Atheism is unreasonable

[pocaracas]

First, learn to quote properly! I had to fetch the quote from the correct place to put it here!

Second, because "yesterday" represents a long, long, long, long, long, long time. More time than what we've had available to test that.
Still... we see some forms of bacteria turning into different forms of bacteria,
Fruit flies that evolve new reproductive processes,
E. Coli that develops the ability to use citric acid as a carbon source,
domestication of foxes,
let's not forget, ring species.
And many others... not to mention the fossil record and all the neat changes of fossil characteristics with the time that they're dated to.

Putting it all together, it seems that evolution is a process that has happened on this planet over the ages and is still happening, today.

You can't base your conclusion about evolution just by looking at what you see around you in your day-to-day life. Darwin had the luck of being the first to notice the pattern. Others came later and noticed it in other species, in fossils, everywhere!

---

---

I agree, it happened so long ago, that it never actually happened at all.

I'm glad to know your mentality is in the 5th century.
Enjoy it...
Just one word of caution, nowadays, there are a few dark, strip-like patches of ground, where metal things move on wheels.... avoid them.

[LostLocke]

It's "illogical" to some people still that time doesn't not travel at a consistent speed. The fact that they find it "illogical" has zero bearing on the fact that it happens.

If it happens, then it can't be too damn illogical, now can it?

Exactly!
So if an infinite regress does in fact happen, it's not illogical.

[Natachan]

I'm sorry but I have to nitpick one thing that others haven't yet.

Cancer and other ailment is a result of the body being once good, and now in a state of constant decay. Second law of thermodynamics.

This shows a lack of understanding about thermodynamics, cancer, and chemistry. Now ignorance of these subjects isn't terrible, they're hard subject to grasp, so I'll assume that the statement was made in ignorance.

Cancer is rarely, if ever, just due to decay. What I learned in chemistry was that it was often the result of added energy. This can be the result of radiation, viruses, or other pathogens in the body.

Even of it was the result of general decay, it would not follow that this was due to the second law as you claimed. The human body is NOT a closed system, and as such the second law does not apply.

[pocaracas]

I'm sorry but I have to nitpick one thing that others haven't yet.

Cancer and other ailment is a result of the body being once good, and now in a state of constant decay. Second law of thermodynamics.

This shows a lack of understanding about thermodynamics, cancer, and chemistry. Now ignorance of these subjects isn't terrible, they're hard subject to grasp, so I'll assume that the statement was made in ignorance.

Cancer is rarely, if ever, just due to decay. What I learned in chemistry was that it was often the result of added energy. This can be the result of radiation, viruses, or other pathogens in the body.

Even of it was the result of general decay, it would not follow that this was due to the second law as you claimed. The human body is NOT a closed system, and as such the second law does not apply.

Cancer is one cell that starts replicating without triggering the regular control mechanisms on such misbehaving cells.
It is a genetic abnormality which can several riot causes: genetic, as in passed from parents to their children; or environmental, as in radiation exposure, pollution exposure, etc.
It is far from being "decay". And the implication second law thermodynamics here is just so ignorant...That it reminds me of a creationist from this sitetatler waldorf....he'd say something like that.

[His_Majesty]

In all seriousness, you have made a pretty bold claim here. I would like your defense of it please.

Stay tuned for the debate

[coldwx]

In all seriousness, you have made a pretty bold claim here. I would like your defense of it please.

Stay tuned for the debate

No thank you, I will take it now please. You will be too busy getting demolished by Esquilax to bother with petty assertions like there is no fossil record. I will hear what you have to say right here.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In all seriousness, you have made a pretty bold claim here. I would like your defense of it please.

Stay tuned for the debate

A bullshit dodge.

[simplemoss]

I sometimes wonder if organized religion was just started as an excuse too eat wine and crackers, and talk

[Bad Wolf]

[Ben Davis]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Problem?

Right. I'm going to put this in the most simple language I can so that there's no ambiguity:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause - This attribute of causality is only known to be true in the current state of our universe
2. The universe began to exist - This can't be inferred as we can only describe the current state of our universe, not any pre-expansion states
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause - This can't follow as 2. can't be applied to 1.