Thread: Top youtube Muslim starts being rational

Originally Posted by Sandform

And you failed to understand my statements earlier, we didn't evolve from monkeys, only a moron with no understanding of evolution would believe that. Go to the zoo and you will see what we didn't evolve from.

Hominids evolved from monkeys and we evolved from hominids, they were basically monkeys and technically we did evolve from monkeys.

Originally Posted by Sandform

You are inherently wrong. Look up the definition of evolution (change in inherited traits) and then look at a fossil record and tell me that doesn't prove evolution.

Morons are so quick to say "there are missing records in the fossil record thus evolution must be wrong." They say this inspite of everything else that the theory is proven to be true about.

Hell didn't we just have a thread that spoke about how birds have dna in them from dinosaurs?

Didn't I make a thread about the ever famous crocoduck?
Archaeopteryx

I'm not denying evolution, I'm saying fossils don't show actual proof. You can't look at a fossil and see a reptile evolving into a reptile-like mammal.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Lol. I suppose all scientists rely on research that they have done themselves, and it is not a collaborated effort.
Meanwhile what evidence do you have that atheists don't look for it themselves? We look all the time for the TRUTH. We simply ask other people to show us what proof they have so that we can see if that is proof enough for us.

Look up what "peer review" is and then maybe you'll understand the purpose of asking other people for their proofs.

We have already examined the evidence that is available to us, and we find the evidence LACKING. We ask others because hey, perhaps we're wrong, perhaps our thesis could use a bit of sprucing up, we've used up all our possible resource for evidence, maybe they have some new stuff.

More often than not the proof other people have is something we have ALREADY heard, and we happen to think that "go outside and look at the trees" isn't good enough.

I know scientists look at other findings too, but I've never seen an atheist on here try to give proof for God not existing, they say they don't have to. That's stupid. If a scientist thought like that then they'd never find evidence of anything. I've looked up proof of God(s) not existing, you know what people state as proof? "Prayer doesn't work," "the bible contradicts itself," etc. etc., that's shit for proof. But, all the same for "we exist," "creationism," or what have you are shit for proof for God existing.

Originally Posted by Sandform

What do you want a video recording of events that happened in the span of millions of years?

"No actual proof."

Try medicine.

Well evolution btw is a fact...the evidence is there. It isn't "just" a theory as some people would say. It is a THEORY. That means its GOOD. When something is a scientific theory, that means it is the best possible explanation we can have at our current understanding of the world around us.

Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's good. People can look at creation (not creationism) as a theory, does that mean it's good? Not to your standards. There are multiple theories for a lot of things.


PBS: FAQs about evolution.

Life began more than 3 billion years before the Cambrian, and gradually diversified into a wide variety of single-celled organisms. Toward the end of the Precambrian, about 570 million years ago, a number of multicelled forms began to appear in the fossil record, including invertebrates resembling sponges and jellyfish, and some as-yet-unknown burrowing forms of life. As the Cambrian began, most of the basic body plans of invertebrates emerged from these Precambrian forms. They emerged relatively rapidly, in the geological sense -- over 10 million to 25 million years. These Cambrian forms were not identical to modern invertebrates, but were their early ancestors. Major groups of living organisms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, did not appear until millions of years after the end of the Cambrian Period.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ch...ime/index.html
The Cambrian period was from 530 to 520 mya, the basic body plans of the major animal phyla are established over a relatively short period of roughly 10 million years. All the major animal phyla in existence today (about 3 dozen), evolve from these Cambrian faunas.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Hominids evolved from monkeys and we evolved from hominids, they were basically monkeys and technically we did evolve from monkeys.

Lol no. We as humans are all part of the order of primates. You could say Ape, but monkey doesn't cut it. Hell we are still apes!
Of course this is all semantic anyway. I'm sure what you meant to say was "hairy idiots."


(another video qualifies his statement about apes with the additional statement "extant" apes.)

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

I'm not denying evolution, I'm saying fossils don't show actual proof. You can't look at a fossil and see a reptile evolving into a reptile-like mammal.



