Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]

@CharlieZ And bears taste like pork.

@hippyjoe1955 🤣

@CharlieZ I have eaten it. It tastes like a gamy pork. Kind of greasy.

@hippyjoe1955 I believe you.
But don´t use it as an alibi.😆

@CharlieZ When you grow up in the wild as I did you often eat the animals that are native to the area. Bears, moose, deer, caribou etc.

@hippyjoe1955 Of course.
The wild animals around here are not the same ones.
But yes Tapir, Yacaré (a kind of alligator), Palometas (Piranha) (too much thin fish bones, but tasty) (North East), Llama (Norwest), Deer and Jabalí (not autoctonous but became wild again), Vizcacha (Central Sierras), Guanaco (Patagonia, not worth of).

@hippyjoe1955 The point is, anyhow, that THAT bear in the pic is wiser than a lot of humans.

@CharlieZ Wow, all that wildlife sounds sooo exotic!

In New Zealand we have mainly birdlife, and the mammals here are all invasive species, and we’re now putting serious effort into eradicating them (although we’ll probably keep the humans).

We have nothing that can harm you, so you can just go into the wild, lie down and sleep, and nothing will harm you.

We don’t even have snakes (one of only two countries in the world to be snake free). We do have some really cute reptiles, and the tuatara are fascinating (there are three just down the corridor from where I usually work)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara

@CharlieZ Many animals are. Witness the NZ nutbar and her very rudimentary understanding of wildlife. Kinda sounds like a city kid that would love to run up to bear to pet it.

@newjaninev2 Each fauna in the World may feel exotic for the ones from abroad till you get familiar with it.
As we have almost all climates, from Andean mountains to seashores and from rainforests to the Patagonian "stepes", there is an amazing variety of species. Some of them in risk of extintion.
The american cousin of the Leopard (Jaguar, Yaguareté), of the Ostrich (Ñandú), several camelidae with no humps (Llama, Guanaco, Vicuña), the southern all american Puma, and so on.
As you know, South America was also part of Gondwana.
So, mammals were also "invasive". But this happened long before humans. Seems that began 30 millions of years ago and was almost completed about 2 or 3 million years in the past.

If governments around don´t go messing with economy, is probable that we can also keep humans….

@hippyjoe1955 I´m not playing your dumb childish games.
Learn from the posted bear and grow.

@CharlieZ You obviously have no understanding of Christianity or Christians so best keep silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

@hippyjoe1955 Perhaps we should replace the ’No True Scotsman’ fallacy with the ‘No True Christian’ fallacy?

@newjaninev2 Maybe you should get a new gig. You have shown yourself very very foolish on this thread.

@hippyjoe1955 Do you think that your so narrow brand of what you call christianity is representative of millions and millions of christians?
Do you think that you are entitled to qualify millions that are quite better than you Will ever be?
Each gang of fanatics had, along history, claimed that they were the choosen ones by God.
No scriptural quote may fix the scarcity of their souls.
They, all those fanatics, were and are not good soil.

About me keeping silence, you have no authority.
So, go on fooling yourself.

@hippyjoe1955 All evidence to the contrary... but then again, you don’t ‘do’ evidence, so it’s no surprise that you’re unable to address evidence in any meaningful way

@newjaninev2 What evidence are you talking about. Genes? Amino acids? Proteins. Sorry but I don't buy into your tautology.

@hippyjoe1955 Tautology? That makes no sense

@newjaninev2 Of course not. You don't understand English.

@hippyjoe1955 So perhaps you’d like to explain to me where you see a tautology?

Go ahead

@newjaninev2 Your thinking.

@hippyjoe1955 and the nature of that tautology?

Feel free to use as much specific detail as you need in order to identify the tautology.

@newjaninev2 You are not self aware enough to see it. Move on old girl you lost the debate and don't even know it. How clueless is that.

@hippyjoe1955 let me do it for you.

You want to argue that 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology because the fittest are defined as 'those that survive', leaving us with 'survival of those that survive'.

This (boringly common) creationist claim fails on several points, and I will provide two of them here (and more if required).

The phrase should read 'survival of the reproductively fittest’, at which point the creationist claim is revealed as merely a trivial carping about wording.

The phrase, which is really just a euphemism for Natural Selection, allows us to make [i]substantive, repeatable and testable predictions[/i] about events in the real world, and we see those predictions borne out every day.

Need more?

@hippyjoe1955 Is that what you feel I was not self-aware enough to see?