Atheism is unreasonable

[dyresand]

---

Einstein presupposed an eternal universe...and his own equations proved that presupposition wrong

Given that you've provided no basis for this, and are probably prevaricating, I'll just dismiss it out of hand. Insofar as you have any point at all, it's far more likely that Einstein's education and evaluation of the facts led him to believe that the universe was eternal, prior to perhaps finding otherwise. You know, the kind of rigorous testing and willingness to admit error that good science is based on.

Unless you can find an indication that Einstein, pre-education, decided to go into his chosen field specifically to defend his belief in an eternal universe, they aren't remotely comparable situations. Doesn't it worry you that every single thing you say is loaded with equivocations?

Dude, I didn't say anything about what Shermer "did"...what the hell are you talking about?

Oh, at least try to keep up with your own fucking conversation, will you?

I pointed out that all the people you've referenced in this thread have been dishonest basket cases. In response, you immediately brought up Michael Shermer. Why would you do that, if not in reference to certain allegations made about Shermer last year? What other reason could you possibly have had? If it's a reference to his work then clearly I've demonstrated that I'm no fan of the guy because I have no idea what it could be.

Because he an atheist and advocate of evolution on a popular level...that is why...nothing more, nothing less.

... So what the hell does that have to do with the post you quoted me on to ask that question? What a total non-sequitur, no wonder I got the wrong end of the stick.

Although he has a knack for getting his ass handed to him in debates...like this one...short, but sweet.

And as the past few days of debating have so adequately demonstrated, you cannot be trusted to form accurate thoughts about debates.

I understand that the word "species" is a shaky term in biology...who gets to determine what is and what isn't a species? The same individuals that believe in the theory, that's who.

Actually, the origins of the scientific classification system can be traced back to Aristotle, more than predating the theory of evolution. Initially they were based on morphology, much like your "kinds," but over time the level of detail grew so that the conclusions drawn were much more nuanced and well founded than your simplistic determinations here, given that they came from people with a much better grasp on biology than you.

When we discovered DNA and genetics we found that, generally speaking, morphology and phylogenetics correspond to each other; that is, the closer animals looked in appearance, the closer they would be in terms of DNA. This is a cornerstone of modern biological classification, and one that you don't actually disagree with either, since those exact classifications tell us that dogs and wolves are closely related, for example. Those observations agree with you in the short term- though there are some interesting misleading examples too, like Hyenas being feline, and Raccoons being closer related to bears than rodents- but the problem is that they don't just stop there, they show us a unified and interconnected web of relationships that pass back through time.

It's another area where you're being a hypocrite, really. You'll happily accept the genetic evidence- which does not lie, as it cannot, unlike morphology- where it shows that, say, dogs and wolves are related, or you and your parents are related, but the moment it indicates that those same creatures are the eventual descendants of the Synapsids, you disagree. But you have no basis for discarding only the parts of phylogeny that you don't want to be true, making your position entirely inconsistent.

Oh, but that's all beside the initial point I wanted to make, which is that accusing the scientific classification system of some kind of bias toward evolution is baseless, and factually incorrect. The system predates evolution by quite a while, and you are a hypocrite.

I believe a wolf is of the "dog" kind.

Dog kind: wolf, dingo, domestic dog, coyote, jackal, wild dogs
Cat kind: lion, tiger, domestic cat, cheetah, leopard
Bear kind: grizzly, brown, polar, kiola, panda

Seems pretty simple to me.

Okay, so here we find a perfect example of just how poorly "kinds" serves you. Koalas are not bears. They're marsupials, more closely related to wombats, specifically, but also possums and the other marsupials, than they are to bears. In fact, Koalas are the only living species in their family (Phascolarctidae, for those interested) where bears are in the Ursidae family. Koalas are not bears.

Now, you're probably itching to disagree with me, because thoughtless disagreement is what you do, but how can you possibly gainsay me? You say that kinds are based on looks, and yeah, I can see how you'd get "bear" from a Koala there, I guess. But an equally convincing argument could be made in favor of my position; Koalas are small, like the other marsupials are. They have grey fur exactly like a lot of marsupials do. They're tree dwellers, like a lot of marsupials. They have the same pouch for storing their young that all marsupials have. Aside from having four legs and claws, Koalas don't look like bears at all, so where are you getting that from? Are you just pulling it out of your ass?

All of this is just detail for my main point, however, which is that you're using a double standard here. Kinds are based on morphology, you say, which lets you group animals together. But morphology is also a key determining factor in our understanding of the fossil record and how all those animals relate to each other. So how can you accept the efficacy of morphology wherever you want to, but dismiss it completely wherever you don't? How do you intend to resolve this blatant special pleading?

That would depend on whether or not I want that specific kind of dog. I may not want a wolf, I may want a doberman pinscher.

Oh, so you do have some other basis for determining what kind of pet you want other than kinds. So, despite what you've been saying, I'd have a perfectly viable reason to discard kinds and still get the dog I want, and not a hamster. Good to see you just spent days using that argument only to undercut it at the lightest of impetus.

How are you? You are the one that think that dinosaurs-reptiles involved in to birds...how do you make that determination?? You've never seen any kind of change like that in your life, yet you think that long ago when you wasn't around, that it happened? If that isn't faith, I don't know what is.

Genetics and morphology, plus observations of small evolutionary changes in nature. There's really no reason to think that they aren't related, and plenty to think they are, often drawing from exactly the same basis you use to come up with "kinds." The only difference is, I'm not cherry picking which of those determinations I want to be true, and which ones I don't. The only one with faith here is you.

All I see is animals producing their kind...I don't know why some animals within the kind can't produce, but they are clearly the same kind of animal..and I don't see how that so difficult to believe, but reptile to birds is so highly accepted as truth.

Well, given that we know small changes occur, and those small changes contribute to new species emerging (all the dogs coming from wolves, for example) and we know of no mechanism by which those changes would be prevented from building up to the point of developing a very different sort of animal, we have no reason not to accept the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, when the genetic and morphological data support it.

Consider this: we have a large hill, flat and sloping downward. At the top of the hill is a perfectly spherical ball. Based on everything we know about physics, if a gust of wind blew the ball it would roll all the way down the hill to the bottom. Your position on evolution would roughly translate as you asserting that the ball will not roll all the way down, that it'll be stopped halfway down the hill. But there's nothing on the hill that would stop the ball, and we understand how gravity and momentum work, so the ball should reach the bottom under normal physics. Despite this, you insist that no, we believe the ball will roll all the way down based on faith, and that it'll stop halfway down. When asked why you think that, you present no reason why the ball would stop, and point to no mechanism that would stop the ball. You merely say that we've never observed the ball rolling all the way down the hill, so therefore it is impossible that the ball ever could roll down the hill.

My question to you is this: is it reasonable to hold that objection? Is it reasonable to discard everything we know about the behavior of round objects on flat, sloping surfaces based on nothing more than the fact that we haven't seen this ball rolling down this hill?

Because if it's not reasonable to disbelieve in gravity and momentum based on the ball being at the top of the hill, then it's equally not reasonable to disbelieve in the full extent of evolution based on dogs giving birth to dogs.

It blows my mind.

If you can't see that a malamute, husky, and wolf are the same kind of animal, then there is nothing more I can do to help.

Well, they're all canids, so in some sense they are the same type. But Hyenas aren't, despite looking very similar. Please stop strawmanning me: my position isn't that we have no way of telling how animals are related, it's that your method is inaccurate and simplistic, in comparison to the accurate and nuanced version everyone else uses.

---

instead of him straw manning he should try to answer this simple question why cant a human and another 'kind' create a hybrid.