Provide Proof God Does Not Exist & Proof of Evolution Theory (beliefs, heaven)

[Type O Negative]

Pick up any of the thousands of science books at any book store and you have a hell of a lot more evidence for non-existence and proof of evolution, than the other way around.

You have 1 book you base all your belief on.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

I'm still waiting for your reply...

To what? I replied in post #115 and it is waiting for your reply, not the other way around. Again: Nice dodge.

[dba07]

I cannot disprove that there are space midgets reading this thread right now on some distant planet. But know what? I THEORIZE that they are a figment of one's imagination, much like god, and move on with my life.

So isn't the more prudent course of action to simply doubt things that have no evidence to support them? Why must I disprove god, unicorns, or bigfoot? This isnt a practical use of my time. Show me the evidence and I'll consider it.

Oh and I've seen fossils. And I've never seen an old dude in the clouds with a long beard. So there's your evidence right there.

[Vansdad]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

To what? I replied in post #115 and it is waiting for your reply, not the other way around. Again: Nice dodge.

Thank you for admitting how we just don't know. But here is something to think about.

There are millions of transitional forms in the fossil record. Millions. However, there are no kind-to-kind transition forms (e.g., amoebas to cows). Transitional forms are evidence of God’s creation. Kind-to-kind transitional forms are evidence of Darwinian evolution of which there are none.

Just something to ponder

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Again nice dodge of post #115. Guess you just never intend to reply to it. Run Forrest run.

Originally Posted by Vansdad

Thank you for admitting how we just don't know.

Not sure what this comment is meant to mean. Given this is what I have been saying _all along_ I am not sure what it is you feel I am suddenly "admitting" to. Are you just trying to score petty points now by pretending to have illicited admissions out of me when you have not? Your desperation is becoming slick with fervour.

Originally Posted by Vansdad

There are millions of transitional forms in the fossil record. Millions. However, there are no kind-to-kind transition forms

What do you mean by "kind to kind"? It sounds like you are arguing for something that evolution does not actually claim.... which you might want to be careful of as it is quite a common error and is generally associated with people like Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind.

As you say there are many many transitional forms, which is all evolution claims. So I am not exactly sure what you feel is missing or what you feel is worth pondering exactly?

[Fillmont]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

What do you mean by "kind to kind"? It sounds like you are arguing for something that evolution does not actually claim.... which you might want to be careful of as it is quite a common error and is generally associated with people like Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind.

As you say there are many many transitional forms, which is all evolution claims. So I am not exactly sure what you feel is missing or what you feel is worth pondering exactly?

It almost sounds like Vansdad is expecting there to be fossils of, say, a femur bone that starts off on one side as a rat femur and ends up on the other as the femur bone of a bear. I really have no idea what else a "kind to kind" fossil can possibly be.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

Do you actually read what people post?

All of them in fact. To adopt your combative style however, I'll retort: "Do you?". I'm just responding to your endless list of outrageously inept dreck in which you re-define the facts and then provide silly statements that not one single atheist, or scientist for that matter (and they are NOT one and the same: well-educated [certainly far more than you, obviously, since your understanding of Evolution is truly mind-bendingly wrong...] and rational scientists are but a sub-set of atheists for the most part) has EVER made. You re truly amazing. I'm thinking: "major troll" now when I read your stuff. Why? Because then you dodge and dart with this kind of questioning.

Wow! No wonder some of us have recoiled at the utter hopelessness of debating with the likes of you. Have YOU not read Origin of the Species? Of course not! That woul be blasphemy, right?

Originally Posted by Vansdad

Thank you for admitting how we just don't know. But here is something to think about.

There are millions of transitional forms in the fossil record. Millions. However, there are no kind-to-kind transition forms (e.g., amoebas to cows). Transitional forms are evidence of God’s creation. Kind-to-kind transitional forms are evidence of Darwinian evolution of which there are none.

Just something to ponder

I, on the other hand, have read most of Origin of The Species, and I did not find one single quote by that insightful individual where he claims to support your kind-to-kind, so called" Darwinian Evolution", unless you are willing, here and now, to tell us exactly what the word" kind" means.

