesh seed, the king linage of Judah; but rather of The King's seed from above, The Holy Spirit/PURE.
NOT! being The KING; but rather FULLY & COMPLETELY representative of The KING of the Universe, Christ/Messiah, The KING of this current and temporal flesh existence; KING for the Day of Reckoning and Teaching to come in the Spirit; however, after that Day! handing over the reigns of JUDGEMENT! to OUR Father, as Christ/Messiah, DID NOT! come to JUDGE the world; but rather to SAVE IT.
Most ALL of the Old Testament miracles being related to protecting this seed-line, of the coming Messiah/Christ.
But after the birth of Christ/Messiah, even Judah and Levi inter-mixing amongst the other tribes of Israel and amongst the heathens, that the other tribes of Israel had already been inter-mixing in marriage amongst themselves first; and then amongst the heathen nations from the time of Joshua.
DNA! LOL; 5 senses of DEATH/Satan, engulfing one's inner-being with this flesh, temporarily, in an attempt to deceive/confuse a person, as to ones True Heritage of the inner-being.
IT IS the Word curve. Now at this time, unlike ANY generation before us, we now KNOW about the Helix curve (DNA) thinking that it is the greatest discovery of our time. (and it IS significant to help us, to understand, and not just believe/ have faith; in The Word)
Their WERE ONLY 2 tribes of the 13, that were under extreme Marital ordinances of The Law; to the extremity of actually stoning a women to Death/Satan, publicly.
These were the tribes of Judah, the king linage, and the tribe of Levi, the priest linage; as Et'hadam and Eve were the FIRST humans, to be Ambassadors to the rest of the world, to inform them, WHO the Get Over Death, GOD of Israel IS!
Et'hadam = The Man, NOT mankind as in Adam) being the FIRST human flesh man; to KNOW, and Not just believe; WHO IT IS that EVERYTHING belongs to; and WHO to THANK/PRAISE for it; The FIRST JEW! as all that any man IS! that praises The GOD of Israel, IS a Jew; as that's what JEW means, PRAISE, ANY man or woman that PRAISES the ONE TRUE GOD.
Et'hadam/Adam the FIRST of the human flesh of the king linage; the last race of humans, that were NOT! created upon this earth, but rather planted by Our Father's hand.
"For Eve IS the mother of ALL living" according to Our Father's Word! and HEY! even in bull____, I mean English. (sigh) as when studied with understanding, one would KNOW the complete statement and not just part of it.
In Hebrew; " Eve, IS the mother of ALL living/hoping/having faith; in the promise of Our Father;s Word, of the coming Messiah/Christ."
Eve, the First of the Levitical Priest linage, because, through her ambillical cord to ambillical cord, would ultimately come the birth of, in this flesh, the Messiah/Christ, the LAST High Priest . For ONE & ALL . The Last Prophet . The Chief Apostle .
NOT! born of this flesh seed, the king linage of Judah; but rather of The King's seed from above, The Holy Spirit/PURE.
NOT! being The KING; but rather FULLY & COMPLETELY representative of The KING of the Universe, Christ/Messiah, The KING of this current and temporal flesh existence; KING for the Day of Reckoning and Teaching to come in the Spirit; however, after that Day! handing over the reigns of JUDGEMENT! to OUR Father, as Christ/Messiah, DID NOT! come to JUDGE the world; but rather to SAVE IT.
Most ALL of the Old Testament miracles being related to protecting this seed-line, of the coming Messiah/Christ.
But after the birth of Christ/Messiah, even Judah and Levi inter-mixing amongst the other tribes of Israel and amongst the heathens, that the other tribes of Israel had already been inter-mixing in marriage amongst themselves first; and then amongst the heathen nations from the time of Joshua.
DNA! LOL; 5 senses of DEATH/Satan, engulfing one's inner-being with this flesh, temporarily, in an attempt to deceive/confuse a person, as to ones True Heritage of the inner-being.
NOT EVOLUTION! But rather ELEVATION!
In and Through The Christ/Messiah
Each and EVERYONE'S Personal SAVIOUR!
In and Through The Christ/Messiah
Each and EVERYONE'S Personal SAVIOUR!
M
Typical atheist, claiming victory just becaue some Christian isn't foolish enough to spoon feed you stuff you don't want to eat. Once again, it's the easy way out for the atheist. Just pretend Christianity isn't reasonable or rational, claim a false victory, and maybe, just maybe, your fear of the Bible being true will finally go away, just maybe. But the fact is, it won't go away.
And then they're shocked when we say we don't want to talk with them, like it's some big mystery.
And then they're shocked when we say we don't want to talk with them, like it's some big mystery.
Last edited by a moderator:
Christians seem to do this often, asking questions that they don't really want answers to, as if a question that isn't answered is a question that can't be answered. Scientists, when posed with questions, seek answers. Is this worth answering? Will the answer add to the "evidence for evolution" or will it just be ignored because the answer was never seeked in the first place?
"Evolution" doesn't pick anything... it favors organisms that work towards their survival. Domesticating animals makes it easier to get food, and thus helps survival, so in a certain way it could be said that people who domesticate animals have been favored by evolution.
It's hilarious that you asked this question, though; the question itself seems to imply that the *God* "picked us" to domesticate animals, but if you're familiar with the bible, you'll notice that man wasn't allowed to eat meat until Genesis 9:3, so according to the bible, the domestication of animals was never God's original plan. So what kind of point did you plan to make by asking this question?
"Evolution" doesn't pick anything... it favors organisms that work towards their survival. Domesticating animals makes it easier to get food, and thus helps survival, so in a certain way it could be said that people who domesticate animals have been favored by evolution.
It's hilarious that you asked this question, though; the question itself seems to imply that the *God* "picked us" to domesticate animals, but if you're familiar with the bible, you'll notice that man wasn't allowed to eat meat until Genesis 9:3, so according to the bible, the domestication of animals was never God's original plan. So what kind of point did you plan to make by asking this question?