Is it wrong to be gay?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Paqrat

First off you can't just pretend christiantity isn't false.

When someone says "Assume X and then consider Y" it is what is called a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, and if you personally cannot manage to consider IF christianity were false, what would follow from that, then I'm feeling like you're in the wrong subforum to have a discussion. When you can do things like "Assume a frictionless vacuum" (which doesn't exist) or "Assume a world in which women ran all nations"" (which doesn't exist) and then consider the implications that would follow from that, you're doing philosophy. You're conducting a thought experiment and that is a very valuable logical tool. You can absolutely pretend christianity is false, just like you can pretend it is true. It is not -proven- to be true OR false, so all you're doing is considering what might be implied by replacing one supposition by its opposite.

Firstly, scientists in all their knowledge cannot, and I put this out there right now, CANNOT understand how a feather would have evolved from nothing.

Then it's a good thing that scientists don't believe a feather evolved out of nothing.

People take the THEORY of evolution and try and turn it into fact. What they don't tell you is that Darwin used skeletons of other creatures to try and prove his theory of evolution.

Yes, because more creatures than just humans evolve. All life evolves, why wouldn't he look at "other creatures" when developing the theory of evolution?

Even the bird, 'Darwins Bird', is what you could call evolutionary, but its not. It is an adapting bird that adapts to the world around it.

That's what the word evolution means. "You'd call it evolutionary, but it's not, it just evolves" is what you said.

Secondly, if you believe in evolution I have a few words for you; if you take a watch, completely disassamble it, throw it in a bucket and slosh it around for three-hundred hours in the bucket, do you think its going to go back together? Or create something new?

It will absolutely create something new, it will create a mixed pile of watch parts. I see what you're -trying- to suggest here, but it doesn't work because a) Non-oraganic non-life doesn't evolve, so pointing out that non-organic non-life doesn't evolve is meaningless and b) You're mixing your analogies. The watchmaker analogy is built to try and show why you think that humans couldn't have been the product of evolution "because humans are made up of a bunch of small parts working in a complex way" but that does not remotely constitute any kind of proof of anything.

Thirdly, the Human body.
It seems simple, the hand the legimates, but what they don't tell you is that it is scientifically impossible for the Feather of a bird, and the eye of any creature to have evolved.

Now you're just wrong. They've actually scientifically proven the opposite, that you can develop an eye through the process of natural selection through something as small as 100 generations, each time, the newer form towards a modern eye being more useful to the species' survival than the previous iteration. The usual addendum to the "eyes evolving" objection of theists is "What use is half an eye?" but that's actually been proven to be much more useful than no eye at all.

Sure you can have your oppinion, but evolution was thought up by 1 man. One man who hated christianty after his daughter died.

The theory of natural selection isn't even the same thing as "Evolution" and suggesting that evolution is problematic because it was theorized by one person is to suggest that gravity is problematic, and thermodynamics, and polio vaccinations, and oh wait, Jesus was also 1 man.

If you read through the bible, Darwin would have been deemed an anti-christ. And he is, he set out to try and prove christianity false.
But he didn't. In fact he proved it.

I deny that Darwin would have been deemed an anti-christ at all. He didn't oppose the tenets of christianity in any of his writings. The IMPLICATION of the theory of natural selection is one that runs counter to the teachings of many fundamental christians, but I direct your attention to the fact that the pope (though I guess if you aren't catholic, you don't really care) had acknowledged the extreme liklihood that the theory of evolution was a correct model. Evolution isn't even directly opposed to creationism. The evolutionary process could be occuring according to rules and laws set down by God, or by the direct guidance of God without making the process of evolution false.