Rather, it's routinely & purposefully misused by Christians to re-define "species", but unfortunately for you, it does not. A Dalmation is a "kind" of dog, as is a terrier (both genus "canis"; species domesticus). But a giraffe is NOT a kind of rabbit, or a kind of bacterium. And yet they both got here, not by "poofistry", but by Evolution, and over 10s of measured millions of years, a little bit at a time, from a bacterium-like ancestor. But not EVER overnight, as Vansad cleverly tried to suggest with a aura of unbelievability: a rat femur morphing into a girafe femur at it's other end. (You've got that right: even I'd be awe-struck by that brainlessly inane idea!)

So... Are you REALLY that daftly-minded and ill-educated?

Seems so.

Vansdad, you are, quite simply and demonstrably, so far off base here that you have essentially teetered off the edge of the intellectual world. Zing, trundle...... ahhnnnnnd he's gonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn......

Originally Posted by Fillmont

It almost sounds like Vansdad is expecting there to be fossils of, say, a femur bone that starts off on one side as a rat femur and ends up on the other as the femur bone of a bear. I really have no idea what else a "kind to kind" fossil can possibly be.

It certainly does seem that way doesn't it, Fillmont? Can he really be serious? Nahhhh... Whaddah trollista!

OK: now it's back to my bat-cave. It is a v. good thread though; worth reading for the shear humor and audacity of The Defenders of the Faith: lots of good, thinking people making really good Olympic-gold winning quality logical points, but then a couple of really intransigent defenders making truly inane and unsupportable deflective points, all while categorically refusing to answer the specific questions you've asked.

Just as I said in my recent summary; they really are functionally incapable of that, and continue to demo it to us all!

The level of internal turmoil and fear must be near-maddening for them!

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Fillmont

It almost sounds like Vansdad is expecting there to be fossils of, say, a femur bone that starts off on one side as a rat femur and ends up on the other as the femur bone of a bear. I really have no idea what else a "kind to kind" fossil can possibly be.

I suspect I know what he means but I would not want to put words in his mouth. There are a lot of evolution denialists who seem to expect transitional fossils between species alive today. They do not understand the "common ancestry" aspect of evolution.

So rather than, say, expecting to find transitional fossils all the way back from birds to an ancestor X.... and all the way back from lizards to the same ancestor X..... they expect to find transitional fossils BETWEEN birds and lizards. Which of course do not exist and Evolution does not claim they do.

Now as I say I do not want to put words in VDs mouth.... but it does sound on the face of it like this is what he is asking for which would be monumentally poor form on his part if it were so and puts him in the Kent Hovind category.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

Thank you for admitting how we just don't know. But here is something to think about.

There are millions of transitional forms in the fossil record. Millions. However, there are no kind-to-kind transition forms (e.g., amoebas to cows). Transitional forms are evidence of God’s creation. Kind-to-kind transitional forms are evidence of Darwinian evolution of which there are none.

Just something to ponder

Not much need for that as this is an old kneejerk bit of evidence - denial. There are many transitional forms -which Creationists explain as all being micro - evolution variants of basic Kinds of animals.

It was pointed out in an Austin atheists' video that Creationists particularly deny primate evolution by saying that the fossils are either of apes or of humans. However, they cannot always agree on which is the ape and which is the human. That should be clear support for the case for transitionals being involved - in the one area that is must contentious in the evolution debate.

It is indeed something to ponder, Dads, and I wish you would ponder, research and check rather than present tired and debunked old canards like the 'No transitionals' claim.

[ArtieE]

1. There are 8.7 million species on the Earth
2. There are 6.5 million species of land animals on Earth
3. The minimum number of animals needed of each species to have a chance of surviving in the wild over a long period of time is on the average 4000.
4. 6.5 million times 4000 is 26 000 million animals on the Ark. Plus food and water.
5. Either there were 26 000 million animals on the Ark. Plus food and water.
6. Or there were less animals on the Ark but then you would need evolution to produce the rest of the species.
7. What is it?

1. There were 8 people on the Ark.
2. The breeding population for humans to be able to repopulate the Earth is between 80 and 160 depending on the circumstances.
3. How did we get to six billion if the Ark scenario doesn't work and evolution is wrong?

Just a thought.