Atheism is unreasonable

[psychoslice]

We don't need faith to be an atheist, we just need intelligence and proper scientific proof, no mummo jubmbo crap.

[paulpablo]

fossil record, mostly.

When you find a fossil, why are you determining anything other than "this once living thing has now died". Why are you bringing extra stuff in to it??

See, evolutionists already presuppose evolution, so when they find a fossil, they let their presupposition interpret the finding.

But then if you find fossils and don't consider evolution then the alternative is nonsense.

You would have to believe that either god came down every billion years or so, killed everything and started fresh.

Or that every animal that's ever been extinct that there are fossils of existed all at the same time, with each other.

I don't think it's accurate to say scientists presuppose evolution is true exactly.
But I'll use the word presuppose just to entertain the idea that you might be right.

I'm not sure about the fossil record because I'm not a professional but I'm pretty sure the professionals in this field of study believe they have fossil evidence of whale like creatures with legs, giraffes with shorter necks, dinosaurs and so on and so on and so on.

So a paleontologist and his scientist friends have to either "presuppose" evolution. Or believe that marsupials, horses, humans and so on all lived with the dinosaurs.
You would have to presuppose that every extinct thing that ever existed once existed all at the same time together.
Just to clarify I do think it's ludicrous, the idea that professionals in this field just got together and thought "Well fuck it, can't explain why all these fossils are here stuff happened lets just say it was evolution or somethin."

[pocaracas]

I see you're unaware of what the "extra stuff" is...
Dilemma.... should I tell you about all the research done on the surrounding area where the fossils are found? Or should I leave you ignorant?
What do you think?

Research? Ohh, I get it...what you meant to say was "should I tell you about all of the presuppostions that were made first in order to interpret what fossils actually mean...in the surrounding areas where they were found".

That revision wasn't pretty, but it was more accurate

No, it wasn't pretty at all.... And Einstein would have flunked you for coming up with such an ugly thing!

But why don't you tell us dumb atheists all about those "presuppositions that were made first in order to interpret what fossils actually mean"?
Tell us how unreasonable and unfounded they are.
Tell us how real faith in the invisible hand of an unknown agent is required.
Go on...

Why am I not surprised?...
Are you not curious to go to a natural history museum?

Nope.

Interesting... Willfully ignorant... you're a rare type of person... no curiosity.

Oh.... ohh..... oh, boy....
It's "varieties", now? [/qutoe]

Now? There are many different races (varieties) of humans...as there are many different breeds of dogs...but those variations are limited to within the kind.
[quote='pocaracas' pid='798284' dateline='1416266832']
You want to define "variety", after you define "kind"?

Every heard of dog breeds?

So, races or breeds are varieties, it seems. How about subspecies?

And kinds are species?

There's this awesome way to classify living organisms that biologists came up with a few years ago and it relies on something called "species".
Even so, the concept of species is a bit fuzzy and you can never ever find an element of a given species giving birth to an element of a different species.
But the offspring of the offspring of the offspring... (a few thousands of generations)... of the offspring of an element will be a different species.
You've been told this several times now. I don't expect you to acknowledge it this time, but... it's one more.

Hey poca..newsflash: Dogs produce dogs.

You may want to take a look at this:

---

The image is a bit on the large side... it's best to save it to your hard drive and open it with a decent image viewing program, like ACDSEE or Irfanview

---

It seems wolves produced dogs which produced different breeds of dogs.
Again, this is nothing others haven't told you... it's clearly not a lack of information on your part... so, why?

---

So do wolves. Are they the same kind now, until you need it to be otherwise?

I believe that wolves are a "kind" of dog.

ah... you believe....
Funny how a man-made classification methodology is subject to belief from you...

The whole species/genus/family/order/class/phylum/kingdom/domain classification scheme is nothing more than that - a classification. A man-made attempt to categorize all of life on this planet.
Why do you (and all creationists I've ever heard/read) wish to impose this alternative classification scheme without properly defining it?

[dyresand]

Research? Ohh, I get it...what you meant to say was "should I tell you about all of the presuppostions that were made first in order to interpret what fossils actually mean...in the surrounding areas where they were found".

That revision wasn't pretty, but it was more accurate

No, it wasn't pretty at all.... And Einstein would have flunked you for coming up with such an ugly thing!

But why don't you tell us dumb atheists all about those "presuppositions that were made first in order to interpret what fossils actually mean"?
Tell us how unreasonable and unfounded they are.
Tell us how real faith in the invisible hand of an unknown agent is required.
Go on...

Nope.

Interesting... Willfully ignorant... you're a rare type of person... no curiosity.

Every heard of dog breeds?

So, races or breeds are varieties, it seems. How about subspecies?

And kinds are species?

