Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

[(Q)]

You appear to reject evidence.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

[/ATTACH]

Do you choose what feels right to you? Or do you have other methods.

Yes.

I’m interested in why you only choose a certain part of history,

I am saving the good parts for later.

It may have had nothing to do with fertility.

I said as much.

Why only back then?

I did not seek to limit the proposition but please continue to introduce what you may.

amongst other reasons.

What other reasons?

You’re a nutter.

I guess that is better than mugger.
But you are correct if we are to believe the general consensus here and indeed in the real world. In fact I often think such myself.

Are you good at stoking fires?

The best...I plan to take over the place and turn it into a neat barbeque restaurant.

Legend has it, they liked it here, and started going in on the women.
You’d think they’d be satisfied with heavenly denizens. But no! They had to come and take ours.

Mmmm who selected who, women go for wealth and power that's why I don't see any knocking on my door. I am poor and powerless fortunately.

I believe you’re the talking about Horus—->Jesus connection. That’s false mate. You should look it up.

I do "look it up" and like many things you can find various versions...So certainly I am not sure ...then following there seems another 15 or more similar JC types found in various cultures...it is an astrology thing...that much is beyond doubt.

I’ll be forced to think you want it to be true do much, your not interested in any proper accounts.

I do not want most of what I find to be true as the strong suggestion is that the foundations of Christianity are astrology based and that it's it's origin are easily traced a Sun worship and the attempt of various cults to assert authority by linking their particular god to the Sun. No Christian can entertain the idea yet history is rather clear upon the link to astrology. Christians can't face the truth history provides and certainly in this matter turn their back on their history.

But you are an atheist.

Let us pretend that I am merely studying history tracing the evolution of current religions.

Thank you for being honest.

Thank you for noticing.

It describes more of a Big Crunch type of thing, where the universes, perpetually come into and out of being in cycles. So in one sense it is eternal, and in another sense it comes into, and out of being.

I don't know and my position is I try not to speculate in a manner that has my speculations now my facts.
That tree did land on my fire pump,took it out, smashed my jetty ... Sent to build my strength of character. The ladies mowed my grass.
My world is beautiful ...
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I doubt that.
You appear to reject evidence.

Appearances can be misleading!!! Unfortunately you have not provided any evidence for me to reject.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Appearances can be misleading!!! Unfortunately you have not provided any evidence for me to reject.
Alex

Evidence for what?
I’m not making any claims.
I do believe in God, if that’s the evidence you require.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I’m not making any claims.

Then no evidence is required.

I do believe in God

Which one?
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

Evidence for what?
I’m not making any claims.

Of course you are...[1]You are claiming belief in some mystical, mythical deity, without scientific evidence and [2] Claiming some "notable" distinction between Darwinism and the theory of evolution of life.

I do believe in God, if that’s the evidence you require.

Your obtuseness and playing dumb knows no bounds.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course you are...[1]You are claiming belief in some mystical, mythical deity, without scientific evidence and [2] Claiming some "notable" distinction between Darwinism and the theory of evolution of life.

From your perspective of a spaghetti monster, and other such descriptive terms, there is no evidence. But when we talk about God, who theists believe in, there is a discussion to be had before jumping to atheist, stock conclusions.
Regarding darwinism, there is no evidence that a dog type creature, over time, turning into a whale. Just saying there is not enough to convince anybody it actually happened. If there is some way you you can show that it did, then I will accept it as a fact if science. Not just the opinion of some scientists.

Your obtuseness and playing dumb knows no bounds

You really need to just chill out. I’m not your enemy. There’s no need to be so harsh, just because I don’t accept your philosophy.

It’s difficult to talk about evidence of God, or just God. With folk in full lock-down denial.
You can’t even mention God, without adding some kind of spin, or non acknowledgement of who and what God is supposed to be, from a theist POV.
That attitude alone makes me question your beliefs, let alone not having a single shred of evidence that supports darwinism to the exclusion of all other ideas.

