Atheism is unreasonable

[The Grand Nudger]

Species of the same kind of animal. You can get as many species of dogs you want...but they will all be dogs. No new "kind" of animal is being created like you would want to believe.

Right, and birds are a "kind" of reptile (so are you and I). hrugs:

They aren't basing in on genetic sequences...they are basing it on the discovery of a fossil...and even if it was based on genetic sequences, it could mean common designer...you cannot rule out common designer, can you? So if you can't rule it out, then you can't definitely say that it was all due to evolution without intelligent design.

You don't need any fossils to observe this. You can take a duck and a crocodile and make this observation.....I hope the irony isn't lost on you. Can I rule out a common designer? Yeah, because they aren't designed, and again....no intelligence is present. Where do you think you get your genetic material? A "designer"...or maybe, just maybe, your parents?

If only it were that simple.

It is...that's what I've been trying to explain to you. Hell, I'm not so much explaining evolution to you as helping you to realize that you've already accepted it in toto - you just didn't know the lingo.

[His_Majesty]

Your first statement contradicts your second. You can't say you accept forensic science but then demand that the only acceptable form of evidence you'll take for evolution is direct observation.

Just Esquilax, being wrong again? I didn't say JUST direct observation...I said OBSERVATON along with REPEATED EXPERIMENT. The vast majority of the time, I always used those two criterion TOGETHER just so I wouldn't have people trying to play the "ah ha!!! gotcha!!" games...but obviously it didn't work.

Forensic science doesn't rely on direct observation, it makes probabilistic deductions based on the available evidence. Those same kinds of deductions lead us to believe that dinosaurs and birds share a common ancestor. You can't switch the types of evidence that's required on the fly based solely on your own convenience.

They conduct experiments too, don't they? Or do you not watch the show?

---

Right, and birds are a "kind" of reptile (so are you and I). hrugs:

Anyone want an example of scientific indoctrination?....see above..

[FatAndFaithless]

Don't confuse 'experiments' with 'tests', HM.

[coldwx]

Why do you believe the Genesis account of creation if there is no observation or repeated experimentation of it?

[Esquilax]

Everytime someone decides to observe the genetic sequence of birds and reptiles.

They aren't basing in on genetic sequences...they are basing it on the discovery of a fossil...and even if it was based on genetic sequences, it could mean common designer...you cannot rule out common designer, can you? So if you can't rule it out, then you can't definitely say that it was all due to evolution without intelligent design.

But we have evidence for evolution, and no evidence of a designer. Science doesn't work on "I can't rule it out, therefore it must have happened" logic. You're shifting the burden of proof, and you know it.

But then, you've never had any proof for even a single component of your beliefs, have you?

[Mister Agenda]

In other words, "time of the gaps" reasoning is being used.

Unlike God or an intelligent designer of life, time can be demonstrated, and it can be shown that life forms do change over time. You don't doubt that time exists, do you? You shouldn't imitate phrases you don't fully understand.

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.

Since you clearly don't mean 'based on evidence, mathematics, and logical reasoning', I'm at a loss to imagine what portal of religion 'it took millions of generations' involves.

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.

Time can't be seen, but it's effects can be directly observed; as we do with the effects of the wind, which we also can't see. You don't understand what the term 'scientific validation' means if you think we have to see something directly in order to draw scientific conclusions about it. And if I ever find myself in the position of trying to make time and change seem mystical and supernatural I hope I'm smart enough to realize that I'm probably wrong about whatever I'm trying to use it as an analogy for.

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.

In historical sciences, predictions are made about what will be discovered, based on what we should find if the theory is true. Evolution delivers on this over and over. We find fossils in the strata and on the landform they should be in if evolution is true. We predict species diversity on unexplored islands based on distance from other land masses and time separated from them, because the longer the island has been separated from other landmasses, the more novel species it will have. And we have observed speciation on a human timescale. There's a point where it comes perverse to see something happening, find evidence it's been happening for a long time, and keep crying we can't know it if we weren't there. By that standard, we have to throw out geology along with paleontology, and frankly, most of history as well. The same bullet that you think shoots evolution in the foot would blow a big hole through the heart of historical claims derived from ancient scriptures.

