What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[New Socialist South Africa]

No that's not how it works. "Insubstancial evidence" is based on what information we currently have available to us, not on every bit of information out there. Thus, before we gained evidence proving evolution, it would not have been unreasonable for a person to not believe in it due to there being no evidence to prove it. Now that there is evidence proving it only those who have not accessed this information, those who cannot grasp this information and those who reject this evidence based on numerous bullshit arguments do not believe in evolution.

Three things...

1. If you don't have all the evidence, you can make no claims unless you have personally witnessed it. (this doesn't just go with the "god" debate. either)

2a). Evolution has never occurred as far as "evidence" is concerned. When I witness a creature going through the evolutionary processes, then I may rethink the whole thing. Unfortunately for you, that has never been done (not even in a specifically designed laboratory "made perfect" for the creation of life).

2b) (I'm an agnostic evolutionist, but that's not illogical, is it?)

3. No that's not how it works? Do you make the rules of logic, because last time I checked, none of us really know anything.

1) I do not have all the evidence related to the sinking of the Titanic and I did not see the Titanic sink. Therefore, I must be absolutely agnostic on whether the Titanic sunk.

2a) You clearly don't understand the scientific method.

2b) Yes it is illogical.

3) Right. I know that I exist and I know that things with evidence backing them are true unless that so called evidence is false. If you don not know those two facts, then there is a good chance you don't actually exist.

[Distruzio]

It doesn't make any sense to be an atheist.

First off, Atheists claim a god doesn't exist.

To put this into perspective, imagine that people were trying to determine whether an invisible pink unicorn exists. If someone found an invisible pink unicorn, then all he/she would have to do is inform everyone where the invisible pink unicorn is.

On the flip side, for someone to say that the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist at all, they would have to have absolute knowledge.

See where this is going?

If an atheist honestly could say a god doesn't exist, he, by exposing the fact that he has absolute knowledge, would be a god, himself. If he, as a god, says no god exists, then he is really saying that HE doesn't exist.

Therefore, true atheists do not exist.

To be fair, the atheist perspective is less "God cant exist" and more "based on current empirical data, God doesn't exist." That is a significantly different statement.

We theists make the same claim about Alien life.

[Stormaen]

From a different point of view (that's probably already been covered), if scientists acknowledge there multiple dimensions and multiple universes – indeed, maybe inciting amounts of either or both – and there are spaces ("bulk") between all of those universes; could God exist outside of any space or dimension we could 1) identify, 2) perceive and 3) measure?

I think on the Dawkins scale, this would constitute number 4. I do believe that the chances of there being a "God" are as equal as there being no "God" based on the idea we can't know/measure/quantify such a thing.

If you think about it: if a scientist created a new form of life, s/he'd observe once they lit the spark. Occasionally, they may interfere but only to direct the life form to grow to maturity, however. Maybe God is a scientist and doing the same thing..?

[Banana Isle]

So my assumption's a lie? You're going to have to explain.

If you were to ask me if I believed your shirt is blue, I wouldn't have to know whether or not it is blue to honnestly answer "I don't know". Your assertion ID that I would have to know.

Well, is my shirt blue?

Agnositc = I honestly don't know
Atheist = The shirt is not blue!
Theist = I have seen thy shirt, and it is blue

Agnostic Approach = Logical

It is logical for you to not know my shirt color. It is ILLOGICAL for you to lean towards a specific shirt color. By our division created by the internet, you cannot possibly know that, and could never obtain enough "evidence" to make a decision either way.

Atheist Approach = Illogical

Do I really need to explain why? You have to see ALL my shirts, ALL the shirts I have ever collected throughout my life, kept up with my clothes storage, keep tabs on my wash cycles, all through the resources of the internet. Not even Uncle Sam is that good...

Theist = Logical or Illogical

The only way for this stance to be logical is if I came to your house and revealed to you my shirt color. This would be the only logical way you could conclude that my shirt is actually blue. Now, you wouldn't be able to explain this through the internet because this is something beyond the internet.

Now, does this make more sense?

[Kilobugya]

1. If you don't have all the evidence, you can make no claims unless you have personally witnessed it. (this doesn't just go with the "god" debate. either)

Complete non-sense. If I see human footprints in the sand, even if I don't have "all the evidence" (what does that even mean ?) and I didn't witness anyone walking there before, I can say "someone walked there". And sure it could be aliens or whatever, I wouldn't make a 100% sure claim, but you can't make _any_ such claim, so if it's what you really believe - apply it to yourself and never say nor do anything. But evolution wouldn't have selected such a behavior

2. Evolution has never occurred as far as "evidence" is concerned. When I witness a creature going through the evolutionary processes, then I may rethink the whole thing. Unfortunately for you, that has never been done (not even in a specifically designed laboratory "made perfect" for the creation of life). (I'm an agnostic evolutionist, but that's not illogical, is it?)

