Atheism is unreasonable

[dyresand]

If you had his skeleton, and could prove it was his, that would prove he really existed. We have that little critter's skeleton.

Now, that skeleton is on a continuum between earlier dinosaurs and later birds, and evolution predicts that such a creature would have existed, and that it would have lived in a certain timeframe, which is what we found.

Even if you had a photograph of Jesus, it wouldn't prove Christianity, because a photograph of a religion's founder doesn't prove he's who he is supposed to have said he was. It's not the right knid of evidence to support the claim. Mircoraptor, on the other hand, is an example of exactly the kind of evidence you would want to support the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs: an animal with characteristics intermediate between both.

If evolution is wrong, why does it work for predicting where to look for fossils of animals we haven't discovered yet, including what kind of traits it will have?

The fundamental of heuristic of science is to use what actually works.

Such a poor, lost soul.

He isn't lost he is actually using his brain not information from a bronze age book to tackle your question like a seal clubber clubbing a baby seal. and he is doing a great job at it.

[His_Majesty]

But you do have reasons. They've been presented to you numerous times. You just dismiss them out of hand on the basis that we can't rule out other means. So your "no reason" is that you do have reasons, just not ones you're obligated to agree with, due to your own pre-existing beliefs. So, your reason is that nobody can stop you from baselessly resisting the actual reasons.

And I stated why I don't believe the evidence that you present is sufficient.

But since you mention it, what is my agenda, here? How do I profit from evolution being true? I'm a fiction writer, not a biologist. Where's my stake in this, since you seem so desperate to accuse others of unfairness?

Never mind the agenda...what kind of fiction do you write?

Oh, and also? You did make a positive claim, you do have a burden of proof, and you're not going to be able to skip out on it: genetic changes occur, the ball is rolling downhill. You are asserting that something will stop a process from continuing, when we have no reason to think that it will. You need evidence for that. You can't just cavalierly dismiss that like you do everything else and expect to come out of that okay.

I'd like to lay this thread to rest and discuss other topics, if I may.

---

He isn't lost he is actually using his brain not information from a bronze age book to tackle your question like a seal clubber clubbing a baby seal. and he is doing a great job at it.

that was actually kinda funny there.

[Mister Agenda]

I've already answered this. The Bible states that in the midst of creating animals, God said "They will bring forth after their kind" (Gen 1:24)...and that is what I OBSERVE...I observe animals "bringing forth after their kind"...that is what I observe...that is what I can experiment with if I put two dogs, male/female, in one room...have them mate...and however many months later, they will produce a dog...that is an example of BRINGING FORTH AFTER THEIR KIND.

The Bible tells us what any goat herder can observe. But the goat herders aren't wrong: no animal 'brings forth another kind', a goat will have a goat. The Bible doesn't claim that animals can't have descendants in fifty million years that are a different kind, it doesn't address the issue. For all practial purposes of a goat herder's life, goats will always be goats. But if you go back far enough, you will find ancestors of goats that weren't goats. We can know that because we are no longer limited to what goat herders can observe. There doesn't have to be a fight between Genesis and evoluton. God breathing on the dust and forming Adam from it would make a beautiful metaphor for evolution from microbes and Christians could make out like they discovered evolution first, but Creationists have to be prima donnas about it.

[Esquilax]

I've already answered this. The Bible states that in the midst of creating animals, God said "They will bring forth after their kind" (Gen 1:24)...and that is what I OBSERVE...I observe animals "bringing forth after their kind"...that is what I observe...that is what I can experiment with if I put two dogs, male/female, in one room...have them mate...and however many months later, they will produce a dog...that is an example of BRINGING FORTH AFTER THEIR KIND.

Here's the thing though: what is their kind? What's the upper limit of change within that kind? God might have said they will bring forth after their kind, but what he didn't do was describe what a kind is, or provide a list of what kinds there are and where the boundaries are on those. You're really only going off of one vague sentence and then superimposing your own opinions over that, hoping to ride along on the supposed authority of the first sentence. But your opinions don't carry the weight of the bible quote, because you have no way of ascertaining whether what god meant- and I'm assuming the truth of your beliefs because I'm speaking within the context of your own argument here- because he never said anything like the kinds of things you're bootstrapping onto the single sentence quotation you provided.

