Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[sealybobo]

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

​

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?
Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?

Didn't the plants have to be here first to create oxygen for us to breath? We know the first life didnt breath oxygen and humans couldn't have lived on earth when live started. That wasn't for a billion years. Trilobite's and dinosaurs ruled before us.

And we know men came from monkeys, once crawled on all 4s and breathed water. And we are related to all other living things.

The first things you mention are logical but my opinion is that we really don't know enough about the past to make such assumptions.
I don't believe the second part at all.

How did gopers snakes birds reptiles ants 1 million different beatles lion bears wolves octopus eel whales monkeys dinosaurs trilobite's fox turkey trees grass weed cows come from then?

What's your theory? How is it we share the same DNA under a microscope?

 

[sealybobo]

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?

I believe the multiverse theory. Our bubble was started 14 billion years ago and the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Time light space and the bubble are getting bigger. Eventually it could burst when it merges with another universe or bubble. Our bubble had a beginning but there have been other beginnings and other ends in other infinite universes or cosmos.


What do you think? I could be wrong but scientifically and theoretically and logically I could be right. Can we say the same about your theory?

Your theory is a conclusion you can't think of any other explanation. Its based on ignorance. You dont know so must be god..

By the way did you see I named you as a frienamy?

My problem with the theory is that people use a belief that is no more than just a belief to belittle others. I'm not much for theorizing about things beyond the scope of life. I do believe in an infinite universe though.

I don't see enough evidence in any theory about stuff like that to have it hold any real weight.

I don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing. You are a frienemy to me as well.

I believe you are probably an agnostic athiest who believes religion is good for people and humans need it and that without it things would be worse. I disagree. I think it is unnecessary and holding us back. Look at Muslims. So you want to do away with that lie and replace it with another?

Possible. Muslims are pretty bad but I also believe that there are many Muslims perfectly happy with their lives. Some enjoy the kind of community they have and would rather not have foreign nations change their lives. Whether they have the right to live like that is up to the rest of the world to decide I guess. To me I don't have a problem with it as long as they don't harm others. The fact that they commit acts of terrorism is definitely a problem though. The small group of wackos is the only problem.

Now think how the people of iraq feel when a christian superpower bombs your city to get rid of Saddam basically destroying their countries stability putting them in a civil war. Dividing their country into 3. You act like the war is completely evil Islam vs innocent USA that's never done anything. Dont be naive. There's blood on our hands. We are little eichmanns. Look it up.

 

[sealybobo]

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."

​

I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?
Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.

I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?

But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life.

So what? No one has "proof" of ANYTHING. Right?

There is no perfect certainty except for that possessed by the superstitious; who base their perfect certainty upon nothing, and validate it by denying valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

I'm not counted amongst those retards, Cupcake.

The evidence strongly suggests that life around here is a relatively new occurence.

How do we know time had a beginning?

We don't. Not with absolute certainty. But the evidence suggests that it did.

I'm good with that until something better is presented.

You have faith that we have a good knowledge base of the past. I don't have faith in our knowledge of the past.

Then dont believe any holy book you read.

 

[Abishai100]

Tool Theater


Let's look at how 'modern civilization' has re-presented two totems of consumerism that are related to social perceptions of tool sophistication and tool symbolism:

1. the audio compact cassette (the first portable audio media storage-playback item that sort of looked like a toy, indicating a design trend in user-friendliness)

2. the water-gun (a toy gun that shoots water instead of bullets and is marketed to kids and characterizes social views on violence-caricaturization)

The fact that human beings actually impose sentimentalism and anthropological symbolism onto gadgets/toys/tools suggests that we can talk about evolution (and the evidence for it) in terms of tool economics.








Bob's Big Boy (Wikipedia)