[TheTruthIsOnHere]

That's not entirely accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

This does not at all show E.Coli becoming a different species of bacteria. At best it shows how mutations can affect an organism over time, but as experimentally proven and described by the author, detrimentally. There is no experimental evidence of any organism becoming any other organism. There is no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming a separate multicellular species, or even of a mechanism in which they would do so.

No.
Right now there are only two option for life:  Intelligent Design and Evolution.  Until a third option exists, we go with what makes the most sense and has the most evidence.  Right now that's evolution.
Seriously, give me any evidence that we were made this way.  That all life on Earth was made exactly as it is now Billions of years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Fossil_record

If you can cut through the muck in the article, what it shows is that the earliest fossil of this, dated to 360million years ago lead researchers to believe it was a transitional species to amphibious animals. It was believed to become extinct 66 million years ago. Well, when they found a live one in 1938, and again in the late 90's, it was apparent that over 360 million years they couldn't identify any major changes in the skeletal structure of the fish whatsoever. Why was this fish, once touted as a transitional missing link between fish and amphibians, apparently immune to the effects of evolution? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest anything other than the fact that we were "made this way."

Actually that begs the question:
Why aren't there more humans?  Why is our history so small?  If we were intelligently designed as was all life on Earth, surely we'd have more history than 20,000 years.  Especially since our species should have existed for at least a billion years.  Right?  Or did we just come into existence one day after the Dinosaurs died?

Because technology didn't exist for humans to thrive the way they do today. The agricultural age brought about the ability to support more human life on this planet than the previous hunter gatherer paradigm could. Our history only dates to what we can find, and what was written. Oral history certainly goes back further than written history, but how could you possibly date it? Also, just because a species exists for a long time doesn't particularly mean it is suited to "take over" it's habitat. Humans are pretty much the only animal on this planet that live outside of any kind of meaningful ecosystem. The rest of nature displays a delicate balance, the likes of which we don't have the self-discipline or the foresight to subject ourselves to.

[Lord Dave]

That's not entirely accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

This does not at all show E.Coli becoming a different species of bacteria. At best it shows how mutations can affect an organism over time, but as experimentally proven and described by the author, detrimentally. There is no experimental evidence of any organism becoming any other organism. There is no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming a separate multicellular species, or even of a mechanism in which they would do so.

Your definition of what a new species is, is very odd.  It's like you only consider something a new species when you say so.  What criteria do you use, exactly?  Because as the article stated, the dna did change in the e.coli.

No.
Right now there are only two option for life:  Intelligent Design and Evolution.  Until a third option exists, we go with what makes the most sense and has the most evidence.  Right now that's evolution.
Seriously, give me any evidence that we were made this way.  That all life on Earth was made exactly as it is now Billions of years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Fossil_record

If you can cut through the muck in the article, what it shows is that the earliest fossil of this, dated to 360million years ago lead researchers to believe it was a transitional species to amphibious animals. It was believed to become extinct 66 million years ago. Well, when they found a live one in 1938, and again in the late 90's, it was apparent that over 360 million years they couldn't identify any major changes in the skeletal structure of the fish whatsoever. Why was this fish, once touted as a transitional missing link between fish and amphibians, apparently immune to the effects of evolution? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest anything other than the fact that we were "made this way."

How do you get that leap of logic?  Sharks have been largely unchanged for millions of years.  Doesn't mean everything else is.  You also seem to have this odd idea that evolution is like some kind of switch.  "Oh, we have an evolved form, all old fish will now upgrade."  That's not how it works.  In fact, a species can have an evolutionary branch and still exist.  Just because there's an evolutionary change in a species does not mean the previous species goes extinct.  They can coexist, especially with isolated populations.

Actually that begs the question:
Why aren't there more humans?  Why is our history so small?  If we were intelligently designed as was all life on Earth, surely we'd have more history than 20,000 years.  Especially since our species should have existed for at least a billion years.  Right?  Or did we just come into existence one day after the Dinosaurs died?

Because technology didn't exist for humans to thrive the way they do today. The agricultural age brought about the ability to support more human life on this planet than the previous hunter gatherer paradigm could. Our history only dates to what we can find, and what was written. Oral history certainly goes back further than written history, but how could you possibly date it? Also, just because a species exists for a long time doesn't particularly mean it is suited to "take over" it's habitat. Humans are pretty much the only animal on this planet that live outside of any kind of meaningful ecosystem. The rest of nature displays a delicate balance, the likes of which we don't have the self-discipline or the foresight to subject ourselves to.

There is no evidence humans ran with the T-Rex. Not even oral stories.
And what about plate techtonics and environment?  Antarctica didn't always uses to be so cold.  Did penguins always live there?  What about polar bears?  Were they always around? 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Your definition of what a new species is, is very odd.  It's like you only consider something a new species when you say so.  What criteria do you use, exactly?  Because as the article stated, the dna did change in the e.coli.

There is no experimental evidence of any organism becoming any other organism. There is no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming a separate multicellular species, or even of a mechanism in which they would do so. The DNA changed due to a mutation damaging DNA replication. Hardly evidence of "natural selection." The term species is actually still debated to this day by biologists, for the simple fact it easier to define in male and female reproductive organisms and harder to define in bacteria etc. You require two animals with identical chromosome count in order to produce a healthy, fertile offspring. Bacterium can reproduce asexually by cell division etc. Still remains the fact that in order for any variants with any adaptions to be labeled a new species, they must be different in chromosome count and unable to reproduce with each other. Which is not the case with variants of a species.

