For those who don't get it, evolution deniers' argument is that people couldn't have came from monkeys because monkeys still exist.
The deniers insist that man was created from dirt. So...
Other deniers think that we "believe" that we came from a rock.
What's better here, coming from a rock or from dirt?
Rock beats scissors, dirt beats nothing. Dirt is a loser, I'd rather be rock.
People didnt come from monkeys.
We just both come from one common ancestor. We split off and evolved side by side so to speak. They're our primate cousins.
So they are already arguing about something completely made up. Then again a lot of atheists/pro-evolution people think we came directly from monkeys too lmao. Everyone is wrong.
So Saruman can raise Uruk-hai to hopefully defeat Gondor and subjugate Middle-Earth.
Duh!
Don't worry, we're trying to change that.
Because there are still men on the way, so there's still dirt to spawn them.
And people who die go back to dirt.
Balance and equilibrium.
He created many things and didn't transmute all of a specific other material to other either.
The world needs an amount of every stuff there is.
(Just an opinion - I don't base it on the Book)
๐ "God only used some of the dirt."
๐ค Evolution only used some of the monkeys.
I would say so!
It's good to have variety in species!
Makes our world a richer place!
Yeah but everything that isnt dirt is a part of dirts dirtiness, so my non-dirt stateness creates dirt right back at you god...
This is too complicated for me to comprehend ๐
