Why does evolution select against atheists?

[Dywyddyr]

Even in evolution science has not seen on type of animal evolve into another type.

But we HAVE seen the evidence that it happens. We haven't seen it because of the timescales involved.

So scientists have to go against the evidence that we know

A ridiculous lie.

They even have to go against the fact that the life we see has incredible design to it.

That isn't a fact, it's specious assumption. With no evidence.

The evidence is for creation, there is no evidence for evolution.

The same ridiculous lie, repeated and repeated in the hopes that it will become true.

 

[earth]

The evidence is for creation, there is no evidence for evolution.

What is the procedure established to verify the evidence and what is the evidence for creation? Faith in belief isn't credible.

Scientists use many different techniques to help interpret evidence. Often, interpretation involves drawing on what scientist know to help explain what they don't know. Scientist develop hypotheses that are established through previously known facts. Science is always looking for new data to test their current conclusions in an ongoing effort to make sure they're correct. Scientist use procedures adhering to established scientific method.

We know scientists can have more than one interpretation for the evidence they discover. The interpretations made in science are heavily scrutinized from peer-review and a consensus is developed within the scientific community.

The interpreters of religious text cannot reach a consensus, and are therefore much more fallible in their interpretations than scientist. Creationism is not a form of science as it does not adhere to scientific standards.

Science does lead to changes, however, would you rather trust someone who learns from their mistakes, or someone who will never admit it when they're wrong?

 

[earth]

Originally Posted by hay_you
Even in evolution science has not seen on type of animal evolve into another type.

I’m sure you’ve seen a tadpole. Tadpoles live in the water and have gills. They develop into air breathing frogs or toads. Do you know a little over 530 million years ago everything lived in the sea, nothing lived on the land?

 

[hay_you]

I’m sure you’ve seen a tadpole. Tadpoles live in the water and have gills. They develop into air breathing frogs or toads. Do you know a little over 530 million years ago everything lived in the sea, nothing lived on the land?

That is true. There many animals that start out one way and developed into a mature animal. Frogs are one, there butterflies, mosquitoes. etc.
But they always turn in to frogs or butterflies. There is nothing about evolution in that.
Not everything lived in water first. That is an assumption from scientists. They may have been the first created ones. But land animals are quite different than sea going ones. The leaps in evolution for this to come about, are huge. Here again you would need to have direct lines of evolution to prove that they did. This are not found. There are some that are kind of both, but to say they evolved is an assumption. There are creations that fit many ecosystems.
It's not the science that is the problem , it is just the interpretation of the science.
Really for the scientists to be correct in this they need the transitional fossil for proof. And we should be seeing this today. Where are these for man?

 

[SnakeLord]

Even in evolution science has not seen on type of animal evolve into another type

Incorrect. Speciation has been observed numerous times. Of course I'm not entirely sure what you mean exactly by "type of animal" - being one of those anti-evolution theists you probably mean a dog morphing into a hippo, such is their ignorance on the matter.

I'd advise you take the time to research. Just an idea.

 

[hay_you]

Incorrect. Speciation has been observed numerous times. Of course I'm not entirely sure what you mean exactly by "type of animal" - being one of those anti-evolution theists you probably mean a dog morphing into a hippo, such is their ignorance on the matter.

I'd advise you take the time to research. Just an idea.

If you are talking about species then science doesn't agree with what species are. I have commented on this before.
Dogs are dogs and cats are cats. At some point scientists have to have one animal becomes another. But that does not happen. Some how you have got to get to man, from that single cell. But this line is not in the fossil record.

 

[Dywyddyr]

They may have been the first created ones.

There are no "created" ones.

Here again you would need to have direct lines of evolution to prove that they did. This are not found.

Wrong, we have found them.

Really for the scientists to be correct in this they need the transitional fossil for proof.

Trolling and lying again. It has been pointed out to you many times that we DO have transitional fossils.

 

[decons]

Evolution is not a god,
it does not select.
It is a process in which
some atheists involved in science
try to save everybody's lives.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Evolution is not a god,
it does not select.
It is a process in which
some atheists involved in science
try to save everybody's lives.

That possibly means something to someone...

 

[SnakeLord]

If you are talking about species then science doesn't agree with what species are. I have commented on this before.
Dogs are dogs and cats are cats. At some point scientists have to have one animal becomes another. But that does not happen. Some how you have got to get to man, from that single cell. But this line is not in the fossil record.

With due respect but the extent of your ignorance on this subject is extraordinary, (but not all that surprising).

Because such things are utterly not worth really getting into with creationists, I'll let someone else do it for me.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB801.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB925.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html

As for your final 'dogs are dogs, cats are cats, one animal must "become" [?] another' nonsense, am I right in assuming that you're talking about those legendary dats or cots? Such naive foolishness frankly makes me want to puke.

Study man, study.

 

[decons]

That possibly means something to someone...

It means a lot to me.

