RE: Atheism is unreasonable
November 20, 2014 at 3:41 pm
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2014 at 3:48 pm by Esquilax.)
(November 20, 2014 at 3:34 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:(November 20, 2014 at 7:27 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Hey, His_Majesty. What 'kind' of animal is a platypus?
Maybe it is the only member of its "kind", whatever that is.
Wrong. It's a Monotreme, a kind of egg-laying mammal that shares its lineage with the four remaining species of Echidna. Yet another point at which "kinds" falls flat on its ass, yet the real science gets it right, I suppose.
![Rolleyes Rolleyes](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Quote:In other words, "time of the gaps" reasoning is being used. Once you start the "it took millions of generations", or "it took millions of years"...once you start to say that, you are leaving science and diving right into the portal of religion.
With the exception being that the "gap" you think exists, does not. We have observed speciation and genetic mutation over time; the idea that a thing that happens every time an organism reproduces, as a sheer mechanical behavior of DNA, will continue to happen barring some radical change in the nature of DNA, is not anything of the gaps. Your entire position relies on you ignoring the points upon which you've been upbraided, but your refusal to listen to anyone else does not render the facts you consequently don't understand to be fallacious. It just means you're ignorant.
Quote:It happened that fast. You are relying on the unseen...and not only that, but the statement "it takes millions of years", that statement in itself cannot be scientifically validated. You cannot conduct an experiment to draw that kind of conclusion, can you? Nor can you conduct an experiment to predict when the next change would occur.
So, are you saying that consistently occurring events, over both long periods of time and different demographics, which have been experimented with, don't count as observable evidence? That's kind of a weird position to take; doesn't that mean that you'd also need to believe that accepting the continued existence of reality is also a religion, in order to keep that consistent?
Or is it only persistently occurring, wide ranging events that you personally don't like, that don't count as evidence?
![Dodgy Dodgy](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/dodgy.gif)
Quote:So you are basically not even using science!!!
The same science you dismiss as bio-babble when convenient? Look, do you care about science or not? Because you can't use "you're not sciencing!" as a denigrating comment if you yourself habitually dismiss science as worthless.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!