Atheism is unreasonable

[The Grand Nudger]

-oh I don't know about that - going by our illustrious expert's comments "kind" can only be class or higher. A large dinghy or raft might have been enough, guess we'll have to wait and see.

[abaris]

-oh I don't know about that - going by our illustrious expert's comments "kind" can only be class or higher. A large dinghy or raft might have been enough, guess we'll have to wait and see.

Kind of stupid in any case.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, but we're narrowing in on the "kind" of stupid we're dealing with.

[abaris]

Sure, but we're narrowing in on the "kind" of stupid we're dealing with.

Is there more than one kind? I think you'd need to employ the term species to deal with the finer definitions.

[dyresand]

Sure, but we're narrowing in on the "kind" of stupid we're dealing with.

The 'kind' of moronic bronze age thinking people. in a conversation i know i do this very well.



but on a serious note science trumps religion hard. and people coming from a god did everything world view they hate the fact we have answers and not the god made us lovey dovey crap. the world and its truths are a cold hard fact everyone needs to swallow with a grain of salt.

[Esquilax]

I saw this today, and it presented a new side to this whole "microevolution" issue that I wasn't content in leaving unsaid, as the last word to His_Majesty's nonsense.

[orogenicman]

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

What you are doing here is ignoring the years of training and experience it takes to do geology (which, as a geologist, I can tell you is a lot harder than you would have people believe). No one in the business says something is "millions of years" old without first dotting every i and crossing every t. In other words, we do the work needed to verify our results. You simply making a counter claim sans any evidence is simply the rantings of a scoundrel.

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.

A lot of things in this universe are odd. That doesn't make them any less real. I can't see infrared light even though I know that it exists. More people claim to have seen God in History than macroevolution simply because macroevolution hasn't been around that long, there aren't that may people actually working in the field, and because there are a lot of pre-literate people in the world who have been brainwashed into believing in magic sky daddies and have had an inferior education to counter such nonsense.

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.

Yes I can. How? Because that entire paragraph of yours, above, is wrong. We have seen macroevolution in action. It is not "just a theory" as you people like to say.

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.

There isn't a paleontologist on the planet who would agree with this lie. Paleontology is exactly like every other branch of science in that if you make any kind of "voodoo interpretations you want", all the other paleontologists out there are going to eat you alive, as I am with your rantings right now.

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.

Yes we can. In fact, we ruled it out over 80 years ago. You should read the memos when they are passed 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.

Evolution is a fact. Life evolves. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Get over it already.

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.

Apology accepted.

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.

Strawman.

Wait...

Where's my apology???

[IATIA]

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.

Some of these threads confuse me, so can you help me out.

If science finds fossils and is able to 'connect the dots' to logically show evolution, this is "voodoo interpretation", but if a theist finds a scroll written from hearsay well after the alleged event, that is not a "voodoo interpretation"?

[Tombochan]

@IATIA: I've tried making that very point over and over in these threads, but it always falls on deaf ears. I wish there was a way to give you double kudos.

[IATIA]

Most of my kudos come from my "tree-shakers" and more often than not, the theists just go on to something else. They seem to be unable or unwilling to handle their own verbiage.