I know scientists look at other findings too, but I've never seen an atheist on here try to give proof for God not existing, they say they don't have to. That's stupid. If a scientist thought like that then they'd never find evidence of anything. I've looked up proof of God(s) not existing, you know what people state as proof? "Prayer doesn't work," "the bible contradicts itself," etc. etc., that's shit for proof. But, all the same for "we exist," "creationism," or what have you are shit for proof for God existing.

Yeah, there aren't many fossils like that, but there ARE transitional fossils, just google them. Apparently "you don't have one of a fish becoming a turtle" is what you are saying. This is why I referenced other threads and the archaeopteryx on the evolution of avians. There literally are fossil records of a dinosaur evolving feathers, and we have proof that dinosaur-like dna is inside of birds to this day. Is that not evidence that a reptile-like being can become something else?

We can't show you "proof that god doesn't exist" because the only proof of a non-entity is non-proof. In other words the proof is that there isn't proof. We aren't saying there isn't a God, we're saying that 1. there is no reason to say there is a God, and 2. there is no reason to believe in a specific one.

Let me explain to you the essence of trying to prove God doesn't exist.

There is no tangible evidence of God, which if his definition were merely "God exists" then we could not even try to disprove him, he could be proven if proof existed, but not disproven until said proof is revealed.

Now, we have other things to define God however.
"Prayer" "Miracles" etc.

"Prayer doesn't work," "the bible contradicts itself,"

The only proof of a negative is the lack of proof for the positive. This is why the only proof for the non-existence of God are these kinds of examples.

We can't disprove something until you give us something that is testable. The reason you have "shit" for disproof is because the "Proof" is the actual shit.

I want to say more but I'm being called to the living room to help someone with something.


Edit:

Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's good. People can look at creation (not creationism) as a theory, does that mean it's good? Not to your standards. There are multiple theories for a lot of things.

"
Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's good. "
Actually yes it does(though it doesn't mean it is 100% correct, in order to be a theory it must be able to predict future outcomes, which evolutionary theory has done.). People can (wrongly) call cdesign propentists a theory, but it isn't.

(in other words there is no falsfiability for cdesign proponentists thus it can't be a theory)

This is where we come back into the "scientific theory" term and the common fool's term "theory."

Originally Posted by Sandform

Lol no. We as humans are all part of the order of primates. You could say Ape, but monkey doesn't cut it. Hell we are still apes!
Of course this is all semantic anyway. I'm sure what you meant to say was "hairy idiots."


(another video qualifies his statement about apes with the additional statement "extant" apes.)

We seriously evolved from hominids.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Yeah, there aren't many fossils like that, but there ARE transitional fossils, just google them. Apparently "you don't have one of a fish becoming a turtle" is what you are saying. This is why I referenced other threads and the archaeopteryx on the evolution of avians. There literally are fossil records of a dinosaur evolving feathers, and we have proof that dinosaur-like dna is inside of birds to this day. Is that not evidence that a reptile-like being can become something else?

Sure it can show that it possibly became that, it doesn't necessarily mean it did become that though.

Originally Posted by Sandform

We can't show you "proof that god doesn't exist" because the only proof of a non-entity is non-proof. In other words the proof is that there isn't proof. We aren't saying there isn't a God, we're saying that 1. there is no reason to say there is a God, and 2. there is no reason to believe in a specific one.

No, most atheists come straight out and say "God(s) doesn't exist." It's pretty illogical to say that. That's basically what I try to argue.

Spoiler for Why it's illogical.:

You (atheists) say a theist is illogical for saying "a God(s) exists" because there is lack proof.

Therefore, it's also illogical to say "a God(s) doesn't exist" because there is lack of proof.

Now, I can see why you (atheists) say it's illogical to believe in the concept of a God(s), because there is lack of proof. Therefore, it's logical to believe it doesn't exist.

To clear things up a bit, in case that isn't clear, I can see the reason (it's logical) in not believing in a God(s), because of lack of proof. But, there is no reason (it's illogical) to come straight out and say "God(s) doesn't exist," because you have no proof. If you actually had proof that God(s) didn't exist, then it'd be logical.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Let me explain to you the essence of trying to prove God doesn't exist.

