Evil Atheists

[ElDinero]

I knew it was a hit and runner. Another one signed up last night. Fucking cunts.

[Carnavon]

Firstly, biological evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing. I don't have the answers there, and neither do you. The difference between us is that I can be honest about it. 2/3rds of your questions directly relate to this single point. If that's the gap you want to cram god into good luck to you. I would have picked something a little farther out of our reach. You run the risk of having your position absolutely and undeniably discredited in your own lifetime (something that peddlers in bullshit realized was bad practice long ago).

If micro evolution is true to you, then there should be no problem with evolution at all. There is no dividing line between the two. Differences add up over a long time-frame (and we're talking billions of years here). That being said, nothing "changes" into something else. You are still a bony fish. You just have a longer list of modifiers added. The rest of your post seems to be about "needs", which isn't the current understanding of evolution at all. Evolution by natural selection isn't a sentient process that responds to creatures needs. It's not about need, changes occur. Let's not attempt to bootleg your particular brand of idiocy into a place it doesn't belong. It's difficult to reproduce a perfect copy ad infinitum, and on top of that we're being bombarded by radiation constantly (not to mention some of the more novel theories). Sometimes those differences provide one creature with an advantage over another (other times they are deleterious). The effects of which are what we see in the fossil record. Life is a process of elimination, this rock is a killing machine, and the things we see alive and all around us are a tiny fraction of what has been. The "path" evolution took in our own species is no better. We are the only survivors (and that's a tentative position itself). So much for humans being the pinnacle of directed evolution. How are the other hominids doing? Apparently not so hot either (most are endangered http://www.earthsendangered.com/list.asp).

RE Eyes:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-8516-page-2.html
(posts #16 and #18 gg Chuck)

RE Lungs:
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/739.abstract
(I'll try to find you the full PDF if you're interested)

RE Sexual Reproduction
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/80624...t=Abstract
http://www.dorak.info/evolution/sreprod.html (a breif synopsis on the authors website in the event that you can't access pubmed)

I would be perverse to look at the ever increasing piles of data and conclude otherwise. Evolution isn't "my position" it is the position of demonstrable fact. The "how's" are the point where one must decide where they put their chips. Mine are in with natural selection, broadly, and a whole host of other mechanisms specifically. I'm going to repeat this because it's important. You can disagree on the "how" all you like, that's healthy. If your faith hinges on a demonstrable fact being completely and wholly incorrect, your faith is showing severe fatigue. I don't blame the authors for this, they had no idea what was going on around them. Short of divine intervention they could not have given an accurate description of the origins of the universe or life itself(and that's pretty damning when you realize that they did not possess such knowledge even though they claimed they did in fact receive just such an intervention). You, on the other hand, with a modern education and access to the internet, have no such excuse. You could educate yourself, you choose not to. You prefer to side with magic, and this sort of thinking is childish and ignorant. Get yourself a shovel, dig up a cambrian rabbit, and bring that to the table. Then you'll be taken seriously.

Dishonesty?. Dishonesty would be to know something is wrong and present it as the truth? Examples of dishonesty would be for instance where information is presented as truth although it is known to be false such as the case with “Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!”
and also for instance:
“The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human foetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist.”
Dishonesty would also be to present proven falsified information in textbooks to schools – as is the case with the Haeckel case above.

Having provided unquestionable proof of dishonesty in the effort to prove evolution, why would you not accept the Bible as true? Can you point to anything that is presented as fact that has been proven to be a lie? One certain test would be archaeology. Please indicate where facts stated in the Bible has been proven beyond any doubt to be falsified or dishonest? Not where differences of opinion exist. In all cases where this has happened in the past, the Bible was eventually proven to be correct.

Then you are also welcome to study prophecy. You may as a start look at Jesus' birth, his death on the cross, the price paid to Judas, what happened to Tyre and many more. Now this means that what has been prophesied, will come to pass. It seems that according to prophecy, we are in the last stages before Christ Comes (Jews back in their land and world powers – see book of Daniel , statue that Nebuchadnezzar saw, 70 prophetic weeks of which 69 have passed)

Now it has always been my motto to rather believe a person that has been proven honest and reliable over a person that has been proven dishonest.

