Evolution is stupid

[BigChrisfilm]

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

[BigChrisfilm]

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passage ... ersion1=51
Don't call me a liar.

Funny how fast the KJV gets dumped when you have the New Living Translation to choose from. You've lost all credibility with me. Goodbye.

This is the 4th time you have said you are leaving, are you really going to do it this time? Anyway, like I said in another post, I read the NLT. I use the KJV as an end all authority. If the NLT disagrees with KJV, then it is wrong. KJV is God's infallible word, and the other translations are good in some degree. NLT is good because it cuts right to the point. You might call NLT the bible for lamens.

[McCulloch]

The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

Bingo.

I do not disagree that philosophy is the discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Nor do I disagree that atheism is a topic relating to metaphysics. But you did not say that atheism is a philosophical topic or that atheism is to be studied as part of philosophy. If you had, I would not have disagreed. But you said that atheism is a philosophy. The SEP has an entry for change. Change is a topic of interest to philosophers, but it it not a philosophy. The SEP has an entry for Love and for Thought Experiments. These also are topics of interest to philosophers but neither one is a philosophy. So, the fact that there is an entry for atheism does not stand as evidence that the philosophers of Stanford regard atheism as a philosophy. I agree that atheism is of interest to philosophers. I agree that atheism is a part of certain philosophies. I agree that atheism is a philosophical topic. But atheism is too limited in scope to be, by itself, a philosophy. It is a belief.

This is a correction to something that was said in the course of debate. If someone cites incorrect information, the correct information should be posted where others can see that the information provided was in error.

Right.

[theleftone]

McCulloch,

What is atheism? I believe an answer to this question leads us to an answer of the philosophy question.

[theleftone]

I realized after posting the question might be misinterpreted. I am asking specifically for a definition of atheism. Is it a position? Is it a state? What does the word describe? How is it achieved? How can it be achieved? Okay, I'll shut up.

[BigChrisfilm]

6 pages and still only one disproven bit of evidence for Evolution. Looking less and less likely that Evolution is a legit form of science to me.

[Lainey]

BigChrisfilm wrote:

I didn't look at the link because it was from talkorigins.com.

What have you got against Talkorigins.com, other than the fact that they disagree with you? Did Kent Hovind tell you Satan hosts it or something?

I have something for you to disprove. Do a good job, now--I'm anxious to hear your report. Here it is:

Explain to me why we share viral DNA with chimpanzees. I want to make sure I'm clear. We have DNA left over from viruses that our ancestors passed on to us. Chimps, apes, etc. have the SAME viral DNA that we have.

While we're talking about viruses...are they living or non-living? Viruses, I mean. I'm talking to you, BigChrisfilm.

I just can't wait for your response.

[Wyvern]

So when I see a bunch of bones, and I don't know where they came from, and given your religions history of fabricating evidence for Evolution thorugh fake fossil records, I shouldn't be skeptical? If that is what you want to use as evidence, mabey you need a better theory.

First off evolution is still not a religion, it is a scientific theory. Secondly it is not mine. True there have been charlatans, however notice that they are all eventually exposed and their incorrect evidence is discarded. Science does not hide this unlike most religions. Now you know why any scientific literature has to be vetted by others in the field before it is published.

Simply put what you are looking for as evidence for evolution happens over long periods of time which means that your idea of evidence will only be in the fossil record, which you have dismissed out of hand. Given the types of evidence that you consider acceptable you would also have to discard all of christianity since it is based on a book with very questionable origins.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Please name for us the specific hominid for which there is conclusive genetic DNA evidence for, showing it as man's direct-line ancestor.

The DNA of such species (when available) compared to our own is near identical. But then, that's not really saying much; humans and mice share 99% of the same genetic material.

Simple archeological evidence is more telling. We can conclude with confidence the general periods in which each of these species resided, when particular creeds intermixed, when a specific lineage broke off, and when the less suited species died out. Follow the trail of clues, and you are eventually lead to our current creed, H. Sapiens.

If we are to believe the Young Earth Creationists point of view, then none of these species could have ever existed. God would have had create one hominid, create one or more who is slightly different, and kill off the species he doesen't like continuously until eventually reaching the "chosen race". That just does not make sense. Man and woman (the man and women) were supposedly created on the 6th day of history. No mention of the earlier "men and women", the Neanderthalensis, Hiedelburgensis, Erectus, ect.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Hello BigChrisFilm.


For starters, you could refer to the evidence I provided in Evolution is driving me BONKERS.

[Easyrider]

Please name for us the specific hominid for which there is conclusive genetic DNA evidence for, showing it as man's direct-line ancestor.

The DNA of such species (when available) compared to our own is near identical. But then, that's not really saying much; humans and mice share 99% of the same genetic material.

Simple archeological evidence is more telling. We can conclude with confidence the general periods in which each of these species resided, when particular creeds intermixed, when a specific lineage broke off, and when the less suited species died out. Follow the trail of clues, and you are eventually lead to our current creed, H. Sapiens.

If we are to believe the Young Earth Creationists point of view, then none of these species could have ever existed. God would have had create one hominid, create one or more who is slightly different, and kill off the species he doesen't like continuously until eventually reaching the "chosen race". That just does not make sense. Man and woman (the man and women) were supposedly created on the 6th day of history. No mention of the earlier "men and women", the Neanderthalensis, Hiedelburgensis, Erectus, ect.

Pure conjecture. Morpohological simularities do not necessarily equate to ancestry. Example: For years the Neanderthal was seen as a likely forefather to modern man. His picture (drawing) was up on our high school and college classrooms along with a number of other hominids - carefully arranged in order and presented to us as man's forefather. But then genetic DNA testing was performed and it excluded the Neanderthal from being man's direct line ancestor. No other specific hominid to date has been conclusively identified as man's direct line ancestor via genetic DNA testing. Keep trying, though.