Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although many say there is evidence of this type no one is able to produce it. Talk about believing in things that aren't there.
Have you asked? You certainly did not in this throw away empty reply. I can certainly produce some of the evidence from prediction I have just referred to had you asked. But I guess you prefer to just dismiss and run than stop and ask. Easier huh.
Have you asked? You certainly did not in this throw away empty reply. I can certainly produce some of the evidence from prediction I have just referred to had you asked. But I guess you prefer to just dismiss and run than stop and ask. Easier huh.
In fact Dads exhibits the traits of the standard Theist apologist with a remarkable penchant for rehearsing the very familiar arguments against the case for evolution and arguing against the case for the non - existence of (Bible) God.
I suggest that we are not listening to each other and we can never understand why the other side cannot see what appears to us obvious and it really does seem to come down to a Faith - based starting point. If you believe in something (even that there is no personal god) then you automatically are going to demand proof of the other side's claim.
It is then easy to find all sorts of arguments or reasons not to accept the other side's claims or even if they are too good, to take the view that 'you are making a lot of arguments, but who can say whether you are right or not?'
The way out of that is to let the mental tools of logic and reason present a case and in fact theism often lays claim to it. But when it turns out that it doesn't actually support the God claim, then all that is rubbished, and it becomes a Faith - claim once again -which is what theism always was.
It would be wearisome to repeat all the snarling at science, limited human knowledge and atheists think they are smarter than anyone else, but that is part of trying to rubbish evidence in order try to argue that Faith -claims are just as valid.
Vansdad's well -worn argument about the gaps in evolution is also false in that it ignores the museums -full of evidence that evolution did actually happen as well as being backed up by DNA results. It instead harps on what doesn't have hard evidence even if what must have occurred is pretty clear. We don't need a time machine to look back at a car going through a barrier and over a cliff to deduce from the skid marks and the hole in the brickwork to deduce what happened.
Similarly the case that there is no God (that is, I have to emphasise, Biblegod as none of the others are of concern to us, or to theists) is increasing compelling with the need for a creator being reduced to near zero, the claims for the intervention of god in the world being shown to be spurious and unsound and the reliability of the Bible being shown to be a figment of faith - based imagination.
But none of that matters where faith is concerned. If the arguments are countered and even refuted, then that is well, just dismissed, really and the 'Who knows anything ' card is played and Faith is help up as valid as evidence.
How then can any progress be made? Well, the answer is half in this post. The case for evolution (aside from whether it actually has any bearing on religion) is well supported by evidence whereas the case against is unsound, poor science and relies on (apart from simply lying about it) the rather poor argument that there are many questions still unanswered.
The case against the existence of the god of the Bible and the claims made by its religions and Holy Books is also much the better -and I should know after thirty years of the best that theist can produce.
The other half of the answer is in people and my belief that it does matter to them that their faiths or beliefs are based on more than just personal preference, indoctrination or going along with the way thing have always been. People are awkward buggers, bless 'em and love to ask 'why?' And they love to see the mighty brought low, and there are none mightier than the icons of religious authority who turn out to have feet of liquescent (1) garbage.
(1) dam'n another word I checked which is still underlined in red.
li·ques·cent (l-kwsnt)adj. Becoming or tending to become liquid; melting.
[Latin liquscns, liquscent-, present participle of liquscere, to become liquid, inchoative of liqure, to be liquid.]
Bottom line is there is no fossil evidence to support the claim we evolved into humans from a single celled organism. The only evidence is that the single celled organism has evolved into a "better" single celled organism. And that humans are a separate specie just as all species are and have evolved within their own kind. It has nothing to do with worshipping in front of a pice of wood or not.
Versus my previously long-winded response, I have this one for you:
SUMMARY: your comments are WRONG and RUBBISH.
1) Complex multi-celled organisms have the same base DNA chains as the less complex ones, with a few bits added in by now-established methods. Yes, organisms do gain genetic complexity, despite your uniformed & uneducated parroted opinions.
2) All organisms which we've now got DNA genomes for, have simpler DNA predecessors (and we're adding more genome maps every month btw...), so if you have an ounce of logical common sense in you, you'd have to conclude what again?
3) Our primate predecessors have identical chains of DNA to ours, with only slight and minor alterations. Not even any additional information, just slight variations in older species. Ooops! We even look like them, or they like us.
