You don't know there's a difference? Evolution occurs within a species but there has never been evidence found in nature that it creates a species. Quite the opposite really.
The Nonsense of Atheists
- Thread starter RenaissanceMan
- Start date
You don't know there's a difference? Evolution occurs within a species but there has never been evidence found in nature that it creates a species. Quite the opposite really.
Nice tantrum.
there is no evidence of creation. there is evidence of mutation and speciation.
this is what happens all the time and how religionists survive.
they twist and project, play the victim and using guilt-trips on atheists.
then when they are given an inch, they take a mile. this is why they should not be given any foothold as it's just going to be more absurdity.
the act of 'i'm not like this christian or that christian or i'm not religious' is all window-dressing and bs.
it proves itself time and again. care to explain what your beliefs are regarding how humans showed up on planet earth?
i'm sure it will be enlightening.
i don't know. and neither do you. and that's the truth.
I know exactly how it happened. It is very well documented in the fossil and DNA records
and THAT is the TRUTH.
no, the truth is that virtually all phylum level body plans exploded on the scene in the cambrian period, and remain unchanged to this day. there is also no evidence whatsoever in the dna and fossil records from the cambrian and precambrian periods that indicate some common ancestor for these organisms, or that they evolved gradually over a period of time that was even near the length of time that would be required to achieve the complexity or variations through mutation.
if you don't agree with darwin then it means you probably have another idea in mind. what is it?
did aliens arrive to seed the planet? did god instantly create every species?
on another note, getting info from you is like pulling teeth. you play coy a lot. if you were so confident or sure of what you believe, you would present them clearly and not in little tiny tidbits when you think it won't or can't be refuted. before you said that you weren't religious and led to believe that you would be rational. but you wait awhile and then change-up hinting back to religious views.
Last edited:
i don't know. i certainly don't think it happened "by magic".
what i do know, is that when i look at it, it appears to be the result of some prolific, relatively abrupt, and very intelligent engineering.
don't you think?
why do you have a problem with darwin's theory?
it's the most sound or realistic so far, don't you think??!
how else would it have happened if not starting from simple to multicellular life.
what's even funny is to call it very intelligent. it's complicated from our point of view but i would hardly call it intelligent.
darwin had a problem with darwin's theory birch. i'm not saying it's a bad theory necessarily; i'm just saying that it's not supported by evidence and people believe it anyway.
it could have started simple, but however it started, it's quite a feat in engineering.
Please post the evidence that proves it wrong.
Every piece of evidence, every fossil, every dna analysis has confirmed it.
you just make stuff up don't you? you don't even know what evidence exists or else you wouldn't have made this statement.
you would try any absurd argument to try and equate or delegitimatize evolution theories with creation.
by saying there is no evidence for evolution, you think it somehow legitimized the belief in creationism or somehow makes it less absurd.
there is evidence supporting evolution. it's called a trail of clues. creationism has no such clues.
ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION PLEASE:
do you think it's possible or probable that humans evolved from some species of lower primates and those primates evolved from other species etc?
Last edited:
listen bucko, i didn't say there wasn't evidence supporting evolution. in fact i said that evidence is obvious.
yeah it's possible, and there are plenty of clues around you right now that support creationism as well such as the cambrian explosion, stasis, our own technologies, and engineering.
strange but not an unusual theist. you just said a couple posts up that there was no evidence and now you say the evidence is obvious. par for the course theist logic. just lie but pretend you didn't. lol
btw, darwin had no issues with theism. he just didn't believe in literal creationism but that it was a process through evolution.
you don't seem to understand what darwin's theories are about or you are confusing the term "creationism" with evolution.
no, there is no evidence of creationism all around me or us.
birch
how critical was the process of evolution that things needed to be perfect in order for life to evolve?
IOW
what are the chances that a minuscule change in temp/light/oxygen/etc could have prevented life from evolving?
its not so much about proving it wrong, as it is about an alternate theory..
i also will argue when ppl claim evolution as empirical fact, it is not..
several links you can read..
EVOLUTION: The Evidence Says No.
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION - FICTION, NOT "SCIENCE"
SANDWALK
STROLLING WITH A SKEPTICAL BIOCHEMIST
Scientific reasons why evolution and the Big Bang Theory cannot be true.
my argument is not which is the truth..my argument is evolution is still not proven..hence not a fact..i will accept that it is close to being proven as the evidence is accumulating for evolution, but then how many scientists are biased for evolution?
BTW..has the missing link been found yet? if not there is your proof that it is still unproven.
to claim it as fact just to invalidate creationism, one puts themselves into the same boat as one who argues FOR creationism.
how critical was the process of evolution that things needed to be perfect in order for life to evolve?
IOW
what are the chances that a minuscule change in temp/light/oxygen/etc could have prevented life from evolving?
its not so much about proving it wrong, as it is about an alternate theory..
i also will argue when ppl claim evolution as empirical fact, it is not..
several links you can read..
EVOLUTION: The Evidence Says No.
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION - FICTION, NOT "SCIENCE"
SANDWALK
STROLLING WITH A SKEPTICAL BIOCHEMIST
Scientific reasons why evolution and the Big Bang Theory cannot be true.
my argument is not which is the truth..my argument is evolution is still not proven..hence not a fact..i will accept that it is close to being proven as the evidence is accumulating for evolution, but then how many scientists are biased for evolution?
BTW..has the missing link been found yet? if not there is your proof that it is still unproven.
to claim it as fact just to invalidate creationism, one puts themselves into the same boat as one who argues FOR creationism.
Actually, there are many fossils from that period that show evolution taking place, a biological arms race going on. There is no DNA from that period, DNA doesn't survive that long. No one can say exactly how much time is "required" for something to evolve. Certainly in the beginnings of life on Earth, many ecological niches were waiting to be filled, those kinds of conditions don't exist anymore, which is why there isn't the rapid invention of new things.
Evolution is a scientific fact, and if you don't think so, you don't know how science works.
Cambrian explosion? I thought you acknowledged it.
yet these questions still do not have anything to do with creationism. to answer the question, it was very critical yet that still has nothing to do with creationism, yay or nay. why would one even pose such a question. as a matter of fact, because the conditions have to be a certain way would indicate in favor of evolution more than creationism. i really don't get theistic logic or is it even reasoning at all? lol
absolutely not, this statement shows your poor perception. it's that evolution is just plainly realistic whereas creationism is tantamount to bogus.
i am very good that you and lori spoke up and became bold enough to be honest. i want all the atheists here to see that i was right about you all along when they thought they were being too hard on you theists etc.
weren't you the one who said that you don't take the bible literally and so did lori? you were fooling others.
why would you defend creationism but not evolution? what is the point?
it's already been stated that even darwin had no problem with the idea that a god exists and his personal belief was theism. the process, which is called 'evolution' is not the issue.
what is your problem with evolution, msquirrel? hmm? what sound alternate theory do you have?
do you not think humans evolved? or do you think humans always were humans?
btw, you are "pretending" to be neutral or that it's just a case of lack of empirical evidence (would hate to have loonies such as you and lori on a jury as you would not be able to think or make connections), you are essentially defending creationism.
you are defending religion and pretty much any christian belief you possibly can by exploiting any angle you can reverting to your religious beliefs.
I'M GLAD THAT YOU ARE and hope that the rest of the atheists here can see you guys for what you are and the game you guys play!
Last edited: