[Meek and Humble]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Well I think its hard to believe "god" says. you don't follow my commands so you get sick.

Besides you don't get natural selection, its simple though, the strong survive and can reproduce. The weak can't and they die.

Also why wouldn't animals change habitats? A lot of animal species are generalists, meaning they can survive in quite a lot of habitats. Ravens for example. Or cockroaches those guy's can live in almost any habitat as long as there is food.

Disease is not evidence for natural selection.

[Rev. Jim Osborne]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Or cockroaches those guy's can live in almost any habitat as long as there is food.

Speaking of which, if evolution was true, how come cockroaches are not immune to bug spray?

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Diseases come if one sort of animal comes too much in a habitat, diseases will come (fact) and they will be more attacked by predators because of their great number,

Exactly. So you're saying that masturbation in their own habitats will cause disease to spread amongst them and eventually wipe them out.

I agree with that logic actually. Now all you have to do is to include 'Will of God' in your argument and you've clinched it.

Animal degenerates disgust Him. At the end of the day your 'natural selection' is just a euphemism for Divine Smiting.

Good work.

YIC, McUinnean of that Ilk.

[Jeff_Celler]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Explain the disappearance of the Elephant Bird of Madagascar or the Moa when the Maoris arrived in Australia or the giant Ground Sloth, Sabre Toothed Tigers....and so on. HArdly pussies in the animal kingdom now , were they?

God 1
Darwin 0

Simple. Quite a lot of reasons for it actually. Lack of food due to the dying out of prey or the plants they feed on, Disease, changes in the climate that destroyed the habitats they could live in.

Recount that score

God:0
Darwin:1

Disease is not evidence for natural selection.

Give facts, just you telling me those things will not convince a person, well not a person that thinks for himself anyway.

Speaking of which, if evolution was true, how come cockroaches are not immune to bug spray?

Because first off evolution needs time, lots of it, Also bug spray is made of a chemical that doesn't exist in nature its artificially created in labs so the cockroaches where never able to develop an immunity
to it.

Exactly. So you're saying that masturbation in their own habitats will cause disease to spread amongst them and eventually wipe them out.

I agree with that logic actually. Now all you have to do is to include 'Will of God' in your argument and you've clinched it.

Animal degenerates disgust Him. At the end of the day your 'natural selection' is just a euphemism for Divine Smiting.

Good work.

YIC, McUinnean of that Ilk.

You are just twisting his words. So your argument doesn't hold sense.

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Simple. Quite a lot of reasons for it actually. Lack of food due to the dying out of prey or the plants they feed on, Disease, changes in the climate that destroyed the habitats they could live in.

Recount that score

God:0
Darwin:1

Cheating with the score doesn't make you right. None of those things happened to the animals I mentioned. They were either smitten or eaten or smitten and eaten by those God deemed worthy of the protein intake.

Let's change that back to:
God 27
Darwin: minus20

You are just twisting his words. So your argument doesn't hold sense.

No. It's YOU who's twisting MY words. YOUR argument is the one lacking sense. Rumour and vagueness and fuzzy wuzzy fluffy logic is all you have there.

Do NOT twist my words please.

[cazoofool]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Disease is usually a microscopic animal or a genetic fault. So if animals have free-will, just as humans do, then most disease is not subject to God's command, so Disease cannot just be forced onto an individual without the bacteria/virus consenting to do it.

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Disease is usually a microscopic animal or a genetic fault. So if animals have free-will, just as humans do, then most disease is not subject to God's command, so Disease cannot just be forced onto an individual without the bacteria/virus consenting to do it.

Apart from lack of real hard Scriptural evidence, when did BACTERIA become consenting adults?

Thank you most sincerely for that gem of idiocy.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Disease is usually a microscopic animal or a genetic fault. So if animals have free-will, just as humans do, then most disease is not subject to God's command, so Disease cannot just be forced onto an individual without the bacteria/virus consenting to do it.

