G’day.
Briefly, humans are so different from all other creatures, so I doubt if they evolved like all other creatures … plus Genesis says humans are made in the image of God, unlike all the other creatures.
I reject the claim by theistic evolutionists that Adam (who was given a soul by God) was the offspring of humans that lacked souls … because that alleged race of souless humans disappeared from history and no one can offer a sensible reason as to why.
Then you are just blowing shit. Evolution is the very best, evidence-based theory we have. It does not fall apart because a modern monkey does not have the same brain part as a human. Humans and modern apes had a ‘COMMON ANCESTOR’ and then evolved differently. Patterson’s, very stupid argument, is that ‘apes are different than humans so we can’t be related.’ Fucking stupid. Apes and humans had a common ancestor, between 8 and 6 million years ago. We share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, and the discovery of Chromosome 2, closes the refrigerator door and turns out the light. Evolution is a fact. We use it to breed dogs, to make MGOs, to construct genealogies, to predict diseases, and much much more, IT WORKS!
That’s a matter of opinion. Personally, I don’t have a problem with God “poofing” things into existence.
They offer an explanation that can’t be established as fact or fiction or somewhere in between - what’s “coherent” about that?
Okay. Thank you for letting me know.
I didn’t know that, so thank you for the information.
I agree … but no one can prove that it describes the process that produced the history of life on earth … therefore no one can claim to know how evolution works.
Okay.
Maybe they did, but you can’t prove it … let alone know how they evolved.
I agree.
I agree.
Your line of questioning is based on the premise “we were not there”. But I will resort to what I mentioned about the courts. In almost every murder trial, even though there may not have been witnesses, evidence is used for a conviction. To reach a conviction, under the legal system where it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, people have been found guilty. And just like a murder trial, we use evidence to determine what happened.
I reject your “we were not there” argument because the truth can be determined by evidence.
So, argument from incredulity?
I assume this means you accept the premise that the bible is the infallible word of god?
I am admittedly a bit confused here. Are you stating that because you reject some unevidenced claim concerning some undefined aspect referred to herein as a “soul”, that the lack of an explanation, as far as you are aware, for the disappearance of an imaginary “race of soulless humans”, serves as a justification for belief?
Because unlike most people I do not accept that the christian god can not be proven. I base my argument on the fact that although some objects can not be directly observed, or even measured, they can be examined and proven by how they influence this known universe.
Two examples are black holes and dark matter. Only by how they interact and influence their surroundings have we been able to detect them and even measure them.
Based on the bible, this christian god has interacted with this known universe. There is the assumption this god created it, answers prayers, performs miracles, just few examples.
Therefore (based on the bible) this god has interacted with this universe, and therefore it should be capable of being measured and studied.
Yes that is a whopper, but why would you even try such a preposterous lie in an atheist forum? You surely must know it will be laughed at.
“Encountered online”, that was pretty funny. Try the talkoriginswebsite. It has a massive database of objective evidence, it even includes a section dedicated to debunking creationist lies and propaganda about evolution.
Nope, all they need do is gather sufficient objective empirical evidence, that was achieved over 162 years ago when Darwin published his seminal work in the field. Since then all the evidence gathered from global scientific scrutiny supports species evolution and shared ancestry, which are now considered irrefutable scientific fact.
They already do.
Well who to believe, the entire global scientific community, or some Billy-no-name on the internet? That’s irony in case you missed it.
Perhaps, but we can claim they are entirely unsupported by even a shred of objective evidence. Thus they cannot be asserted as epistemologically true. I’d say that pretty accurately defined a false claim, though whether those espousing such superstition are deliberately lying is perhaps open to debate, at least in some cases anyway.
Well science seems to think it does, and that’s why it is an accepted scientific fact and a scientific theory in good standing. You seem to have been misinformed, like so many creationists we get on here.
If you like.
Not quite … it’s more like, I accept the premise that the Bible is the the infallible word of God.
That sounds right.
Don’t be an idiot. The theory is not the fact. All the facts add up to the theory. All the objective, empirical, duplicatable, independently verified FACTS, lead us to the most reasonable conclusion; Evolution - based on all known observations.
