I resent your implication that I fuck my dog. Shes adorable, she has these little stubby feet and she sits on her haunches and begs! Actually she was living out in the winter weather at a friends house and i was told if i didnt take her in, she would most certainly die. I couldnt live my life knowing that there was a little dagshund-cicle stuck to a tree out there somewhere so i gave her a good home. And no sir, I dont fuck her. Shes more like my friends 12 year old daughter. Would you fuck your friends 12 year old daughter? HUH FEZ??? I didnt think so.

Anyways, kevs right….dagshunds are hillarious when ur stoned. DONT JUDGE ME.

Also… the world is not a perfect place. Let’s blame God. Or we could look into the book of Genesis and see that when sin was brought into the world in affected not just humans but the Earth as well. Every bit of creation was tainted by sin. There is now death and disease, hatred and sadness, pain and loss…

And evolution… still a theory. That’s why they call it the theory of evolution. It hasn’t been proven in most cases and that’s where the whole term “missing link” comes in. At a point the theory is unprovable.

What is good, is that this can be discussed in this respectful, logical manner, without Christians screaming “Why don’t you believe?” and the non-Christians yelling “You’re all judgmental idiots”!

Well done, sir.

(Oh, sidenote, I noticed the Zack and Miri snub too.. Something fishy there)

You also noted that Evolution can seem unintuitive. But with the right perspective it can seem highly intuitive. Consider, for example, malaria. It kills millions each year. It is well suited for its environment. It causes increased production of CO2, attracting more mosquitoes to the afflicted, creating greater spread of the disease. Does this mean that God designed malaria to kill African children? I don’t believe so. I don’t believe that a good God would do that. A more likely answer is that this strain of malaria survived better because it is more infectious. We should accept that, and do what we can to fight the disease.

Of course, no scientific theory is perfect. But over and over again in the past, science has ironed out the wrinkles in its theories, rather than being disproved by them. Finally, I would point out two things. (1) Explaining natural phenomena seems to be the least important use of the Bible. More important are the teachings. (2) Why would God include apparent mistakes in His message? Perhaps to test the faithful.

happy 2009 from iceland!!

Check out: http://www.venganza.org/

It’s the funniest site in the world dedicated to creationism.

Clearly Nic needs to hone his arguments (and grammar) but your arguments are a bit hyperbolic as well.

First, advice: Starting with the “Your arguments include this logical Fallacy, bla bla bla” drops you a notch. Unless the crux of an argument is based on a huge fallacy, its best to let it go. Especially the “Appeal to authority”. Fallacies are only disallowed in logical arguments, not in all arguments. It is often worthwhile to say: “Smarter people than me believe this too” – as a shield from the eventual “You believe X therefore you are an idiot.”

That being said: There are a number of scientists that look at the way things work and come to a creationist conclusion. Some things seem too well designed and too anti-intuitive to work with the “accidental” approach. Many disagree.. but I think the point is that conclusions can be reached on both ends of the arguments, and often are.

“If you’re so afraid of genuine inquiry that you think all life’s answers are found in a 2000 year old collection of desert stories” – of course assumes that belief in the Bible is based on fear of genuine inquiry, and that the stories are only 2000 years old, and that all life’s answers must be looked for there. Its an attacking argument, and has little to do with your argument as a whole.

“You lose the freedom to do certain things in life, by following a set of rules and constraints made up out of thin air.” – Of course, you gain many things too, sidestepping the theist question, you gain community, a set of values that function well in society, a basis for behavior that in many cases is very healthy (don’t drink too much, don’t hurt people, don’t lie, etc..), and most believers who were at one time non-believers would describe a number of gained things.. so the argument of loss is, at the very least, countered equally. Of course there is the possibility that some believe, that it is NOT out of thin air (To claim so is.. I can’t help myself.. an “Appeal to Ignorance” (tic) – so to end your sentence with that drive-by attack is lazy arguing).

I appreciate your attempt to bring the issue to a logical argument, but to start with “Idiot” and then try to prove your mental superiority by espousing an “I can argue more logically and dispassionately” argument is ultimately self-defeating, in my humble opinion.

Shark attacks man in NSW lake – http://iinet.net.au/customers/news/articles/717586.html

This is the third shark attack in Australia in as many days.

“some of the most famous scientist were religious Einstein was Jewish”
Aside from the fact that this is the logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority, Einstein was quite clear that he did not believe in a personal god, of the Jehovah/Yaweh type.

“The fact is evolution is not proven”
Yes it is.

“science doesnt hold all the answers”
Science never claimed to. If it did know all the answers, it would STOP.

“Science still cant answer what created everything from the beginning”
Yeah, science isn’t afraid to say “We don’t know. Yet.”
At least it’s honest. If you’re so afraid of genuine inquiry that you think all life’s answers are found in a 2000 year old collection of desert stories, that’s just sad.

“what do I loose by believing in the end”
You lose the freedom to do certain things in life, by following a set of rules and constraints made up out of thin air.

“what do you non believers give up in the end if your wrong ”

This is known as Pascal’s wager. You’re not the first to think of it. However, people who say Pascal’s wager is a reason to believe never allow for the fact that it’s not a binary option: Believe in god, or not. It’s WHICH god. Which religion. Because many of them say “If you don’t believe in our god, you lose.” Your argument is just as valid for telling a christian to believe Islam is correct. (If wrong, what have you lost?) The reason the argument doesn’t cause any conversions (from one religion to another, or from atheism to theism) is that it’s a fundamentally weak and flawed argument.

BTW, I asked my girlfriend what she would choose if facing the “Forced To Suck Dick In A Bank” scenario.
She said, “I guess I’d be slobbin’ on the nob”.
That (coupled with the fact that she’s never given me a blowjob) briefly made me consider changing my career to Bank Robber…