question for athiests

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
thefanwithnoname said:
evolution as a theory has some very STRONG and proveable aspects to it, of that there is no doubt

However as discussed evolution as a 'source of origin' is just a misunderstanding by people who dont know what they are on about

It still has flaws, assumptions if you will and some of these can be massive. for example there is no 'evidence' of species jumping
Click to expand...

Rubbish.
 
StereoTypist said:
What TFWNN is doing here is trying to take any little doubt about a well accepted scientific theory and use that as proof for his own belief in a God. He's using the lack of proof as proof of this own belief.
Click to expand...
Pretty much, and doing his Muslim bros and sisses a massive disservice too
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
You said:
"I bet no athiest has put forward any 'theory' for the origins of the world".
You didn't ask for theories about the origin of matter.

one was my original question, which i believe is unanswered
The second was a response to what you posted (ST's wicki link)
which suggests something existed and the 'cycle' began.


I don't accept the creation of anything, as there's no evidence that anything has ever been created.

Dinosaurs clearly existed and it appears logical that they reproduced, as every other life form that we've observed does.
This is the best current theory of how that happened, based upon a lot of evidence and observation of the most similar creatures that still live.

yet based on this 'logic' and thought process everything has a creator no?

Do you still not understand what a scientific theory is?

I do as we went over this before. And for these purposes lets accept what you say

Quick question for you.
Why do humans have vestigial body parts?
Click to expand...

truthfully who knows. But I understand that the functions of some are not 'useless' as previously thought
 
PNEawf said:
1. Only you think anyone is presenting evolution as the creation of anything.
2. Species don't jump. Which is why there is no evidence of it happening.
Click to expand...

sorry some people argue (wrongly) that evolution explains the 'creation' of the universe
you are right there is nO evidence of species jumping
 
StereoTypist said:
No. I'm simply answering your question honestly which is more than you can manage.
Click to expand...

and 'honestly'

If we can 'see' certain things and come to certain conclusions eg we and all animals reproduce therefore dinosaurs reproducing is logical

we CAN also conclude logically that all things are created by something, therefore a creator is a logical conclusion?
 
thefanwithnoname said:
one was my original question, which i believe is unanswered
The second was a response to what you posted (ST's wicki link)
which suggests something existed and the 'cycle' began.
Click to expand...

Your original question has been answered repeatedly.
Do I accept that any of those answers are proven, personally?
No.

Something existing doesn't mean that it was created.

thefanwithnoname said:
yet based on this 'logic' and thought process everything has a creator no?
Click to expand...

No.
Even if it did, then the creator would have to have a creator.
It's called infinite regress.

thefanwithnoname said:
truthfully who knows. But I understand that the functions of some are not 'useless' as previously thought
Click to expand...

Yet some of them clearly are.
Why do we have a tail bone?
Why do we have wisdom teeth?
Why do we have the remains of a third eye-lid?
Wouldn't these vestigial remnants suggest that we evolved?

thefanwithnoname said:
care to explain?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
 
PNEawf said:
Who knows is not truthful though. We cannot 100% prove it, but the evidence is overwhelming that we have them because we once used them.
Humans have genes that, if switched on while in the womb, create tails. Ask yourself why. Is it more likely that as a species we once used tails or is it more likely that some magic sky fairy created us so ****ing badly he added the genes for no reason?
Click to expand...

where is the overwhelming evidence that we once used them?

vestigial functions are more than just the coccyx and can it not just be that the coccyx serves as a support structure for muscles and acts as a shock absorber when sitting down?

as for the tails bit, a portruding or extended coccyx does NOT a tail make. kids are born with 6 fingers/toes. it happens
 
thefanwithnoname said:
and 'honestly'

If we can 'see' certain things and come to certain conclusions eg we and all animals reproduce therefore dinosaurs reproducing is logical

we CAN also conclude logically that all things are created by something, therefore a creator is a logical conclusion?
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. I can show you proof of animals mating and producing young. You for example.

You can't show me any evidence of a creator.

is it sinking in yet?
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Your original question has been answered repeatedly.

where and have you answered it?

Do I accept that any of those answers are proven, personally?
No.

so really NO then anyway, as I asked for proof?

Something existing doesn't mean that it was created.

name one thing that you know and believe exists but doesnt have a creator


No.
Even if it did, then the creator would have to have a creator.

Why does this negate there being a creator?

It's called infinite regress.

did aristotle not say some knowledge does not depend on demonstration? we dont know the origins of the creator, doesnt mean that negates a creator does it?



Yet some of them clearly are.
Why do we have a tail bone?
Why do we have wisdom teeth?
Why do we have the remains of a third eye-lid?
Wouldn't these vestigial remnants suggest that we evolved?

As i say evolution as in adaptation is not an issue for me, however I would suggest that these maybe guesses based on lack of knowledge rather than because of knowledge. For example a coccyx may simply be for support. Some of the 'vestigial remnants' may not be remnants as first suspected

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Click to expand...

you keep posting these links, yet i wonder if you have read them? this link actually supports my argument imo as it says things like

'..a tentative list'
..transitional fossils is essentially a misconception
...the fossil record is incomplete...
 
StereoTypist said:
No, it isn't. I can show you proof of animals mating and producing young. You for example.

You can't show me any evidence of a creator.

is it sinking in yet?
Click to expand...

there is no proof of dinosaurs mating yet you accept based on what we know

thats called hypocricy

unless you can show me some evidence of something out of nothing?
 
thefanwithnoname said:
there is no proof of dinosaurs mating yet you accept based on what we know

thats called hypocricy

unless you can show me some evidence of something out of nothing?
Click to expand...

First of all, you don't understand what hypocrisy means.

Secondly, there's no evidence, none whatsoever, of a creator, so by your logic, God doesn't exist <ok>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back