Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-13-2014, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,030,245 times
Reputation: 3954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
Maybe we were just the rough drafts with many kinks still to work out, like concept cars. Perhaps there's a planet out there with People 2.0.
Or... we were created merely to be hosts for tapeworms. God loves tapeworms, and we're just meant to be their food.

 
Old 01-13-2014, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,082 posts, read 14,270,994 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Or... we were created merely to be hosts for tapeworms. God loves tapeworms, and we're just meant to be their food.
Or, we're slated for a hyperspace bypass, so perfection doesn't matter.
So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish!
 
Old 01-13-2014, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Florida
77,014 posts, read 47,365,447 times
Reputation: 14798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
If creationism were science, it would be but it's not. It's religion. They're not even in the same subject. The mistake is thinking they are.
There are many scientists who use science to prove creation.
 
Old 01-13-2014, 02:02 PM
 
14,899 posts, read 8,516,490 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
If you want to claim a perfect God, then he wouldn't be producing imperfect creations full of imperfections and design flaws--especially not his "best" and most important supposed creation, man.
Why would you immediately come to such conclusions?

You are projecting your opinion on what you think God should have, or would have done, and I'm rather astounded by such arrogant assumptions.

The first point is your idea about design flaws and imperfections. How can you, who has not designed a living, breathing creature, be so bold as to insinuate you'd provide a better design? This is just the regurgitated tripe you've gobbled up from some atheist/god hating/evolutionists propaganda site. Nothing more.

You aren't smart enough to make such critical assessments about design, and until someone comes along who actually has created a better designed version of life, nobody else is either.
 
Old 01-13-2014, 02:03 PM
 
4,739 posts, read 4,419,512 times
Reputation: 2485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
If creationism were science, it would be but it's not. It's religion. They're not even in the same subject. The mistake is thinking they are.

You mean its like a story, i.e. fiction and not real?
 
Old 01-13-2014, 02:06 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,334,545 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Do you have even the slightest clue how mind numbing it is to engage in this "source" argumen, rather than address the information itself? You can always identify the non-thinkers by their inane preoccupation with the messenger instead of the message.

And, do you realize that no matter who reports or posts or makes available certain informantion, if it's a quote from Shakespear ... the bloody freaking obvious "source" is SHAKESPERE!! The entity, website or book containing the quote is not the "source".

This is a modern day affliction .... this inane preoccupation with who reported a thing rather than what is being reported. It really is a demonstration of mindlessness.

What if the Christain Science Monitor reported that the Sun was going to rise tomorrow? Would you automatically react ... "ehh ... pssst ... sure it will. And I'm supposed to believe what those religious nuts claim?'

This is the mindless nature of "what's your source" and "got a link?".
It all just went right over your head eh?
 
Old 01-13-2014, 02:10 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,334,545 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The source is the speaker. I cited that.
I'm not sure why you are having such a problem just admitting you copied and pasted a bunch of quote mines from a religious website. Trying to hide the fact that you did, is doing far more harm to the perception of your integrity.
 
Old 01-13-2014, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,030,245 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
How can you, who has not designed a living, breathing creature, be so bold as to insinuate you'd provide a better design?
Because unlimited by the historical contingency imposed by genealogical descent (the primary cause of most bad biological design) it's rather easy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
You aren't smart enough to make such critical assessments about design, and until someone comes along who actually has created a better designed version of life, nobody else is either.
Most people are smart enough. It's not much of a challenge to be smarter than something that doesn't have any capacity to think at all.
 
Old 01-13-2014, 02:16 PM
 
14,899 posts, read 8,516,490 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
No. My "blind faith in science" is your straw man. As such it is a demonstration only of your thinking, not of mine.


Another deeply ignorant assertion. You never disappoint.
Yawn
 
Old 01-13-2014, 02:16 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,668 posts, read 44,417,536 times
Reputation: 13570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
No, but your first list did.
lol... Do you claim some kind of omniscient power in knowing where everyone learned about others' quotes? You think you're mighty grand, don't you.

Quote:
The first 3 of your "random" quote mines in your other post were from the exact same people in the exact same order as the godandscience and y-origins websites.
But the others aren't in order? Amazing. What are the odds of choosing quotes that specifically fit a theme and having some of them match a certain random order and others not match that order? Kind of like the Einstein and Edison quotes I posted. What website are you going to omnisciently assert those come from?

Do you realize you've lowered yourself to a ridiculously absurd level?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top