Hey poca..newsflash: Dogs produce dogs.

You may want to take a look at this:

---

The image is a bit on the large side... it's best to save it to your hard drive and open it with a decent image viewing program, like ACDSEE or Irfanview

---

It seems wolves produced dogs which produced different breeds of dogs.
Again, this is nothing others haven't told you... it's clearly not a lack of information on your part... so, why?

---

I believe that wolves are a "kind" of dog.

ah... you believe....
Funny how a man-made classification methodology is subject to belief from you...

The whole species/genus/family/order/class/phylum/kingdom/domain classification scheme is nothing more than that - a classification. A man-made attempt to categorize all of life on this planet.
Why do you (and all creationists I've ever heard/read) wish to impose this alternative classification scheme without properly defining it?

they use creationism the easier way of understanding things than understanding the real truth of the world.

[Esquilax]

Research? Ohh, I get it...what you meant to say was "should I tell you about all of the presuppostions that were made first in order to interpret what fossils actually mean...in the surrounding areas where they were found".

That revision wasn't pretty, but it was more accurate

What I find most interesting about your position regarding the fossil record is just how wildly inconsistent it is with your other positions, if you'd taken even a second to think about it.

You understand that morphology is a perfectly valid method of determining the relationships between organisms, right? The more physically similar one animal is to another, the more genetically similar they're likely to be too, something that has been well established by the near uniform results of genetic sequencing. As you keep yammering, dogs breed dogs, which naturally entails that dogs breed organisms with similar morphological features. Your entire position is literally that phrase and yet somehow, when we get to the fossil record and use the exact same morphological observations to come to the same conclusion you keep repeating ad nauseum... it's a presupposition.

How do you know that dogs breed dogs? How can you tell that the thing a given dog gave birth to is, in fact, a dog? Well, you can tell by just looking, can't you? The physical characteristics of the animal are consistent with the kinds we see on the animal called a dog.Why do you put wolves in the same "kind"? Same deal, right? Morphologically similar, therefore genetic relationship. But that exact same reasoning leads us to believe that fossils which share morphological similarities are related too. It's only consistent; if you disregard the utility of morphology with regards to fossils, then you have no reason to use it among living animals either. For all you know, dogs don't breed dogs at all, they just breed morphologically similar new "kinds" out of nothing.

Or are we now going to acknowledge that the way we determine the grouping of animals is either the way they look or their genetics? And if so, how do you resolve the double standard of accepting this when convenient to you, and rejecting it whenever it disagrees with what you want to be true?

Of course, there's much more than simple morphology that demonstrates evolution, like how the fossil record is a precisely ordered layering of organisms that is consistent with evolution but shows no indication of any sudden creation or kinds, but it's just interesting to me how hypocritical you're willing to be in your argumentation.

[Mister Agenda]

Reading comprehension, people. I was responding to someone that was implying "only the uneducated people reject the theory of evolution", and my response was, "Johnathen Wells is educated, and he don't believe in evolution".

See how that works? See how it all came together??

See how what you were actually responding to was this:

Let's pretend as if religion doesn't have history of being mocked and its followers mocked,
it's only the fundamentalists, the extremists, the uneducated that refuse to accept all the evidence for evolution.

Wells is educated, but he still falls under fundamentalists and extremists, which you conveniently left off of your characterization of him.

---

Are Hyenas dogs too?

Technically, hyenas are felines.

Wait, you're saying something that looks like a dog came from something that looks like a cat? How are we supposed to tell what kind it is? ::goes to frantically consult Bible::

[His_Majesty]

Dogs produce dogs.

Right, and this is also the position of evolutionary biology. Or did you think there was some point of disagreement? I don't expect a dog to give birth to a canary or a crawdad any more than you do. Why would I?

When I say "dogs produce dogs", in other words I am saying that animals only produce what they are, not what they aren't..which is not the position of evolutionary biology. If you believe that the dogs of today came from non-dogs of yesterday, then...you know... lol

[FatAndFaithless]

Are we done trying to entertain this guy's willingly flawed understanding of basic evolutionary theory?

[abaris]

When I say "dogs produce dogs", in other words I am saying that animals only produce what they are, not what they aren't..which is not the position of evolutionary biology. If you believe that the dogs of today came from non-dogs of yesterday, then...you know... lol

Let's say - for a crazy moment - wolfes?

[His_Majesty]

That's "kind" of backwards. But meh, not too big of a deal, if you choose to associate the entire genus with the member with which you are most familiar, fine. I've already asked somebody this question today, but I guess it's fitting. Is a fox a "kind" of dog, in your estimation? How about an african wild dog?

I don't really know what to make of the fox, but definitely the african wild dog..the african wild dog is definitely a member of the dog "kind".