Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter Bob74h
- Start date
All of that text for you to just force an ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Pretty much every cosmological and contingency argument falls for the same fallacies: assuming the initiator was a who and the who you randomly believe in, making assumptions on before the Planck epoch, thinking of the Big Bang as a start from nowhere... Nothing of this is even supported to begin with since, at best, we just don't know as our knowledge isn't that far beyond.
Again, arguments older than yourself. Even if we accepted all your petitio principii, you'd still find yourself in a scenario where nothing at all of what you stated supports God's existence per se.
That's not what evolution is. Evolution never says that all life on Earth was formed from a rat.
The way you're depicting evolution it's clear that you truly believe it works like Pokémon, whether you realize it or not. The argument of the transitional links is by itself evidence that you don't get it and believe there must be a Charmeleon between a Charmander and a Charizard. When you say this:
But because of your ignorance, you may believe that there is not much difference between a cat and a dog, even though they are completely different types of animals. And this is not about Pokemon, but about the real world.
You're making yourself look dumb because the real world is indeed a continuum of similarities between subspecies. Felis silvestris silvestris and Felis silvestris catus are different animals but we can make the connection between them; and this process can be progressively made through the whole animal taxonomy, because Felis silvestris and Felis chaus share many similarities and therefore classify them both as Felis; between Felis and Acionyx and therefore classify them both as Felinae; between those in Felinae and those in Pantherinae and therefore classify them both as Felidae; between Felidae and Hyaenidae and therefore classify them both as Feliformia; and between Feliformia and Caniformia, and therefore classify them both as Carnivora.
Since you understand evolution as Pokémon you think of animals as types or kinds (categories that creationists use but lack any scientific value) and therefore believe there's a Pokédex of animals where numer #001 is the Bulbasaur kind all the way to #151 Mew kind. And that's bullshit, because you may find no similarity between a cat and a dog, but not only they do have similarities that put them in the same taxonomical order but the differences can be progressively traced through the evolutionary continuum the way I just elaborated. Cats and dogs are more similar to each other than carnivorans to ungulates, but these two are more similar to each other than mammals to reptiles; yet we could keep noticing the similarities throughout the taxonomical links, while your made up "type" approach to classifying depicts cats as no more different from dogs than from cows, which is factually wrong at every level of zoological study.
Evolution doesn't claim that transitional forms exist; that's another made up assumption by creationists. Evolution works, again, as a continuum and therefore no Charmeleon is expected to be found. If we knew every creature to have ever existed we'd just fill a long series of minimal changes that gradually changed a Charmander into a Charizard, but this doesn't mean that a Charmeleon must exist. Even if I played Devil's advocate, believed that transitional forms must exist and provided you with them (Dipnoos, Tetrapodomorpha, Archaeopteryx, Basilosaurus, Australopithecus, synapsid cynodonts...), you'd just move the goalpost and argue that it just creates more holes to be filled; which is expected if you believe evolution works like Pokémon but is an absurdity for those who truly know how it works.
So next time shut up by claiming people who don't believe your creationist bullshit don't know what they're talking about.
Pretty much every cosmological and contingency argument falls for the same fallacies: assuming the initiator was a who and the who you randomly believe in, making assumptions on before the Planck epoch, thinking of the Big Bang as a start from nowhere... Nothing of this is even supported to begin with since, at best, we just don't know as our knowledge isn't that far beyond.
Again, arguments older than yourself. Even if we accepted all your petitio principii, you'd still find yourself in a scenario where nothing at all of what you stated supports God's existence per se.
That's not what evolution is. Evolution never says that all life on Earth was formed from a rat.
The way you're depicting evolution it's clear that you truly believe it works like Pokémon, whether you realize it or not. The argument of the transitional links is by itself evidence that you don't get it and believe there must be a Charmeleon between a Charmander and a Charizard. When you say this:
But because of your ignorance, you may believe that there is not much difference between a cat and a dog, even though they are completely different types of animals. And this is not about Pokemon, but about the real world.
You're making yourself look dumb because the real world is indeed a continuum of similarities between subspecies. Felis silvestris silvestris and Felis silvestris catus are different animals but we can make the connection between them; and this process can be progressively made through the whole animal taxonomy, because Felis silvestris and Felis chaus share many similarities and therefore classify them both as Felis; between Felis and Acionyx and therefore classify them both as Felinae; between those in Felinae and those in Pantherinae and therefore classify them both as Felidae; between Felidae and Hyaenidae and therefore classify them both as Feliformia; and between Feliformia and Caniformia, and therefore classify them both as Carnivora.
Since you understand evolution as Pokémon you think of animals as types or kinds (categories that creationists use but lack any scientific value) and therefore believe there's a Pokédex of animals where numer #001 is the Bulbasaur kind all the way to #151 Mew kind. And that's bullshit, because you may find no similarity between a cat and a dog, but not only they do have similarities that put them in the same taxonomical order but the differences can be progressively traced through the evolutionary continuum the way I just elaborated. Cats and dogs are more similar to each other than carnivorans to ungulates, but these two are more similar to each other than mammals to reptiles; yet we could keep noticing the similarities throughout the taxonomical links, while your made up "type" approach to classifying depicts cats as no more different from dogs than from cows, which is factually wrong at every level of zoological study.
Evolution doesn't claim that transitional forms exist; that's another made up assumption by creationists. Evolution works, again, as a continuum and therefore no Charmeleon is expected to be found. If we knew every creature to have ever existed we'd just fill a long series of minimal changes that gradually changed a Charmander into a Charizard, but this doesn't mean that a Charmeleon must exist. Even if I played Devil's advocate, believed that transitional forms must exist and provided you with them (Dipnoos, Tetrapodomorpha, Archaeopteryx, Basilosaurus, Australopithecus, synapsid cynodonts...), you'd just move the goalpost and argue that it just creates more holes to be filled; which is expected if you believe evolution works like Pokémon but is an absurdity for those who truly know how it works.
So next time shut up by claiming people who don't believe your creationist bullshit don't know what they're talking about.
thats what ive been telling you all this time. this isnt about certain eukaryotes having different origins. so you wont get from that to "humans and chimps are not related". you just wont. and at this point im not even sure whether you are just disingenuous af or really dense
even if for arguments sake we would grant this line of reasoning, that doesnt lead you to a personal god like the major monotheistic religions believe in anyway.
that wasnt his point either. the point was about modern animals being evolved over time. that obviously doesnt mean a creator couldnt have kickstarted life and then let evolution take over. just means that modern animals were not created as they are now.
all hail the god of the gaps, amirite
yeah plenty atheists just retort with with the universe itself being the uncaused cause, as there is no evidence either way anyway.
Post automatically merged:
even if for arguments sake we would grant this line of reasoning, that doesnt lead you to a personal god like the major monotheistic religions believe in anyway.
that wasnt his point either. the point was about modern animals being evolved over time. that obviously doesnt mean a creator couldnt have kickstarted life and then let evolution take over. just means that modern animals were not created as they are now.
Post automatically merged:
all hail the god of the gaps, amirite
Post automatically merged:
yeah plenty atheists just retort with with the universe itself being the uncaused cause, as there is no evidence either way anyway.
Last edited: