Atheists can you prove that science is correct?
in Religion

whiteflame · July 2018

@Evidence

...None of this looks like a response to anything I posted. You keep talking about "morphing" yet no one has suggested that evolution occurred as a result of an animal suddenly changing its traits. We're talking about the process of reproduction, and the resultant generations that possess various suites of alterations that separate them from their parent species. You also talk about the idea that this species I've presented suddenly gave birth to humans. That's also both ludicrous and not an argument I've made. Changes that led to humans would have had to accumulate over many millions of years, which means that the ancestor that would have pulled away from apes would still have many ape-like traits and would more closely resemble Orrorin tugenensis than it would us. I have not argued that Orrorin tugenensis is the definitive ancestor of humans and apes, only that various dating techniques and analysis of the bones of this animal have placed it close to the point at which such an ancestor would have existed, and that it is likely in that lineage. You keep trying to use the fact that we don't know if this is our ancestor as proof that evolution isn't real, but a) we're talking solely about human evolution, so at most, what you're doing is pointing out a hole in that story, not in evolution as a whole, b) the fact that there is uncertainty with regards to our evolutionary lineage doesn't indicate that that evolutionary lineage doesn't exist, c) there are other fossils that indicate a clear lineage leading up to humans, this is just the hypothesized ancestor of both apes and humans, and d) other evidence exists supporting the theory of evolution and, more specifically, or relation to apes.

You keep addressing Dawkins as though I'm arguing in defense of him. Once again, it is not my aim to defend specifically what he says, so you can stop using him as a straw man for my argument. Apes are separate from humans, though they are closely related to us. Saying that humans would be a part of the family of apes is accurate, and thus, it is accurate to say that we are part of that family. It is inaccurate to say that humans and apes are the same species or in the same genus. Dawkins could, and likely was, referring to our family-based relation.

whiteflame · July 2018

Mr_Bombastic said:

@whiteflame

Another thing to consider. The driving force of evolution is random mutations. It has been conclusively demonstrated that mutations DESTROY information. In order for evolution to occur, new information must be added to a genome. All scientific knowledge we possess tells us that such a thing is impossible. Nature can only work with what is available. It cannot create new genetic information. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

That second sentence is wrong. Stating that mutation is the major driving force of evolution is an outdated claim. Research has made quite clear that genetic information is introduced to human beings through a variety of sources (often viral or mobile genetic elements). It is incorrect to assert that all changes to all genomes result from random mutations.

The third sentence is also wrong. Mutations aren't all deletions. There are mutations that result in the insertion of new genetic information. There are mutations that alter single bases or a set of bases in the genome. None of these delete genetic information.

The fourth sentence is wrong. There's no reason to believe that all of evolution results from the addition of information to the genome. Much of the genome seems to have little to no purpose, so theoretically, the removal of these unimportant genetic elements could prove beneficial for some organisms, since it would mean that they would have smaller genomes to replicate and transcribe. Evolution isn't based on the idea that organisms are increasing the amount of information in their genome, only that the information changes to a state that provides some benefit. Deletions can accomplish that.

The rest of your post relies on the above facts being true.

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

@whiteflame
Your ignorance is showing. You claimed that much of our genome has little or no purpose. That is incorrect. Scientists are making great strides and figuring out the purpose of genes that were previously unknown. All of our DNA has a purpose. We simply don't know what all of it does...yet.

whiteflame · July 2018

Mr_Bombastic said:

@whiteflame
Your ignorance is showing. You claimed that much of our genome has little or no purpose. That is incorrect. Scientists are making great strides and figuring out the purpose of genes that were previously unknown. All of our DNA has a purpose. We simply don't know what all of it does...yet.

...A few things.

1) I didn't say that any of the genome has little to no purpose. I said that it seems to have little or no purpose. It's not my argument that there's a lot of our DNA that is dispensable, only that it's possible that much of our genome is dispensable. It's your assertion that "All of our DNA has a purpose", despite acknowledging that our knowledge of that purpose is lacking. How do you intend to prove that?

2) You're correct that we are expanding our knowledge of what the various elements of our genome actually do, but we're still an extremely long way from understanding all of it. I'm a microbiologist, and the organism that has easily gotten the most study over the years is E. coli. It has a much shorter genome than ours, and it has no introns (i.e. regions that are cleaved out of transcripts generated from that genome), which means it should be practically all genes. We should know what practically all of them do by now, yet we only know roughly 50% of those functions. That's a huge gap for an organism that we have spent so much time and energy studying. Again, it's your claim that all of the remaining 50% of the genome is entirely functional and that none of it is dispensable. How do you intend to prove that?

3) There is actual proof that certain pieces of the genome are not necessary. DNA viruses integrate into the human genome, many even being transferred vertically (by reproduction) through generations of humans. There are pieces of DNA that are highly repetitive, basically coding the same sequence over and over and over again, imparting no clear benefit or harm. There are portions of the human genome called telomeres that are specifically there to function as buffers that prevent the slow degradation of the ends of our genomes from becoming damaging by affecting our genes. That functionality does not appear to come with any purpose to the specific sequence, only to their length and position in the genome. Again, it's your claim that all of these sequences impart some important functionality, and that their loss or change does some clear damage to us as organisms. Where's your proof?

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

@whiteflame

Where is YOUR proof that any of our DNA is redundant or useless. We do not have a complete understanding of our genome, so yours is an argument from ignorance. All I'm saying is that there are many genes that we did not understand the function of, and now we do.

whiteflame · July 2018

Mr_Bombastic said:

@whiteflame

Where is YOUR proof that any of our DNA is redundant or useless. We do not have a complete understanding of our genome, so yours is an argument from ignorance. All I'm saying is that there are many genes that we did not understand the function of, and now we do.

I just gave you reason to believe that a substantial portion of our genomes (viral DNA sequences, repetitive elements and telomeres) are extremely likely to be either function-less in humans or function solely as spacers, making their sequences unimportant. That means that this information (i.e. the specific sequence of nucleotides) could be deleted or replaced without any harm to a human being. Also, note that my argument is derived from a point of uncertainty: the vast majority of our genome has unknown function, hence it's likely that at least some of that sequence is non-functional. It's not an argument from ignorance since it's based in actual sequences we see in our genomes that do not appear to impart any function, largely because either a) their function applied to a separate entity (a virus) that must be replicating in the system in order to be transcribed, or b) because that sequence is still present or is actually dispensable without resulting in any clear harm. It's your argument that every single piece of that genome has a sequence-specific function. That's an absolutist argument based entirely in the view that, since science has discovered some of those functions, all of DNA must also have sequence-based function. That's not just an argument from ignorance, it's a hasty generalization based on a set of data that is far too small and specific. Scientists can and have knocked out genes in a variety of organisms only to see no adverse effects, so even if there is some kind of functionality to every single gene (and that's only a small portion of the genome in humans), it's clear that not every gene product plays an important role in the body.

Vaulk · July 2018

@whiteflame

whiteflame said:

Evolutionary theory does not include any supposition that animals transform into other animals. No one is arguing that a bird can be a bird one day and then turn into a fish the next, nor is anyone arguing that a single generation change will see a monkey give birth to a human being.

Actually that's not accurate...actually it's flat out wrong as a matter of specific and irrefutable fact. What you are outright denying (Intentionally or not) is the existence of Common Descent Evolutionary Biology which, as a theory of evolution, supposes that every creature on the planet originated from one organism. If this were the case, while it's simplified to say this, then YES, birds would turn into fish or vice a versa over long periods of time and a "Transformation" would in fact occur.

Darwin himself supposed that organisms come about by evolution. So contrary to your opinion on the matter, Evolutionary theory does in fact include multiple...countless suppositions that (In layman's terms) animals did transform into other animals, one species became another and yes, even some fish became birds.

whiteflame · July 2018

Vaulk said:

@whiteflame

whiteflame said:

Evolutionary theory does not include any supposition that animals transform into other animals. No one is arguing that a bird can be a bird one day and then turn into a fish the next, nor is anyone arguing that a single generation change will see a monkey give birth to a human being.

Actually that's not accurate...actually it's flat out wrong as a matter of specific and irrefutable fact. What you are outright denying (Intentionally or not) is the existence of Common Descent Evolutionary Biology which, as a theory of evolution, supposes that every creature on the planet originated from one organism. If this were the case, while it's simplified to say this, then YES, birds would turn into fish or vice a versa over long periods of time and a "Transformation" would in fact occur.

Darwin himself supposed that organisms come about by evolution. So contrary to your opinion on the matter, Evolutionary theory does in fact include multiple...countless suppositions that (In layman's terms) animals did transform into other animals, one species became another and yes, even some fish became birds.

It seems to me that you're both misunderstanding the theory and misunderstanding my response.

None of what I've said in this debate or elsewhere clashes with the common descent, nor have I argued that organisms do not come about by evolution... if I had, that would put me in direct contradiction to the argument I'm trying to make. What I said was that animals do not transform, i.e. one species does not simply change into another. One species does give rise to another, but that terminology is important because of two distinctions. First, it's distinct in that we're talking about a generational change, i.e. the offspring of a subset of a given species has sufficiently changed such that it can no longer be called the same species as the parents. Second, that change is genetic, i.e. they are born with it. This is not a transformation because the word transform implies that something is changing into something else. The original species persists, though it may die out for other reasons. The new species is distinct from the moment it comes into the world, hence it does not transform, unless you call the assortment of genes and the alterations in early development that result from it a transformation.

As for your point about common descent, I suppose I could be clearer, but I think you're taking liberties with the theory. The theory says that we all came from a common ancestor or set of ancestors, that is true. Implicit in that is that we did come from a single-celled lifeform that most likely resembled modern bacteria, and that, since most life came from the ocean, one of our earlier multicellular ancestors was likely something akin to a fish. Note the words "resembled" and "akin," because the organisms that would have existed at that time likely bore little resemblance to organisms today. But even assuming that these were exactly the same, I object to the notion that animals simply kept morphing back and forth across taxonomies. The notion that "birds would turn into fish or vice a versa over long periods of time" is not something I've ever seen suggested by any evolutionary scientist. Perhaps if that bird was subjected to such selective pressures that it would be required to breathe underwater in order to survive, I could see your point that an organism could theoretically evolve in that direction, eschewing its feathers and hollow bone structure while growing scales and changing both eye and breathing structures over successive generations, though that seems like it would just kill them before they ever got the chance. Organisms evolve to fill ecological niches or deal with other selective pressures, and the process isn't as random as you're making it out to be. They certainly don't tend to just shift to a new class in taxonomy simply because evolution happens. Ancestral species, much like human ancestors, tend to share traits with the successive generations. If you go back far enough, those traits become fewer and fewer, but the notion that time allows for every conceivable shift of every conceivable species into a dramatically different species just makes a caricature of the theory. It doesn't engage with the logic of it, and it takes the implications to ludicrous extremes.

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

@whiteflame

Athiests used to believe, and many still do, that humans have vestegial organs. The appendix, for example, which plays a very important role related to our health. There is also the myth that the human tailbone means we once had tails. Also debunked by science. Scientists don't know everything. They never will.

whiteflame · July 2018

Mr_Bombastic said:

@whiteflame

Athiests used to believe, and many still do, that humans have vestegial organs. The appendix, for example, which plays a very important role related to our health. There is also the myth that the human tailbone means we once had tails. Also debunked by science. Scientists don't know everything. They never will.

I'm not sure why you are talking about atheists believing that vestigial organs exist - it was a common belief among much of the population, religious and non-religious. And the evidence supporting vestigality in humans still holds water, at least if you regard it as an organ or structure having reduced size/function resulting from the evolution of a species. The notion that organs or structures are completely unnecessary has certainly been thrown out. But I digress.

I don't see how this post is at all responsive to my previous argument. The fact that we have grown to understand that many human organs have a purpose that was not previously understood is not an indication that scientist are, today, wrong in their assessment of biochemistry, genetics, or evolution. Yes, scientists don't know everything. Yes, they never will. But your argument is that all of our genetic information performs an important function. That's been clearly debunked. You can claim all you want that anything that has been knocked out may have some unknown function, but even if it does (and that's a big assumption - just because the uselessness of certain organs and structures have been debunked doesn't mean that every single piece of our entire genome has sequence-based functional significance), there is absolutely no reason to believe that that function is important to human health or well-being. The whole point I was making is that some pieces of our genome are likely dispensable. I don't see you addressing that beyond assertions to the contrary.

Evidence · July 2018

whiteflame said:

Evidence

...None of this looks like a response to anything I posted. You keep talking about "morphing" yet no one has suggested that evolution occurred as a result of an animal suddenly changing its traits. We're talking about the process of reproduction, and the resultant generations that possess various suites of alterations that separate them from their parent species. You also talk about the idea that this species I've presented suddenly gave birth to humans. That's also both ludicrous and not an argument I've made. Changes that led to humans would have had to accumulate over many millions of years, which means that the ancestor that would have pulled away from apes would still have many ape-like traits and would more closely resemble Orrorin tugenensis than it would us. I have not argued that Orrorin tugenensis is the definitive ancestor of humans and apes, only that various dating techniques and analysis of the bones of this animal have placed it close to the point at which such an ancestor would have existed, and that it is likely in that lineage. You keep trying to use the fact that we don't know if this is our ancestor as proof that evolution isn't real, but a) we're talking solely about human evolution, so at most, what you're doing is pointing out a hole in that story, not in evolution as a whole, b) the fact that there is uncertainty with regards to our evolutionary lineage doesn't indicate that that evolutionary lineage doesn't exist, c) there are other fossils that indicate a clear lineage leading up to humans, this is just the hypothesized ancestor of both apes and humans, and d) other evidence exists supporting the theory of evolution and, more specifically, or relation to apes.

You keep addressing Dawkins as though I'm arguing in defense of him. Once again, it is not my aim to defend specifically what he says, so you can stop using him as a straw man for my argument. Apes are separate from humans, though they are closely related to us. Saying that humans would be a part of the family of apes is accurate, and thus, it is accurate to say that we are part of that family. It is inaccurate to say that humans and apes are the same species or in the same genus. Dawkins could, and likely was, referring to our family-based relation.

In evolution, humans ARE apes:

The Hominidae whose members are known as great apes or hominids, are a taxonomic family .. Its original meaning referred only to humans (Homo) and their closest extinct relatives. That restrictive .. (A few researchers go so far as to refer the chimpanzees and the gorillas to the genus Homo along with humans.) - Wikipedia

Hey buddy @whiteflame look, I don't want to go into teaching you Evolution story, so you really should study it first before you try to defend it.

Another thing, .. I don't care what creature was your common ancestor, matter of fact, why don't you do as ALL Evolutionists do, keep the 'missing-link' missing, and just call it as they all do: "Common Ancestor" and don't actually show any skulls, it looks really dumb claiming for the past 150 years hundreds of different pieces of broken bones, and claiming it as the one that gave rise to intelligent humans, and then you have to answer for it like you just did above.

From all the animals on earth, they are all "after their own kind". Never has anyone observed one species speciate into another, look it up yourself. Observing short and a long beaked finches doesn't mean they turned into a lizard or what not!?

Now you supposed to say: "But, .. but it takes millions and billions of years, it does not happen overnight!" And I don't know, maybe this makes perfect sense to you, but if you stepped outside your Religious indoctrination, you would see that no matter how long it takes for one species to evolve into another, the day will come when it just has to happen, .. right? I mean if your waiting for the train and the ticket agent keeps telling you: It's coming, .. it's on its way, really, I swear, look, here is the train track right outside the station!" a year later and your still waiting for the train to arrive you start doubting, right? Now imagine waiting all your life and then your son takes over all his life, yet no train!?

It is this "moment" that the train arrives that I am talking about, when one species mutates/evolves/speciates/gives birth to another completely distinct species? But as all evolutionary-scientists, especially the famous Evolutionist Dr. Professor, PhD, FRS, FRSL THC ethologist, evolutionary biologist and whatever other tittles he carries under his belt; Dawkins say that "No animal of one specific species has ever, or will ever speciate/morph/give birth to another distinct species in their lifetime!" period.

Now if you can prove Evolutionary-Biological Scientists wrong, by all mean do it! Otherwise give up and accept the truth they already admitted to: "Evolution, speciation of one species into a completely different species NEVER happened, nor can it ever happen!"

Then go back digging up graves and collecting fossils of bugs and other small rock-animals which you can line up in any order you wish, and make up ANY story your little heart desires! And all I ask is that you don't teach it to our children as science. Religion, .. yes, we in this country have religious freedom, but not in school, thank God.

poco · July 2018

@Royalty

you: Is science correct, it terms of it's explanation/evidence for the creation of all things on earth today, including humanity?

me: Since science's discoveries are all considered theories, & not necessarily facts bc the findings can change, or be improved upon to give different results, the explanations are sometimes considered possible solutions, rather than facts.

But, have you ever thought why science & God cannot work hand in hand? Why couldn't God have used evolution to bring many of living things, including humans, too where they/we are today?

Why does science & God have to be separate?

poco · July 2018

@Royalty

you: Is science correct, it terms of it's explanation/evidence for the creation of all things on earth today, including humanity?

me: Since science's discoveries are all considered theories, & not necessarily facts bc the findings can change, or be improved upon to give different results, the explanations are sometimes considered possible solutions, rather than facts.

But, have you ever thought why science & God cannot work hand in hand? Why couldn't God have used evolution to bring many of living things, including humans, too where they/we are today?

Why does science & God have to be separate?

Joeseph · July 2018

@poco

You’re incorrect in your usage of the terms theory and fact

stephen J Gould

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

whiteflame · July 2018

@Evidence

Look, it's pretty clear you have a narrative you're going for and that you're not really interested in engaging with the evidence. You treat evolution as a religion on the basis that the evidence is not complete, but there is evidence, and it is substantial. If you want to actually engage with the points I'm making, I'd be more than happy to continue this conversation. I've already addressed all of the points you've made here, though you have done little more than laugh derisively at any and all of those responses. If your only goal is to belittle, by all means, continue in my absence.

poco · July 2018

@Joeseph

me: You’re incorrect in your usage of the terms theory and fact

stephen J Gould

you: Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

me: See below for the differences between facts & theories. BTW, facts can make up theories, but theories are never considered factual bc they are apt to change by further study, & therefore not the final "fact"on the matter.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Source: the Role of Theory in Advancing 21st Century Biology, National Academy of Sciences

Joeseph · July 2018

@poco

Did you actually read all the quote ......science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

poco · July 2018

@Joeseph

me: The distinction I had made still stands true re " science's discoveries are all considered theories, & not necessarily facts bc the findings can change, or be improved upon to give different results, the explanations are sometimes considered possible solutions, rather than facts."

Key word term is "not necessarily" & "can" above. Methinx you may have prejudged what I had said.

Joeseph · July 2018

@poco

I actually read what you said and methinks you’re incorrect ......."fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." ....... But hey it’s a free country believe what you will

poco · July 2018

@Joeseph

Facts are just that ..... facts. Facts can be part of theories in science. Thing is, theories themselves are not considered factual as the definition above explains .... due to the changes than happen in new discoveries/facts re the same theory. So, the facts contained within the theory most likely retain their factual nature, but the theory itself can change. That' the reason theories (not the facts contained within the theory) are not considered 'facts.'

I think we beat this into the ground enuf. Have a good day. BTW, you sound about as anal (detail oriented) as myself.

Joeseph · July 2018

Agreed , thanks for that and the same to you . Yes indeed detail oriented would be right ☺️ A lot of debate boils down to terms and their usage , progress can only be made when the participants agree on such , then fruitful dialogue may occur

sear · July 2018

Atheists can you prove that science is correct?

a) Theists: can you prove your theology valid? No. I know you can't.

b) Believers and non-believers alike demonstrate their confidence in science when we"

- board an elevator

- board an airliner

- ride in a car

- operate the super-computer we otherwise keep tucked in our pocket.

- switch on the light

- watch TV

- turn up the heat

- countless etceteras

- wear clothes

It would be quite silly disbelieve the means of ones own survival.

In addition, science has rigorous peer review protocols. Religion has no similar self-scrutiny.

Joeseph · July 2018

Science aims to explain and understand. Science as a collective institution aims to produce more and more accurate natural explanations of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world got to be the way it is now.

Science is is the best we have at attempting to comprehend the world we live in , that is unless one wishes to do away with science altogether and instead rely on “faith claims “ from sacred books written by Bronze Age goat herds

MayCaesar · July 2018

The problem here is that one person can only prove something to another when one important condition is satisfied: the two people agree on the logical framework used, and agree on what constitutes a proof. This is rarely the case as far as scientists and believers go.

Scientists rely on scientific method. A claim is considered proven when it has been found consistent with a wide array of experimental results, and no experimental results contradict it (that does not mean that there cannot be disagreements between observations and the theory whatsoever - however, those disagreements must necessarily lay outside the parameter range the theory is considered in). For example, if I say "This object is a star" and all the data we possess on it is consistent with what we consider stars to be like, then this data constitutes a proof of the claim.

This is not the case with believers. Believers never test their theories for agreement with experimental data. The very concept of "belief" is about considering something to be true without evidence of such (if there is evidence, then you do not need to "believe" - you "know"). What religious believers tend to see as proof is religious texts: if something is pointed out in a religious text, then it is true, regardless of what the real world data has to say about it.

An scientist cannot prove to a deep believer that any part of science is "correct", because the framework the scientist operates in does not match the framework the believer operates in. What a scientist sees as a proof, a believer sees merely as an opinion - and what a believer sees as a proof, a scientist sees as a part of a historical folklore text. There is no common ground as to what constitutes a proof, hence proving anything to each other is impossible.

---

And I find this to be the case in a very large variety of arguments, from scientific and religious, to political and legal. Disagreements arise most of the time in the situations when two sides deal with the same data, but disagree on what this data suggests. It is similar to the situation where a person who only speaks French tries to discuss a piece of art with the person who only speaks Chinese: they are looking at the same piece of art, but they describe it in different ways and do not understand each other. Whenever two people disagree, there is always some level of mutual misunderstanding. People cannot see the problem with each other's eyes, hence they disagree on how this problem should be resolved.

Even among scientists there are different interpretations of how various pieces of data should be interpreted. One will say that Pluto is a planet based on a strict definition of a planet, another will say that Pluto is not a planet based on it qualitatively differing from every other planet found to date. One will say that human-made global warming is evident from the correlation between increasing emissions and rising temperatures, another will consider such a conclusion hasty due to the lack of proper numerical models fitting the numbers we observe. One will say that a wormhole is a rogue entity, a trick following from raw math, but having no basis in physics - another will say that a wormhole can very well exist, because it is a part of an incredibly reliable theory. There is a lot of philosophy and even bias involved in scientific interpretations; the difference from religion is that all these interpretations are still based on the same concept of logic, while religious interpretations are based more on the whim of the practitioner.

sear · July 2018

" the two people agree on the logical framework used, and agree on what constitutes a proof. ...
One will say that Pluto is a planet based on a strict definition of a planet, another will say that Pluto is not a planet based on it qualitatively differing from every other planet found to date." MC #P4

There's at least one scenario where that may be true.