It is almost as if you are not aware of the fact that no one on here has shown anything . All you’re doing is getting angry at me for putting you in the spot.

I believe Alex. He doesn’t know much, if anything about darwinism, but he accepts it because he chooses to. He has a warped, and limited view of history, because it helps his belief.

I think that is what lies at the core of all your beliefs. You clinging to science seems false to me. Because you will accept Darwin irrespective of what developments science makes.

 

[Tiassa]

Regarding darwinism, there is no evidence that a dog type creature, over time, turning into a whale.

And that's beside the point.

Do you understand that you're allowed to behave this way because someone, somewhere, needs somebody to complain about and feel better than?

Yeah, we get it: You don't know much about evolution; they don't know much about religion.

(Seriously, though, what's the dog story. We were just talking about bears and whales↑, but that's something else, apparently; this dog bit is news.)

 

[Jan Ardena]

And that's beside the point.

Depends on the point.

Do you understand that you're allowed to behave this way because someone, somewhere, needs somebody to complain about and feel better than?

Asking for evidence on something not all scientists agree upon, is something one has to be allowed to do? That doesn’t say much for the people who are “allowing me”.

Yeah, we get it: You don't know much about evolution; they don't know much about religion.

I know enough to know that the emperor is naked, at this point.
I don’t know much about, what is termed “microevolution”, yet I can see that it works.
We don’t need elaborate science, biology, physics, or math, to understand it. Why do we need it with darwinism?

(Seriously, though, what's the dog story. We were just talking about bears and whales↑, but that's something else, apparently; this dog bit is news.)

It called “Pakicetus”, but I prefer to call it “doggy-type.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Which one?

The God you deny and reject.

 

[paddoboy]

From your perspective of a spaghetti monster, and other such descriptive terms, there is no evidence. But when we talk about God, who theists believe in, there is a discussion to be had before jumping to atheist, stock conclusions.

My descriptive terminology for any supposed supernatural being/god is certainly derisive at best, just as your love of the word Atheist is also meant as a derisive ploy.
And again for your information, most Atheists as you love putting it, simply and rightly say that we have no evidence for any supernatural being that you like calling god but I prefer magical spaghetti monster, to illustrate the lack of evidence.

Regarding darwinism, there is no evidence that a dog type creature, over time, turning into a whale. Just saying there is not enough to convince anybody it actually happened. If there is some way you you can show that it did, then I will accept it as a fact if science. Not just the opinion of some scientists.

[/QUOTE]
The above illustrates another of your "qualities", obtuseness. Your dog and a whale thingy [another derisive attempt by yourself] has never been claimed by anyone. But that poor attempt at derision does not change the fact that Darwinism and the theory of evolution is fact. You can keep denying that fact until the cows come home and it will not change that fact.
Let me add from a previous post.....
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner...tion/a/charles-darwins-evidence-for-evolution

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/evidence.html


The argument is not evolution v's creationism: Its observation, logic and reason, v's ignorance, superstition and stubborness.
I also observed from another post of yours that you claim that the fossil records over millions as claims for Darwinism is false because we still do not see one species turning into another. Let me ask you, what you accept as what drives the Sun and other stars? What are they made of? I mean as yet we have not been able to grab a piece of the Sun, take it back to the Lab and verify what we believe....and probably never will. But that does not stop most scientists accepting that it is nuclear fusion that drives these power houses and that they are in the main, made up of H and He. I would probably also say that there maybe the odd screwball "scientist" that has another alternative proposition. And again the following should answer your attempt at derision with the dog and whale......

You really need to just chill out. I’m not your enemy. There’s no need to be so harsh, just because I don’t accept your philosophy.

Í'm cool enough Jan, and I don't take you as an enemy, more simply sosmeone looking for stimulus by arguing your god/IDer cause, and your desire for some sort of victory and support for your cause. The reality is that like any other Tom, Dick or Harry, what you chose to claim on a remote public forum changes nothing. You and I will wake up tomorrow, and Darwinism and the theory of evolution will still be fact. Of course there will always be the odd screwball that may disagree. All humanity has never all agreed on any single point about anything...
And most of what I claim is not philosophy, it's science, much of it established and as certain as a scientific theory can be.

It’s difficult to talk about evidence of God, or just God. With folk in full lock-down denial.
You can’t even mention God, without adding some kind of spin, or non acknowledgement of who and what God is supposed to be, from a theist POV.
That attitude alone makes me question your beliefs, let alone not having a single shred of evidence that supports darwinism to the exclusion of all other ideas.

No one is in any lock-down denial or putting a spin on anything, other then yourself. Which raises other aspects with regards to the "qualities" that you exhibit on this forum...hypocrisy, dishonesty and as previously detailed, obtuseness.
I have made it clear Jan, that I'm no professional and am simply an amateur at this game, and yes, I accept that I do need a type of faith in accepting what I do...a faith that we all have in certain circumstances...eg: If your doctor informed you that you only had a month to live if you did not have a certain operation, would you question that decision? Noting of course that this would certainly be the view of more then one Specialist, after referral from a local GP.

It is almost as if you are not aware of the fact that no one on here has shown anything . All you’re doing is getting angry at me for putting you in the spot.

Another "quality"noted...delusions. You aint really doing that well Jan, for the many reasons I have already stated, and again, it is you on the spot, in failing to show on a science forum that any god/IDer either exists or is necessary. That onus is on you. Science already refutes that myth and makes it superfluous.

I believe Alex. He doesn’t know much, if anything about darwinism, but he accepts it because he chooses to. He has a warped, and limited view of history, because it helps his belief.

I think that is what lies at the core of all your beliefs. You clinging to science seems false to me. Because you will accept Darwin irrespective of what developments science makes.

Jan, as others have noted, it is you that sees any need for any clinging, no matter how much you attempt to "turn the tables" and apply that to science. Science and the scientific method illustrates the short comings of faith and unsupported belief in any deity...It is science in general that is and in time, will replace religion/IDer, because of the reasons I and others have detailed to you. Just because you continue to rail against the scientific critique of your myths, and the lack of evidence showing any such spaghetti monster exists, does not invalidate those critiques and your lack of evidence. We'll all wake up tomorrow and you'll find that Darwinism and the theory of evolution still prevailing and still accepted as undeniable fact.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The God you deny and reject.

You perhaps could be specific as I have a very long list.

In any event as you said you are not making any claims and we can leave it at that Jan. You say you believe in God and I don't need to wonder why.

As inadequate as science may be in your belief it does enjoy a level of credibility that separates it from the superstition and ignorance of reality enjoyed by folk who casually reject it. And..such rejection is indeed curious given science makes no claims it can not support with solid evidence, and no I will not be using my day to spend reading material to find something to convince you that Darwinism is valid or that most religions can be traced to Sun worship, astrology and human god cults...if you wish to avoid learning more that is entirely up to you.

Personally I do hope that you are right and that there is a god and that he could step in and head off the virus that is killing people and causing good folk to lose their jobs and investments.

I hope you stay well and thank you for the entertainment and profound thinking you have become known for and most of all keep up the good work.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Atheists as you love putting it, simply and rightly say that we have no evidence for any supernatural being that you like calling god but I prefer magical spaghetti monster, to illustrate the lack of evidence.

How would atheists know if there was evidence?

Your dog and a whale thingy [another derisive attempt by yourself] has never been claimed by anyone.

https://images.app.goo.gl/1KoD6PeUCiGuSrXs5

Let me ask you, what you accept as what drives the Sun and other stars?

I don’t know.

But that does not stop most scientists accepting that it is nuclear fusion

My response to that would be that we know something is “driving” the sun. We just can’t see it.
We don’t have to think we evolved from a common ancestor.

I would probably also say that there maybe the odd screwball "scientist" that has another alternative proposition.

That’s just unfair discrimination, straight and simple.

Í'm cool enough Jan, and I don't take you as an enemy, more simply sosmeone looking for stimulus by arguing your god/IDer cause, and your desire for some sort of victory and support for your cause.

Not at all.
I just enjoy discussing.
Doesn’t have to get intense or personal.
It is as if you’re all gate-keepers for this philosophy. Vehemently guarding against any one who dared to disagree with you.
That’s the most memorable thing about this weak philosophy.

You and I will wake up tomorrow, and Darwinism and the theory of evolution will still be fact.

It may be a fact to some, but not to others. Although many will accept it as a fact. But it isn’t, and it won’t be, until it can be shown to be a fact. Not just told it is by supporters.

All humanity has never all agreed on any single point about anything...

I bet you all of humanity agrees on “microevolution”.

Which raises other aspects with regards to the "qualities" that you exhibit on this forum...hypocrisy, dishonesty and as previously detailed, obtuseness.

Just describing somebody as these things, does not make it real. Show where I have displayed these attributes, so I can at least explain where you are mistaken,

If your doctor informed you that you only had a month to live if you did not have a certain operation, would you question that decision?

Yes.

Another "quality"noted...delusions. You aint really doing that well Jan, for the many reasons I have already stated, and again, it is you on the spot, in failing to show on a science forum that any god/IDer either exists or is necessary. That onus is on you. Science already refutes that myth and makes it superfluous.

Please please please show where science refutes God? This should be interesting.
The only claim I have made, is that I am a theist. This means I believe in God.
Given the title of the thread, I will happily explain what I know about believing in God.
The onus is on you to show how you know darwinism is a scientific fact, and not a belief.
The majority of lay persons do not know why it is a scientific fact, they simply repeat the narrative. Just like you are all doing so far.

Jan, as others have noted, it is you that sees any need for any clinging, no matter how much you attempt to "turn the tables" and apply that to science. Science and the scientific method illustrates the short comings of faith and unsupported belief in any deity..

“Clinging” to what?
I’ve nothing to defend.
You’re the one huffing and puffing, and getting nowhere. Quit sending me those links. They don’t present any reason to show that darwinism is a fact. I already know “microevolution” is.
What is it that makes you accept darwinism as a scientific fact. No pictures, no same old narrative. Just a simple explanation.

Just because you continue to rail against the scientific critique of your myths, and the lack of evidence showing any such spaghetti monster exists, does not invalidate those critiques and your lack of evidence.

I think you need a lesson in real philosophy. Seems darwinism has blocked your flow.
An atheist can never, ever, know what constitutes evidence of God.
Maybe you can comprehend that, maybe you can’t.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You perhaps could be specific as I have a very long list.

Your long list, is an important part of your denial and rejection. I’m sure if you think hard enough, it will come back to you.

As inadequate as science may be in your belief it does enjoy a level of credibility that separates it from the superstition and ignorance of reality enjoyed by folk who casually reject it.

This is kind of confusing.
Not sure what you’re getting at.

I will not be using my day to spend reading material to find something to convince you that Darwinism

Don’t worry. I’m an expert at reading between the lines. That you have to wade through stuff, to get me reading material (which is not evidence), to try and convince me. Shows that you do not have anything to offer, as to what it was that convinced you.
You are not convinced.
It is simply a position you choose to hold.
Just like you said earlier.

Personally I do hope that you are right and that there is a god and that he could step in and head off the virus that is killing people and causing good folk to lose their jobs and investments.

If you were drowning in a river, would you be okay if a rescuer offered to just save your clothes?

I hope you stay well and thank you for the entertainment and profound thinking you have become known for and most of all keep up the good work.

You too mate.
I’m glad you find me entertaining.
And I’m happy to entertain.
All the best Alex.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Your long list, is an important part of your denial and rejection.

