Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

Dinosaurs were reptiles, dude. When you made the post, it insulted my intelligence because I could of SWORE I was taught that dinosaurs were reptiles as a kid, and I even remember zoologists being so eager to tell kids that dinosaurs are still alive today, and showing kids pictures of crocodiles/alligators as proof...and crocs and alligators ARE reptiles.

Do you know anything about cladistics? Our knowledge of science has kind of advanced since you were a kid, and the fact that you think it hasn't says volumes about your understanding of the topic. Dinosaurs are in a different clade to modern reptiles, and so are crocodiles and alligators. In fact, crocodiles and alligators have even more subclauses in their classification than dinosaurs do.

So according to this website (and myself), your bullshit distinction is irrelevant http://www.factmonster.com/dk/encycloped...saurs.html

Figures. While I get my facts from actual scientific sources, like biology textbooks and so on, you go to what seems to be a FAQ resource for kids that, barring a single oblique reference, says nothing about dinosaurs being reptiles.

It's like I said in the debate; I fit my conclusions to the facts, and you go looking for any facts- no matter how the source will make you look- to fit your conclusions.

So for you to sit there and try to make the distinction between the two is disingenuous. But then again, it doesn't matter anyway, because even if the claim was that the archaeopteryx was the missing link between dinosaur's and birds (as opposed to reptiles), that would STILL be all speculation on the part of the evolutionist for reasons I've already mentioned.

So, you're not aware of the feathered dinosaurs, then? We've found some of them, nice little transitional there. Oh, but that's right: you think that just straight out asserting "that's not a transitional form!" counts as a rebuttal, for some reason.

Well: "that's not an argument!"

I wasn't fazed by anything that you said, in fact, I was just getting warmed up...so if I did get booted (didn't know that I did, but anyway), that actually saved your ass.

Your confidence is hilarious, given that literally nobody who saw the debate actually agrees with you. You put a lot of stock in your own assertions, but the fact that you weren't fazed says nothing about the efficacy of my arguments, just in your ability to properly take them in.

But anyway...dinosaurs were a "kind" of reptile..just like a dog is a "kind" of mammal. Same thing. And again, we've never observed organisms make these macro-level changes that the archae had supposedly made....so what do we have? We have an alleged process that is said to conveniently have occurred long before anyone was around to see it, and the next change will conveniently take place long after everyone living today WON'T be around to see it.

And as I pointed out, "kind" is not present anywhere in the real definition of evolution. Species is, and we have plenty of examples of new species coming into being via evolution. As far as I can tell, "kind" is just a manufactured term you made up that has no connection to what evolution describes at all; it's literally irrelevant to the process. You say that evolution can't happen because you haven't witnessed a change in "kinds" but evolution doesn't say anything about kinds, and what evolution does describe does actually happen, verifiably. Saying evolution isn't real because of kinds is the same as saying gravity isn't real because of balloons; you don't get to make up a new part of the definition of something and then pretend that it's always been there. You made up this kinds thing, it was never a part of the evolutionary definition, and therefore is not something that needs to be discussed.

I am, however, interested in the fact that you just said mammals are their own "kind," that dogs are a part of. But in the debate, you said that humans were part of the man"kind." Humans are mammals though, so wouldn't that make them a part of the mammal "kind" too? Do kinds overlap? Do you even have an actual definition for what a kind is, and if so why haven't you shared it with us?

You see, everyone? He's got no clear definition, and his idea of what a kind is expands and contracts wildly whenever he needs it to: in the debate human was a kind, making kind synonymous with species, but now that it's convenient for him mammal is a kind, making it synonymous with class. He's just lying through his teeth.

No one has ever observed this large scale changes...you simply have to accept by faith that it occurred, as the entire theory is based on lies, speculations, and unsupported claims. You can believe it all you want, but it isn't science.

Given that you evidently made "kinds" up, that it has no real connection to science, and that you have no idea what it means beyond what you need it to in the moment, it's not really a legitimate objection, is it?

And no, we haven't observed large scale changes because evolution doesn't require them. What we have observed is many small changes accumulating over time, and you still haven't bothered demonstrating this mystical force you believe in that stops them from adding up into a change in species.