But as I disclosed in my previous post, even the Pope demonstrates his faith in metallurgists when he rides the pope-mobile, or takes an intercontinental flight.

MayCaesar · July 2018

@sear

I wish I could agree with you - however, I have found it to often not be true in practice. A person can use a product of a certain theory while denying that it is a product of that theory.

For example, I have seen several times people arguing on an online forum that quantum mechanics is pseudo-science - while using a computer based on the principles of quantum mechanics to post their argument. How is it possible? Well, they might claim that computers are actually based on the principles of solely electrodynamics, and that engineers claiming otherwise simply do not understand their field very well.
Another example is people that do not accept the concept of inertia (however strange, there are such specimens). They have no trouble coasting downhill with no power supplied on a car or a bicycle, but when asked how it works, they offer an obscure interpretation - or even avoid offering any interpretation whatsoever, claiming that it is complicated - rather than admitting that it is simply an illustration of the concept of inertia.
Sailors of the past used the night sky and a compass to navigate big waters. They might not understand what stars are and not be aware of Earth's magnetic field, and they often assumed that it was something akin to magic, or even a divine intervention, rather than pure science - but they used these means of navigation effectively.

I do not know how the Pope explains where an airplane's metal alloys come from. He seems to be a pretty intelligent person, so I doubt he will claim that these alloys were crafted by God's disciples with his divine intervention - he probably accepts science, he just thinks that science would not be thriving as much as it does nowadays without God's influence. But not all religious followers are as impartial as him. Some genuinely believe that the Earth is flat, that light is God's rays, that farm food is a Heaven's gift - and it is very difficult to convince them otherwise, because, as I noted above, the logical framework they are using to justify these beliefs has little in common with the scientific framework.

Erfisflat · July 2018

"...some genuinely believe that the Earth is flat..."
I love how this guy was actively debating flat earth until he got steamrolled with just the type of evidence that uses the scientific method he is suggesting be considered valid instead of Holy Scriptures. Now all us flat earthers are muted and the passing lie, or flat earth insult can be passed off nonchalantly and he can be none the wiser. It's baiting, but when we bite, he cuts line and jumps ship.

sear · July 2018

"A person can use a product of a certain theory while denying that it is a product of that theory.
For example, I have seen several times people arguing on an online forum that quantum mechanics is pseudo-science - while using a computer based on the principles of quantum mechanics to post their argument." MC

Agreed.

BUT !!

Abraham Lincoln said "Action speaks louder than words." They can deny quantum physics all they like (& btw, I believe quantum computing will not arrive for some time, but I understand the solid state argument you make).

But when riding in a horseless carriage, it's fairly obvious to anyone that's been in the other kind of carriage that there are no horses. And then there's the little matter of the gasoline.

They're accepting it, even if they don't fully understand it.

So many other examples, the telephone, television, etc.

"...some genuinely believe that the Earth is flat..."

"I love how this guy was actively debating flat earth until he got steamrolled with just the type of evidence that uses the scientific method" Ef

"The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." Ferdinand Magellan

Evidence · July 2018

whiteflame said:

@Evidence

Look, it's pretty clear you have a narrative you're going for and that you're not really interested in engaging with the evidence. You treat evolution as a religion on the basis that the evidence is not complete, but there is evidence, and it is substantial. If you want to actually engage with the points I'm making, I'd be more than happy to continue this conversation. I've already addressed all of the points you've made here, though you have done little more than laugh derisively at any and all of those responses. If your only goal is to belittle, by all means, continue in my absence.

@whiteflame ; Evolution is not only "incomplete", but has absolutely nothing to go on, .. nothing to base a theory on.

I can point to any car on the road, then take you to an 'auto grave yard' with all the gutted cars there and use that to come up with a crazy idea how these car skeletons, over millions and billions of years evolved to the cars we see running on our streets.

At the auto-graveyard, I can pick up a carburetor, and show you that this carburetor really IS part of the cars running on the roads, .. in great detail too, piece by piece, every nut and bolt, also explain how and why the carburetor is on the car, .. but would my accurate description of a carburetor, and showing you how similar it is to the carburetors on the new cars today prove that it evolved over millions and billions of years? Because that is EXACTLY what Evolutionists do, go to the graveyard, dig up graves, and show us bone fragments explaining the similarities of living people. Then they say: "See, now that's science!" as if we Creationists were against a scientific explanation on how the human body is made up!?

So come on guys, stop with all the deceptive theatrics, and the Jedi mind-tricks.

Joeseph · July 2018

@Evidence

You say ......; Evolution is not only "incomplete", but has absolutely nothing to go on, ..

My reply ......It’s only based on mountains of evidence and is accepted as fact by most rational beings

You say ......nothing to base a theory on.

My reply ......you do not even understand the term theory when applied to science , tell me can you point me in the direction of one peer reviewed piece of works that destroys Evolution ?

Bet you cannot whys that ?

Incidentally if Evolution was proven to be false how would that make a god claim stronger ?

Remarably people like you make claims based on faith and attack others who use evidence to reach valid conclusions

MayCaesar · July 2018

@sear

To an extent, that happens even in the professional science. Our views on how the world works evolve as we process more and more data and try to fit that data to more and more complex theories.

We did not understand very well how electricity worked, say, in mid-19th century: we had some idea of dynamic and static electricity, of linear and periodic signal, of magnetism being directly related to electricity - and we used the related scientific knowledge to create functional technology, believing our knowledge very accurate. Later, however, we learned about electrons and protons, electron and nuclear shells, ferromagnetism, superconductivity - and from the new standpoint, out knowledge from the 19th century was incredibly naive, incomplete and even wrong (electricity/magnetism is not a material substance, as we used to think, but a force field, and it does not "just exist" in the Universe, but is caused by electrons and their movement).

