[ ] standard strawman
[ ] answered the question
[ ] understands the question
[ ] understands the study
[ ] understands the fossil record
[ ] understands science
[x] understands how to post facepalm.jpg in desperate attempt to assert higher intelligence

I thought about using yours against you!

Let me just say this, there is NO WAY that anyone can have a answer that is anywhere near correct about something that happens every 62 million years.

Thats absurd thinking and I find it absolutely friggin hilariously funny that you believe it.

Yeah makes much more sense that there's an invisible man in the sky listening to everyone murmur to him at the same time.

Dude...you're getting pwned by Pletho.

You should stop now.

At work I make decisions which negatively impact peoples lives. Sometimes those people will come in and bitch at me for it. They think I did something to them for "No good reason"....I shrug it off because I know they don't see the big picture that I see.

Now Rizeagainst, you made a positive ascertion that "No good reason" exists. The onus is on you to make your case that mass extinctions are "bad". Lets hear it becuase simply repeating your mantra "God did this and that for no good reason"....well to put it frankly...it makes you look a little foolish.

More detailed explanations, and some theories on causes of Mass Extinction cycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Not God's wrath. And the earthquakes in Haiti were not God's wrath either. They live on a major fault.

I think that is referring specifically to marine life no? And does that mean if there was a time of 66mil years it would falsify this?

no

All that would show to me is that the underlying mechanism(s) can change over time.

This is seriously so dumb I am completely speechless, they are bad because mass extinctions imply amounts of suffering beyond all decent contemplation, and since god can do anything, he could have accomplished the same goals he is accomplishing though extinction events in some other way that didn't include incredible amounts of suffering

When it comes to making a meaningful point.....I agree.

This is seriously so dumb I am completely speechless, they are bad because mass extinctions imply amounts of suffering beyond all decent contemplation, and since god can do anything, he could have accomplished the same goals he is accomplishing though extinction events in some other way that didn't include incredible amounts of suffering

Now, it's up to you to explain why god didn't chose to do that.

Oh...your making an assumption that God can do anything. Well let me crush that assumption with a little thought experiment.

God cannot create another god. If God created another god He would no longer be omnipotent. For Instance suppose God created Zuess...and created Zuess to be omnipotent. Further suppose God and Zuess entered a contest concerning the movement of a feather. God claimed He would use his omnipotent powers to move a particular feather while Zuess claimed he would use his omnipotent powers to keep that same feather motionless. Neither can win or lose this contest....they are omnipotent while not being omnipotent. It is simply nonsensical.

I hope you realize from this thought experiment that God cannot "do anything". This "do anything" attribute you ascribe to God is nonsensical and is not something included in the dogmas of most religions.

Now having crushed the assumption on which you based your argument I send you back to the drawing board. Make your case that God did this or that for "no good reason".

I don't assume anything about a being that doesn't exist. I was allowing for that particular definition of god for the sake of argument, if that's not one that you hold then that's all you had to say.

Give me the tenets of your religion and your god and I will be happy to use those against you.

So your argument is really a straw mans argument. It doesn't apply to say the God of the billion plus catholics. Catholic dogma reckognizes there are limits to omnipotence and that this "do anything" attribute you hold is nonsensical.

Dude, I don't hold that attribute to god, I allow for theistic attributes for the sake of argument. Clearly, the one I was using doesn't apply to your specific religion. I don't give a being that doesn't exist characteristics, I temporarily allow for theistic characteristics for the sake of argument. This is not complicated.

Now, I don't know a lot about catholics, so please go ahead and list the characteristics that you believe god has so I can better use them against you.

lol

the irony is rife... there's NO way we can answer/appreciate the theory at hand, yet understanding how the universe functions on a theistic scale is totally legit for you



if you're gunna subscribe to pletho logic on this forum you're gunna be the one asked to stop posting in the future

the difference is you're working with limited resources and limited resource allocation. on the other hand, God works without limitation, so the comparison you're implying doesn't work as you and God work with completely different environments

[e.g.: you work as a bank loan manager and since there's limited credit and resource you have to deny people loans. god, on the other hand, can create as much money or credit as he wants, thus doesn't subscribe to your constraints]

The biblical God has influenced the earths forces.

• Their theory is that God created everything in 6 days, but has limited omnipotence.

"effect" * 2

Now how can I take your argument seriously?

Why care about mass extinctions when everyone who ever lives is going to die anyway?

God designing the universe in such a way that his design would be directly responsible for many instances of excruciating suffering and death says something significantly different about such a god's character than a god that has a clear preference for people die naturally and peacefully with minimal suffering.

You use theistic characteristics for the sake of argument? LOL!

While you do not explicitly state it, your position clearly implies the following assumption:

There is an absolute morality that even God is beholden too.

But theists do not make that assumption. Theists believe that God Himself is the absolute moral authority....that God can do no wrong because God's will decides what is right and what is wrong. So if for the sake of argument you actually wish to use theistic characteristics you need to change your argument from "God allowed deaths for no good reason" to "God allowed deaths for good reason". Do you see how ridiculous you are being?

Instead of taking up theistic characteristics(which will inevitably moot you argument) why don't you make an argument that God is not the moral authority, that there exists an absolute morality which God is subject too. If you can make that case then you arguments might start to hold water.

I find it friggen hilariously funny that you think that I think that God is a invisable man in the sky listening to everyone murmur to him at the same time, Now thats really funny.

Where do you get these crazy ideas?

Getting baked all day long really does do some damage to your brain if you did not know.........

Wrong, your making an assumption that a being you do not believe in does not exist..........

Man, I'm am really entertained by your latest comments and ideas, your evolving I think.......pretty soon you will wake up out of your stuper and realize that you have been lied to all your life by your ownself.

i dont think you ought to take it word for word.
its more of an allegory, for illustrative purposes not to be taken literally.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible for further examples of this particular type of authorship.