First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Post Reply Atheism debunked.
10813 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Online
Posted 10/18/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:

Eh. We have proven that the change of a species can result in a new species. I mean, it is documented. This has occurred within recorded history.


Arguably. I mean, it's a new species because we say it's a new species. It's a little tautological.


As far as evidence of one species becoming so far removed from the original that such interbreeding is impossible? No. And, in this the theory of evolution is still a theory.


But we can't expect to see that in less than several centuries, so not seeing it proves nothing. It's statistically insignificant.
10813 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Online
Posted 10/18/16

NyxUlric wrote:
Are you that dull? That you're comparing apples to oranges?


They're both round edible fruits that grow on trees.
11670 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 10/18/16 , edited 10/22/16
10262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/16 , edited 10/18/16

cdarklock wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:

Eh. We have proven that the change of a species can result in a new species. I mean, it is documented. This has occurred within recorded history.


Arguably. I mean, it's a new species because we say it's a new species. It's a little tautological.


As far as evidence of one species becoming so far removed from the original that such interbreeding is impossible? No. And, in this the theory of evolution is still a theory.


But we can't expect to see that in less than several centuries, so not seeing it proves nothing. It's statistically insignificant.


Yes, it is a new species by the definitions we have created.

About not seeing something not proving anything.... So, if I can't prove that evolution does not occur based on the lack of evidence, how can someone say that evolution does occur (as fact, not theory) based on this same lack of evidence?

Which is my entire point.

Believe what you want, but stop pretending you have all the answers. You should probably read my first post in this thread.
Posted 10/18/16

Ejanss wrote:


NyxUlric wrote:

Then why don't you go and worship every single religion that exists on this planet? Why choose one only?


Because when I go to a restaurant, I don't order EVERYTHING on the menu, just because it's there.


NyxUlric wrote:
If nothing can be un-proven, then you'll have to believe leprechauns are real, Cthulu is real etc.


However, to state with single authority once and for all that they AREN'T would logically imply having omnipotent knowledge of everything that exists in the world and...well, I get the impression you might think that a silly concept.


Basically what you're saying is leprechauns are real because nobody can disprove leprechauns and humans don't have omniscience...therefore leprechauns are real. Lol.

See how dumb that sounds?
14733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/16 , edited 10/18/16

NyxUlric wrote:


cdarklock wrote:
Now, if space-time is curved in the fourth dimension, all of that money is wasted because we can neither prove nor disprove Einstein's theory.
This is called "falsification." We can't prove that a thing IS false. But we CAN, in many cases, prove that it MUST be false.


You seriously need help if you actually believe what you're saying makes any ounce of sense.

Nobody goes around saying the nature of gravity IS waves as fact, but there are nutcases going from door to door claiming Jesus is real blah blah.

Are you that dull? That you're comparing apples to oranges?


(desperate last-ditch drive-by messenger-shooting edited--Aka the Trump "Eh, she's ugly anyway!" defense)

Sounds like two people each putting an inordinate amount of personal trust into basing their judgments on something that can't be directly observed from physical evidence.

As for saying that science can't be questioned because nutcases exist who believe in the alternative, however, is comparing apples to bacon.


NyxUlric wrote:


Ejanss wrote:
However, to state with single authority once and for all that they AREN'T would logically imply having omnipotent knowledge of everything that exists in the world and...well, I get the impression you might think that a silly concept.


Basically what you're saying is leprechauns are real because nobody can disprove leprechauns and humans don't have omniscience...therefore leprechauns are real. Lol.

See how dumb that sounds?


Yes, that sounds greviously, willfully and incredibly dumb. Because it's a rather boneheaded half-reading of "I can't produce any signed official card immediately out of my wallet as authority that they're not real, therefore, I pass on the question."

(Is there some bit of congenital color-blindness that keeps us from seeing gray areas?--As that seems to be what you're accusing everyone else of, so I suspect it must be something you've naturally grown up with since birth.)


Here to have fun, not engage in stupid/petty arguments


(Oh, heavens, nooo.... )
4171 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Reality
Online
Posted 10/18/16 , edited 10/18/16

Gmips21 wrote:

History is redacted. Dig deeper.


Did someone say.... BIG DIPPER?!

