oh good. because if you were going to ask if abiogenesis has been observed the best i could offer in a loveable, charming way is “maybe not”

so how does pond life become human life? Yes. The process of evolution by natural selection over millions of years.

if youre asking if this has been “observed” as in watching a video on tv then no. It takes millions of years. To observe it you’d need a sophisticated time machine.

but you wont accept the fossil record as observation and we will never progress much further.

The evidence of evolution by Dawkins is a very good book. I know his other anti religion books are rather off putting to religious folks but this particular book is focused.



Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

All the theory of evolution says is that it is possible for "pond scum" to eventually evolve into intelligent life. It does not posit that this should necessarily occur within any particular timeframe.

The possibility of it is demonstrated by the fact that it already happened on Earth.

my reco is the pandas thumb

Wow, what a very sad an untrue perspective on life.

And you paid the professor to teach you that lie?

The fact that you would assume that anyone would not believe in changes in a gene pool over time is terrifying.

You have even less faith in humanity than I do... dang...

I am not the one stuck.

My opening argument was a claim that "I know where these discussions go and they are a waste of time". I got that line in ages before you did.

I am certain that you will not change your mind just as you are certain in the opposite direction.

From the start to the end I was never the one in error...

Though I did learn a lot about your perspective.

One of the things that I learned is that when you are using a different word definition than someone else, you like to use that as a tool to belittle them, and dismiss them as "retards" as you put it. What a sad way to communicate with other people.

If I were to do the same in exaggerated form, I would just claim that every time you used the word "evidence" you were using a racial slur, and attack you for it. For me, that would be unscrupulous. Hopefully you will discontinue this practice in the near future and try to have more honest and reasonable communication with people.

Exactly! Thank you for finally owning up to your actual beliefs. It took way too long to arrive here.

Of course it has not been observed. *sigh*

You apparently agreed with me all this time.

I suspected that was the case.

This is another reason why I say that these discussions are a waste of time.

You literally came at me for pages based on the word definition of "observe."

Clearly you were using the definition of the word "observe" to mean "inferred through evidence" or the like, which is perfectly acceptable, but how you acted upon the difference of definition left much to be desired.

How sad man... What a waste of time, as I said.

It never seems that anyone ever wants to have any actual communication.

People just wanna go into semantics, choose different definitions, and then proceed to throw the word "retard" around ultra aggressively. Then, they complain about all the stupid people in the world when they themselves are perpetuating it.

Of course I accept the fossil record as observation.

Man.

I think you have had too many discussions with people Pagy.

How many times have you gotten involved with people in discussions like this?

What a sad way to view the world, seeing everyone as dumb as trees.

I don't blame you, because some of them are, but damn dude...



So...

1) You conceded that I was correct the whole time that evolution has not been observed directly.

2) You admit that you believe that pond scum can transform itself into a human-like creature over time.

3) You believe that fossils are good enough proof to solidify your belief that pond-scum can transform into a human

I don't want to misrepresent you, so I'm assuming the above three points are correct?

:picard:

The South Park version is better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNdhq0-cjxY

he achieves his goal; using what appears to be hyperbole then proving that there is no real taxonomical reason why we wouldn't be great apes other than vanity. but let's not go there. you've already asked why monkeys and humans coexist. thats too advanced. you've already gone backwards in the matter of minutes. this is why i used the word fruitless.
if that is the case, you'll now accept that evolution has been observed.

the fossil record is indisputable scientific proof of evolution.
i have not. i'll copy/paste because i'm nearing my limit.

evolution is the change of allele frequency within a population over time.

Now if you accept this definition, i can cite things like pesticide resistant insects, drug immune bacteria, the peppered moth...dogs...and we can see that evolution (changes in a gene pool within a population over time) is an observed and indisputable fact.
why wouldn't i believe this
it's not just about having fossils; evolution makes predictions about what we'd expect to find in the fossil record. it makes predictions about anatomy, geographical distribution of populations and lets not forget modern genetics. fossils are good enough. but we have much, much more.

