Theists And Evolution

Umm, well yes it does, sometimes. It’s called 'inductive reasoning. You know, like Sherlock Holmes used.

What the fuck is a proto thought?

Are you claiming that thought [always] proceeds action? As a principle it’s arguable; it’s my observation that action is often instinctive. Now take Donald Trump for example. Are you going to seriously claim that his cerebral cortex even works a lot of the time? If there was such a thing, I’d argue his reptilian brain stem was usually in charge. But there isn’t so I won’t.

Perhaps have a go at using more common words for a bit. You might seem less of a pretentious dill.


“Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.[[3]]”(Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia)

Where the fu** did you come from and if you are Christian why are you here trying to convince us atheists?

God did not write the bible humans did.

If there is any evidence show us.

What you should know is that EVOLUTION has nothing what so ever to do with the existence or non-existence of a God. There is no such thing as micro or macro. There is change over time. No species has ever given birth to anything outside its own species. What you should know is that sometimes it is better to be quiet and let people think you are an idiot instead of opening your mouth and proving it.

Oh, so THAT’S what he meant!. Silly old me. Serves me right for assuming a level of intelligence not in evidence.

I took a stab in the dark at it. The words appear reflective of a Creationist sort of ignorance.

A pretty good example of an educated guess.

On reflection, it seems obvious. Not that obvious or I would have seen it.

That is a classic mistake may theists make, assuming that if one genius was very correct on one fact, that genius is correct on everything else. Einstein was not perfect, he made some classic blunders. Same with Darwin and Aristotle, to name just a few.

1 Like

As far as evolution, one major difference between macro and micro is time. Given enough time and a changing environment, micro builds up to macro events.

Not just theists . It’s a common logical fallacy, ‘argument from authority’. EG Common among atheists seems to be the belief that evolutionary biology professor Richard Dawkins is top of his field and a competent philosopher.

He has been incorrectly described as both and has not corrected either description as far as I know.

No we shouldn’t at all, especially when all the evidence shows that they’re the same thing and part of the same process, just on a different timescale.

Though I do love it when creationists who can’t demonstrate a single shred of objective evidence for their creation myth, deny all the evidence validated by science globally for over 160 years, based on nothing but their own closed minded bias.

How many scientific facts, apart from evolution, do you deny, and how many of those don’t contradict any part of your superstitious religious beliefs?

When I meet a creationist who doesn’t dodge that question, and gives an honest answer, i will have met my first honest creationist.

In the mean time, i shall continue to roll my eyes as they deny facts, and make the most breathtakingly asinine assertions about basic scientific facts, like claiming evolution is just a theory. One assumes then they lend no credence to other scientific theories such as germ, gravity and relativity.

1 Like

Ahem, it’s a debate forum.

1 Like

No indeed, anymore than Latin speaking parents gave birth to Spanish or French speaking children, yet it’s an objective fact the latter languages evolved from the former.

Time and small slow changes result in much larger changes. The longer the timescales the greater the change.

1 Like

My bad, I should have added a mention that almost everyone sometimes appeals to authority.

The thing is, a genius can hit on a world-changing idea, but that does not guarantee everything they ponder is infallible.

I know PhD’s who are brilliant in their fields, yet have trouble tying their shoes.

1 Like

Yes this is true.

So I just asked him for the same thing as many of us ask, for some sort of evidence for a god.

Once again, I have a brace of posts over on the old version of the forums, clearing up numerous misconceptions about speciation that are apposite to bring here. Unfortunately, they will need heavy editing to reprise here because of the woefully short post size limit.

From memory, the only argument I can recall being used by apologists here is some variation of intelligent design. That stubborn insistence in using an argument debunked centuries ago clearly reflects the paucity of thought and intellectual dishonesty of such folks.

–I DO remember a recent visitor here claiming there’s a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus. Literally true; what there is not is contemporary or credible evidence…


Ah, it appears I’ve already brought one of those posts here already, though I had to split it across three posts in its incarnation here, and the second post is the part that covers some subtle but insidious misconceptions about speciation. :slight_smile:

Would pasting your post into Google docs and posting a link be easier for you?

A species has never change to a whole new species. A dog stays a stupid dog nomatter if chiwawa or bull dog

You are demonstrably wrong.

  • Hawthorn fly.
  • Three-spined sticklebacks.
  • Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.
  • Tennessee cave salamanders.
  • Greenish Warbler.
  • Ensatina salamanders.
  • Larus gulls.
  • Petroica multicolor.
  • Drosophila
  • Mayr bird fauna
  • Finches
  • Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon
  • Apple maggot
  • Faeroe Island house mouse
  • Primula kewensis

Are just a few examples of observable speciation; what you are wrongly calling “macro evolution”.

Your problem is that you have no idea what the word ‘Species’ means, and no comprehension of the amount of time involved in the evolutionary process.