Demonstrate something similar for your brand of magic wielding God that ‘poofs’ things into existence.
I’m not sure why you provided this link. Is it supposed to prove that scientists know how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes?
Do you understand that any explanation of how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes is theoretical, and cannot ever be proven to be factual?
Do you understand that that article attempts to explain an evolutionary transition (eukaryotes from prokaryotes) that no one can prove even took place? Do you understand how futile and farcical that makes the whole exercise?
So far your “truth” has failed you.
I asked you how an amphibian heart evolved from a fish heart - you didn’t have a clue.
I asked you to prove your claim that the “environment” caused a fish heart to evolve into an amphibian heart - you couldn’t.
I asked you how eukayotes evolved prokaryotes - you referred to an article built on speculation and that can’t even get to first base - ie, prove that eukayotes evolved from prokaryotes.
All your “truth” has to offer is stories and theories and speculation.
Thanks, I have no more use for you.
" The hypothesis that eukaryotic cells evolved from a symbiotic association of prokaryotes—endosymbiosis —is particularly well supported by studies of mitochondria and chloroplasts, which are thought to have evolved from bacteria living in large cells."
Do you know what a fucking hypothesis is? SPECIFICALLY - there is evidence supporting the claim BUT it has not yet been demonstrated to be true.
How ignorant do you want to make yourself look? Next: You need to stop using the word ‘Proof" That is a mathematical construct. You need to replace the word with "evidence,’ so you don’t sound like a complete fool.
Finally; given your current trend of completely ignorant comments, do you really imagine you are making any headway here at all. Each time you post a comment you are digging your hole of ignorance deeper. Before you can talk about anything, you should at least learn what the words mean.
“Prove” is not a word used in science. It is a mathematical construct. " Scientists may have lots of “evidence”, but will never claim to have “proof,” because proof does not exist in science. Proof has a technical meaning that only applies in mathematics. All we can do in science is collect evidence – lots of it – much the way we do in testing gravitational theory.Apr 20, 2011"
This is where you and Patterson are both flying off the rails. No one proves anything outside of mathematics. Each time you use the word incorrectly you sound more ignorant than the last. SCIENCE builds models, it does not PROVE anything. It has not Proved gravitational theory and that is why we use two different theories, Einstein’s and Newtons. It has not Proved the germ theory of disease, people are different and sometimes the recommended treatments just don’t work and no one knows why. Sometimes people have spontaneous remissions and no one knows why. WHAT DO YOU THINK SCIENCE HAS PROVED? Your proving to be talking out your ass and not knowing a damn thing about science or evolution. Have you graduated High School?
Oh Fuck! Would you please read something educational before you post again. Just reading your bullshit is causing my IQ to flutter.
No one has to PROVE IT. All evidence leads to it. Everything we know points to it. It is the most logical conclusion. If you are looking for proof, go join a math forum. There’s No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There’s Only Evidence: There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence
Proof does not exist in science:
The Scientific Fundamentalist
Science proves ideas.
The Truth: The concept of “proof” in the world of science is not actually very scientific. Science is based on the idea that any idea or hypotheses
could be put into question tomorrow, if there was supporting evidence, no matter how widely accepted it is today. So, science can accept or reject
ideas based on evidence but it doesn’t prove or disprove them.
http://cosee.umaine.edu/files/coseeos/MisconceptionsaboutScience_v2.pdf
It helps if you fact check claims, especially from creationists who lie and misrepresent science and scientists all the time.
I’ll also provide a citation, even though you did not for that quote.
“Patterson did not support creationism, but his work has been cited by creationists with claims that it provides evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. In the second edition of Evolution (1999), Patterson stated that his remarks had been taken out of context:”
Oh dear, it seems you’re quoting false creationist propaganda, and have not even performed a cursory background check.
“Poofed”?
Seriously funny, you’ve gone from peddling false claims about an accepted scientific fact, to claiming it all happened using inexplicable magic.
Go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and tell them atomic theory is not proven.