Since Evolution Is The Answer - Tell Me When Can I Expect To Grow My Wings And Fly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

No my friend, it is you who has been lied to. I have watched all of your links and have yet to find any proof that we evolved from fish.

---

Now you are just lying to *me*.




By the way, this shreds the "nebraska man" myth you noted earlier.

It is very emblematic about how creations lie about evolution.

Can you find a video that explains evolution instead of debunking creationism? Atheists are every bit as annoying as religious zealots.

My point is this RandomGuy, both take faith to believe in. If you deny that then you are simply lying to yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Not watching it.

---

He didn't either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmwrecker

Can you find a video that explains evolution instead of debunking creationism? Atheists are every bit as annoying as religious zealots.

---

Indeed. It isn't all that hard.

The problem in talking about the subject is that there is no small amount of dis-information out there.



Short place to start.

A bit longer, in more detail:



If you go to the particlur page for the video above, it provides links of elaborating evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Indeed. It isn't all that hard.

---

I didn't say it was hard. I'm not the one with something to prove.

Blind watchmaker? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

My point is this RandomGuy, both take faith to believe in. If you deny that then you are simply lying to yourself.

---

Already addressed that.

Creationism, by definition, requires faith.

Evolution does not. The mountains of evidence supporting it in multiple fields of science are all readily observable, and verifiable.

Therein lies the difference. I can go out and find for myself. I have done so.

Quote:

---

Creationists commonly argue against evolution on the grounds that "evolution is a religion; it is not a science".[29] The purpose of this criticism is to undermine the higher ground biologists claim in debating creationists, and to reframe the debate from being between science (evolution) and religion (creationism) to being between two equally religious beliefs – or even to argue that evolution is religious while intelligent design is not.[30][31] Those that oppose evolution frequently refer to supporters of evolution as "evolutionists" or "Darwinists".[29]
The arguments for evolution being a religion generally amount to arguments by analogy: it is argued that evolution and religion have one or more things in common, and that therefore evolution is a religion. Examples of claims made in such arguments are statements that evolution is based on faith, that supporters of evolution revere Darwin as a prophet, and that supporters of evolution dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand.[18][32] These claims have become more popular in recent years as the neocreationist movement has sought to distance itself from religion, thus giving it more reason to make use of a seemingly anti-religious analogy.[25]
In response, supporters of evolution have argued that no scientist's claims, including Darwin's, are treated as sacrosanct, as shown by the aspects of Darwin's theory that have been rejected or revised by scientists over the years, to form first Neo-Darwinism and later the modern evolutionary synthesis.[33][34] The claim that evolution relies on faith, often based on the creationist belief that evolution has never been observed, is likewise rejected on the grounds that evolution has strong supporting evidence, and therefore does not require faith.
In general, the argument that evolution is religious has been rejected on the grounds that religion is not defined by how dogmatic or zealous its adherents are, but by its spiritual or supernatural beliefs. Evolutionary supporters point out evolution is neither dogmatic nor based on faith, and they accuse creationists of equivocating between the strict definition of religion and its colloquial usage to refer to anything that is enthusiastically or dogmatically engaged in. U.S. courts have also rejected this objection:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.[35]
A related claim is that evolution is atheistic; creationists sometimes merge the two claims and describe evolution as an "atheistic religion" (cf. humanism).[31] This argument against evolution is also frequently generalized into a criticism of all science; it is argued that "science is an atheistic religion", on the grounds that its methodological naturalism is as unproven, and thus as "faith-based", as the supernatural and theistic beliefs of creationism.[36]

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Blind watchmaker? :lol

---

Define:

Evolution.

Define:

Science.


If you can do neither, you do not understand the topic well enough to have your own opinion.

I have asked you to explain them.

Doesnt' it bother you that all you have in response is smileys?

Do you care about what is true and what is not?

:lmaoMountains of evidence

I will ask once again, when did you observe evolution?

All you're doing is taking someone else's word for it. Watch the video that I posted.

I said "tadpoles, yo."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

All you're doing is taking someone else's word for it.

---

You are doing the same thing, bub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmwrecker

You are doing the same thing, bub.

---

I never denied this, my point has always been that both take faith to believe in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

I never denied this, my point has always been that both take faith to believe in.

---

One certainly does.

I don't have a horse in this race. If God exists, great, if not, great. I don't really care one way or the other.

Having said that, just from the outside looking in, Robdiaz is possibly the worst debater I've ever seen on this site. He gives up far too easily, and then just trys to be funny (at which he's failed every single time). It's a good thing no one takes this site serious because if they did and they were undecided as to what to believe, they'd all end up hating religion just based on the piss poor job rob does arguing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

I will ask once again, when did you observe evolution?

---

My direct observation is not required for the theory of evolution to be true.

Did you observe your motorcycle being built?

The answer to your question:

I have not directly observed evolution taking place. It is not my field of study, nor do I deal with biology professionally.

Your question is itself a "red herring" logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnsmith

I don't have a horse in this race. If God exists, great, if not, great. I don't really care one way or the other.

Having said that, just from the outside looking in, Robdiaz is possibly the worst debater I've ever seen on this site. He gives up far too easily, and then just trys to be funny (at which he's failed every single time). It's a good thing no one takes this site serious because if they did and they were undecided as to what to believe, they'd all end up hating religion just based on the piss poor job rob does arguing it.

---

Who said I was religious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

My direct observation is not required for the theory of evolution to be true.

Did you observe your motorcycle being built?

The answer to your question:

I have not directly observed evolution taking place. It is not my field of study, nor do I deal with biology professionally.

Your question is itself a "red herring" logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

---

In other words you have faith. :toast

Here comes the "I was trolling" card.

And no, I did not observe my motorcycle being built. I KNOW it had a creator. I am not claiming that an engine somehow crawled into the frame and turned itself into a motorcycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnsmith

I don't have a horse in this race. If God exists, great, if not, great. I don't really care one way or the other.

Having said that, just from the outside looking in, Robdiaz is possibly the worst debater I've ever seen on this site. He gives up far too easily, and then just trys to be funny (at which he's failed every single time). It's a good thing no one takes this site serious because if they did and they were undecided as to what to believe, they'd all end up hating religion just based on the piss poor job rob does arguing it.

---

That is actually one of the more tongue-in-cheek observations of some. "Even if I didn't know anything about evolution, I could tell a lot about how true it is by the quality of the idiots trying to argue against it." or something similar. Ad hominem to be sure, but funny.

Ken Hovind is a good example. Homeslice got himself put in jail for some of his more crackpot ideas concerning taxation, and got actively caught lying and falsifying evidence where it really counted, i.e. a court of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

In other words you have faith. :toast

---

Nope. Debunked and addressed already.

I am ready at any time to consider new evidence as it is presented to me, and will change my mind any time sufficient evidence is provided. I admit when I am wrong.

You can say it a million times, and it will not be any more true on the millionth than it was the first. Sorry.

Why do you want so badly for this to be true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

And no, I did not observe my motorcycle being built. I KNOW it had a creator. I am not claiming that an engine somehow crawled into the frame and turned itself into a motorcycle.

---

This is a strawman logical fallacy.

No scientist claims that is how evolution works.

If you understood it, you might know that already.