Athiests will enjoy this

[Maynza]

Did you even read it?

P.S. Gtg now, I'll be back in about 2.5 hours to read your response(s)

Yes and to it I say

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches),

WHAT THE FUCK

1' 8 inches by 1' 8 inches by 1'.

Heres your animals:

 

[Radwen]

lolllllllllllllllllllllll

 

[Maynza]

well yeah. that's the point. but what that argument is asking is WHY do we not have any fossils of bats with the shitty sonar? we see no fossil evidence of "half-bats". We only see fossils of "whole-bats". If bats "evolved" then we should see fossil evidence of "half-bats" in the process of evolving...yet, there are none.

I'm not saying this is true for bats, but in the case of the Great White Shark, and the Alligator, evolutions hasn't been necessessary for thousands of years.

 

[Mo Khan]

Yes and to it I say
WHAT THE FUCK

1' 8 inches by 1' 8 inches by 1'.

Heres your animals:

L M F A O
______​

 

[Maynza]

And now that I think of it, I dunno if that means just one animal in that cage, or both of the animals.

If it is the latter:

 

[Mo Khan]

I'm not saying this is true for bats, but in the case of the Great White Shark, and the Alligator, evolutions hasn't been necessessary for thousands of years.

Well Bats are just the "example" creature because they have 2 attributes not associated with any other land mammal. The point isnt so much the bats. The argument can be applied across the board.

the argument is not what anyone should base their beliefs on, rather, it is an argument to make people think more about the possibility of evolution being "less than fact". I have found that the theory of evolution is very vaguen and yet it is presented as a fact. The bat argument simply helps to illuminate this. Evolutionists "fill in" these gaps by assuming one fossil leads to the next. Yet they have no fossil evidence to support the transition. they simply have 2 fossils and assume they are a demonstration of evolution.

 

[Maynza]

Well Bats are just the "example" creature because they have 2 attributes not associated with any other land mammal. The point isnt so much the bats. The argument can be applied across the board.

the argument is not what anyone should base their beliefs on, rather, it is an argument to make people think more about the possibility of evolution being "less than fact". I have found that the theory of evolution is very vaguen and yet it is presented as a fact. The bat argument simply helps to illuminate this. Evolutionists "fill in" these gaps by assuming one fossil leads to the next. Yet they have no fossil evidence to support the transition. they simply have 2 fossils and assume they are a demonstration of evolution.

I'm not saying evolution has been understood by us fully yet, I am however saying that survival of the fittest is undeniable.

 

[Malaperth]

What if God simply set Evolution in motion and went off to have a beer?

 

[Maynza]

What if God simply set Evolution in motion and went off to have a beer?

What if our entire existance is in a pile of shit of an animal.

Either way, its not a reasonable conclusion as there is NOTHING to back it up other than Faith which is not as good as christians make it out to be.

 

[Malaperth]

Yup, and that's why it's called Faith. All I know is that it's gonna suck for the Atheists if they're wrong

 

[Mo Khan]

What if God simply set Evolution in motion and went off to have a beer?

Well I discussed this one earlier too...it's called theistic evolution


to DDTSOAD (from one of my earlier posts on this topic):

For it is not those who are "fit" who survive, rather it is those who have the most offspring. I will expound:

According to many evolutionary "tree" diagrams, the big cats are, incrementally, at the far end of the feline "branch", implying they "evolved" from the smaller cats. Based on the assumption of only the "fittest" surviving, that would result in the extinction of all small cats, becasue they are not the "fittest" of the species. This, empirically, is not the case. We all know small cats exist and have avoided extinction, and yet the more "fit" of the feline thread, the big cats, exist as well.

 

[Mo Khan]

DDTSOAD...haven't WE already talked about this?

 

[Maynza]

DDTSOAD...haven't WE already talked about this?

YAY CIRCLES!

 

[Mo Khan]

more like a trapezoid. circles are smooth and we got back here in a jagged roundabout way

YAY TRAPEZOIDS!

 

[Courageous]

First, C makes an analogy of some crazy notion of claiming a cartoon to be God...

Why, would you say, that this is any less reasonable than most of the other religions in the world?

C//

 

[Malaperth]

I had a friend once that was convinced that a garden sprinkler talked to him, and therefore must be God. We took him to the hospital and got his stomach pumped and he was given some sort of anti-drug drugs and was better in a couple days.

 

[Courageous]

You have the most condescending tone out of all of the posters on the forums.

For someone who was so very willing to criticize the "organization" of my post and so forth, should one conclude that this is the case of someone who can dish it out and not take it?

The question remains: are you "agnostic" about Papa Smurf, or do you just snort in derision over the idea?

Rhetorically yours,

C//

 

[Mo Khan]

I had a friend once that was convinced that a garden sprinkler talked to him, and therefore must be God. We took him to the hospital and got his stomach pumped and he was given some sort of anti-drug drugs and was better in a couple days.

ok sounds like you saved the friend, but did the sprinkler actually TALK?

 

[Malaperth]

I sure as heck didn't hear anything, but just like the existance (or non) of God, I can't prove it either way

 

[Mo Khan]

I sure as heck didn't hear anything, but just like the existance (or non) of God, I can't prove it either way

THAT'S RIGHT! so...I therefore decree this argument solved. God IS a sprinkler. The sprinkler EXISTS. God therefore EXISTS!

phew! Thank Sprinkler this one is solved!

​