Absolutely. The fact there is such a long list of gods strongly suggests something to me. I am a simple guy, a mug, but the fact there is such a long list tells me that many gods, possibly all gods, are clearly a human invention. I can't be specific, nor do I feel any need to be so, but there is plenty of material that I find compelling ,to suggest that Christianity and the various other similar cults pre Christianity were based on astrology.
You can reject that approach but that is what the history suggests. There appears to be at least 15 human gods that fit the astrology approach.
You may be aware, you may not, but I would have thought, given your interest in God, that knowing how humans developed from mere casual superstition to rather well defined explainations of God. Personally I think there is a good case to be made, if one cared to waste the time, that even today major religions can, not unkindly, be classed as superstitious cults.
Their redemption comes from the good people who try to use their faith to be decent, and not those who use the faith of the innocent to con them.

I’m sure if you think hard enough, it will come back to you.

Actually no. I still do not know how you define your particular god.

Not sure what you’re getting at.

Let me help you then...science delivers the goods even to those who reject it.

Shows that you do not have anything to offer, as to what it was that convinced you.

Well you are right..I do not have anything to offer you..but it is a case of not wasting my time as opposed to there being no evidence that supports my confidence in The Theory of Evolution or that species evolve into a different species over time.
Given The Theory of Evolution is an established theory if you wish to reject it that is entirely up to you, if you wish to believe the Earth in not spehrical or that there is a creator that is up to you...good luck. Your somewhat ill-defined position is yours but as Pado points out the real world will still be there tomorrow, your God won't be I expect, and The Theory of Evolution will still be taught as fact in schools and universities and biologists will do their work in a "Darwinism" understanding of the various species.

It is simply a position you choose to hold.

You are correct.

If you were drowning in a river, would you be okay if a rescuer offered to just save your clothes?

Your metaphors are lost on me. What do you mean in clear language please.

I’m glad you find me entertaining.

I am glad that you are glad.
I must say I look forward to popping in here.. Before I log in I first read the science stuff that Paddo posts as he does an excellent job of putting up interesting science news, then maybe the political threads and then I look forward to logging in to find you and other nice people are up for a chat..it's nice...I do think I see things that you do that may be lost on others..like your position on "Darwinism"..I believe you are trying to demonstrate that both sides are inclined to believe their "masters" without critical thought...I think I somewhat understand where you come from and perhaps that is why I enjoy our chats...science posts leave little opportunity for discussion...a paper is a paper, a fact is a fact so no room to chew the fat.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your metaphors are lost on me. What do you mean in clear language please.

I wanted you to answer the question.
If you say no you would not accept that.
Then it gives you an insight to your question about God saving people from death.

 

[paddoboy]

How would atheists know if there was evidence?

Whether they know or not is not my concern. The facts are that there is no evidence for any supernatural being that you need to call god.

My response to that would be that we know something is “driving” the sun. We just can’t see it.

We know with utmost confidence what is driving the Sun...nuclear fusion and we did not need to get a piece to understand that process. But like all pertinent facts that you are confronted with, you act ignorant.

We don’t have to think we evolved from a common ancestor.

Facts are that we all did.

That’s just unfair discrimination, straight and simple.

No, not at all. Facts are we do have oddball scientists, as well as oddball creationists and ID pushers.

Not at all.
I just enjoy discussing.
Doesn’t have to get intense or personal.
It is as if you’re all gate-keepers for this philosophy. Vehemently guarding against any one who dared to disagree with you.
That’s the most memorable thing about this weak philosophy.

Again facts are that you simply see the need to make unsupported claims, and preach and expect no critical appraisal for your unsupported, unscientific nonsense.

It may be a fact to some, but not to others. Although many will accept it as a fact. But it isn’t, and it won’t be, until it can be shown to be a fact. Not just told it is by supporters.

No, as I said, it will still be fact at least as far as science is concerned.....wake me up tomorrow and we'll see. Sorry to keep bursting your bubble/cocoon.