There is no tangible evidence of God, which if his definition were merely "God exists" then we could not even try to disprove him, he could be proven if proof existed, but not disproven until said proof is revealed.

Well I'm sure there is someway to prove one way or the other, people just don't use the right "settings" for the experiments. Don't ask me what the right "settings" are because I don't know.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Now, we have other things to define God however.
"Prayer" "Miracles" etc.

That doesn't define every God though. I don't believe if I pray that God is going to answer my prayers, I also don't believe in miracles, I don't believe in Creationism, and there are other things I don't believe in. So using that as "proof" for a God(s) not existing is pretty stupid in my opinion. I'm not saying that you would use that as proof though, just so you know.

But, the same goes for theists using scriptures from bibles, or whatever, as a form of proof that God(s) exist. Or saying, "you wake up each day because of God(s)!." It's all a bunch of fail.

Originally Posted by Sandform

The only proof of a negative is the lack of proof for the positive. This is why the only proof for the non-existence of God are these kinds of examples.

We can't disprove something until you give us something that is testable. The reason you have "shit" for disproof is because the "Proof" is the actual shit.

Then why are there religious debates over the existence or non-existence of a God(s)? I mean, it's illogical to argue that a God(s) exists, and it's also illogical to argue that a God(s) doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Sandform

"
Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's good. "
Actually yes it does(though it doesn't mean it is 100% correct, in order to be a theory it must be able to predict future outcomes, which evolutionary theory has done.). People can (wrongly) call cdesign propentists a theory, but it isn't.

Well, I get that.

There are plenty evolution debate threads; stop hijacking threads.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Haha, I don't have to actually show you a monkey evolving to a human for you to believe they did. I just have to show you a fossil and tell you that's how it happens. Aw, how cute. Fossils don't prove evolution (reptiles to mammals, or what have you), they only can let you make assumptions.

You must not believe in forensics.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Sure it can show that it possibly became that, it doesn't necessarily mean it did become that though.

So by that same logic, how do we prove and convict people for murder when there is no material witness? Is DNA fingerprinting and fibre comparison just a big conspiracy to fill prisons with innocent people?

It's sad that he didn't deconvert. He was obviously having a lot of misgivings about his religion. Hopefully those doubts and confusions will continue for SOA and he will stay rational. Gotta give him an A+ for honesty.

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

It's sad that he didn't deconvert. He was obviously having a lot of misgivings about his religion. Hopefully those doubts and confusions will continue for SOA and he will stay rational. Gotta give him an A+ for honesty.

Weren't you keeping up Rak? We're not talking about the original thread topic anymore.

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

Weren't you keeping up Rak? We're not talking about the original thread topic anymore.

Well I was attempting to rerail the thread....... did it work..........

Originally Posted by Alextanium

So by that same logic, how do we prove and convict people for murder when there is no material witness? Is DNA fingerprinting and fibre comparison just a big conspiracy to fill prisons with innocent people?

Is all DNA fingerprinting 100% accurate? LOL NO!

If they go find some fossils that goes from a reptile to a primate does that mean reptiles skipped reptile-like mammals now?

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

If they go find some fossils that goes from a reptile to a primate does that mean reptiles skipped reptile-like mammals now?

Can anyone else make any sense of this?

Originally Posted by Mark75

Can anyone else make any sense of this?

I think he means...

If you find a reptile, and then you find a primate, dated at different time periods, it means that it skipped from reptile to primate without a transition...

Originally Posted by Mark75

Can anyone else make any sense of this?

Reptiles evolved into reptile-like mammals. It's not that hard to understand.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

If they go find some fossils that goes from a reptile to a primate does that mean reptiles skipped reptile-like mammals now?

You mean like a fossil of a monkey with scales?

Originally Posted by drewmandan

You mean like a fossil of a monkey with scales?

No. "Reptile-like mammal" doesn't have to necessarily mean it's a primate.

Mammal-like reptiles, rather, is what they're called! Even though they'd both be the same pretty much.

They were around 275 mya.