Doubly wrong. First, we do witness "creatures" doing through the evolutionary process, constantly. That's how we select our crop and livestock. That's how bacteria become resistant to our antibiotics. Countless experiments were done by biologists showing evolution happen in a few generations when conditions changes.

Then, you don't need _direct_ evidence to know something, indirect evidence is evidence too and equally valid. Footprints tell you someone passed by even if you didn't see him passing by. DNA samples can proof someone is guilty enough to send him to jail. And we have _plenty_ on indirect evidence in favor of evolution, much more than is required to get a "guilty" verdict in the strictest court. From vestiges organs and other defects of organisms to the number of "silent" mutations in the DNA between organisms to the pattern in which the millions fossils are disposed to ... Denying evolution despite that countless amount of proof, under the fallacious pretext it's "indirect", is orders of magnitude more ridiculous than denying someone walked in the beach when seeing foodprints.

[Menassa]

If you were to ask me if I believed your shirt is blue, I wouldn't have to know whether or not it is blue to honnestly answer "I don't know". Your assertion ID that I would have to know.

Well, is my shirt blue?

Agnositc = I honestly don't know
Atheist = The shirt is not blue!
Theist = I have seen thy shirt, and it is blue

Agnostic Approach = Logical

It is logical for you to not know my shirt color. It is ILLOGICAL for you to lean towards a specific shirt color. By our division created by the internet, you cannot possibly know that, and could never obtain enough "evidence" to make a decision either way.

Atheist Approach = Illogical

Do I really need to explain why? You have to see ALL my shirts, ALL the shirts I have ever collected throughout my life, kept up with my clothes storage, keep tabs on my wash cycles, all through the resources of the internet. Not even Uncle Sam is that good...

Theist = Logical or Illogical

The only way for this stance to be logical is if I came to your house and revealed to you my shirt color. This would be the only logical way you could conclude that my shirt is actually blue. Now, you wouldn't be able to explain this through the internet because this is something beyond the internet.

Now, does this make more sense?

Yeah but what if someone else comes and says "I saw the shirt and it was red."

[The Rich Port]

If you were to ask me if I believed your shirt is blue, I wouldn't have to know whether or not it is blue to honnestly answer "I don't know". Your assertion ID that I would have to know.

Well, is my shirt blue?

Agnositc = I honestly don't know
Atheist = The shirt is not blue!
Theist = I have seen thy shirt, and it is blue

Agnostic Approach = Logical

It is logical for you to not know my shirt color. It is ILLOGICAL for you to lean towards a specific shirt color. By our division created by the internet, you cannot possibly know that, and could never obtain enough "evidence" to make a decision either way.

Atheist Approach = Illogical

Do I really need to explain why? You have to see ALL my shirts, ALL the shirts I have ever collected throughout my life, kept up with my clothes storage, keep tabs on my wash cycles, all through the resources of the internet. Not even Uncle Sam is that good...

Theist = Logical or Illogical

The only way for this stance to be logical is if I came to your house and revealed to you my shirt color. This would be the only logical way you could conclude that my shirt is actually blue. Now, you wouldn't be able to explain this through the internet because this is something beyond the internet.

Now, does this make more sense?

You know why this analogy falls apart?

I can send you a picture of myself and what I'm wearing right now.

If God were halfway near as demonstable as how sexy I am... I mean... What color my shirt is, there would be no "discussion" about whether God exists.

[Banana Isle]

Three things...

1. If you don't have all the evidence, you can make no claims unless you have personally witnessed it. (this doesn't just go with the "god" debate. either)

2a). Evolution has never occurred as far as "evidence" is concerned. When I witness a creature going through the evolutionary processes, then I may rethink the whole thing. Unfortunately for you, that has never been done (not even in a specifically designed laboratory "made perfect" for the creation of life).

2b) (I'm an agnostic evolutionist, but that's not illogical, is it?)

3. No that's not how it works? Do you make the rules of logic, because last time I checked, none of us really know anything.

1) I do not have all the evidence related to the sinking of the Titanic and I did not see the Titanic sink. Therefore, I must be absolutely agnostic on whether the Titanic sunk.