I thought "science" and "lives" rhymed a little. This association made me break the two sentences into five lines. What these two sentences might mean would depend on my writing skills and the intention of the reader. The general idea is about atheists and theists being members of the same evolution.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Ah, okay.
Apologies, I read it in a somewhat critical mood (after hay-you's posts) and misunderstood/misread the intent.
And yes, on second look I can appreciate it.
Nice.

 

[hay_you]

As for your final 'dogs are dogs, cats are cats, one animal must "become" [?] another' nonsense, am I right in assuming that you're talking about those legendary dats or cots? Such naive foolishness frankly makes me want to puke.

Study man, study.

Scientists have to get from some life, to all we see . That means vegetation and all animal life. So if one didn't evolve into another how do scientists, explain all the life we see? Are you then , saying, each animal was created as a dog or cat? That is creation.

 

[hay_you]

I thought "science" and "lives" rhymed a little. This association made me break the two sentences into five lines. What these two sentences might mean would depend on my writing skills and the intention of the reader. The general idea is about atheists and theists being members of the same evolution.

Or more accurately creation. There really is no such thing as evolution.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Or more accurately creation. There really is no such thing as evolution.

Creation is a myth for people that don't want to (or can't) think, e.g. those who claim there's no such thing as evolution.
Stop trolling.

 

[SnakeLord]

Scientists have to get from some life, to all we see . That means vegetation and all animal life. So if one didn't evolve into another how do scientists, explain all the life we see? Are you then , saying, each animal was created as a dog or cat? That is creation.

Obviously, as you well know but refuse on emotional religious grounds, all life evolves, has evolved and will continue to do so. But asking how a dog "becomes" a cat shows a serious naivete to the entire subject - and it's not something that I'm willing to go through with you.

I would advise that you engage in study - somewhere other than creationism.com. As a start - because it's written for the layman, I would suggest Dawkins 'Greatest Show on Earth'. If you're at all interested in the truth of the matter, you'll take that advice.

Regards,

 

[decons]

If you are talking about species then science doesn't agree with what species are. I have commented on this before.
Dogs are dogs and cats are cats. At some point scientists have to have one animal becomes another. But that does not happen. Some how you have got to get to man, from that single cell. But this line is not in the fossil record.

A dog, in fact every single type of dog, is a product of human domestication, breeding, in short, human-made evolution. There is no dog, until humans domesticated common wolf (canis lupus commonus).

A dog is half wolf, half human.

A dog is a werewolf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog

 

[hay_you]

Obviously, as you well know but refuse on emotional religious grounds, all life evolves, has evolved and will continue to do so. But asking how a dog "becomes" a cat shows a serious naivete to the entire subject - and it's not something that I'm willing to go through with you.

I would advise that you engage in study - somewhere other than creationism.com. As a start - because it's written for the layman, I would suggest Dawkins 'Greatest Show on Earth'. If you're at all interested in the truth of the matter, you'll take that advice.

\
Actually evolution is an emotional stand against a creator. If scientists had evidence of evolution that would be different.
I have some of Dawkins' books. He does makes some good points on false religious idea's, but he is just as wrong as the scientists are about this.
The evidence does not support the scientist in this. The fossil record doesn't and scientists do not know how life started. This an emotional subject for scientists. The actually science is OK.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually evolution is an emotional stand against a creator.

Ridiculous lie.

If scientists had evidence of evolution that would be different.

They do have evidence, as shown to you.

I have some of Dawkins' books.

But haven't understood them.

but he is just as wrong as the scientists are about this.

You wouldn't know.

The evidence does not support the scientist in this. The fossil record doesn't and scientists do not know how life started.

Already shown to be incorrect.

This an emotional subject for scientists.

The only emotion that comes into it is when idiots with no idea of what they're talking about insist on repeating the same facile inane "arguments" over and over again.

The actually science is OK.

Since you know nothing about science your opinion is worthless.

Trolling again.

 

[SnakeLord]

Actually evolution is an emotional stand against a creator.

Oh do kindly dispense with your nonsense, it's just not amusing anymore.

What would be more emotionally pleasing: The idea that you're never going to die but are instead going to live forever in a land of pure luxury and that you're special, loved and wanted or that we evolved?

You simply have no case, just verbal diarrhea. There is no emotional investment with the fact that we have evolved.

If scientists had evidence of evolution that would be different.

Standard creationist tripe based upon nothing but ignorance and emotional hatred that they're not lovingly crafted.

Evolution is a fact - as much a fact as gravity is a fact. It also involves theories just as gravity - and no, theory does not mean guess).

I have some of Dawkins' books.

Doubtful. However, as you might claim to be interested in truth and facts - I would suggest you go as soon as possible and begin with the one advised. Once you've read that, we can move on.

The fossil record doesn't and scientists do not know how life started.

1. You're so wrong it's not even funny.

2. This is a separate issue and something we can raise in a new thread if needs be.

This an emotional subject for scientists

It's getting that way now because of the idiots that also inhabit this planet, (creationists).