XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism
On Sat, 09 May 2015 07:53:46 -0500, Wuss Lee wrote:
.
>On Fri, 8 May 2015 22:35:13 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
> wrote:
>
>>On 2015-05-09, mur wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2015-04-30, mur wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>> The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages
to
>>>>> birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive
today is
>>>>> evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.
>
>What fucking God?
Any that had the influence of course. It seems even an atheist should have
been able to figure that out.
>As usual, a stupid religious fundamentalist presumes it outside his
>religion as if it were universally granted.
>
>And if he even had a high-school education elsewhere than the US, he
>would know that evolution doesn't require "something (like God)" to
>influence it.
You don't have any idea about whether a God had influence on evolution or
not, but I challenge you to try to explain how you want people to think you
could have possibly found out.
>It is simply survival to pass on whatever caused survival on to
>subsequent generations, although this is an oversimplification - it is
>also about differential reproductive success, survival is an extreme
>case.
In contrast to that reproduction is always a part of the survival of any
type of animal.
>>>> If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
>>>> been found yet or that there aren't any.
>>>
>>> Why would the transitions have stopped?
>>
>> Who says they've stopped?
>
>There are living transitionals, eg the platypus.
What will it eventually become?
>Not to mention ring species.
Why are there no longer transtional species between reptiles and birds?
What
caused it to stop happening?
>> There are many examples of transitional species in the fossil
>> record, but we probably haven't yet uncovered all that there are.
>>
>>>>It says nothing whatsoever
>>>> about the existence of something like God or anything else.
>>>
>>> It says nothing whatsoever to you. It says more than that to some other
>>> people.
>
>Only believers,
I'm not a believer, but I do consider things you're obviously not mentally
capable of considering.
>who don't think about it - it's confirmation bias.
That's true for people who have faith that there's no God associated with
Earth.
>Try to get an explanation from them for why it leads to the conclusion
>of their God, and all they say is "they examined the evidence and
>reached the conclusion" - but they never, ever say how they reached
>it.
That's a horribly blatant lie.
"The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages to
birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive today is
evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution."
>> It says just as much about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the
>> Invisible Pink Unicorn as it does about any other deity. It's not
>> evidence for anything.
>
>It's evidence for their pre-existing belief in a god, because it is a
>complete non-sequitur, and it would never occur to anybody who didn't
>already believe in it.
How did you learn that no one ever considered the situation and decided it
seems likely that it was influenced by something intelligent? So far it seems
that you're lying blatantly again.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