I can't tell if tpk is trolling.

I'd pegged him as smarter than that.

ITT TPK owns everyone and confuses Failcawk

Brassfax not reading again. Someone escort him back to his room and give him a nice glass of warm milk.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

My entire argument from the start was "discussions like this are a waste of time."

I forbid you from hijacking my centerpiece.

The conversation we are having now is no exception, I fully agree it is a waste of time.

You seem to rank the value of observing a car wreckage the same as observing the actual accident taking place.

In contrast, I believe there are varying degrees of observation. For example, seeing someone's picture is not the same as actually seeing that individual with your own eyes. Pictures can often be misleading as you may have learned from using dating applications. In the same way fossils can be quite misleading indeed.

I would prefer to see directly observable, measurable, testable, repeatable, facts developed through controlled experiment like the scientific method heavily emphasizes.

In the case of believing that one animal can indeed become another, it is not subject to the scientific method as you yourself admitted, in that it happens over millions of years.

And yet, you believe in it based on dating application pictures. Interesting. Hope you don't find out she is a total hog later man...

I completely agree that the fossil record is indisputable proof that the genes of animal change.

However, the fossil record is not even close to being indisputable proof that pond-scum can become a hyper-intelligent human-like animal.

My bad, I am not used to using your definitions.

Allow me to re-iterate my original intention:

1) You conceded that I was correct the whole time that the changing of one animal into an entirely new one has not been observed directly.

This was my original statement. One of truth. One that was always correct.

And let the record show that you refuted it numerous times based on the definition of the word "observe". How tiresome.

Simultaneously you complain about these discussions being "fruitless."

Perhaps if you had more sincere intentions towards actual productive discussion and took time to understand the opposing parties actual views, such discussions would not be quite so fruitless.

Your interests seem to lie in labeling people "retards" as quickly as possible and it does not seem very healthy towards productive discussion.

In a similar fashion, if I went to a restaurant and took a massive steaming crap in the dish I ordered, I wouldn't complain about it tasting poorly.

Nobody would ever disagree with the fact that fossils are enough to prove that changes in the gene pool are occurring. The fact that you would place that erroneous stance on another person in order to argue against them with a 100% success rating is daunting. Nobody in the world holds that stance. At least I've never met one. If you have, I'd love to hear about it. I've never actually met a flat-earther either. I half wonder if it is just an internet meme.

Perhaps the confusion is that we had two different definitions of evolution? Mine being the process of one animal becoming another, and yours being simply "changes in a gene pool"?

Fossils are not good enough evidence to "prove" that one animal can change into a completely new and different type of animal. It's nowhere near enough.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental truth about the tendency towards disorder in the absence of intelligent intervention.

Since you claim that animals improve over time and develop new intelligence that was previously non existent in the form of entirely new traits and cognizance, are you then admitting that intelligent intervention is occurring, as to not defy this natural law?

If not, why do you believe in supernatural things that defy the natural laws of science?

If yes, what source of intelligence is helping these creatures along?

If new positive changes in the code of the DNA are constantly occurring, meaning things that were previously non-existent are moving into existence and being created, what source of intelligence are they coming from?

Surely pond-scum has no interest in Russian super models. How did this new coding in the DNA appear without intelligent assistance?

The scientific method seeks for testable reproduceable results. It also seeks for measurements.

Does it not trouble you that your asserted truth cannot be measured, directly observed, or reproduced in a controlled environment?

If this does not bother you, which seems to be the case, why does it not bother you that you are making a major statement towards scientific fact without applying the scientific method in its viable form?

Sure dude. It was nice chatting.

Thanks for engaging with me.

Hey look, another wall of text full of strawmen.

Waste of time indeed.

wanna see a magic trick?

If believing that my great great great great great great grandchildren will be classified as human makes me stupid, then yes, it's absolutely true.

Cheery Pagy.

Good times.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/2wYYl...YgAA/giphy.gif

The centerpiece of my entire argument, confirmed and verified by every person I interacted with.

