“The amputee argument doesn't just make God seem non existent it also makes evolution seem non existent.”
How surprising, you can’t really defend your inactive god, so you go on the attack.
Badly.
“For instance: If evolution was that which made certain creatures able to grow back severed limbs then why not do the same for all creatures.”
You are completely ignorant about evolution and imagine it as a kind of giftie in place of Your God.
Most of our traits came from predecessors in the gene pool, not competitors.
How’s this, if Adobe came up with an incredibly useful app, why doesn’t that capability occur in Microsoft?
“If it is beneficial to grow back a severed limb for one species it should be beneficial for all species, therefore maybe evolution does not exist.”
It would be beneficial, that doesn’t mean each gene pool will produce it.
“Do yo see how easy it is to make an amputee argument refute anything that you want refuted.”
No. You’ve refuted exactly fuck-all. You just made a supposition that doesn’t match anything in the existing theory. You showed your ass, rather than challenge anything.
“The reason why amputees limbs cant regrow is because a miracle has not been performed on an amputee yet,”
Yes, we’re well aware. But it doesn’t matter if the amputee is a good christain, bad, or a youthful innocent, none of them get their limbs restored, even at revivals.
"now here's the kicker: how do we know the miracle has not happened to someone who has all their limbs, they would have said something about it.”
True, we don’t KNOW that it has never, ever happened. in fact, there are those that claim to have seen it happen.
However, without objectve evidence of the amputation before and the limb after the miracle, we have NO REASON to believe it occurs.
