More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not so. Without regard to evolution, where did everything come from.

You just said without regard to evolution....?

Maybe the universe was created. That doesn't conflict with evolution

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is their shared evolutionary past?

This is where you go look up something for yourself.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Selection.

No, you believe it is not only possible but absolutely certain that a sky daddy did it with magic.

Ok, so this is what you do?

You make up arguments for other people and then ridicule them instead of refuting them with logic?

Come on, man!

Can't you at least make up an argument that you can refute with logic?

So we both agree it is possible. I just don't need magic.

What do you need, then?

Absent "magic," what explanation do you have for abiogenesis?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Because that is a measure of ...

...Listen up this time....

The MOST RECENT COMMON FEMALE

Yes, I literally just introduced to you the concept of the most recent common female ancestor and how she had to be a human.

Do you or you not understand why this is? Think on it.

(But technically, she was an ape, and so are you. So am i. But...baby steps)

Well, of course the most recent common ancestor had to be human.

That's kind of a "duh!" isn't it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

We know with certainty abiogenesis occurred. Life on the planet is proof of that.

It was either a naturally occurring process or It was a supernatural event…. or maybe space aliens.

Give us something to consider for life on the planet being a result of Lord Shiva. Shirley, you must have something to support the notion that, “the gawds did it”.,

Oooh . . .

Once you admit the possibility of the supernatural, it takes the wind out of your rhetorical twists and turns to explain life absent the supernatural doesn't it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What do you need, then?

Just selection and physical laws.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oooh . . .

Once you admit the possibility of the supernatural, it takes the wind out of your rhetorical twists and turns to explain life absent the supernatural doesn't it?

You don't seem to get how this double edged sword works:

Once YOU insist upon magic, you have disqualified yourself from any discussion of evidence. You have literally foregone the concept of evidence and have reduced yourself to nothing but a dimestore shaman making supernatural claims .

You can never claim to have evidence for your magical claims or against anything else.

That's what magic is.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Just selection and physical laws.

What physical laws? Just give the three most important.

I think you are trying to slip this debate away from abiogenesis, which you announced that you have faith in, to evolution.

Or how do you think selection brings about abiogensis?

 

[Seymour Flops]

You don't seem to get how this double edged sword works:

Once YOU insist upon magic, you have disqualified yourself from any discussion of evidence. You have literally foregone the concept of evidence and have reduced yourself to nothing but a dimestore shaman making supernatural claims .

You can never claim to have evidence for your magical claims or against anything else.

That's what magic is.

Good thing that I haven't insisted on magic then.

But feel free to make up other people's arguments to debate against.

It's known as the straw man fallacy, so I hope you weren't thinking taking out a patent on that method.

BTW, why are you answering for Hollie again? Forget to switch accounts?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What physical laws? Just give the three most important.

All of them. A silly question on your part.

I think you are trying to slip this debate away from abiogenesis, which you announced that you have faith in, to evolution.

Oops, made the same mistake again. You believe in the fact of abiogenesis and have faith that it was a magic trick by a sky daddy.

I have no faith nor need of any faith to suggest it was a deterministic, physical process. I have every observation and every shred of evidence ever collected about anything at all to support such a notion.

If you keep making this same error, I will just keep pointing it out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Good thing that I haven't insisted on magic then.

Oh yes you do. I am not playing this game with you.

You think your magical beliefs are "special" and shouldn't go on the shelf with all other magical nonsense.

That is your handicap, not mine.

 

[Hollie]

Oooh . . .

Once you admit the possibility of the supernatural, it takes the wind out of your rhetorical twists and turns to explain life absent the supernatural doesn't it?

Feel free to believe in magic and supernaturalism as an answer to anything. Would you care to offer a single event in human history that demonstrably establishes a supernatural (unnatural) event, one that can be directly attributed to any one of the gods?

 

[Hollie]

Or faith.

I don't know anyone who has ''faith'' in science. Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it can not claim evidence. That's because faith is devoid of evidence. I don't need faith to reach conclusions. I can use supported data not reliant on magic and supernaturalism

 

[Seymour Flops]

Oh yes you do. I am not playing this game with you.

You think your magical beliefs are "special" and shouldn't go on the shelf with all other magical nonsense.

That is your handicap, not mine.

Feel free to believe in magic and supernaturalism as an answer to anything. Would you care to offer a single event in human history that demonstrably establishes a supernatural (unnatural) event, one that can be directly attributed to any one of the gods?

Ok, you "two." I don't know why you feel you need two accounts to repeat yourself(es) over and over, while never actually responding to what I actually said.

But I do know that you don't need me for that, since you make up your own "opposing" arguments to debate.

Have fun!

 

[james bond]

Feel free to believe in magic and supernaturalism as an answer to anything. Would you care to offer a single event in human history that demonstrably establishes a supernatural (unnatural) event, one that can be directly attributed to any one of the gods?

Magic has nothing to do with supernaturalism so you're wrong again. Atheists are usually wrong. You haven't been paying attention as I provided 7 days of creation, the global flood, creation scientists being the best scientists in history, plate tectonics, fountains of the deep, and more.

Here's another view of the Bible being explained by science .

 

[Hollie]

Ok, you "two." I don't know why you feel you need two accounts to repeat yourself(es) over and over, while never actually responding to what I actually said.

But I do know that you don't need me for that, since you make up your own "opposing" arguments to debate.

Have fun!

I don't see how that addresses any requirement for supernaturalism to be a part of the natural world.

 

[Woodznutz]

I don't know anyone who has ''faith'' in science. Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it can not claim evidence. That's because faith is devoid of evidence. I don't need faith to reach conclusions. I can use supported data not reliant on magic and supernaturalism

Billions have 'faith' in science, that science will save us. Billions also have faith in God, that God will save us. I have more faith in God than science.

 

[james bond]

I don't see how that addresses any requirement for supernaturalism to be a part of the natural world.

God does not need us, but we need Him and His salvation. The Bible tells us He is the origin of everything, but that we were sidetracked by Satan's tempting the first humans into sin. It changed the world and universe and thus we need His salvation. Just look at the atheists and unforgiven being sidetracked by evolution or evilution today.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ok, you "two." I don't know why you feel you need two accounts to repeat yourself(es) over and over, while never actually responding to what I actually said.

But I do know that you don't need me for that, since you make up your own "opposing" arguments to debate.

Have fun!

I responded directly to what you said, as anyone can see for themselves. Your "poor me" act isn't going to fly.

Furthermore, you have made no arguments and presented no evidence to me. What detailed response do you expect to such vapid rhetoric? It deserves nothing in response but "nuh-uh". So really, you have received more detailed responses than your rhetoric merits.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Billions have 'faith' in science, that science will save us. Billions also have faith in God, that God will save us. I have more faith in God than science.

No. People TRUST science due to having mountains of good evidence that shows thry should. That is not faith. That is a safe bet. That is an evidence-based determination. IE, the opposite of faith.

Your attempts to place science on the same shelf as your unevidenced faith will NEVER WORK.

Not ever. So you can stop trying.