Originally posted by 667joeHume also said,
. . The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one.”
—David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 1748
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature ... When any one tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened."
Originally posted by RJHindsThat's just stupid. I can see the problem though. To say that some animal have adapted an
No. He can't beat me. Here is the miracle of evolution that you atheists believe in or actually the fairy tale you atheists believe in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CgXfkEGxE0
ability is too misleading when it sweeps through the mind of a literalist numbnut. It's
almost funny, but so sad to see mind capital so wasted.
27 Apr 14
Originally posted by C HessSo you are saying we must NOT take evolution as literal, but as figurative or metaphorical? That seems to be a trick too me.
That's just stupid. I can see the problem though. To say that some animal have adapted an
ability is too misleading when it sweeps through the mind of a literalist numbnut. It's
almost funny, but so sad to see mind capital so wasted.
Originally posted by RJHindsAlthough it's been pointed out numerous times already, and I doubt you will listen this time but here we go, evolution does not belong solely to atheists. There are countless people of differing faiths all round the world who also accept the evidence for evolution. I know you like to exist in this black and white world, but please, for once, pull your head out your obese ass and try and see the world for as it is. 😏
No. He can't beat me. Here is the miracle of evolution that you atheists believe in or actually the fairy tale you atheists believe in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CgXfkEGxE0
Originally posted by sonshipYou have deliberately posted the same YouTube link twice on the same thread page?
What? Evolution too sacred to be disbunked by a YouTube video ?
Not so. Devastating. The liberal bent in me felt sorry for the underdog - Evolution
[b]Evolution Demolition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf32BXMSN7A[/b]
27 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonshipQue?
What? Evolution too sacred to be disbunked by a YouTube video ?
Not so. Devastating. The liberal bent in me felt sorry for the underdog - Evolution
[b]Evolution Demolition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf32BXMSN7A[/b]
A validated scientific theory corroborated by 150 years of evidence has been 'devastatingly debunked' by a YouTube video?!
Dear oh dear.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, I'm saying that the figurative speech used to explain the end result is not to be taken
So you are saying we must NOT take evolution as literal, but as figurative or metaphorical? That seems to be a trick too me.
literally. That is, a fish didn't evolve limbs as an adaptation for the sole purpose of walking
onto dry land, rather limbs evolved over countless generations and proved useful for
climbing out of the water. I'm sure even you can see the difference.
27 Apr 14
Originally posted by Proper KnobThey are only accepting what you guys have hijacked and claimed to be part of evolution. It is that part that some now call microevolution instead of variations in species.
Although it's been pointed out numerous times already, and I doubt you will listen this time but here we go, evolution does not belong solely to atheists. There are countless people of differing faiths all round the world who also accept the evidence for evolution. I know you like to exist in this black and white world, but please, for once, pull your head out your obese ass and try and see the world for as it is. 😏
Originally posted by sonshipRiiiiight. 🙄
What? Evolution too sacred to be disbunked by a YouTube video ?
Not so. Devastating. The liberal bent in me felt sorry for the underdog - Evolution
[b]Evolution Demolition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf32BXMSN7A[/b]
{walking slowly, backwards out of the room}
Originally posted by C HessThat makes no difference how many purposes or uses resulted, it all boils down to being represented by your evolutionists friends in that video. If they did not want it to appear that way then they could have changed it.
No, I'm saying that the figurative speech used to explain the end result is not to be taken
literally. That is, a fish didn't evolve limbs as an adaptation for the sole purpose of walking
onto dry land, rather limbs evolved over countless generations and proved useful for
climbing out of the water. I'm sure even you can see the difference.