Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Unlike God or an intelligent designer of life, time can be demonstrated, and it can be shown that life forms do change over time. You don't doubt that time exists, do you? You shouldn't imitate phrases you don't fully understand.

It is the same thing, though. The "millions of years" crap is just another way of plugging in igorance with a "time" filler.

Since you clearly don't mean 'based on evidence, mathematics, and logical reasoning', I'm at a loss to imagine what portal of religion 'it took millions of generations' involves.

Thats it. That is the religion. You are relying on the unseen...and actually, now that I think about it..more people have claimed to have seen God in history than macroevolution.

I find that kind of..odd.

Time can't be seen, but it's effects can be directly observed; as we do with the effects of the wind, which we also can't see. You don't understand what the term 'scientific validation' means if you think we have to see something directly in order to draw scientific conclusions about it.

I am saying we've never observed any of the macro level changes that you believe had to have occurred. Since we haven't seen it, you have to rely on other "things" which you believe is evidence of the phenomena that you've never seen..and I am saying that since you can't rule out other possibilities, then you cannot definitively state that evolution is a brute fact.

In historical sciences, predictions are made about what will be discovered, based on what we should find if the theory is true. Evolution delivers on this over and over. We find fossils in the strata and on the landform they should be in if evolution is true.

Finding a fossil is only proof that you've found the remains of something that once lived and has since passed on. Nothing more. You can look at the fossil and make any kind of voodoo interpretations you want, but that is letting your presuppositions make the interpretation for you, which is fallacious.

We predict species diversity on unexplored islands based on distance from other land masses and time separated from them, because the longer the island has been separated from other landmasses, the more novel species it will have. And we have observed speciation on a human timescale. There's a point where it comes perverse to see something happening, find evidence it's been happening for a long time, and keep crying we can't know it if we weren't there. By that standard, we have to throw out geology along with paleontology, and frankly, most of history as well. The same bullet that you think shoots evolution in the foot would blow a big hole through the heart of historical claims derived from ancient scriptures.

Every single claim that has been made, whether it be from science, religion, or whatever...the question is ultimately "What reasons do we have to believe X, Y,Z"...so when you tell me that we all share a common ancestor, I will ask "What reasons do we have to believe that?". What will you say? "Because all living things share the basic fundemental building blocks of life?"...then I will say "But that could mean we all share a common designer".

You cannot rule that out. My issue is not necessarily with evolution in general, but the fact that it is being presented as an absolute fact, and I maintain that it most certainly isn't.

Science isn't what you think it is, and whoever miseducated you so badly should apologize.

When you can show me a reptile-bird transformation, I will apologize...and I don't want to wait a few million years for it either.

But it's the 21st Century and it's easier to educate yourself than ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So science isn't based on observation and repeated experiment? Wow. That's a new one.

---

Life from non-life pretty much means movement and activity becoming more complex and coordinated over time. Not sure where the problem here is that would warrant the necessity of God's existence for life to occur.

if it was that simple, abiogenesis wouldn't be such a problem, now would it?

Consciousness: still trying to figure out what it is exactly, but studies continue to show that it is nothing more than a product/function of the brain in coordination with the body.

When living things become "aware", that is consciousness. And if it is "nothing more than a product/function of the brain in coordination with the body", then explain to me how, if you were able to take all of the cartilidge that the brain is made up of...if you were to shape and mode that cartilidge into a brain, how would you get consciousness in there?? You will have the brain, but where would you get the consciousness from?

Infinity is not a problem at all. Some entities are without end. Your God is supposedly without end, why can't other entities be that way?

God is also without beginning, too...and the same cannot be said for this universe.

And I have seen no argument on your side debunking evolution. So, again, no problem.

Someone is late to the party...I already did.