Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Godscreated]

I do not need to bray, you've shown you do not understand show breeding and it's opposite of your evolution theory. However the dogs your parents breed are still dogs and until they become something other than dogs you you haven't observed evolution.

GC

actually, artificial selection is a valid and accepted form of evolution

Artificial selection has nothing to do with natural selection, that said, neither has a thing to do with evolution, why because evolution is a thing made-up and put into books to fool people so those with giant ego problems can walk around saying look at me.

GC

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nope, what I've seen on this forum is people who do not believe in God yet desire to argue against God always place human emotion and values on Him. Don't you think the argument might be a bit more coherent if we used the Bibles description of who God is?

No, because the Bible's description of your god is incoherent and contradictory.

Isn't this the the way arguments are supposed to be structured? Later in this thread you asked if other Christians believe in genocide, well this one doesn't, not by man and by what the Bible says about God it's not genocide. So no genocide is not acceptable.

You'd better sort that out in your head, then, because the god you worship committed genocide on one occasion himself, and ordered it via his human minions on another.

Here, I think this will help you out a little:

[The Reality Salesman01]

GC, The stuff you're saying makes you seem like a troll. There's no way anyone can be this ignorant. It would be no different from me walking into a Christian forum as a Self proclaiming wizard and begin to say things about holy water such as: "you guys don't know anything about water. You Christians think that water is made of 'molecules' that are two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, wrong! It's wrong because you can't make these things lick my magic wand and announce themselves to me." You sound like a MankyCodpiece! Was that the correct usage Rob? It seemed suitable.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, God is who He says He is, He used the Bible to tell us. The Bible has nothing to do with who God is, period.
GC

You're clearly so stupid that you don't recognize your own internal contradictions.

Everyone else reading your drivel, however, does.

It's a shame you're so stupid you don't even know that ... but you don't.

---

Actions speak louder than words. The bible goes on and on about how great yahweh is, and how much he loves us, but the most common way he interacts with most people is killing them, sending people to kill them, or threatening to do so.

Why do you think He did so, or are you just repeating things you've heard, do you have an intelligent answer, or will it be the same old tired same old.

GC

Probably because he's an evil cunt.

There, now go potty and off to bed with you. The adults are going to talk.

[The Reality Salesman01]

actually, artificial selection is a valid and accepted form of evolution

Artificial selection has nothing to do with natural selection, that said, neither has a thing to do with evolution, why because evolution is a thing made-up and put into books to fool people so those with giant ego problems can walk around saying look at me.

GC

There's another one. Do you own a compueter without a search filter locked by your pastor?

[dyresand]

GC, The stuff you're saying makes you seem like a troll. There's no way anyone can be this ignorant. It would be no different from me walking into a Christian forum as a Self proclaiming wizard and begin to say things about holy water such as: "you guys don't know anything about water. You Christians think that water is made of 'molecules' that are two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, wrong! It's wrong because you can't make these things lick my magic wand and announce themselves to me." You sound like a MankyCodpiece! Was that the correct usage Rob? It seemed suitable.

He is that ignorant he has been living in a cave with a bible most of his life.
The ignorance is strong with him he will deny hard core evidence and theories that are proven there is not reasoning with him.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think genocide is acceptable against all the people who think genocide is acceptable :p

Isn't that what I said?

No. You're not nearly that witty.

[Esquilax]

Species that's what scientist used to divide up the kinds, so they could try and make evolution seem valid, Christians are not fooled by those little tricks.

Actually, you're wrong: The term "species" predates evolution by a long, long time. It was originally coined by Aristotle; are you just pulling these claims out of your ass, or is there a place that's specifically lying to you that you're regurgitating?

So, my question stands: either show me a modern definition of evolution that includes kinds and not species, or admit that kinds are irrelevant to the discussion.

Natural selection isn't what we're arguing, Christian scientist do not dispute natural selection and natural selection has never turned a dog into a frog.

Neither does evolution describe dogs turning into frogs; that would actually disprove evolution. I asked you this question in the last post, and it bears repeating: can you furnish me a definition of evolution that includes that sort of misrepresentation in it?

Any animal that can naturally breed to another is of a kind, if you must have it that way. No changes to another kind has ever been seen nor proven and will never be.

