Dion

Those were some of the most beautiful counter attacks I have seen in recent years.

@Barbara @Rmpr @Henrique Have you guys seen this?

I agree with you. But as absurd as that sounds to you and me, there are some who do not think homosexuality and catholicism/christianity are incompatible. It probably has its appeal to those, besides the more practical benefits like taxation, since they believe they should be together in the eyes of god or something to that effect.

It's super challenging and interesting at the same time. Which is far more than I can say about law. How about you? Partying like crazy over there with the euros and everything? My brother is in Lisbon right now, he's told me he's having a blast, amazing city.

The same is happening in Brazil.

Hey, what's up? I've been kinda busy. Long story short, I was pretty disappointed with law, so I studied a bit last year and got admitted to med school in an even better university than the one I studied law. And, well, it seems like it was true and med students really have a shit ton to study, so... but I still come here from time to time. You doing good?

I loved this:

No banning can ever completely negate anything. What it does is make it harder. If you really wanna kill another person you can always find a way. But guns make it easier. Isn't that the purpose of guns anyway – making killing easier? Homemade bombs take a lot more effort and knowledge to be used. You don't even need to ban guns for good, here in Brazil you can buy and keep one, as long as you meet certain requirements.

NRA must have some really exceptional people working for them if they can somehow shift the blame from how easy it is to buy a gun in the US and how a country with 5% of the worlds' population accounts for almost 1/3 of mass shootings. Maybe that's just me, but I wouldn't feel the tiniest little bit safer if everyone around me was armed. It would be the opposite really. And sadly there has been a rise in conservative agenda recently here in Brazil. I wouldn't be surprised if the US was funding this in the background again. We have enough gun killings already as it is, we don't need more.

I guess if the Bible is right about hell then I'll have lots of company there

Well, the matter that got expanded in the big bang, it had to exist before didn't it? There was a condensed mass of matter before the big bang. Matter existed before, the big bang theory does not say matter was created there, it says the expansion of our universe started there. The beginning you're talking about is the beginning of the expansion, not the beginning of everything. Just the beginning of the universe as we know it.

In addition to everything, I think it is a bit hypocritical that creationists are perfectly okay with saying that God, an entity which we have 0 evidence of having ever existed or even existing right now, just came to be out of nothing or has always existed but the universe, which we can currently experience and produce evidence about, can't be perpetual or have been originated out of nothing. If anything, our experience should point us to the direction that things have always existed. As far as I know we seem to be unable to create or destroy matter. I also don't think we have ever seem it be created or destroyed either.

Not everything evolved. I'll explain as clearly as I can. In summary, evolution started as soon as there was an organic form of life who could replicate itself and also suffer changes while or after doing so. From this point on evolution started its work. Anything before this was subject to a different phenomena other than evolution. You have point A and point B in time. Point A we have no life on the planet. Point B we have the first living organism. Did it evolve? No, it didn't cause it is the first one to ever exist. Evolution starts after the first living organism replicated, the first one can't be the result of replication and as such can't have evolved. It can have been created by a supernatural being or assembled randomly or anything else really. Something other than evolution happened between point A and B. That's why there are multiple theories for the origin of life even though evolution is almost a scientific truth, it's because these are different things, they explain different things. Are you following? Evolution explains the place where we are now and further back to the the replications and mutations of the first living being. It does not explain or even tries to explain how the first living being came to be. Do you get it now? The fact that we don't know how the first living being came to be does not invalidate evolution because that's not what evolution depicts. That's why evolution is compatible with creationism even. This is very tiresome, I seem to be repeating the same things over and over and you don't get it. Evolution requires replication and change. If something does not replicate and change it is not the subject of evolution. Evolution starts as soon as an organism was able to replicate and change.

Are you trolling me?

You realize what you have just said has nothing to do with evolution, right? Also, I never said there was nothing. I actually have said that I think it is more likely that things have always existed than a creator has always existed, which is what creationism preaches. At least I have evidence that things exist now, whereas I have no evidence that a creator has ever existed.