2a) You clearly don't understand the scientific method.

2b) Yes it is illogical.

3) Right. I know that I exist and I know that things with evidence backing them are true unless that so called evidence is false. If you don not know those two facts, then there is a good chance you don't actually exist.

1. There is evidence of the titanic in our natural world. Unless you are admitting god exists in the natural world, there is no way this statement can be logically correlated with this argument.

2a. You clearly don't.... Stop right there and just back up what you say, will ya?

2b. Being skeptic of evolution is illogical now? Perhaps I should just indoctrinate myself with evolutionist propaganda because we all know it's true, anyway. Right?

3. Evidence that is false isn't evidence, genius. There's evidence for god, there's evidence for evolution, evidence for just about anything. How do you know which "evidence" is "evidence". Because your science teacher told you so? Do you think that mankind will believe in evolution forever?

Science always changes. That's what makes science so great, to know that no matter what you think, you will eventually be proven wrong by a generation way smarter and more advanced than you (even Einstein will be disproved one day, I'm sure of it)

[Banana Isle]

Well, is my shirt blue?

Agnositc = I honestly don't know
Atheist = The shirt is not blue!
Theist = I have seen thy shirt, and it is blue

Agnostic Approach = Logical

It is logical for you to not know my shirt color. It is ILLOGICAL for you to lean towards a specific shirt color. By our division created by the internet, you cannot possibly know that, and could never obtain enough "evidence" to make a decision either way.

Atheist Approach = Illogical

Do I really need to explain why? You have to see ALL my shirts, ALL the shirts I have ever collected throughout my life, kept up with my clothes storage, keep tabs on my wash cycles, all through the resources of the internet. Not even Uncle Sam is that good...

Theist = Logical or Illogical

The only way for this stance to be logical is if I came to your house and revealed to you my shirt color. This would be the only logical way you could conclude that my shirt is actually blue. Now, you wouldn't be able to explain this through the internet because this is something beyond the internet.

Now, does this make more sense?

You know why this analogy falls apart?

I can send you a picture of myself and what I'm wearing right now.

If God were halfway near as demonstable as how sexy I am... I mean... What color my shirt is, there would be no "discussion" about whether God exists.

You, then, would be implying that I am interacting with the internet/natural world.

If you are on the wrong site, you will not see my blue shirt, so the whole thing simply becomes "out of sight, out of mind"

The question is, then, if a god does exist, would he communicate with us in the natural world?

The argument itself is not dismantled, however. Just a new aspect has been added to it.

[Chestaan]

Same way that any reasonable atheist feels about Christianity, it doesn't match my beliefs but I'm fine with others being atheists as long as they don't shove it down my throat.

[Banana Isle]

Well, is my shirt blue?

Agnositc = I honestly don't know
Atheist = The shirt is not blue!
Theist = I have seen thy shirt, and it is blue

Agnostic Approach = Logical

It is logical for you to not know my shirt color. It is ILLOGICAL for you to lean towards a specific shirt color. By our division created by the internet, you cannot possibly know that, and could never obtain enough "evidence" to make a decision either way.

Atheist Approach = Illogical

Do I really need to explain why? You have to see ALL my shirts, ALL the shirts I have ever collected throughout my life, kept up with my clothes storage, keep tabs on my wash cycles, all through the resources of the internet. Not even Uncle Sam is that good...

Theist = Logical or Illogical

The only way for this stance to be logical is if I came to your house and revealed to you my shirt color. This would be the only logical way you could conclude that my shirt is actually blue. Now, you wouldn't be able to explain this through the internet because this is something beyond the internet.

Now, does this make more sense?

Yeah but what if someone else comes and says "I saw the shirt and it was red."

Then he is either lying or he really has seen the shirt. Of course, there is no way to know this unless you also saw the shirt.

Honestly, I would lean towards the fact that he is lying. Besides, If he did see a red shirt, you'll see it too if you look where he did. If the person wearing the red shirt doesn't show you his red shirt, don't buy it.

[Dyakovo]

If you were to ask me if I believed your shirt is blue, I wouldn't have to know whether or not it is blue to honnestly answer "I don't know". Your assertion ID that I would have to know.

Well, is my shirt blue?

Agnositc = I honestly don't know
Atheist = The shirt is not blue!
Theist = I have seen thy shirt, and it is blue

Agnostic Approach = Logical

It is logical for you to not know my shirt color. It is ILLOGICAL for you to lean towards a specific shirt color. By our division created by the internet, you cannot possibly know that, and could never obtain enough "evidence" to make a decision either way.

