-"Evolution is not supported by the fossil record."
I really want to hear an argument supporting this before presenting an argument against it, but that is not really an option right now unless I go out and search for it myself, and I won't because I'm lazy.
I will, however, say that the fossil record does show changes within species over a period of time; for example, hominid fossils show an increased emphasis on the hind legs as moving bits and the front legs as manipulating bits, along with the shrinking of the brow line and jaw present in modern humans. In addition to this, humans also show many similarities with other great apes; namely, the lack of tails, penchant towards eating fruit, similar dental structure, increased intelligence (compared to many other species of ground-dwelling animals), and paws with five digits that can be independently moved to manipulate objects. This at least hints at a shared heritage between man and great apes, which can be backed up using the fossil record to show where the chimps end and the hominids begin.
(TL;DR: fossil records dont mean much when taken out of context but in context they say stuff)
-"The intelligent design movement is based entirely on scientific evidence."
Again, I want to see an argument for this before I can properly respond.
However, I don't actually have an argument or evidence for or against this because I am completely unfamiliar with the topic (and, again, I'm too lazy to learn on my own); the closest thing I can think of is the Big Bang generating a universe with the right mathematical laws and constants for intelligent life to develop, then for said intelligent life to get in fights with other intelligent life about how they got here.
(TL;DR: idk)
-"The LGBT movement is not for marriage equality because they do not accept child enthusiasts marrying young teenage/pre-teenage kids. They have left those people out so far."
This argument relies on the discredited stereotype that all homoloveuals either are or support child enthusiasts; the arguments of LGBT marriage and child enthusiasm are entirely unrelated, outside of some certain serial killers that happened to be LGBT child enthusiasts.
(TL;DR: LGBT =/= child enthusiast)
-"The Crusades are not comparable to Islamic Terrorism because the Crusades are incompatible with Christian doctrine and teaching, while Islamic Terrorism is consistent with Islamic teaching and the example of the prophet Muhammad."
(This is just going off of the understanding of Islam history class gave me during the units about the Muslim World)
To my knowledge, The Crusades were mostly about angry Chrisitans being led by a pope with ulterior motives to reclaim the Holy Land. Yes, they are incompatible with modern (or even archaic) teachings of Christianity, largely due to how they relied on warfare to take back the Holy Land and spread their religion. I don't know of any proof saying Muhammad was in support of using terror and war to spread his religion. Additionally, many people who follow the Islamic faith believe terrorist groups are not properly following the doctrine set out in the Qur'an (my spelling is almost certainly off). Would it be reasonable to believe that minority extremist groups such as the kool kids klub or
Lord's Resistance Army are following the example set by Jesus in the Bible?
(TL;DR: old christianity = crusades =/= modern christianity, im pretty sure muhammad doesnt want people shooting people in the name of islam, the terrorists are minorities and more or less shunned by other members of their faith)
-"The existence of evil is actually proof of God’s existence. Because evil exists, that means there is a transcendant standard upon which we can judge that something is good or evil. Otherwise, evil is relative and is just an opinion."
Evil is entirely relative to an individual's set or morals, and exists without the need for a supreme deity to say "This is good, keep doing it," or "This is bad, stop doing it or I'll call in the locusts." A company or organization that provides cheap foodstuffs to an otherwise struggling population can be seen as heroes by that population, yet also as villains by the people that group has needed to build their labor on, especially if said laborers are underpaid or outright enslaved. Additionally, while the plantation owners and slave masters of the English colonies in North America and the Caribbean are often considered villains by modern standards, at the time, they were seen as beneficial by much of the population benefiting from them; they provided cheap food, desired luxuries, and ever-essential products such as rum to the free people of Europe and their colonies, allowing for a financial boom to take place, involving a global economy.
(TL;DR: evil is relative to personal beliefs and worldview)
Apologies if anything I've said has been repeated in the past ~12 pages; I haven't read all of the arguments presented.
Double apologies for the wall of text, it's always a pain to read stuff like this. There's a TL;DR at the bottom of the arguments.
Poll