Best description of Christianity

[Cyberman]

It's your right to disagree with someone, but you don't get to tell someone what is possible or impossible, when the limits of what's possible have never been discovered.

Interesting that you talk of missed points. You defend my right to disagree with a person's claims, which I did, then in the same virtual breath decry me for dictating the limits of possibilities, which I didn't.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Really? You do realize that one species of animal has never been observed to evolve into a completely different species, nor has it ever been replicated, yet you believe it's possible.

This is factually incorrect, Buggy.

edit: Rob got there first, damn him, damn him to hell!

[h4ym4n]

The best description?

It's a virus that needs a vaccine administered shortly after birth until age 18.

[robvalue]

If someone is saying one "species" doesn't suddenly become another "species" then that is a total misunderstanding of evolution. That is viewing animals as discrete checkpoints, where in reality it's a continuous system. It's not that there are transitional forms, it's that every form is a transitional form. Change happens generally incredibly slowly over very long lengths of time. It's the combination of these changes that eventually leads to one thing looking "different" to its ancestor.

---

By all means argue against evolution, I encourage healthy debate. But first understand what it is you are argueing against or else you're just punching your personal strawman representation.

[jesus_wept]

Sum up religion in 15 word or less?

Wishful thinking.

[robvalue]

Very nice. Indeed, it's the idea that if we really believe we live on after death, then that will somehow make it true. Whereas if there is an afterlife, there's no good reason to think atheists won't get exactly the same deal as anyone else. But making important decisions based on fantasy is dangerous.

[Spooky]

[Fidel_Castronaut]

3. I have no idea what you're talking about with Denmark, I will look into this.

You can read the clusterfuck of a thread here:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-30615.html

Start at about page 6 or 7. Huggy first conflates secularism to equal religion, then to equal communism. He then tries to refute the fact that the 'happiest' states on earth tend to be secular and have secular societies by saying that secularism is irrelevant, when in fact nobody said it was the only variable in that equation. He then highlighted the fact that, given a list of the 'happiest' states in the world (taken from the Telegraph I think), Denmark has a a state religion to which people are nominally ascribed, which in his eyes is a 'gotcha', even though that doesn't actually make Denmark a non-secular society, nor does it make Denmark's government non-secular either (governments =/= state structures). Also, even if we took Denmark as a non-secular state, it still doesn't actually negate my original points about the most prosperous & 'happy' states tending to also be secular states.

But you can read and enjoy it for yourself.

The point is, you apparent haven't met a "Christian' that knows what they're talking about.

And the search continues.

[Spooky]

Appreciate the assist. I will take a look.

[Esquilax]

First of all, Evolution has never been put to the scientific test seeing how the first step in the scientific method is observation, please point out the article, where anyone has observed one specie of animal evolving into a completely different specie.

Hey, I have an idea! How about before you speak on a subject, you know what you're talking about first? Wouldn't that be crazy?

Meet the Gray Tree Frog, and the Cope's Gray Tree Frog. They are different species, with different cellular makeup, that cannot interbreed; this species divergence happened over a short time, potentially even a single generation, via a process called autopolyploidy. One of the two species existed beforehand, and after breeding there was a completely separate species, assuming we're using the common scientific definition of a species.

So, you're wrong, unless you want to wriggle out by using some arcane other definition of species, which I don't think is terribly far from your normal course of argumentation. But then we'd be wondering why we should use your self serving definition over the normal one.

Now, speciation events of this type are rare, but they do happen. More normally, species diverge over concurrent generations through a process of small alterations, and this has also been observed to occur, but even if it hadn't your point would make no sense, as those genetic mutations that drive evolution have been observed under laboratory conditions; by making the stand that you are, you are asserting that small changes can occur, but that those small changes can never accumulate, for some reason. But we've never observed any mechanism that prevents those changes from accumulating across the (human defined, I might add. It's not like this is some magic transcending of a natural order) species boundaries we use, so the conditions of your own argument prevent you from making it.

Your argument is self refuting, and your ignorance of the process of evolution does not bode well for your insistence on talking about it.