I bet you all of humanity agrees on “microevolution”.

We can add that to your list of unsupported conclusions.

Just describing somebody as these things, does not make it real. Show where I have displayed these attributes, so I can at least explain where you are mistaken,

Don't be a silly Billy Jan. Near all that have started debating you on this nonsense, say the same thing...you need to accept that you are guilty, many times over.

Yes.

Quote mining, taking out of context and dishonesty once again....what I said...."If your doctor informed you that you only had a month to live if you did not have a certain operation, would you question that decision? Noting of course that this would certainly be the view of more then one Specialist, after referral from a local GP"
In other words Jan, it would be totally and extremely rare for that decision to be made by one specialist. That's science, that's the scientific methodology, that's how it works.

Please please please show where science refutes God? This should be interesting.

Ahh, once again your "qualities"come to the fore. But I'll bite..[1] Any supernatural/paranormal claim is by definition unscientific: [2] There is no evidence for any supernatural deity or ID..[3] Science/cosmology can already adequately describe within reason, as far back as t+10-43 seconds.,

The only claim I have made, is that I am a theist. This means I believe in God.

That's your business, and I really don't give f%$@ about your beliefs. But you also at the same time claim Darwinism/the theory of evolution of life is wrong, and many other areas of science where you seem reluctant to commit yourself out of fear of being further critiqued.

Given the title of the thread, I will happily explain what I know about believing in God.

I'll pass on that thanks...There is a full history of your mythical beliefs throughout this thread.

The onus is on you to show how you know darwinism is a scientific fact, and not a belief.
The majority of lay persons do not know why it is a scientific fact, they simply repeat the narrative. Just like you are all doing so far.

And as I have already told you, I'm not a professional and have given reputable links, which obviously have upset your apple cart. Nothing wrong in repeating a reputable narrative that has surpassed the scientific standard of theory and is now fact, as you will find out tomorrow morning when you awake. And I will continue that as and when necessary.

“Clinging” to what?
I’ve nothing to defend.

Clinging to your IDer beliefs and some form of magic spaghetti monster, which you are so dishonestly defending.

You’re the one huffing and puffing, and getting nowhere. Quit sending me those links. They don’t present any reason to show that darwinism is a fact. I already know “microevolution” is.
What is it that makes you accept darwinism as a scientific fact. No pictures, no same old narrative. Just a simple explanation.

You have that answer from me and many others...again some more huffing and puffing
.......https://www.khanacademy.org/partner...tion/a/charles-darwins-evidence-for-evolution

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/evidence.html

I think you need a lesson in real philosophy. Seems darwinism has blocked your flow.

Oh boy!! desperation times and the usual pretentious delusions of grandeur.

An atheist can never, ever, know what constitutes evidence of God.

There is none and the science has shown that such is only a myth.

Maybe you can comprehend that, maybe you can’t.

I comprehend enough to realize that you are a fraud. I would also suggest that your overlords will probably have disowned you by now, after such an appalling effort to defend ID.
You need another white charger Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The fact there is such a long list of gods strongly suggests something to me.

We're not talking about 'gods'.
There can logically be no list of ''Gods''.
Think about it.

Actually no. I still do not know how you define your particular god.

The Origin of everything.

Let me help you then...science delivers the goods even to those who reject it.

Nothing like stating the obvious. Is there?
Your implying that I reject science (knowledge).
I've already told you. I couldn't, even if I wanted to.
Not accepting darwinism, does not mean you reject science.
It means I reject the idea as a scientific fact.
People used to think flies spontaneously generated from meat, before they knew better. It was regarded as a scientific fact.
It didn't take long before that idea was rejected (aside from the notion it didn't make sense).
All I'm asking is that you tell me what was the eureka moment for you, when it came to accepting darwinism.

Well you are right..I do not have anything to offer you..but it is a case of not wasting my time as opposed to there being no evidence that supports my confidence in The Theory of Evolution or that species evolve into a different species over time.

