Hey Mr Darwin, just a casual question about what you'll grow and 'evolve' to be, k chump?

Since Darwin isn't around to defend himself I'll point out a couple things

1) He believed that there was probably a higher intelligence behind the scenes that created life and the evolutionary process

2) Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean that GOD didn't use it as a mechanism.

Meaning, God is a half-wit that couldn't complete his project so he had to leave it to the roll of mutational dice?

Last Edited by DGN on 01/15/2013 10:56 PM

God is the great scientist and used it to an ends. He knew what that ends would be. He did it to give us the incredible variety of life we have.

that is REALLY a broad statement that "evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt..."...
who has actually SEEN one thing evolve into another thing?
I mean, like HUGE JUMPS....a human into a donkey perhaps?

Yes he is a great scientist who designed and constructed all life as a complete and balanced ecosystem, nothing was left half done or left to random chance.

"And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fifth day.
24 And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.
26 And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.” 27 And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” Ge1:20

I always find it amusing when Christians attempt to disparage opposing ideas by calling them "religions" and "churches". You can see how religions are ridiculous, but not YOUR religion.

But I thought god's logical inconsistencies are supposed to be explained away with "The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways"...

God is a half-wit...



I'd love to hear your rebuttal, DGN.

Why do you talk to dead scientists..?

:munkee :

Probably because Gods not answering

Yeah, DGN will tell god how to do his thang...

In my experience man's consistent, inconsistencies reveal he works in destructively mysterious ways.
"The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it? 10 I, Jehovah, am searching the heart, examining the kidneys, even to give to each one according to his ways, according to the fruitage of his dealings." Jer17:9

AAAaaaannnd....que the non sequitur religious quotes-as-response!

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

"That's not logical"

but I really enjoyed it, even if i don't understand the tit for tat... gotta study it a while...


Last Edited by DGN on 01/16/2013 01:41 AM

Hey, dude, noone gives a shit ok chump?

Darwin is dead idiot. How did u evolve into such brainless moron?

Lol ......God created him that way

Don't play chess with a pigeon because it will only shit all over the board and knock over the pieces.
Explain that one Mr. Darwin. hmmmm?????
EXPLAIN IT MOTHERFUCKER. EXPLAINIFY. THE FUCKING SHIT ON THE CHESS BOARD.
If god didn't put it there who the fuck did. oh oh what it evolved itself there did it all by its fucking non fossilised self. sure it did. then why are there assholes everywhere.

spock on a frog. your logic is invalid.

Did this forum evolve to have shit on board or did god create it that way? Hmm mr darwin?

the cosmological argument for the existence of god only holds if you already need there to be a god, as in the argument is circular. First causes 'as god' only apply if one decides that the structure of space time is linear and then that the origins of all things exist outside of all that exists in physicality because the thing needs to be independent of cause and effect.
The assumption that this thing is anything other than what is physically obvious is not supported by anything other than a belief. The need to attribute creation to something 'other than' what is 'the universe'.
This argument, 'God exists' can never be shown to be true by philosophical arguments because it requires the addition of something that exists outside of the universe to function [something separate to cause and effect: first cause needs to be unaffected by any other causes therefore it needs to be totally separated from causal chains], and because we can't get outside of the universe we can never show that, see that or prove that.
In other werds, if you believe 'in god', there is nothing that can show you that it is false, nor is there anything that can be done to prove to a person who believes 'in god' that god isn't true.

therefore, what a waste of time to try. unless you iz just entertaining, then go ahead.

your argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

in simpler terms, you believe that if Mr. Darwin's theory is incorrect it therefore proves your God theory is correct.

Hence your obsessive, pathological desire to post these inane and obtuse threads to Mr Darwin...you are subconsciously attempting to invalidate your own deeply embedded insecurities and doubts regarding your tenuous hold on your faith in God.

It's ok though DGN...we're all nuts one way or another...yours is just a bit more annoying than most...

What's a matter Mr DARWIN? Can't explannnn? cunt explun?
expluuuuuuuuun. EXPLUUUUUN IT WHY I"M IS FUCKING SURROUNDED BY NO FOSSILS and people having gay sex up the bum when obviously that don't lead to anything evolving anything because no babies come out.
explain that Meeester Darwin.




waiting.

fucking LOL

well done. Interesting. Perhaps when force is applied through any system it will act to right itself by way of the invalid logic either destroying the system through replication of unsound mechanics and mismanagement of its own system or by displaying the structural problems in such a way that they are seen and corrected.

psychology. can't explain that.

ahh talk with dead Darwin again

Who manages these mechanics, random chance?

Well I have to say DGN your persistence is really extraordinary. If the activity your where persisting at where less pointless I would say your persistence where admirable.

it's called self management. if you sit on your hand for a bit it goes numb and it feels like someone else is touching you. Transpose that and Viola.

mechanics manage themselves

so there you have it. existence: the Big Wank.
Who would have guessed?

....Oh....uh, no I didn't know that but thanks for explaining it. That was very scientific. Things are so simple. Oppsss... the water pump just blew out on my engine. I'm gonna go out there and watch it self manage to replace it's self.