For all you know, god was referring to "kind" in the sense of "organic beings." How can you possibly prove that your assertion as to what god said in the bible is true, and mine isn't?

The evolutionist believe that reptile/dinosaurs evolved into birds...that is NOT an example of an animal bringing forth after their kind...a dinosaur and a bird are two different kinds of animals...I could care less what any biologist tells you.

Where in the bible does god say that birds and dinosaurs are different kinds? And if he never said that, how do you know that's what he meant? Couldn't god know something you don't?

[abaris]

But the goat herders aren't wrong: no animal 'brings forth another kind', a goat will have a goat.

They probably even had the first hand experience that a goat/human hybrid is impossible.

But it's useless to argue with HM. He's prove time and time again, that he doesn't even bother to read the links provided. So that's what he is.

[Esquilax]

And I stated why I don't believe the evidence that you present is sufficient.

No, you either dismissed it out of hand or asserted that since we couldn't use it to rule out intelligent design, it must not be true. People can actually read the things you write here, you know.

Never mind the agenda...what kind of fiction do you write?

No, I kinda want to mind the agenda. My work isn't the kind of thing a religious person would openly appreciate; I'm not ashamed of what it is, it's common knowledge what I write both here and in my personal life, but I have this suspicion that if I tell you it'll be used as a relentless distraction to both taunt me and avoid answering any of my more substantive posts.

I'd like to lay this thread to rest and discuss other topics, if I may.

You want to cut and run now that we won't let you get away without answering?

[coldwx]

Watch your mouth (fingertips), son.

I will use whatever language I feel appropriate at the fucking time and I won't watch my mouth for you or anyone else, and I am not your son you pretentious prick.

I've already answered this. The Bible states that in the midst of creating animals, God said "They will bring forth after their kind" (Gen 1:24)...and that is what I OBSERVE...I observe animals "bringing forth after their kind"...that is what I observe...that is what I can experiment with if I put two dogs, male/female, in one room...have them mate...and however many months later, they will produce a dog...that is an example of BRINGING FORTH AFTER THEIR KIND.

The evolutionist believe that reptile/dinosaurs evolved into birds...that is NOT an example of an animal bringing forth after their kind...a dinosaur and a bird are two different kinds of animals...I could care less what any biologist tells you.

So to make a long story short, the Bible confirms what humans have ever observed throughout their history. Anything beyond that is bio-babble.

So I ask for evidence and you present a bible verse and what YOU observe. I don't care what "the evolutionist" believes. I want your repeated experimental evidence of creation, that a "kind" was created by god at some time. As you said, if can't be experimented on or repeated you should not believe it.

[Surgenator]

Mind I remind you how your epic breaking of the format rules at the last formal debate. Followed by a whine fest when called out on it.

Hey, you or anyone else can either get intellectually spanked in a one on one debate, or you can get spanked in the thread when I create it based on that topic.

Pick your poison.

I choose dying by laughter.

[Thackerie]

But the goat herders aren't wrong: no animal 'brings forth another kind', a goat will have a goat.

They probably even had the first hand experience that a goat/human hybrid is impossible.

But it's useless to argue with HM. He's prove time and time again, that he doesn't even bother to read the links provided. So that's what he is.

Right. So why are we wasting time arguing with an idiot who is so willfully ignorant and too arrogant to ever admit he's wrong?

[Anomalocaris]

Hey, you or anyone else can either get intellectually spanked in a one on one debate, or you can get spanked in the thread when I create it based on that topic.

Pick your poison.

I choose dying by laughter.

He's not worth it.

If a chimp gets a human to talk back to him, the chimp has already won the moral victory. It would never be a credit to the human to lay out a sounder argument than can a chimp.