because... the leaves of such tree... were for curing.
curing what?
had adam reached the tree and ate... he would have been cured of his sins and once again become sinless.
Anyway StinkyPantz, the correct question is "Why did Adam have a navel?"
The WTS pitures him with one, and we all know how accurate those pictures are. (This was always a pet peeve of mine... at bookstudy or whatever someone would say, oh that guy on the right is Peter because he has grey hair and ...)
section 861:
the law they hope you never read
by: william a. shields
What form can I fill out to not pay taxes? 1040-FU?
because... the leaves of such tree... were for curing.
curing what?
had adam reached the tree and ate... he would have been cured of his sins and once again become sinless.
I figured you were joking, but I think it's interesting why men have nipples and like to share it whenever possible. You gave me an opportunity and I couldn't refuse.
because... the leaves of such tree... were for curing.
curing what?
had adam reached the tree and ate... he would have been cured of his sins and once again become sinless.
Here's a hint: the story is allegorical. It shows that we must obey anything that claims to be a higher power without question or we will die.
because... the leaves of such tree... were for curing.
curing what?
had adam reached the tree and ate... he would have been cured of his sins and once again become sinless.
Why did Adam have nipples
Men have nipples because ALL babies are female until a certain point in development. Some gene in the Y chromosome will trigger the shift to maleness. However, at this point the nipples had already developed. What's even more weird is there are females with XY chromosomes. (The gene/hormone/whatever from the Y chromosome that was supposed to trigger the change to maleness didn't do its job.)
So in conclusion, it is interesting to note that the default sex is female.
I don't think there are any "double Y" females like in the movie Alien 3.
(disclaimer: this is not intended to offend theists... just to make fun of these lines of reasoning used to attack atheism.
no purchase necessary.
void where prohibited.
Appearance of design is at times startling, but think of how a rock will, after a while at the bottom of a fast flowing stream,
Yep. Snowflakes also have the appearance of design, but they are a result of a very simple process. Evolution is a simple process... repeated over and over again... over a span of millions and millions of years.
(you want to know about the clitoris of the spotted hyena?)
Do tell.
Faced with a choice of adapt or die, it adapts.
I wonder how long the WTS will be able to fight radiometric dating when it comes to dating homo sapiens. At least the WTS doesn't teach the earth is only 6000 years old, but they teach teach it about mankind. (If you want even more laughs, check that Answers in Genesis site for their proofs that the earth is only 6000 years old.)
the standard tired arguments that if you are an atheist you don't have a moral code.
I've always hated statements like that. Sure, a belief in god and the threat of punishment will force a number people to follow some moral code, but you do not need a god to define morality. Why do I need a god to tell me that killing someone is wrong? Or stealing?
Very good comments Abaddon.
(disclaimer: this is not intended to offend theists... just to make fun of these lines of reasoning used to attack atheism.
no purchase necessary.
void where prohibited.
"We see evidence for complex design in nature, so there must be a designer."
I have to admit, that is probably the single most compelling reason to believe in a creator. But it has flaws.
Mmmm, great. And the designer would by that logic require a designer, which would require a designer, which would require a...
Yep. Infinite causality is a bitch.
If humans WERE specially designed by a creator, why were we not optimally created? Instead we have traits that only evolution explain: vestigal organs, inactive DNA, etc.
(disclaimer: this is not intended to offend theists... just to make fun of these lines of reasoning used to attack atheism.
no purchase necessary.
void where prohibited.
No, they interpret a book and let that interpretation be their presupposition. Then they try to fit the data found with the interpretation of this book.
Yes, and they accuse scientists of doing the same: fitting all discovered facts into a specific theory. That's not how it works. If a new fact is discovered that does not make sense with the current theory, the theory is adjusted to fit all available facts. If that is not possible, they have to come up with a new theory to explain the evidence.
Religion doesn't do that. It is completely inflexible. All facts must fit what the Bible says or the fact is flawed.
(disclaimer: this is not intended to offend theists... just to make fun of these lines of reasoning used to attack atheism.
no purchase necessary.
void where prohibited.
Now creationists often start with presuppositions that are unprovable. And rightly so these are the fist target for an atheist's refutation.
Exactly! Their biggest presupposition is that God exists. We cannot disprove or prove that with any objective evidence. The Christian God has been defined as untestable.
Evolutionist/atheist presuppositions can be challenged and tested. They aren't ideas just thrown out there without any basis in factual evidence. eg, the Big Bang would mean that all matter in the universe is moving away from a central point. That is exactly the way it appears.
i got to hear some real bad news
i was speaking to my 'best friends' sister only minutes ago.
my 'best friend' i used to do everything with.
So sorry to hear about your experience. But I think a lot of us can sympathize. The only "friend" I had in the truth dutifully shunned me when I left. I knew that was most likely going to happen, so I was a bit prepared, but it doesn't feel good in any case.
