Your post demonstrates how little evidence there is. 8.7 million species and not a sign of the next step. Shows a sign or I'm done with non sense
So your god created a bunch of hominids and then decided that they suck so he wiped them all out and created some new ones slightly more fit for their environment? And after doing this over and over a few times, wiping out a shitload of hominids/australopithecus/neanderthals he finally looked at us humans and proclaimed "nailed it!" Fucking took him long enough.
how about the first step? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915091625.htm http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...-link-between-organic-and-inorganic-life.html two seconds worth of google search....
I already told you. Bacteriophage and bacteria. Molecular clocks. Show ME that you even understand what evolutionary scientists are saying.
considering life has existed on this planet for such a small amount of time universally, it is incredibly difficult to make the length of time argument as evidence against a God. it supports the argument for God because he has been able to make it happen extremely quickly. as far as the efficiency argument, again, the length of time it took was so quick that it is hard to claim that it is inefficient or indirect, which is what you are seemingly attempting to claim. usually when you get a job done quickly you do it rather efficiently.
I guess it's the intelligent portion of intelligent design that I don't get. Why create all these inferior species in the first place? What was the point of hominids if you just going to create humans anyway? And I can't help but laugh when I imagine a god hanging out in the cosmos somewhere about to throw an asteroid at all the dinosaurs he worked so hard on. Like - "hahaha fuck those guys!"
How can you have evidence against a creation of faith that has no tangible exsistence in the real world? There is no logical argument against a creation of faith.
Not even scientists get it right the first time, and those guys know everything. Your argument seems to be playing against the idea that is purported by religious texts that God is perfect and all-knowing. Even though there is so much contained in those texts that speaks to the contrary. If mankind ever creates a type of intelligent life that has the destructive potential of mankind, you can bet that he will make this creation think that he is all-powerful and perfect in order to maintain control of that species.
inability to perceive it does not equate to lacking tangible existence in the real world. science has shown there is plenty to the universe that is out there even if there was a time when we could not perceive it. any scientific claim attempting to denounce an existence of God isn't science at all but is pseudo-science because it is not grounded in the scientific method. so all that is left is arguments that can be made in defense or against based on faith or anecdote. to your point, the anecdotal argument would be the evidence. arguments can have that weight in the sake of discussion.
I'm not sure that's the proper way to frame it, though. It is impossible to disprove a negative. You can, however, question whether it is worthwhile to even bother treating something as though it does exist. The classic example is the invisible pink unicorn (or Russell's Teapot, if you prefer your classic examples to be from the old school). You cannot prove that there is not an invisible pink unicorn sitting on my shoulder right now. So while it's true that no one can PROVE that there is no god, I think the real question is why are some people so presumptuous as to think that the burden of proof lies on the people who raise eyebrows at extraordinary claims? So maybe there is a god and we just haven't found it yet. I find that to be a less than compelling reason to believe in it right now. And I find it absurd that - given what we do know and what we have seen - that the burden of proof lies on the skeptics as opposed to those making claims about the supernatural.
Evolution has been observed with definitive evidence at the micro scale (i.e. within species). Mosquitos have evolved to adapt to warmer temperatures caused by global warming. Insects have evolved to develop tolerance to pesticides. House sparrows that were brought to North America in the 1800s have evolved to adapt to the climate, and have become genetically different from their European counterparts. Speciation (when a species "splits" and a new species is formed alongside the old one) has also been observed in scientific experiments. When groups of fruit flies were kept in different environments and fed different food for many generations, the resulting test subjects were reproductively isolated from each other. When apples were brought to North America by European settlers, a new species of the Hawthorne Fly was observed that feeds only on apples, whereas the current Hawthorne fly (which still exists) fed on other fruits. The only thing missing is Macro evolution, evolution above the species level. However, it's pretty insulting to say that scientists "haven't bothered" to prove this occurs. This has never been directly recorded because science has only observed and recorded data in a survivable, accurate manner for a very short period of time compared to what these events require. We aren't talking about decades or centuries, we are talking about potentially millions of years that it would take for something like this to be observed with no questions whatsoever about its authenticity. Instead, modern scientists study fossil evidence, geographical patterns, and other things that are actually available to us at this time. These things might not offer definitive "proof" that Macro evolution occurs, however they provide observable patterns that would be stupid to ignore.
it isn't about proving a negative, it is about making an argument that is supported by evidence. the atheist has to make the argument that God is not needed for life and use the evidence of evolution to support that. but at the end of the day the evidence for evolution is not scientific evidence of no God because that is merely a personal interpretation of the evidence and your own drawn conclusion for what that means. the assertion that there is no God is based on anecdotal evidence not any scientific method, just like the argument for God is faith. but science doesn't prove either side for whether there is a God that has created everything or it just occurred naturally. that is why I said the conversation is based on argument. and who has the most science to defend their position. but that isn't saying science has proven the other side false.
i probably haven't done enough drugs, fucked enough bitches, eaten enough hamburgers, lived in enough new yorks, lived enough years, read enough books, lifted enough weights, or am lacking something preventing me from understanding any of the posts in this thread edit: i think i understand real satire now mommy!
