@Jeffonthenet:

You realise you don't have to quote your own post when replying to something someone has said, right?

How many millions aimlessly stroll through life not recognizing the genius of Charles Darwin due to prejudice initiated by the dictums of ignorant bronze-age goat herders?

Children, if allowed, will also stop and spend an inordinate amount of time watching turtles fuck.

I thought that proselytizing was not allowed here.


You DO know that this is an atheist forum, right?

Quote:My point was more that evolution does not disprove God, nor suggest that he doesn't exist.

Evolution does not require your god's permission to do what it does. You have still done nothing more than assert that your god exists.

(July 11, 2012 at 2:56 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: My point was more that evolution does not disprove God, nor suggest that he doesn't exist.

Does evolution disprove cinderella? Why don't you toilet your bible and go in search of the holy foot that fits the divine shoe?

It doesn't take evolution to disprove god. It only takes a review of how your "god" came to be asociated with the various traits you various christians, Muslims and Jews associate him with to show just what a crock of intellectually whoreish and morally rotten shit your god and the entire rotting ediface around your god is.

(July 11, 2012 at 12:06 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 2:56 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: My point was more that evolution does not disprove God, nor suggest that he doesn't exist.

Evolution does not disprove cinderella either. A complete piece of fabrication that can be and is changed and changed again on the spot to evade accummulating evidence doesn't need anything so lofty as evolution to disprove it.

That is it changed and changed again to evade accummulating evidence is proof enough that it should be treated as any other fabrication manufactured in holy - and therefore in utterly intellectual corruption and bad faith - peity.

What you describe here is known in legal circles as an "evolving story". It is seen as evidence the claimant is lying. I think we can also apply this to the theist pantheon of claims that evolve as the details are debunked as well. Evolving story -> evidence the claim is false.

(July 11, 2012 at 12:14 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 12:06 pm)Chuck Wrote: Evolution does not disprove cinderella either. A complete piece of fabrication that can be and is changed and changed again on the spot to evade accummulating evidence doesn't need anything so lofty as evolution to disprove it.

That is it changed and changed again to evade accummulating evidence is proof enough that it should be treated as any other fabrication manufactured in holy - and therefore in utterly intellectual corruption and bad faith - peity.

What you describe hete is known in legal circles as an "evolving story".

The term "Evolving" definitely has standards, unlike "faith", or "christianity", and therefore violently resents the insult.

Even if evolution was wrong it would not mean that God was real. Without evidence you still would have nothing.

(July 11, 2012 at 12:17 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 12:14 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: What you describe hete is known in legal circles as an "evolving story".

The term "Evolving" definitely has standards, unlike "faith", or "christianity", and therefore violently resents the insult.

(July 11, 2012 at 2:59 am)Tempus Wrote: Why the fuck did I even bother.

I was wondering the same thing. Having read a lot of the nitwit's posts, I think I have a fairly good idea of depth of his intellectual rigour,so didn't.

I'm sure some kind person will tell me if I'm mistaken and what's-his-name has something of interest to say which is not PRAT.