4) The many transitional species fossils we do have of primates and hominids are more simian the earlier they came to be, and we now know, with complete confidence, that...
5) Our modern dating methods, no longer stuck with C14 (& even that one, the bane of Christian denialists for years, is vastly more accurate than it was 35 years ago), clearly shows a step-wise progression through lengthy time periods of species, ending up with modern humans.
Unless, of course, you are going to deny Lucy, and Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons and our N. Euro ancestors. I'll bet you will, actually, since you sort of have to. You're unable to accept truths or better information, or that you could be or are wrong.
Too bad. Not the hallmark of the intelligent, being incapable of admitting where you've been proven wrong.
So be it. Denial is just another form of illiteracy.
A Simple Little Demo Proof of Evolution in another species.
Quick question. This one even has pictures for easy assimilation!
How do we KNOW these vehicles are related, with similar lineage? And are any of these more or less advanced? How or why do you know?
(PS: this is NOT a question about designers, which we've already shown is in no way not applicable to car design or other to such things (Boeing 747 in junkyards, or watches or paintings...)
Rather, this simple little line of reasoning quiz is about the obvious lineage of species without us necessarily having to have been there at the inception of each one. nope: the clues should be obvious here, from a simple visual review of Jeep™ products (not to mention their other technical attributes, such as all of them being 4WD) to multi-celled organisms with trackable DNA.)
And just to show the obvious odd-balls that can and do get thrown in to the mix for bio-scientists and geneticists to sort through, as they say on Sesame Street, "One {or two...} of these things are NOT like the others!". But... I'll let you guess! OK: go to it, denialists!
6) http://www.bigbananacar.com/images/latest_04-16-11.jpg The missing link. Often referred to, however, as The Ray Comfort-mobile. Wonder why? Does it share ANY attributes with the others, or is it an offshoot genus?
So, for the special LOgical Brain Trust Award (LOBTA™!), what is the correct (or most likely) lineage order? Special hint for those who are having trouble:
All Jeep™ brand products have the same 7 vertical bar grille. It's a metaphorical DNA genome link (just as we see in all of our predecessors and their offspring.*) that persists in each subsequent new "species".
It even spawned and implicated itself into the AM General Hummer models, though that generated some legal issues. But there's a very clear example of an entirely new genus and resulting species (H1, 2 & 3 Hummers!) that took off from the original "family".
the seven slots (vs bars) are still prominently there, no matter how much the "species" has differentiated under the pressures of socio-ecological niche needs...
*We late-era modern but still transitional hominid species do indeed have some remnant bacterial genome bitz i(not to mention that uninvited guest, the mitochondrium, that hitched a ride some millennia ago...) into our evolving pre-hominid DNA.
So sorry to have to tell the ardent "Humans are So Superior and Special!" Christian apologists. Yup: we're directly DNA-linked to some ancient simpler-form pond scum!
Hey there little bro's! How's it goin' down in the mud?
Note: strong quantitative support is not evidence. It is the same as saying there is evidence of God's existence but no scientific proof. And we all know how the atheists feel about "evidence"
^ Yes we like evidence very much. Evidence, arguments, data and reasoning are all good things. If you want to suggest there is a god then perhaps it is time to start offering one or more of these things?
Note: strong quantitative support is not evidence. It is the same as saying there is evidence of God's existence but no scientific proof. And we all know how the atheists feel about "evidence"
I can only echo Nozzferatu's post. I would just add that sound evidence is what is wanted and not just Bible claims or personal experiences. Essentially it has to pass the same tests applied to all evidence to see whether it is good enough to give weight to the god -claim. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I don't even understand why theists can't reconcile evolution with their own beliefs. Catholics have done it and many liberal Christians have, but the fundies are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. As for "disprove God!" as an actual argument - this thread is 17 pages long, so it's safe to assume that by now someone pointed out that not being able to disprove a thing, whereas "thing" can mean absolutely any concept the human brain can conceive from God to dragons to unicorns to twelve headed alien dinosaurs living in our closet; doesn't equate to believing it definitely exists, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and love to ask 'why?' And they love to see the mighty brought low, and there are none mightier than the icons of religious authority who turn out to have feet of liquescent (1) garbage.
-kw
s
nt)adj. Becoming or tending to become liquid; melting.
sc
It's NOT, it's NOT, it's NOTTTT!!
Food for Thought.....