So you are basically not even using science!!!

Science isn't what you think it is, and whoever miseducated you so badly should apologize.

But it's the 21st Century and it's easier to educate yourself than ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

[Simon Moon]

I didn't say JUST direct observation...I said OBSERVATON along with REPEATED EXPERIMENT. The vast majority of the time, I always used those two criterion TOGETHER just so I wouldn't have people trying to play the "ah ha!!! gotcha!!" games...but obviously it didn't work.

So....

Please open a thread with all the observation and repeated experiment to prove that your creation myth is scientifically supported.

We'll wait....

[Esquilax]

Your first statement contradicts your second. You can't say you accept forensic science but then demand that the only acceptable form of evidence you'll take for evolution is direct observation.

Just Esquilax, being wrong again? I didn't say JUST direct observation...I said OBSERVATON along with REPEATED EXPERIMENT. The vast majority of the time, I always used those two criterion TOGETHER just so I wouldn't have people trying to play the "ah ha!!! gotcha!!" games...but obviously it didn't work.

Oh, my apologies; I made the mistake of overestimating you, thinking you were just being disingenuous, instead of moronic and disingenuous.

Because people, including myself, have repeatedly pointed out to you the observations and repeated experiments that lead us to accept the conclusions of evolutionary theory. The closest you've come to even partially addressing that is "but you can't rule out intelligent design!" which isn't a rebuttal to the evidence in any sense. Other than that, you've completely ignored us whenever we point these things out to you, and that plus your repeated insistence on getting "observations" specifically, led me to believe you were just strawmanning the scientific method for your own gain.

You have now straightened me out; now I understand that you were simply ignoring anyone who gave you the evidence you didn't want to see, so you could keep asking the same debunked question over and over, as though if you didn't read the mountains of evidence getting flung your way, nobody else could either.

They conduct experiments too, don't they? Or do you not watch the show?

The results of experimentation constitute another set of observations through which conclusions can be derived. Do you have any responses to what people are actually saying to you now, rather than glib nothings?

Care to actually refute any of the evidence for evolution, or present any for your own position? Or can't you adequately do either of those things?

Anyone want an example of scientific indoctrination?....see above..

Hey, if you can make up kinds shit off the top of your head, Rhythm can too. Turnabout is fair play and all that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Anyone want an example of scientific indoctrination?....see above..

Are you implying that my statement is incorrect or did you run out of things to say?

[Mister Agenda]

But I understand why you must believe in evolution, because after all, you have to be able to somehow explain the diversity in life without God, and evolution is the only game left in town...for you, it just HAVE to be evolution.

You're projecting. For some reason, you think there's a problem with accepting the evidence for evolution and believing in God, despite there being millions of theists who do so. If evolution is true, that does not mean that God isn't. If God is real, it means God is a little more 'hands-off' than depicted in Genesis, that's all. And the evolution scenario isn't a problem for the God of deism at all.

The main way in which accepting evolution as probably true deconverts Christians to atheism is when they've been repeatedly told that evolution is bunk and find out that they've been lied to when they honestly investigate it. It's a problem for overly-literal Biblical fundamentalists, finding out the Bible account of creation isn't literally true can shake their faith...but Christians who haven't been taught that evolution is a lie can weather learning all about evolutionary biology without their faith even being chipped.

I don't want to see atheists become a majority in the USA, because majorities tend to become complacent and entitled, but I do want us to become a large enough minority that we can't be safely ignored. Your contributions do more than I ever could on my own to shake any fundamentalists who happen to read this thread; and I want you to know I appreciate you being here. Planting a seed of doubt is one of the things I'm about.