[JessaminePoppy]

(Original post by Jason2)
Our evidence will be backed up with the return of Christ.

When do you think he will come back? I'm just interested to know what you think.

(Original post by Jason2)
Joseph Stalin - How many did he kill?

What does this have to do with what KasanDude said?

[Jason2]

But he was an atheist and murdered millions of people... I was just replying to you saying religion kills people. Indeed, but so does atheism. So I think we can conclude that some people just prefer to do evil, regardless of which religion they belong to.

[carl_senior]

I'm a christian and even I facepalmed. People like you give theists a bad name.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by KasanDude)
And, in all honesty, it is religion that usually ends up killing people, seeing as when someone does have a geniune illness, they rationalize it by claiming it to be "god's will" and tell them to pray rather than seek professional medical aid.

Thoughts?

Be careful with your statements there. You're generalising a lot. How many people have died due to neglect because someone has opted for faith healing instead? I'm sure that doesn't actually happen a lot. A vast majority of religious people (in the UK anyway) don't actually do that. So, be careful.

(Original post by Jason2)
Joseph Stalin - How many did he kill?

That had extremely little to do with his atheism. He just implemented schemes that killed a lot of people - and was an atheist. You're probably confusing correlation with causation.

[Jason2]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Be careful with your statements there. You're generalising a lot. How many people have died due to neglect because someone has opted for faith healing instead? I'm sure that doesn't actually happen a lot. A vast majority of religious people (in the UK anyway) don't actually do that. So, be careful.



That had extremely little to do with his atheism. He just implemented schemes that killed a lot of people - and was an atheist. You're probably confusing correlation with causation.

No I aren't. He was a man who despised the idea of God. He, like Satan, wanted to set himself up as a God. Of course he failed.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
No I aren't. He was a man who despised the idea of God. He, like Satan, wanted to set himself up as a God. Of course he failed.

And how does his existance somehow prove your theory about DNA? How is he even remotely related to DNA, other than he had some?

[Jason2]

Because you said it's religion that does all the killing.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Jason2)
No I aren't. He was a man who despised the idea of God. He, like Satan, wanted to set himself up as a God. Of course he failed.

'No I aren't' doesn't make sense there is no 'atheism' doctrine. You mean to say that atheists can commit bad acts the same way religious people can. Not 'atheism' kills people. I disagree with whoever said that religion does all the killing. Just letting you know.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
Because you said it's religion that does all the killing.

Alright, I'll play along. We'll play top trumps.

You'll say Joseph Stalin, probably Hitler.... and that pretty much all the major examples, so here goes:

Bad Things Done By People

Atheists:
Joseph Stalin: Killed some people
Hitler: Committed genocide against several million

Religion:

The Vatican: Crusade I, Crusade II, Crusade III, Witch-hunts, and the oppression of scotland was sanctioned by the church

Now let's get back to DNA.

Even if you look at skeletal features, you'll see man literally rise in posture from the beginnings of the Hominini tribe, the scientific classification which includes Chimps, to modern Homo sapiens. How is this not in keeping with genetics and evolution?

[Theflyingbarney]

This thread makes me cringe more and more the further I read.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Jason2)
But he was an atheist and murdered millions of people... I was just replying to you saying religion kills people. Indeed, but so does atheism. So I think we can conclude that some people just prefer to do evil, regardless of which religion they belong to.

But, that wasn't due to him being an atheist. His lack of belief in a God was not central to him being a bit of a dick and slaughtering people - that was more his place as a tyrannical dictator.

[Jason2]

///

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Jason2)
Stalin - killed a few people. I despair.

How do you think we feel, then? You can't even quote what he wrote properly. The didn't write a few.

[Jason2]

Sorry getting mixed up with another thread.

Do you have any evidence that shows the evil that exists in this world is pointless?

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Jason2)
Do you have any evidence that shows the evil that exists in this world is pointless?

Do you have any evidence that evil is connected in any way with DNA?

[Jason2]

I'll take that as a no then.