42279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Online
Posted 10/18/16
973 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Miami/Hawaii
Offline
Posted 10/18/16

octorockandroll wrote:

The sad thing is this is probably meant to be taken as a joke and I can't even tell anymore with this forum.


lel
10813 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Online
Posted 10/18/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:

About not seeing something not proving anything.... So, if I can't prove that evolution does not occur based on the lack of evidence, how can someone say that evolution does occur (as fact, not theory) based on this same lack of evidence?


Because we have other evidence.

It's like a five thousand piece puzzle with a thousand pieces fitted together. We don't know what the picture is, exactly, but it looks like it might be a house.

You can't say it's NOT a house simply because we do not have the other four thousand pieces in place. You have to explain how the thousand pieces we DO have in place are definitely not a house.
10813 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Online
Posted 10/18/16

NyxUlric wrote:

See how dumb that sounds?


I see how dumb YOU sound.

10262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/16 , edited 10/18/16

cdarklock wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:

About not seeing something not proving anything.... So, if I can't prove that evolution does not occur based on the lack of evidence, how can someone say that evolution does occur (as fact, not theory) based on this same lack of evidence?


Because we have other evidence.

It's like a five thousand piece puzzle with a thousand pieces fitted together. We don't know what the picture is, exactly, but it looks like it might be a house.

You can't say it's NOT a house simply because we do not have the other four thousand pieces in place. You have to explain how the thousand pieces we DO have in place are definitely not a house.


But, I'm not making a scientific argument that "it is not a house."

You are literally arguing with a stance I never took.

My point has always been that science actually understands so little that people need to stop acting like it provides irrefutable evidence an entity such as God cannot exist.

To continue on with your puzzle analogy, if you're looking at a 5000 piece puzzle for the theory of evolution, you've got about 100 pieces in the right place, another 500 you're forcing into places they don't belong, and the remaining 4,400 are completely lost.

Now, again, I'm not arguing that science is wrong. I'm not even arguing that the theory of evolution is wrong.

I'm simply stating that what is understood by science does not provide enough evidence for the disbelief in any such godlike entity to be based on anything other than faith.

And, yeah, that last sentence is a tough one, but it seems correct.

Science has an extremely small understanding. Seriously, if you TRULY understand science, you'll understand how ridiculously limited it is. A true scientist will never argue something he cannot prove, but will rather say "I believe this, based on my understanding, but we really do not know." However, people who use science as evidence that God does not exist present it as fact. Like the theory of evolution. Regardless of its support, it is still just a theory. That's because no one has been able to prove it, yet.
342 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Azeroth
Offline
Posted 10/18/16

salamisama wrote:

In the past few months I have spent my time questioning the rationality on behalf of the theory of evolution, and i'm completely confident I have come with a claim that will lay things to rest.

Now, how could humans have evolved from monkeys if monkeys still exist today?


Because not all monkeys/primates developed mutations of DNA (ones that involve the use of brainpower/larger brains) that resulted in their evolution. As long as the environment allows for their continued existence, they will continue to live in parallel. The reason why bugs for instance stayed the same like forever.



10813 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Online
Posted 10/18/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:

My point has always been that science actually understands so little that people need to stop acting like it provides irrefutable evidence an entity such as God cannot exist.


That's TRUE. In fact, it has been mathematically proven.

But you asked why, if you can't use a lack of specific evidence to say evolution is false, someone else can use the same lack of evidence to say evolution is true.

Well, they can't, but NOBODY IS DOING THAT. They're using a whole bunch of other evidence.


another 500 you're forcing into places they don't belong


Hold it right there.

You CAN say that certain pieces do not LOOK like they belong where they are, and that we do not have a strong argument for why they DO belong there.

But no matter where in the taxonomy we put a particular species, all evolution says is that it goes in the tree. It was a piece in the box, so it's part of the picture. It definitely goes SOMEWHERE. Being in the wrong place right now does not say ANYTHING about the theory that the pieces make a picture.


And, yeah, that last sentence is a tough one, but it seems correct.


It IS correct. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.


Science has an extremely small understanding. Seriously, if you TRULY understand science, you'll understand how ridiculously limited it is.


Also true. However, science is designed to progress from a tiny understanding to a greater understanding. And part of that tiny understanding is that evolution is totally a thing that happens.
6453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 10/18/16 , edited 10/18/16
How the hell do you debunk the lack of a religious belief?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.