Atheist Approach = Illogical

Do I really need to explain why? You have to see ALL my shirts, ALL the shirts I have ever collected throughout my life, kept up with my clothes storage, keep tabs on my wash cycles, all through the resources of the internet. Not even Uncle Sam is that good...

Theist = Logical or Illogical

The only way for this stance to be logical is if I came to your house and revealed to you my shirt color. This would be the only logical way you could conclude that my shirt is actually blue. Now, you wouldn't be able to explain this through the internet because this is something beyond the internet.

Now, does this make more sense?

Nope. One: atheist doesn't mean what you think it means. Two: You're still clinging desperately to the fallacious (and frankly moronic) assumption that to say you don't know you have to know everything.

[Banana Isle]

Well, is my shirt blue?

Agnositc = I honestly don't know
Atheist = The shirt is not blue!
Theist = I have seen thy shirt, and it is blue

Agnostic Approach = Logical

It is logical for you to not know my shirt color. It is ILLOGICAL for you to lean towards a specific shirt color. By our division created by the internet, you cannot possibly know that, and could never obtain enough "evidence" to make a decision either way.

Atheist Approach = Illogical

Do I really need to explain why? You have to see ALL my shirts, ALL the shirts I have ever collected throughout my life, kept up with my clothes storage, keep tabs on my wash cycles, all through the resources of the internet. Not even Uncle Sam is that good...

Theist = Logical or Illogical

The only way for this stance to be logical is if I came to your house and revealed to you my shirt color. This would be the only logical way you could conclude that my shirt is actually blue. Now, you wouldn't be able to explain this through the internet because this is something beyond the internet.

Now, does this make more sense?

Nope. One: atheist doesn't mean what you think it means. Two: You're still clinging desperately to the fallacious (and frankly moronic) assumption that to say you don't know you have to know everything.

I am not saying that. I am saying to not know, you have to not know. If you are an agnositic LEANING towards anything, whether theist or not, you make a claim in your own ignorance.

It is logical to be agnostic only if you are not biased either way.

What I am talking about there is the agnostic who leans atheist.

[Dyakovo]

Nope. One: atheist doesn't mean what you think it means. Two: You're still clinging desperately to the fallacious (and frankly moronic) assumption that to say you don't know you have to know everything.

I am not saying that. I am saying to not know, you have to not know. If you are an agnositic LEANING towards anything, whether theist or not, you make a claim in your own ignorance.

It is logical to be agnostic only if you are not biased either way.

What I am talking about there is the agnostic who leans atheist.

Again your assumption is both fallacious and moronic.

[Kilobugya]

Science always changes. That's what makes science so great, to know that no matter what you think, you will eventually be proven wrong by a generation way smarter and more advanced than you (even Einstein will be disproved one day, I'm sure of it)

Science always changes don't mean you can claim everything and the opposite. The understanding of gravity changed from Newton to Einstein, but it didn't prevent planet orbits from being ellipses, nor the time for an object to fall in the void to be independent of the object's mass and be proportional to the square root of the height of the fall.

As Asimov said in his superb "the relativity of wrong" article (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm) which I strongly advise you to read, « In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete. »

[Banana Isle]

1. If you don't have all the evidence, you can make no claims unless you have personally witnessed it. (this doesn't just go with the "god" debate. either)

Complete non-sense. If I see human footprints in the sand, even if I don't have "all the evidence" (what does that even mean ?) and I didn't witness anyone walking there before, I can say "someone walked there". And sure it could be aliens or whatever, I wouldn't make a 100% sure claim, but you can't make _any_ such claim, so if it's what you really believe - apply it to yourself and never say nor do anything. But evolution wouldn't have selected such a behavior

2. Evolution has never occurred as far as "evidence" is concerned. When I witness a creature going through the evolutionary processes, then I may rethink the whole thing. Unfortunately for you, that has never been done (not even in a specifically designed laboratory "made perfect" for the creation of life). (I'm an agnostic evolutionist, but that's not illogical, is it?)

Doubly wrong. First, we do witness "creatures" doing through the evolutionary process, constantly. That's how we select our crop and livestock. That's how bacteria become resistant to our antibiotics. Countless experiments were done by biologists showing evolution happen in a few generations when conditions changes.