Why would it be a waste of time?
It needn't be long and drawn out.

Given The Theory of Evolution is an established theory if you wish to reject it that is entirely up to you, if you wish to believe the Earth in not spehrical or that there is a creator that is up to you...good luck. Your somewhat ill-defined position is yours but as Pado points out the real world will still be there tomorrow, your God won't be I expect, and The Theory of Evolution will still be taught as fact in schools and universities and biologists will do their work in a "Darwinism" understanding of the various species.

Because it is an ''established theory'' does not mean it is a scientific fact, although folk will try and equate the two position with what amounts to special pleading. I don't reject it as a theory, or an idea. I just don't think there is enough evidence to secure it as a fact. And the explanations, that my brain can absorb, do not convince me. Maybe it's the type of language.
But in saying that I totally see ''macroevolution'' without too much of the science jargon.

your God won't be I expect, and The Theory of Evolution will still be taught as fact in schools and universities and biologists will do their work in a "Darwinism" understanding of the various species.

This says nothing about the fact of evolution.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

There can logically be no list of ''Gods''.

Yet it seems there are such lists..Google and you should find a list.

Your implying that I reject science

Not at all.

All I'm asking is that you tell me what was the eureka moment for you, when it came to accepting darwinism.

There was no Eureka moment.

Why would it be a waste of time?

It is my general observation that presenting facts has little chance to change a belief. Given all that is available I expect you can find out for yourself... Thus me doing research and presenting you with my findings is a waste of my time as really you are best reading the material for yourself..everything you wish to know is only a Google away.

Because it is an ''established theory'' does not mean it is a scientific fact

Actually it does...see Carl Popper philosophy of science which outlines the implications of a scientific theory.

I don't reject it as a theory, or an idea. I just don't think there is enough evidence to secure it as a fact. And the explanations, that my brain can absorb, do not convince me. Maybe it's the type of language.
But in saying that I totally see ''macroevolution'' without too much of the science jargon.

Fair enough. What you don't accept is that one species can become another I expect.
I can accept the proposition of common ancestor however.

I am curious as to how you see the proposition that at one time there were many human species.
I expect you reject the idea that humans and other apes had a common ancestor or that we can trace our line back to a fish.
I guess I am happy to accept "Darwinism" because there is no alternative as you know.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

It is my general observation that presenting facts has little chance to change a belief.

Lol!

Given all that is available I expect you can find out for yourself...

This is me finding out for myself.
I get why it is called a fact, but I’m baffled as to why it is a fact. It seems as though it is simply accepted as a fact.

Thus me doing research and presenting you with my findings is a waste of my time as really you are best reading the material for yourself..everything you wish to know is only a Google away.

That you have to do research in order to explain it to me, tells me that you just accept it as a fact. It t tells me that you don’t know why it is a fact.

Actually it does...see Carl Popper philosophy of science which outlines the implications of a scientific theory.

Regardless of what another human being says, it is what it is. If it is a fact, then everyone should be able to access the truth of it on some level. There seems to be nothing that connects us to darwinism. It seems like an idea tagged on to the fact of evolution. And we’re all supposed to accept it, because some folk have the power to implement it. That’s how it seems to me.

Fair enough. What you don't accept is that one species can become another I expect.

Yes.
Precisely.

I can accept the proposition of common ancestor however.

So can I.

I am curious as to how you see the proposition that at one time there were many human species.

There may be many human species right now.
It all depends on what constitutes a species.
As far as I can tell, humans like us have always been. Obviously adapting to whatever their circumstance.

I expect you reject the idea that humans and other apes had a common ancestor or that we can trace our line back to a fish.

It’s not that I reject it. I see no real good explanation of the evidence for it. It doesn’t make any sense to me, and to billions of others.
Why do you accept it?
What is the evidence that allows you to independently accept it. Or do you trust the scientists that expound it.

guess I am happy to accept "Darwinism" because there is no alternative as you know.

Lol!!!