Does it mean that in the 19th century we accepted the concept of electrons and force fields, even though we did not understand it? I think it is more of a philosophical question. But the practical take-away idea is that having a wrong/incomplete/naive interpretation of a certain effect does not prevent us from using that effect to our advantage. And it is the manifestation of this idea that people can deny basic scientific facts, while still using the scientific achievements in their lives.

I can say that I put my trust in engineering and in hydrodynamics when I board a plan from Chicago to Miami. Someone else will say that they trust the God to keep the plane lifted throughout the flight with heavenly light. They are wrong in that this is not how the plane was constructed - but, again, you cannot convince them that they are wrong, if they really want to believe in their interpretation, because they do not accept your logical framework.

Erfisflat · July 2018

Joeseph said:

@Evidence

You say ......; Evolution is not only "incomplete", but has absolutely nothing to go on, ..

My reply ......It’s only based on mountains of evidence and is accepted as fact by most rational beings

You say ......nothing to base a theory on.

My reply ......you do not even understand the term theory when applied to science , tell me can you point me in the direction of one peer reviewed piece of works that destroys Evolution ?

Bet you cannot whys that ?

Incidentally if Evolution was proven to be false how would that make a god claim stronger ?

Remarably people like you make claims based on faith and attack others who use evidence to reach valid conclusions

Stephen C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117:213-239, 2004.

Another here:

http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Documents/BUMC Proceedings/2012 Vol 25/No. 1/25_1_Kuhn.pdf

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings25(1):41-47, 2012.

I know that peer review doesn't mean infallible, but there's a couple reads.

Erfisflat · July 2018

sear said:

"A person can use a product of a certain theory while denying that it is a product of that theory.
For example, I have seen several times people arguing on an online forum that quantum mechanics is pseudo-science - while using a computer based on the principles of quantum mechanics to post their argument." MC
Agreed.

BUT !!

Abraham Lincoln said "Action speaks louder than words." They can deny quantum physics all they like (& btw, I believe quantum computing will not arrive for some time, but I understand the solid state argument you make).
But when riding in a horseless carriage, it's fairly obvious to anyone that's been in the other kind of carriage that there are no horses. And then there's the little matter of the gasoline.
They're accepting it, even if they don't fully understand it.
So many other examples, the telephone, television, etc.
"...some genuinely believe that the Earth is flat..."

"I love how this guy was actively debating flat earth until he got steamrolled with just the type of evidence that uses the scientific method" Ef

"The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." Ferdinand Magellan

I think this is the second time you've used this quote as proof against the flat earth. What evidence is there that the ground beneath your feet has caused the shadow on the moon? To counter your quote, here is one from Samuel Rowbotham.

"A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?"

NKJVPrewrather · July 2018

Burden of proof fallacy.

Erfisflat · July 2018

What are you talking about? Shifting the burden fallacy? And who are you directing this at?

@KJVPrewrather

NKJVPrewrather · July 2018

@Erfisflat Don't debate if you don't know your fallacies. I am not an atheist, but this question is fallacious.

Erfisflat · July 2018

KJVPrewrather said:

@Erfisflat Don't debate if you don't know your fallacies. I am not an atheist, but this question is fallacious.

Im pretty familiar with most if not all fallacies. There is no "burden of proof" fallacy. Secondly, the burden wasn't shifted from anything. It was a legitimate question.

Evidence · July 2018

poco said:

@Joeseph
Facts are just that ..... facts. Facts can be part of theories in science. Thing is, theories themselves are not considered factual as the definition above explains .... due to the changes than happen in new discoveries/facts re the same theory. So, the facts contained within the theory most likely retain their factual nature, but the theory itself can change. That' the reason theories (not the facts contained within the theory) are not considered 'facts.'

I think we beat this into the ground enuf. Have a good day. BTW, you sound about as anal (detail oriented) as myself.

@poco I agree that 'facts' are only facts until someone finds something wrong with it,. This could take 1 year, 100 years or 1,700 years, like Believers and followers of Jesus calling themselves Christian. (another topic maybe)

But when Jesus said: "Verily I tell you the truth, .." now that's 'fact' that we can put our lives on.

Joeseph · July 2018

@Evidence

You say .....But when Jesus said: "Verily I tell you the truth, .." now that's 'fact' that we can put our lives on.

My reply .... Really ? Maybe you need to look up the lies and broken promises by Jesus ?

Its amazing that Christians claim as fact nonsense from a book of gibberish

Evidence · July 2018

Joeseph said:

@Evidence

You say ......; Evolution is not only "incomplete", but has absolutely nothing to go on, ..

My reply ......It’s only based on mountains of evidence and is accepted as fact by most rational beings

You say ......nothing to base a theory on.

My reply ......you do not even understand the term theory when applied to science , tell me can you point me in the direction of one peer reviewed piece of works that destroys Evolution ?

Bet you cannot whys that ?

Incidentally if Evolution was proven to be false how would that make a god claim stronger ?

Remarably people like you make claims based on faith and attack others who use evidence to reach valid conclusions

@Joeseph said: ......It’s only based on mountains of evidence and is accepted as fact by most rational beings

The pseudoscientific "mountains of evidence" that is accepted by Evolution-Religion has nothing to do with real science., or that they are "rational beings".

What's the difference between Satanists

Image result for pictures of satanic worship

and Evolutionists;

Nothing. They both rob graves and take the skull and bones of peoples loved ones, and worship them in their rituals.
Only Satanists don't call other humans: "animals and apes".

poco · July 2018

@Joeseph

you: You say .....But when Jesus said: "Verily I tell you the truth, .." now that's 'fact' that we can put our lives on.

My reply .... Really ? Maybe you need to look up the lies and broken promises by Jesus ?

me: Just what lies & broken promises" are you referring to?