Then, you don't need _direct_ evidence to know something, indirect evidence is evidence too and equally valid. Footprints tell you someone passed by even if you didn't see him passing by. DNA samples can proof someone is guilty enough to send him to jail. And we have _plenty_ on indirect evidence in favor of evolution, much more than is required to get a "guilty" verdict in the strictest court. From vestiges organs and other defects of organisms to the number of "silent" mutations in the DNA between organisms to the pattern in which the millions fossils are disposed to ... Denying evolution despite that countless amount of proof, under the fallacious pretext it's "indirect", is orders of magnitude more ridiculous than denying someone walked in the beach when seeing foodprints.

All the evidences = all evidence, seen, unseen, and beyond comprehension (sorry that was too confusing for you)

Adaptation is not evolution. Have you seen ANYTHING change into a new species (as in completely abandons it's original species and is literally something entirely different where it can't even breed)? Didn't think so.

No one knows what made the footprint. You are talking in the same manner as a theist (A footprint! Evolution! = A Footprint! God!)

Literally no difference. Oh, and go ahead and show me your "evidence", but don't waste your time if you can't show any creature that has, in human history, become a new species (and I don't mean has so many adaptations that it appears to be, but really isn't, a new species)

I'm open to evolution, it's just none of the arguments are valid. That is science, not blindly eating up evolutionist propaganda with a spoon.

[Banana Isle]

Science always changes. That's what makes science so great, to know that no matter what you think, you will eventually be proven wrong by a generation way smarter and more advanced than you (even Einstein will be disproved one day, I'm sure of it)

Science always changes don't mean you can claim everything and the opposite. The understanding of gravity changed from Newton to Einstein, but it didn't prevent planet orbits from being ellipses, nor the time for an object to fall in the void to be independent of the object's mass and be proportional to the square root of the height of the fall.

As Asimov said in his superb "the relativity of wrong" article (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm) which I strongly advise you to read, « In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete. »

Good point. Never thought of it that way.

[Vazdaria]

So, to everyone, religious and otherwise.
What are your thoughts on atheism, and why?

Also, if you're not an atheist, what would convince you to be one?
If you are one, what convinced you to be atheist?

My reasoning behind knowing Christians and likely all other religions are wrong is this:

The reasons why we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god is because of this:
God is only a word. If you wrote on a piece of paper the word "GOD" other people would look at it and see different things, interpret the word as meaning something different. If you wrote a word like "GUN" everyone knows what it is.
God is a word with no clear definition, that's why we can't prove or disprove it. We don't know anything about this god to take any definitive stance on the issue of whether or not he exists.
That's why I am an Agnostic Atheist in that regard.
I don't know if there is a god, because we have no information on what the hell a god is.
However, the problem arises when you take away the mystery and ambiguity surrounding the very basic and abstract concept of god.
If you define god in a way that we could test the definition, we wouldn't really disprove the existence of a god, we would just disprove the existence of that particular definition of a god.
Religions go as far to describe how god thinks, what he wants, what he looks like, how he operates, his personality, his involvement in human affairs.
These thing are described in the holy book or scriptures of this god.
Now we have something testable!
The Christians' problem is that they make positive assertions about what their god is like! If you can prove that god doesn't fit into just one of the Christian criteria, he becomes null and void no longer applicable for consideration.
They call god all powerful, this is impossible because can god create a boulder so massive even he himself cannot lift it?
They say he's omniscient, yet if he is all knowing, can he know that he doesn't know something? And if he did, he still would not know something.
They say he's omnibenevolent, yet he has caused so much suffering and death and evil to transpire. You may argue that what he says is good, is good by definition, but when we say something is benevolent, we are applying it to the standards of today's morals, not the bible's
They say he's omnipresent, but he isn't because that means we would be him by definition and would have to both worship and not worship ourselves and him, he also Is described as not being omnipresent in the bible.
They say he makes miracle happen, yet there are more reasonable and more likely explanations for "miracles" occurring then the idea of a god intervening, and even so, there is no evidence of him actually committing these miracles.
Top this off with disproven ideas contained within the bible, stories with parallels with other, older mythologies that denotes some degree of plagiarism, the unreliability of the bibles's information, archaic rituals, magic, etc.
They thought the earth is flat, diseases could be cured with spitting in the wound, dragons, sea monsters, unicorns, zombies
It is clearly false. The god of the bible cannot exist by definition because of the paradoxical nature of the Christian definition of god, as well as the unreliability, and clear plagiarism found in the bible.
That's why the Christian definition of god is not the right one, it is false because the definition makes no logical sense and the dogma and stories are clearly ripped from older religions.

I have a deep distaste for atheism. That is, I hate it.

[Banana Isle]

I am not saying that. I am saying to not know, you have to not know. If you are an agnositic LEANING towards anything, whether theist or not, you make a claim in your own ignorance.

