Question for the theist

[Fidel_Castronaut]

do some of your own research, theres tons of things you can learn and its a lot to take in!

You're asking too much, unfortunately.

[John V]

the fossils lead more towards living organisms, or all animals where as genetics leads to plants and animals. Take a look at this, you can really see the connection

This is what you consider scientific evidence?

if you want to look at the fossil record for the animals as in going to human down to like elephants,

In this case I want to look at the fossil record going back to the last common ancestor of apes and humans.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Show me a scientific organization then.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

You reject the foundation of the link you provided? Wow. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/CBBresearch/Koonin/

[John V]

do some of your own research, theres tons of things you can learn and its a lot to take in!

You're asking too much, unfortunately.

You're being insulting, but really I have to agree with you. Yes, when I'm in a debate, it certainly is asking too much of me to go and do the other side's work. Asking that reeks of desperation, and that's when other atheists pop in out of the blue with insults.

[Rampant.A.I.]

You're asking too much, unfortunately.

You're being insulting, but really I have to agree with you. Yes, when I'm in a debate, it certainly is asking too much of me to go and do the other side's work. Asking that reeks of desperation, and that's when other atheists pop in out of the blue with insults.

What reeks of desperation is your pathetic insinuation that a lack of preparedness, evidence, or compelling argument on your part indicates an atheist conspiracy against you.

You decided to join an atheist forum, expose your own ignorance, make unwarranted assertions, and now feign persecution when multiple people point out you've said something stupid?

Wow.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You're asking too much, unfortunately.

You're being insulting, but really I have to agree with you. Yes, when I'm in a debate, it certainly is asking too much of me to go and do the other side's work. Asking that reeks of desperation, and that's when other atheists pop in out of the blue with insults.

No, not quite. You're presented with evidence but disregard the evidence based conclusions.

You've said 'I agree that we have found 'x' evidence', but then disagree with the hypothesis that said evidence best fits for 'god created something and then something happened and then HUMANS''

It's puerile, and it's nonsense, and it shows why debating scientific advancements and scientific discoveries with someone who wants to be a religious based contrarian is a fools errand.

---

Case in point john. I've gone back through this thread and read every single post you've made. Not once, when challenged about why you disagree with the inferences drawn from things like (for example) fossil records or common ancestors do you give an answer.

Not a single reply. Neither do you offer anything substantive about your own conclusions based on said evidence, nor do you explain at how you arrived at them.

So, like I said, fools errand. There is no debating with someone who refuses to quantify anything that they believe/disagree with but who rather simply objects at everything presented to him.

[John V]

Case in point john. I've gone back through this thread and read every single post you've made. Not once, when challenged about why you disagree with the inferences drawn from things like (for example) fossil records or common ancestors do you give an answer.

This is an argument from ignorance. My opponents don't get to make bare assertions and claim that they stand unless I refute them. I've politely asked for them to support certain claims, and they haven't been able to. I know that they can't, for example, support the claim that fossils and genetics all point to the same tree. I can support my position, but I shouldn't have to - they're making the claim, they should support it.

Since I've now made a claim, here's some support:
http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rew...on-1.10885

Kevin Peterson grabs a pen and starts to scribble an evolutionary tree on the paper tablecloth of a bar in Hanover, New Hampshire. Drawing upside down to make it easier for me to see, he maps out the standard phylogenetic tale for placental mammals. First, Peterson scratches a line leading to elephants, which branched away from the rest of the placentals around 90 million years ago. Then came dogs, followed by primates (including humans) and finally rodents — all within a frenetic 20 million years. This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong.

A molecular palaeobiologist at nearby Dartmouth College, Peterson has been reshaping phylogenetic trees for the past few years, ever since he pioneered a technique that uses short molecules called microRNAs to work out evolutionary branchings. He has now sketched out a radically different diagram for mammals: one that aligns humans more closely with elephants than with rodents.

“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...141117.htm

"With this study, we learned two major things," said Sushma Reddy, another lead author and Bucksbaum Postdoctoral Fellow at The Field Museum. "First, appearances can be deceiving. Birds that look or act similar are not necessarily related. Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."

These kinds of findings are common. When someone says something like "fossils and genetics all lead to the same thing," it's a giveaway that they get their info from youtube, and are basically just evolution cheerleaders.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Oh good, more horseshit from the illiterate fuck who thinks his opinion is more valuable than worldwide scientific consensus!

The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation-evolution controversy and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific and political issues. The subject is primarily contentious in the United States. However, it is also important in other countries where creationists advocate the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution, or portray the modern evolutionary synthesis as an inadequate scientific paradigm.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_..._evolution

[John V]

Speaking of cheerleaders...

[xr34p3rx]

the fossils lead more towards living organisms, or all animals where as genetics leads to plants and animals. Take a look at this, you can really see the connection

This is what you consider scientific evidence?

this IS scientific evidence, i told you before, its not a matter of semantics of the different meanings of evidence nor if its your opinion, the evidence is there, something you can see, test and observe. study it, understand it or keep believing in nonsense. Just like i told you about the dead father thing, your dad is the evidence, its in your face but you dont want to take it. and also im still waiting on a response about "intelligent design", if you refuse to answer that question, i presume that you in fact dont have evidence nor an argument for "intelligent design" and are just claiming without backing up, i have showed you pictures of evidence, the tree, genetics and you just have your word. Its word against proof, youre going down a bumpy road. Show me intelligent design.

if you want to look at the fossil record for the animals as in going to human down to like elephants,

In this case I want to look at the fossil record going back to the last common ancestor of apes and humans.

then go do some hw and look at the fossils.

---

Case in point john. I've gone back through this thread and read every single post you've made. Not once, when challenged about why you disagree with the inferences drawn from things like (for example) fossil records or common ancestors do you give an answer.

This is an argument from ignorance. My opponents don't get to make bare assertions and claim that they stand unless I refute them. I've politely asked for them to support certain claims, and they haven't been able to. I know that they can't, for example, support the claim that fossils and genetics all point to the same tree. I can support my position, but I shouldn't have to - they're making the claim, they should support it.

have i not supported my claims with evidence? did i not show you the tree of evolutionary life? did i not give you a link to the early human fossils? you are the one who are claiming with no backup.

but I shouldn't have to

you say you dont have to because you probably dont have anything to show, the burden of prof lies within the person making the claim, again, i gave you sites to the evidence and studies, i emphasized what i meant by genetics and fossils leading to the same thing. you talk about "intelligent design", but youre and exception to providing prof? hahahah NO, it does not work like that.