Well, I'll credit you for having the honesty to actually define kinds, and by happenstance your definition does fit rather well with a common usage of the term species, but you're still wrong. Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiments gave us groups of fruit flies that couldn't interbreed descended from a single population, so according to the definition you've given we've seen a transition in kind there. Gray Treefrogs and Cope's Gray Treefrogs were once the same species, before an autopolyploidy event produced the two distinct species we have today, differentiated by diploid genetics in one group, and tetraploid cells in the other. They too cannot breed.

Now, you might say they're still fruit flies, or they're still frogs, but now you're contradicting your own definition.

So all you've ever seen in dog breeding is the same kind being born. Mutations haven't change the canine into anything other than different looking canines, and if it wasn't for a superior mind this would have never come about, there was no need until man stepped in. So, in actuality natural selection never took place with the canine, it was human selection. You're barking up the wrong tree on this.

I agree that artificial selection is what we witness with dogs, but that's still evolution, in that genetic change is occurring within a population over successive generations. Evolution is something different to natural selection, though they are interrelated concepts; the former is influenced by the latter, and it's impossible not to have some kind of selection involved in evolution. It's just a matter of choosing which one, and with regards to dogs I would add that the wolves they all came from were influenced by natural selection before they were bred by humans.

There is none, that's why we can safely say evolution is just an imagined, made-up thing written into books to fool people into believing the supposed superior thinking of those who have deluded themselves into believing in something that has no proof of existence. You're trying to deflect what I've said because you used a simply asinine example.

GC

So, you're saying you can't find a definition of evolution, among the mainstream, commonly used definitions, that describes what you're claiming evolution is, and your conclusion is that this makes evolution imaginary? Not, say, the claims you've made that you admit don't appear in any of the commonly held usages of the term?

Micro-evolution- an invention of the evolutionary scientist once they couldn't defend against creation scientist tearing apart macro-evolution. Actually there wasn't any macro-evolution, it was called evolution only. When evolutionary scientist couldn't defend such great changes coming all at once, the terms micro and macro were placed in front of evolution. Christian scientist have always accepted natural selection, evolutionary scientist needed to call it micro-evolution.

GC

Actually, you're kinda wrong there too:The term "macroevolution is ninety years old, and the truth is the reverse of what you're saying. The term fell out of favor after its inception, as the science continued to develop. Today, it's a term mostly clung to by creationists, not evolutionary biologists.

Where are you getting this stuff?

[The Reality Salesman01]

He is that ignorant he has been living in a cave with a bible most of his life.
The ignorance is strong with him he will deny hard core evidence and theories that are proven there is not reasoning with him.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Isn't that what I said?

@Drich, that was a good point you made earlier when you highlighted the similarity between genocide and the bombing of industrial centers in WWII (especially Japan). Here is a quote:

Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left five million homeless. Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey put the figures at 220,000 people killed. Some 40% of the built-up areas of 66 cities were destroyed, including much of Japan's war industry.
...
LeMay was aware of the implication of his orders. The New York Times reported at the time, "Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the B-29s of the entire Marianas area, declared that if the war is shortened by a single day, the attack will have served its purpose." The argument was that it was his duty to carry out the attacks in order to end the war as quickly as possible, sparing further loss of life. He also remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes.

(my bold)

Of course there is still a big difference. Usually the victims of genocide are helpless militarily.

No, this is inaccurate. The reason I say that is because while death from aerial bombardment is random and (as in the case of US firebombing of Japan) that bombardment is aimed at hampering the enemy's economy (through destruction of factories, homes housing workers, or entire swathes of cities), genocide is specifically aimed at a targeted population, with a systematic mechanism in place to do that population to death.

LeMay most likely committed war crimes, and the nuclear attacks were not the worst ones. In early March of 1945, around 300 B-29s each carrying 4.5 tons of incendiary bombs attacked Tokyo. The pathfinders for that force marked the target by fire-bombing an "X" on the city center with each leg a mile long. That was as precise as it got: X marks the spot. Subsequent American bombers flew in as low as 8,000 feet scattering cluster bombs containing 1,600 incendiaries per bomber. The city was burnt out, and over 85,000 people were killed -- the biggest casualty list of any single bombing raid, including both atomic bomb attacks.

That, however, is not genocide, in the sense that while we Americans were happy to kill copious amounts of Japanese, we weren't aiming to exterminate them as an ethnicity, nor did we have a system in place to ensure that end. Americans didn't kill Japanese with the intent to wipe that ethnicity off the face of the Earth. We killed Japanese in order to win the war. Once the Japanese surrendered, we stopped killing them.

There is a clear difference between war and genocide. Learn it.