My work here is complete.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/icPn4...mInZ/giphy.gif

victory mentality etc etc

Hey, if you want to go back to trying to explain what the universe is fine tuned for and how you determined that that's not just a product of random chance, be my guest, I won't stop you.

In this thread, a bunch of people argue over a topic for which there is no answer. Good times.

There is a very clear answer to the question of "is there a good reason to believe a god exists?"

I'll let you guess what it is.

The fine tuning of the universe?

The question in the OP was actually, "What makes your religion more "right" than the others?"

That led me to post a bunch of pages that compare all the religions.
Major religious groups - Wikipedia
The Big Religion Chart - ReligionFacts

2.4 billion people follow Christianity.
1.8 billion people follow Islam.
1.2 billion people follow Hinduism.

My points were that Christianity has stories from 2k years ago from people drunk on wine, or the story was told years after it happened, and America needs a US Bible. 2.4 billion people don't care about the superpower stories of Jesus Christ (coming back from the dead), the ark, and the flood being fake. However, I do. It's like watching WWE on TV. You know it's fake, yet thousands watch. And if someone interviews a wrestler and says it, they get punched in the face. That doesn't make it real. Yes, they are hitting each other with chairs, jumping from the top rope, and throwing each other out of the ring, but the punches are fake. Yet it's a top rated show Friday nights on Fox, and thousands go to watch it live.

The number of followers of Christianity is dropping. The Catholic church would have something to do with this since their pastors are raping little boys while telling everyone how to live. The Pope lives in a walled palace called The Vatican, yet tells the USA to be compassionate and open the borders. We're supposed to follow advice from an old man wearing a dress who lives on the other side of the planet. 1.329 billion people believe in that form of Christianity.

I don't have any desire to follow the top religions, because they are based on stories that happened 2k years ago. Yet all those people follow it, and believe. They sweep aside the superpower stuff that makes no sense, just like the Quran is a "peaceful" religion. People like me would then become an Atheist, but they believe there is no God. That's not the answer. One can believe in an all mighty God or next dimension without following a top religion.

given the personal comfort, joy and community it brings some people, there are many reasons that can be considered “good” no matter how irrational it appears to be.

Two of the nicest people I know (my ex i laws actually) are very religious. I don't know if they are nice because of religion or just nice in general but I don't care, they are just great.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

So far the proof weighs heavily in favour of God, seeing as "he has existed" since around the dawn of humanity. That's an absolutely good reason.

If your position is that there is no good reason, the burden of proof will be on you.

Uh...wat

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

Belief in god old as humanity. Humanity wildly successful for hundreds of thousands of years. Our moral grounding was based on religious beliefs. That moral grounding permeated all successful cultures.

If someone wants to argue that belief in god is unnecessary or unfavorable, they'll have to back it up with some evidence.

And no one's mind was changed.

People can come up personify our surroundings, fine, and if it makes them act better to each other more the better I guess. It is possible to have morals without religion.

Why does it have to be some omnipotent guy who made everything? How is that proof?




Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

I don't know why it has to be some omnipotent guy. Ask every human in the history of the species. I didn't come up with it.

Your assertion that it's possible to have morals without religion is a guess.

amRam conflating "god" and "belief in god" again, nothing new

i guess people believed in leprechauns for a long time, so leprechauns exist too

Can you name one positive benefit of religion that cannot also be achieved by secular means?

Huh? You were questioning if there is good reasoning for belief in god. I'm not conflating anything. I'm answering your exact question.

There seems to be a very good reason for the BELIEF in god.

christianity is back in a big way i've never seen so many thoughts and prayers flying around as we do now

Hey look, someone's arguing semantics again.

The fact that there has been belief in god for ages is a good reason to believe that belief in god exists. It is not a good reason to believe that a god exists. That's the conflation you're making.

Wtf are you talking about man

I'm speaking specifically about the BELIEF, how many times do I need to spell that word out you ****ing imbecile? Nowhere did I say god exists.

I'm saying there are good reasons for BELIEF IN GOD. It's beneficial to humans and has existed since basically our beginning.