Eye:
Explains what we observe and no indication that the specie developed different/improved optical capacities over time or that the specie at some time did not have sight. Just different eye-types etc and not even differences developing into more “efficient” eye-sight over time. Look behind the facade.

Lungs:
An interesting article. From what I can understand, it does not actually address the question why the change should have occurred and how it happened? The following was quite interesting to note:
“The design of the mammalian gas exchange cells is an ingenious solution to meet the functional demands of optimizing maintenance pathways from nucleus to the cytoplasm while simultaneously providing minimal barrier thickness
and also:
“evolutionary innovation” Hardly words to use for a random non-directional occurrence.

Reproduction.
It actually does not address the problem of why reproduction exists. It also do not address the problem why reproduction would have been part of the original supposed organism and it is also unlikely (impossible) then for million of hits and misses to occur for such a process to be developed that exactly fulfil the purpose of reproduction. Why reproduction at all? Hit and miss to create a situation where all the parts “fit” perfectly and contribute towards reproduction?

I accept that you cannot answer the question of original life (or matter) that is yet elusive despite the best efforts from the “scientific” community bent on proving it and making use of some of the best intelligence and best technology under controlled and directional processes.

There is a major difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. With Micro-evolution we see small adaptations within a specie and within certain parameters. With macro evolution you suggest that the specie turn into an altogether new specie.!!! There is no proof of macro evolution. To suggest that because micro-evolution is true, it follows that macro-evolution is true, is sloppy thinking. It is a different kettle of fish altogether.

If it is a case of demonstrable fact, I would be happy to receive this evidence. So far, nothing has been forthcoming and for very good reason - there is nothing that proves macro-evolution - because it is false.

[ElDinero]

Having provided unquestionable proof of dishonesty in the effort to prove evolution, why would you not accept the Bible as true? Can you point to anything that is presented as fact that has been proven to be a lie? One certain test would be archaeology. Please indicate where facts stated in the Bible has been proven beyond any doubt to be falsified or dishonest? Not where differences of opinion exist. In all cases where this has happened in the past, the Bible was eventually proven to be correct.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.

1. Even if there was wilful dishonesty in that one instance, it would not disprove the entire theory of evolution.

2. Even if the theory of evolution was completely false, how would that make the Bible true by default? What about all the other creation myths available?

3. There are many things stated in the Bible, including archaeology, that are completely and provably false. If the Exodus had happened, there would be archaeological evidence of it, which there is not. You can't say there can be no difference of opinion because people can disagree with anything, no matter how solid, especially when it contradicts something they hold dear (ie evolution). Give me one fact about the Earth that NOBODY disagrees with. If you manage it, I'll disagree just to prove my point. Other things the Bible has wrong is the age of the Earth, and the way in which life diversified. Also, the way in which world languages developed, since I think I'm right in saying that it's claimed God invents all the languages (am I right on that? Could be mistaken).

Edit: Oh, AND the Bible had the Sun going round the Earth. Need more?

Also: It has already been explained to you that 'macro-evolution' (stupid, useless term) is simply the accumulation of thousands of generations of 'micro-evolution'. After undergoing thousands of those small changes you acknowledge happen, eventually the thing becomes less and less recognisable from the thing it came from. It then becomes a new species. You can put your fingers in your ears and just deny that this happens, but it's the only logical conclusion if you keep following that path for millions of years. Tell me what's so hard to accept about that (apart from the fact that it makes baby Jesus cry)?

[LastPoet]

Dishonesty?. Dishonesty would be to know something is wrong and present it as the truth?

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

[Jackalope]

You can waste time here. I dont want to waste time like all you here,i want to go out with my friendss.

There's the door. GTFO.

[Statler Waldorf]

Stat, how does YEC accord to logic?

Actually it is very logical. Unlike Darwinism, Creationism is not solely based off of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Every proposed “evidence” for common descent I have seen commits this fallacy. Creationism works from the top down just like logical reasoning should. Creationists realize that evidence is interpreted according to one’s presuppositions, so the exact same evidence you present as evidence for common descent, can also be used as evidence for creation. This is a battle of worldviews, not evidence. I can throw evidence at you all day long that you won’t accept as evidence and you can throw evidence at me all day long that I won’t accept as evidence; where does that really get us though?

