I think it is simply a matter of not fitting in with the norm. Feeling dissimilar, possibly disenfranchised, assuming they know better or more (which is not entirely accurate and is kind symptomatic of delusion). I am not deliberately being provocative just my own observations.
Why are geeks often atheists?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
:roflmao:
Skeptics are assuming they know better, but the devoutly religious assume nothing. I love it.
No it isn't.
Maybe geeks are atheists because they want to be God.
Geeks are better than Gods, because they actually exist.
This is a commonly repeated utter falsehood.
Well that is why i say it is faith based. The mere fact you cannot admit this is somewhat disturbing.
Edit: To be clear, there is an element of conjecture. And conjecture is based on elements of faith. You can call it what you want i speak truthfully.
Last edited:
:bugeye:
You say it's faith based because I don't agree that it's faith based? What kind of bizarre logic is that?
I declare that god does not exist because you believe in him.
You believe completely in something you have never seen, no one has. So now what are we left with? explanations. Explanations are not evidence. When we speak of evolution we are referring to biological evolution. This happens in a relatively minor way but one species to another entirely different species is faith based. Sorry but it is true.
Sorry it's not, it is clear from the fossil record. Deduction from evidence is not the same thing as belief without evidence.
In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.
Here is how this speciation occurred. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.
All due repect but you are completely and utterly wrong. Better luck next time.
Look at it this way:
You have a crime scene. A man walks down the street and CCD cam capture his image, then footprints in the dirt lead to a broken window, dirty footpints from the windo to where a big pile of cash was taken, then as perpetrator exits the crime scene is spotted by a neighbor and identified. Cops take CCD image show it to neighbor, neighbor provides positive ID. Cops find suspects residence, recover dirty shoes, match it to footprints. Case closed.
Do that with evolution.
You have a crime scene. A man walks down the street and CCD cam capture his image, then footprints in the dirt lead to a broken window, dirty footpints from the windo to where a big pile of cash was taken, then as perpetrator exits the crime scene is spotted by a neighbor and identified. Cops take CCD image show it to neighbor, neighbor provides positive ID. Cops find suspects residence, recover dirty shoes, match it to footprints. Case closed.
Do that with evolution.
It's been done. DNA evolves even when it's placed on it's own in a vessel and subjected to selection pressure.
No one has ever seen fossils? :bugeye:
And? No offense but that is not helping to make your case. You know as well as i do that your example it is still a plant.
There is an element of conjecture in all things. I could say, "All of your empirical evidence is false, reality is a persistent delusion," and you could not prove otherwise. The fact is that there isn't any evidence to support that claim.
Science operates on determining what the most likely case is. Given the fossil evidence, and the accurate predictions that we can construct from evolutionary theory, we arrive at the inescapable conclusion that evolution via natural selection is the most likely cause of the complex life. If you demanded that I put that probability into numbers, it would be something on the order of 99.9999~ad infinitum.
You made an erroneous statement, I pointed out your blatant error and now you whine that "it's a plant"? Pah.
Needless to say it has been observed in more than plants, (mice, flies etc). What is your actual argument? Evolution doesn't happen because you've never seen a human give birth to a jumbo jet?
...how does its being a plant have any bearing here?
Last edited: