Evolution's Brick Wall

[Tinker Grey]

For me is backwards, the reality is with God existing and atheism is the ideology.

Atheism is not an ideology. It is the rejection of a proposition due to the lack of evidence. That's it.

 

[Heissonear]

For me is backwards, the reality is with God existing and atheism is the ideology.

This thread and posting is about the lack of fossil evidence supporting evolution, and the resultant conjecture based claims.

Make another thread about God verses xxxxxxx

Replying to others off-thread topic is the same - off topic derailment.

 

[Heissonear]

The OP is something evolutionists do not want to face up to.

It is apparent in the list of replies adding up.

But the fossil record is clear - evolution never happened.

 

[NBB]

This thread and posting is about the lack of fossil evidence supporting evolution, and the resultant conjecture based claims.

Make another thread about God verses xxxxxxx

Replying to others off-thread topic is the same - off topic derailment.

Sorry if i bothered you, no harm intended.

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheism is not an ideology. It is the rejection of a proposition due to the lack of evidence. That's it.

It also entails denying evidence is evidence when evidence is presented.

Not to mention throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[pitabread]

But the fossil record is clear - evolution never happened.

Only if you completely ignore it, as you have done.

And unfortunately for creationists, ignoring/denying it doesn't make the evidence go away.

 

[pitabread]

Atheism is not an ideology. It is the rejection of a proposition due to the lack of evidence. That's it.

I'd argue one can build an ideology out of an atheistic foundation. There is definitely a lot of anti-theism that is ideological in nature and built on the foundation of atheism.

Although I suppose there is also a lot of anti-theism built on a theistic foundation as well.

 

[inquiring mind]

So its your contention that because the scientists are able to construct enough alternate pathways for our evolution to have occurred as to be uncertain which one was correct that this means evolution did not occur. I'm sorry, that's just nutty.

What’s nutty is to contend that scientists have constructed alternate pathways... when all they have done is assume alternate pathways exist, when they couldn’t verify a direct path.

 

[AV1611VET]

What’s nutty is to contend that scientists have constructed alternate pathways... when all they have done is assume alternate pathways exist, when they couldn’t verify a direct path.

Yup ... evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

On paper.

 

[Heissonear]

Only if you completely ignore it, as you have done.

And unfortunately for creationists, ignoring/denying it doesn't make the evidence go away.

I take it from this point on that you admit the fossil record shows evolution never happened once.

And understand that evolution is conjecture-based. It's foundation is conjecture. Conjecture initially from godless naturalists.

Evolution at this point has hit a brick wall, and pieces of conjecture has been scattered everywhere.

The fossil evidence to prevent it from being conjecture-based and from hitting the wall of bricks is missing.

 

[pitabread]

I take it from this point on that you admit the fossil record shows evolution never happened once.

I'm just pointing how entrenched in denialism you are. And like many creationists before you, when presented with evidence of evolution all you can do in response is to pretend it doesn't exist. From the POV of someone not entrenched in creationism, this doesn't look good for you or other creationists. It reinforces that creationist beliefs appear to be quite fragile.

I suppose it's all for naught though. Biological science doesn't change based on what you or I happen to think about it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What’s nutty is to contend that scientists have constructed alternate pathways... when all they have done is assume alternate pathways exist, when they couldn’t verify a direct path.

The evidence for common descent of life is not merely fossil evidence . . . other evidence exists as well, you know. Vestiges, shared retroviral inserts, shared patterns of morphology . . . .

 

[AV1611VET]

And like many creationists before you, when presented with evidence of evolution all you can do in response is to pretend it doesn't exist.

That's because you present evidence of microevolution as macroevolution.

 

[pitabread]

That's because you present evidence of microevolution as macroevolution.

"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are just code-words for evolution that creationists accept versus evolution that they don't.

What it comes down to is that almost all creationists seem to accept the process of evolution, just not the output.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That's because you present evidence of microevolution as macroevolution.

The above denial of macroevolution was written by a human with vestigial digits on his feet, mute evidence of an ancestral species that grasped things with the hind limbs.

 

[inquiring mind]

The above denial of macroevolution was written by a human with vestigial digits on his feet, mute evidence of an ancestral species that grasped things with the hind limbs.

Nope, written by one made in the likeness of God, so that he may rule over animals and creatures of all kinds.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God did things with my life, not allah, and there can be only 1 true religion. I'm not converting to islam anytime soon.

That's what muslims say about their religion.
That's what any theist says about his own religion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That picture of apes, the last is human but the rest are apes, look at the bones of the front of the head...

pssst: humans are apes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think he's asking you why you discard a CONVERT OR DIE god, in favor of a LOVE THINE ENEMY one.

Nope.

And "liking" the christian god more then some other god, is not an argument for why the christian god should exist and not other gods.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have no qualifications, i need one to say they are different? they are.

The point is that they are progressively less different as you approach homo sapiens.

Exactly what we expect to see if evolution is true.