The origin of disease is not the topic of the thread. If you want to know what the Bible says about disease, why not read it?

There are lots of different theories on disease. Only evolutionists believe diseases are random.

[Sheldon the Swede]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Exactly. So you're saying that masturbation in their own habitats will cause disease to spread amongst them and eventually wipe them out.

I agree with that logic actually. Now all you have to do is to include 'Will of God' in your argument and you've clinched it.

Animal degenerates disgust Him. At the end of the day your 'natural selection' is just a euphemism for Divine Smiting.

Good work.

YIC, McUinnean of that Ilk.

Only a full 'sex' oriented person can think about something like masturbation when i'm talking about squirrels, they can't masturbate actually.

I will use another term, if squirrels OCCUR too much in one habitat/too much individuals in one location, disease will be more likely to spring from one to another, like more chance to attract attention from predators.

And If you say another thing that is related to sex, you have a big problem.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Only a full 'sex' oriented person can think about something like masturbation when i'm talking about squirrels, they can't masturbate actually.

I will use another term, if squirrels OCCUR too much in one habitat/too much individuals in one location, disease will be more likely to spring from one to another, like more chance to attract attention from predators.

And If you say another thing that is related to sex, you have a big problem.

i don't believe disease is 'natural'.

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Only a full 'sex' oriented person can think about something like masturbation when i'm talking about squirrels, they can't masturbate actually.



And If you say another thing that is related to sex, you have a big problem.

Listen you Swiss Gump, it's YOU that has the problem. It's YOU that made the sexual references to squirrels.

YOU said:

Diseases come with overpoulation, if one sort of animal comes too much in a habitat, diseases will come (fact) and they will be more attacked by predators because of their great number, also here principles of evolution, adaptation of the fittest.

The only way for animals to ejaculate into their habitats is by masturbation. Right? I rest my case. You beat yourself with your own argument. Seriously, get some basic reading skills or something and stop doing you rodent voyeur thing. It's disgusting.


YIC, McUinnean , of that Ilk.

[cazoofool]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Apart from lack of real hard Scriptural evidence, when did BACTERIA become consenting adults?

Thank you most sincerely for that gem of idiocy.

Bacteria do not have an "Adult" stage in their life span, form the moment they reproduce the offspring can reproduce. And you can't really force it do anything, it's not sentient enough to be manipulated into doing anything, however even though it is extremely simple, it still makes choices and does things based on it's in-built instincts.

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Bacteria do not have an "Adult" stage in their life span, form the moment they reproduce the offspring can reproduce. And you can't really force it do anything, it's not sentient enough to be manipulated into doing anything, however even though it is extremely simple, it still makes choices and does things based on it's in-built instincts.

So now you're saying that, although pretty much microbially retarded, that bacteria have FREE WILL!!?

Seriously, what choices does a bacteria have to make?

YIC, McUinnean of that Ilk.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Bacteria do not have an "Adult" stage in their life span, form the moment they reproduce the offspring can reproduce. And you can't really force it do anything, it's not sentient enough to be manipulated into doing anything, however even though it is extremely simple, it still makes choices and does things based on it's in-built instincts.

The Scriptures mention reasons for the existence of diseases, all are linked to sin.

(1) the fall of man, (2) punishment for disobeying God's commands, (3) a personal punishment from God, and (4) consequences of sin.

Clearly you have never read the scriptures if you don't know this. The Bible does not say disease is random.

Evolutionists believe diseases are the result of germs which are on everyone and everything. The Germ theory states disease is thus natural.

Christians don't believe disease is natural, it is an error resulting from sin.

[cazoofool]

Re: Another ridiculous evolutionist "argument" REFUDIATED

Seriously, what choices does a bacteria have to make?

YIC, McUinnean of that Ilk.

They don't make choices, It's all in-built commands from the nucleus, however they just aren't a force of nature, they are living creatures, and God gave all animals the ability of free will, so therefore he does not control them.