From the Christian perspective, the purpose of life is to KNOW God. Now suffering is wrong, and you're right to say it's wrong. Because it is. But these all came about because man thought he could do things his way. So if suffering is the price to pay in order that people may come to know God then well, it's a price worth paying.

And if anyone is gonna reply after this, please show me evidence for the evil in this world being pointless.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Jason2)
I'll take that as a no then.

From the Christian perspective, the purpose of life is to KNOW God. Now suffering is wrong, and you're right to say it's wrong. Because it is. But these all came about because man thought he could do things his way. So if suffering is the price to pay in order that people may come to know God then well, it's a price worth paying.

And if anyone is gonna reply after this, please show me evidence for the evil in this world being pointless.

Ok, you're probably replying to a different thread than you thought. This is the one you started, trying to prove that DNA was evidence of god. And so far you've failed.

But I don't mind, I'll play along.

Evil (we'll define this as bad things happening to people) has happened over the years to people regardless of gender, race, nationality. Also, after the evil has happened, it has never achieved the goal that was set by the person responsible.

I.E. Hitler didn't succeed in creating a Third Reich, ergo his "evil" was "pointless" in that it ultimately had not achieved the desired outcome.

Thus, evil is "pointless."

[Dobrzynski]

(Original post by Jason2)
I'll take that as a no then.

From the Christian perspective, the purpose of life is to KNOW God. Now suffering is wrong, and you're right to say it's wrong. Because it is. But these all came about because man thought he could do things his way. So if suffering is the price to pay in order that people may come to know God then well, it's a price worth paying.

And if anyone is gonna reply after this, please show me evidence for the evil in this world being pointless.

If the price is payable, then pay for it. If the price isn't payable, then pay for it on a monthly contract, furthering the price to an inevitable increase to pay for the price that isn't even worth paying attention to. Thus, the price is most likely in the act of paying for the initial price of the pay that you transact. Worthless paying leads to payable prices, and payable prices, as we both know, are inconclusive to the original paying that you partake in.

So to conclude, the argument is a pile of poo.

[Gwilym101]

(Original post by Jason2)
You really are naive, aren't you? Whenever you talk about mutation you can only show adaptions. I am in no way disputing adaption. I am disputing that mutation does not lead to new species being created.

As for birds being descendants of dinosaurs, even your own religion doubts you on this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0609092055.htm.
It's actually very amusing to see someone who can believe land creatures suddenly one day developed wings and flew off into the sunset.

In conclusion, as I've pointed out several times now, mutation only leads to corruption. It in now way creates brilliant designs such as the birds, which according to dawkins, is a little trick by nature to fool us into thinking things were designed but really aren't lol.

Adaptation causes speciation. A species adapts to its environment and spreads as it is more successful. Eventually this species will spread so far that different populations of this species come under different selective pressures. As these populations are so far apart they don't reproduce together and continuous adaptations lead to them being so different they can not reproduce together when brought together again, thus they are different species.

Land creatures did not "suddenly one day developed wings" they developed means of increasing hang time in the air whilst jumping. Or in the case of birds feathers initially used for insulation and displays that happened to increase hang time and thus distance whilst jumping. Subsequent adaptations enabled them to make more use out of this, eventually leading to self sustained flight.

The article you linked has so many holes in it is swiss cheese in article form. It assumes that an early bird had air sacs before the capacity to fly. It also assumes that air sacs are needed for any form of flight, when they aren't (bats don't have them). It also says the probably didn't evolve from a "Known Therapod Dinosaurs", of all the Dinosaurs in existance ever, we've only found evidence of a relative handful due to the conditions needed for a creature to become a fossil.

By the way its far more amusing to see some one who thinks an invisible man in the sky (who shockingly resembles Zues, Jupiter and Odin) magically made all animals as they are.

Mutation is source of change not corruption, you really need to learn about evolution and stop thinking you know more than someone who is doing a degree in the subject.

[JessaminePoppy]

(Original post by Theflyingbarney)
This thread makes me cringe more and more the further I read.

Tell me about it.