Statler, there is no evidence of magic, so even if you are able to prove evolution wrong, which you cannot, that does not automatically make ID correct, because... It's magic.

I am not a member of the ID movement, I am a creationist. Nor do I believe in “magic”. The ID movement has done an amazing job blowing huge holes in Darwinism, but unfortunately their refusal to address the nature of the designer does not really get us anywhere.

Evolution has an enormous amount of evidence supporting it.

Really? Like what?

There is an immense amount of evidence that your god is no different than Zeus or Ra, and that your bible is a compendium of bronze age superstitions and middle ages politics.

Please provide this evidence too.

Even if everything we know about biology, geology, astronomy, physics and history is wrong, you are not right by default because you have no evidence.

Actually this statement is in error, if all the naturalistic theories of origins do fail, then a supernatural explanation is right by default. It’s called a disjunctive syllogism and it is completely valid to use.

Stat, can you say I-r-o-n-y?

Can you say baseless assertion? Can you point to one instance where I have used fallacious logic rather than just asserting I have?

But it comes to quantum system, logic alone is useless.

Logic alone is useless? Are you trying to make a logical argument that logic is useless?

The first thing you should learn is that atheists don't have to 'prove' their position, because it's not a positive statement.

That’s the oldest trick in the book. The burden of proof lies on both sides because you can certainly make any position a positive claim.

Don't be jealous just because my wife isn't some sniveling shitwit and can actually contribute to the household Stat. (your mother would be ashamed of you for using housewife as an insult)

I was insulting you, not your wife. My mama has a doctorate and was also a housewife, so she would have no issue with me poking fun at you for not having a career or education.

You keep talking about deductive proof, but I haven't seen any.

You ignoring the arguments presented is not my problem.

You say you have evidence, but I haven't seen any.

You ignoring the evidence provided is not my problem either.

Here's some info on the Cambrian for you, cause I know how you loves the wiki. You're an absolute moron btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

That’s supposed to be evidence? I would think that the person who thinks that just because Wiki says something happened it therefore happened and is true would be the moron in the conversation, but oh well.

Right, so I'm guessing it's your english here that makes you sound like a heavy breathing religious nutjob?

English is not his first language you dingleberry. Why don’t you debate him in his native language and then he can call you a nitwit for sounding like a complete dunce?

I knew it was a hit and runner. Another one signed up last night. Fucking cunts.

I thought you took pride in being the “civil atheist” on here? So much for rational integrity I suppose, that’s unfortunate you let these guys rub off on you.

[The Grand Nudger]

What's the word for evidence in your language? Statler, pics of your mom or it didn't happen (also, you can start whittling away at any of the references linked at the bottom of the page). You're arguing against a concept as simple as "3 0'clock" on this one.

[insert word here]?

Carn, species don't turn into other species, this is where you're taking that predictable fundie left turn. You've either been mislead or are intentionally being misleading. The way the "Tree of Life" was arranged there was a sort of terminus at the ends of genetic lines in the past(extinct) and genetic lines that exist here and now. With any system of classification you're going to have little bugs like this that trip up the unawares. With our current understanding of genetics, and evolution, we're going to have to tack things on even farther up (or down, depending) on that tree if we're fortunate enough to be around for the next "big thing".

[Statler Waldorf]

What's the word for evidence in your language? Statler, pics of your mom or it didn't happen.

[insert word here]?

So that constitutes as an argument in your irrational mind? Well this ought to be easy enough then. I will prove creation to you...are you ready?.......EVIDENCE. There, that was easy.

[The Grand Nudger]

The link must be broken. I keep clicking and nothings happening.

[Statler Waldorf]

The link must be broken. I keep clicking and nothings happening.

Why would you even want a link? You said you could win the debate by just stating the word “evidence”. So since you apparently consider that a form of debating I just used your own tactic on you, so I win the debate right?