It is logical to be agnostic only if you are not biased either way.

What I am talking about there is the agnostic who leans atheist.

Again your assumption is both fallacious and moronic.

You keep saying that without explaining why. If anything is moronic, is your consistent attempt to demonize with absolutely no evidence or explanation whatsoever.

Seriously, maybe I should just wait for you to ACTUALLY back up what you are saying just so I can say "that's fallacious" and never have to tell you why, because that's how we geniuses roll.

Cuz we be trollz.

[Risottia]

I have a deep distaste for atheism. That is, I hate it.

As long as this doesn't become deep distaste or hate for atheists, fine.

[Vazdaria]

Again your assumption is both fallacious and moronic.

You keep saying that without explaining why. If anything is moronic, is your consistent attempt to demonize with absolutely no evidence or explanation whatsoever.

Seriously, maybe I should just wait for you to ACTUALLY back up what you are saying just so I can say "that's fallacious" and never have to tell you why, because that's how we geniuses roll.

Cuz we be trollz.

Dats Dyakovo 4 U.

[Vazdaria]

I have a deep distaste for atheism. That is, I hate it.

As long as this doesn't become deep distaste or hate for atheists, fine.

As a whole? I don't. There are plenty of Atheists who I really don't like, due to their personalities.

[Big Jim P]

Science always changes. That's what makes science so great, to know that no matter what you think, you will eventually be proven wrong by a generation way smarter and more advanced than you (even Einstein will be disproved one day, I'm sure of it)

Science always changes don't mean you can claim everything and the opposite. The understanding of gravity changed from Newton to Einstein, but it didn't prevent planet orbits from being ellipses, nor the time for an object to fall in the void to be independent of the object's mass and be proportional to the square root of the height of the fall.

As Asimov said in his superb "the relativity of wrong" article (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm) which I strongly advise you to read, « In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete. »

I gotta say, I love Asimovs writing. Fiction, non-fiction and on every subject I have read so far.

[Risottia]

You keep saying that without explaining why. If anything is moronic, is your consistent attempt to demonize with absolutely no evidence or explanation whatsoever.

Seriously, maybe I should just wait for you to ACTUALLY back up what you are saying just so I can say "that's fallacious" and never have to tell you why, because that's how we geniuses roll.

Cuz we be trollz.

Let's keep clear out of the trollnaming territory, shall we? /notamod

[Condunum]

Complete non-sense. If I see human footprints in the sand, even if I don't have "all the evidence" (what does that even mean ?) and I didn't witness anyone walking there before, I can say "someone walked there". And sure it could be aliens or whatever, I wouldn't make a 100% sure claim, but you can't make _any_ such claim, so if it's what you really believe - apply it to yourself and never say nor do anything. But evolution wouldn't have selected such a behavior



Doubly wrong. First, we do witness "creatures" doing through the evolutionary process, constantly. That's how we select our crop and livestock. That's how bacteria become resistant to our antibiotics. Countless experiments were done by biologists showing evolution happen in a few generations when conditions changes.

Then, you don't need _direct_ evidence to know something, indirect evidence is evidence too and equally valid. Footprints tell you someone passed by even if you didn't see him passing by. DNA samples can proof someone is guilty enough to send him to jail. And we have _plenty_ on indirect evidence in favor of evolution, much more than is required to get a "guilty" verdict in the strictest court. From vestiges organs and other defects of organisms to the number of "silent" mutations in the DNA between organisms to the pattern in which the millions fossils are disposed to ... Denying evolution despite that countless amount of proof, under the fallacious pretext it's "indirect", is orders of magnitude more ridiculous than denying someone walked in the beach when seeing foodprints.

All the evidences = all evidence, seen, unseen, and beyond comprehension (sorry that was too confusing for you)

Adaptation is not evolution. Have you seen ANYTHING change into a new species (as in completely abandons it's original species and is literally something entirely different where it can't even breed)? Didn't think so.

No one knows what made the footprint. You are talking in the same manner as a theist (A footprint! Evolution! = A Footprint! God!)

Literally no difference. Oh, and go ahead and show me your "evidence", but don't waste your time if you can't show any creature that has, in human history, become a new species (and I don't mean has so many adaptations that it appears to be, but really isn't, a new species)

I'm open to evolution, it's just none of the arguments are valid. That is science, not blindly eating up evolutionist propaganda with a spoon.

Do you have any grasp on the concept of microevolution?

Adaptation is evolution.