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.]

[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]

[Rampant.A.I.]

[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.