(You do realize that question marks are not supposed to have a space between it & the last letter of the last word in that sentence right? Or don't you believe in correct English grammar either)? Just gotta laugh.

you: Its amazing that Christians claim as fact nonsense from a book of gibberish

me: Ya know what's even more amazing is that you keep referencing a book that you say is fiction & don't believe in. Most people would ignore such a book they thought of is worthless ...... most non-trolling people that is.

Joeseph · July 2018

@Evidence

You say .....The pseudoscientific "mountains of evidence" .....

My reply .....This from a person who believes in talking serpents , a talking Donkey , Noah’s ark , virgin births and a zombie named Jesus is hilarious

You say .....that is accepted by Evolution-Religion ....

My reply .... I’m glad you see religion as being such a bad thing you attempt to brand it Evolution as “religious “

You say ...has nothing to do with real science., or that they are "rational beings".

My reply .....Evolution is fact you’re a science denier , also you’re not a rational being in fact the reverse

You say ....What's the difference between Satanists and Evolutionists

Nothing. They both rob graves and take the skull and bones of peoples loved ones, and worship them in their rituals.....

My reply ....You’re insane I don’t believe in Satan or god and Evolution has nothing to do with a belief in either

You say ....Only Satanists don't call other humans: "animals and apes".

My reply .... really and you know this how ?

Joeseph · July 2018

@poco

you: You say .....But when Jesus said: "Verily I tell you the truth, .." now that's 'fact' that we can put our lives on.

My reply .... Really ? Maybe you need to look up the lies and broken promises by Jesus ?

me: Just what lies & broken promises" are you referring to?

My reply .... We shall start with one blatant lie ,

Jesus, if he had the omniscience of a god, told this lie:

“…Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

But everyone in his presence did die without seeing the kingdom which was promised. Today they are still waiting for the second coming. Because it never happened and it clearly won’t.

Jesus either told all of these lies – or his exact words have been lost (see example 3).

God has not interceded to clear any of it up. And so the branches of Christianity have warred against each other for centuries.

You say ......You do realize that question marks are not supposed to have a space between it & the last letter of the last word in that sentence right? Or don't you believe in correct English grammar either)? Just gotta laugh.

My reply .... Let me correct you yet again .....

Spacing With Punctuation. With a computer, use only one space following periods, commas, semicolons, colons, exclamation points, question marks, and quotation marks. The space needed after these punctuation marks is proportioned automatically. Use no spaces on either side of a hyphen.

Spacing with Punctuation | Punctuation Rules

https://www.grammarbook.com › spacing

You got to laugh

you: Its amazing that Christians claim as fact nonsense from a book of gibberish

me: Ya know what's even more amazing is that you keep referencing a book that you say is fiction & don't believe in. Most people would ignore such a book they thought of is worthless ...... most non-trolling people that is.

My reply ..... Ya ? Yes I reference it to correct internet trolls like you , it is worthless I’m glad you agree but I do like to correct worthless people on their ....worthless book

There’s that deflection again where you accuse me of being a troll yet you harass others on this site , but you’re a “ Christian “ aren’t you ? Another space for you .... enjoy

poco · July 2018

@Joeseph

you:

you: You say .....But when Jesus said: "Verily I tell you the truth, .." now that's 'fact' that we can put our lives on.

My reply .... Really ? Maybe you need to look up the lies and broken promises by Jesus ?

me: Just what lies & broken promises" are you referring to?

My reply .... We shall start with one blatant lie ,

Jesus, if he had the omniscience of a god, told this lie:

“…Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

But everyone in his presence did die without seeing the kingdom which was promised. Today they are still waiting for the second coming. Because it never happened and it clearly won’t.

That's a literal read of it as far as your interpretation, but typical for an atheist o only interpret it as such.

Jesus did indeed come in his Kingdom during the lifetime of most of those
who heard him on that day. The subject of the Kingdom of God is a broad
and deep one. The Kingdom of God is in one sense the kingship of God in
any one individual’s life. It will also be revealed at the end of time
when the final Kingdom of God will be the eternal city–heaven.

All this is true, but in the context of Matthew 16:28, Jesus is talking
about the kingdom of God in the sense he most commonly uses it in the
gospels. One aspect of the kingdom of God is the church of Christ. The
church is the kingdom. In fact, Jesus had just finished making that point
in Matthew 16:17-19 where Jesus clearly equates the church with the
Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus appears to use the phrase Kingdom of God and
Kingdom of Heaven virtually interchangeable in the gospels.

So when was the prophecy fulfilled? The answer is that the Kingdom of God
and of the Son Jesus Christ came on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after
the resurrection of Jesus. This fulfillment is found in Acts chapter two.
Many prophecies, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament point to
the coming of the Kingdom in a new and unique way on the Day of Pentecost.
For example, one could look at Isaiah 2:2-4. Daniel 2:44,45, Matthew 3:2,
Luke 24:45-47, Matthew 16:18-20 and Matt 16:28 all point to the events of
the pouring out of the Spirit, the first public gospel sermon and the
first conversions to Christ which all occurred on the Day of Pentecost, as
recorded in Acts chapter two.

Jesus did not visibly, physically come back on the Day of Pentecost, but
he God certainly did come in the person of the Holy Spirit on that day.
There are many passages which express the thought that Jesus comes to us
when we receive the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians
15:24, John 14:15-21 and John 16:7-15 come to mind.

Jesus either told all of these lies – or his exact words have been lost (see example 3).

God has not interceded to clear any of it up. And so the branches of Christianity have warred against each other for centuries.

Then what is the above interpretation then?

You say ......You do realize that question marks are not supposed to have a space between it & the last letter of the last word in that sentence right? Or don't you believe in correct English grammar either)? Just gotta laugh.

My reply .... Let me correct you yet again .....

Spacing With Punctuation. With a computer, use only one space following periods, commas, semicolons, colons, exclamation points, question marks, and quotation marks. The space needed after these punctuation marks is proportioned automatically. Use no spaces on either side of a hyphen.

Spacing with Punctuation | Punctuation Rules

https://www.grammarbook.com › spacing

You got to laugh

Wow, never heard of that excuse b4. & I've never seen it b4. I guess you'll resort to any ol type of excuse to make yourself look correct huh?

you: Its amazing that Christians claim as fact nonsense from a book of gibberish

me: Ya know what's even more amazing is that you keep referencing a book that you say is fiction & don't believe in. Most people would ignore such a book they thought of is worthless ...... most non-trolling people that is.

My reply ..... Ya ? Yes I reference it to correct internet trolls like you , it is worthless I’m glad you agree but I do like to correct worthless people on their ....worthless book

You're entitle to your opinion ...... no matter how wrong it may be.

Thing is, many atheists feel that there are many worthwhile lessons contained in the bible, even tho they may not believe in God. Like I said, you're entitled to your opnion.

There’s that deflection again where you accuse me of being a troll yet you harass others on this site , but you’re a “ Christian “ aren’t you ? Another space for you .... enjoy

Harass others? hmmm, you'll have to explain that one.

sear · July 2018

"I think this is the second time you've used this quote as proof" EF 7/26

Obviously you award Magellan much more authority than I do.

I posted the quotation, a communication of HIS opinion.

My doing so is not necessarily an endorsement of the words quoted. I've quoted Hermann Göring.

Does that make me a nazi?

"A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth." EF

Eclipse means to pass into the shadow of. But the sun doesn't pass into the shadow of the moon. So what some call an "eclipse" is actually an occultation.

Evidence · July 2018

Joeseph said:

@Evidence ; You say .....The pseudoscientific "mountains of evidence" .....
My reply .....This from a person who believes in talking serpents , a talking Donkey , Noah’s ark , virgin births and a zombie named Jesus is hilarious

You say .....that is accepted by Evolution-Religion ....

My reply .... I’m glad you see religion as being such a bad thing you attempt to brand it Evolution as “religious “

You say ...has nothing to do with real science., or that they are "rational beings".

My reply .....Evolution is fact you’re a science denier , also you’re not a rational being in fact the reverse

You say ....What's the difference between Satanists and Evolutionists

Nothing. They both rob graves and take the skull and bones of peoples loved ones, and worship them in their rituals.....

My reply ....You’re insane I don’t believe in Satan or god and Evolution has nothing to do with a belief in either

You say ....Only Satanists don't call other humans: "animals and apes".

My reply .... really and you know this how ?

@Joeseph said: This from a person who believes in talking serpents , a talking Donkey , Noah’s ark , virgin births and a zombie named Jesus is hilarious

So believing in talking monkeys is more scientific?

Joe .... I’m glad you see religion as being such a bad thing you attempt to brand it Evolution as “religious “

Yes, a Religious cult, very dangerous and dehumanizing. Instead, build your faith on evidence with substance like the Bible teaches you, not blindly accept what cults tell you.

Joe - .....Evolution is fact you’re a science denier , also you’re not a rational being in fact the reverse

So finding skulls of gorillas and chimps, then going into cemeteries digging up graves and robbing skull and bones of human loved ones and taking these around the world telling people how this monkey skeleton evolved over millions and billions of years into that human skeleton is science now? I mean what rational person would consider that normal? Seriously, anyone, starting with any child passed the age of 5 that is infatuated with skull and bones, and starts making up stories about them, especially "millions and billions of years ago this and that happened" stories should be examined by psychometrists, and medicated accordingly. Like Richard Dawkins, he should not be allowed to go in public without a long-sleeved white jacket wrapped around him, .. let alone be allowed into schools near children!

Evidence - ....What's the difference between Satanists and Evolutionists, .. nothing. They both rob graves and take the skull and bones of peoples loved ones, and worship them in their rituals.....

Joe - ....You’re insane I don’t believe in Satan or god and Evolution has nothing to do with a belief in either

I have shown ample evidence of the similarities in both, .. and there is no denying of Evolutionists murderous and discriminating past, .. Hitler's Nazis calling anyone not German, including Gypsies and Jews rats, and exposing of them with rat poison;

Now take a look at this short video, and please look at (time 3:34 -) and listen to what this demented, Satanic Evolutionist says:

It's obvious that poor child is very uneasy and even frightened by what this madman is telling her, calling her cousins "rats"! I'm sure she knows what needs to be done if there was a rat infestation in her house, .. so just imagine what's going on in her frightened mind being locked in a hotel room with this guy? And he is not kidding either, as you can see he is VERY serious, you don't see one smile on his face. This is a perfect example of a religious fanatic brainwashing his followers like David Koresh, Jim Jones, Hitler, Pol Pot and other Nazi and Communist Evolutionists did.

Look, I'm just warning people by reminding them what happens when people like Dawkins start making a name for themselves by good intended sheeple like us allowing ourselves to listen to such outrageous stories! The man just called her and her family descendance of rats, animals. How does she know she will make it out of that Motel room alive and not be chopped up and eaten like Dahmer did to all those kids!?

Just listen to Dawkins rambling on, .. I mean this guy really and truly believes that she's just another animal on a farm, including her family, and cousins, even a rodent!

Evidence says ....Only Satanists don't call other humans: "animals and apes".

Joe - .... really and you know this how ?

I've known Satanists, seen Satanic movies, conversations from Anton Levy Szandor, and they don't go around calling other people "animals". They sacrifice animals, and yes humans too, just like we've seen in the history of Evolutionists. Ota Benga, the Aborigines the black slavery, and the starvation of the blacks today is ALL because of this Evolution Religion!

Hey buddy, remember this is a debate, nothing against you personally, I love you and everyone here. I really do pray to God you could show me evidence to prove me wrong, good luck! But I know better. I've done my homework, seen, heard and been through things, .. so unlike Dawkins and other Evolutionists, speak from evidence accumulated over the past 62 years.

Thank you.

Joeseph · July 2018