How do you get that leap of logic?  Sharks have been largely unchanged for millions of years.  Doesn't mean everything else is.  You also seem to have this odd idea that evolution is like some kind of switch.  "Oh, we have an evolved form, all old fish will now upgrade."  That's not how it works.  In fact, a species can have an evolutionary branch and still exist.  Just because there's an evolutionary change in a species does not mean the previous species goes extinct.  They can coexist, especially with isolated populations.

You asked for evidence of life existing the same way "a billion years ago" and I gave you evidence of something existing the same way for 360 million years. There is no actual proof of any "evolutionary branch" ever happening. So your conjecture is based no false reasoning to begin with.

There is no evidence humans ran with the T-Rex. Not even oral stories.
And what about plate techtonics and environment?  Antarctica didn't always uses to be so cold.  Did penguins always live there?  What about polar bears?  Were they always around?

Are you just going to keep diverting everytime I make a logical point?

How about this, if you want to talk about environments let's examine "natural selection." Why do many animals near the equator have such thick fur? Why do animals in the arctic have bare skin? Wouldn't it be advantageous to develop appropriate protection from the elements? Why do humans near the equator have darker skin? Why do eskimos have light skin? Wouldn't it be advantageous to the human to evolve a lighter skin tone to reflect more light in the tropics? Wouldn't it be advantageous to eskimos to have darker skin, and more hair on their bodies?

Animals adapt to their surroundings, but not by changing their DNA. Advantageous translations of DNA provide an answer for variation of species but not outright creation of new species let alone a genera.

[Lord Dave]

There is no experimental evidence of any organism becoming any other organism. There is no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming a separate multicellular species, or even of a mechanism in which they would do so. The DNA changed due to a mutation damaging DNA replication. Hardly evidence of "natural selection." The term species is actually still debated to this day by biologists, for the simple fact it easier to define in male and female reproductive organisms and harder to define in bacteria etc. You require two animals with identical chromosome count in order to produce a healthy, fertile offspring. Bacterium can reproduce asexually by cell division etc. Still remains the fact that in order for any variants with any adaptions to be labeled a new species, they must be different in chromosome count and unable to reproduce with each other. Which is not the case with variants of a species.

The definition of a species is rather well known aside from some special cases.  As you said, what can reporoduce.  Chromosome count is not the factor, however, otherwise we'd be able to fuck Sable antelope and have kids.  No, it's compatible RNA.

That being said, no, we have not yet witnessed single celled organisms evolving into multicelled organisms.  Mostly because the experimental work has only been going on for 30 years.  You did know that such complex evolution requires at LEAST a few thousand years, right?  That being said, plenty of evidence to support it and plenty to disprove spontaneous existence.

You asked for evidence of life existing the same way "a billion years ago" and I gave you evidence of something existing the same way for 360 million years. There is no actual proof of any "evolutionary branch" ever happening. So your conjecture is based no false reasoning to begin with.

No, I asked for proof of HUMANS existing a billion years ago.  Nice try.  I made no argument that everything evolves.  Quite simply, some things never die out because they are so well adapted to their environment and their environment doesn't change. 

Are you just going to keep diverting everytime I make a logical point?

Your "logical" point was "Humans took a billion years to learn to farm that's why we have no evidence of their existence before hand.  Also, humans don't balance with nature but live outside it.  Also they couldn't take over their habitat."
Yeah, no.  Agriculture allowed for settlements and stability, not increased population. Not the size you're thinking of anyway. Hunter-gatherer could sustain a decent sized tribe.  The native Americans of North America were hunter-gatherers and they have a ton of evidence that they existed.  What?  Did it take humans a billion years to make fire?  Or use pointy rocks?  And how do you know?  What Evidence do you have to show that humans have existed for a billion years?  Or are you arguing from ignorance?

How about this, if you want to talk about environments let's examine "natural selection." Why do many animals near the equator have such thick fur?

Name 1 because I'm only really seeing the three-toed sloth and that thing uses it's fur (and the algae that grows in it) for camoflague.

Why do animals in the arctic have bare skin?

Polar bears do not.
Seals, penguins, and other animals that are aquatic do for speed in the water.  Hair makes you slower.

Wouldn't it be advantageous to develop appropriate protection from the elements?

They did!  The fact that you THINK they don't makes me wonder how you can then accept intelligent design as that clearly shows a lack of intelligence, doesn't it?

Why do humans near the equator have darker skin?
Why do eskimos have light skin?

Vitamin D.  It's essential for human survival and it's created by sunlight on the skin.
https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-do-i-get-the-vitamin-d-my-body-needs/

Light skin allows for the most vitamin D creation while dark skin limits it but protects better from sunburn.  But at the equator, you get a lot more sun exposure (due to it being in the sky longer during the year) so you will get enough vitamin D creation even though it's much less than if you had light skin.  It's basically trading more vitamin D than you need for less severe sun burn.

Wouldn't it be advantageous to the human to evolve a lighter skin tone to reflect more light in the tropics?
Wouldn't it be advantageous to eskimos to have darker skin, and more hair on their bodies?

You seem to not understand how the human body works with regard to temperature.   Nor how sunlight works, apparently.
SO!  Here's the deal.  Your skin will absorb infrared rays from the sun.  That's what it does.  The color is irrelevant to this.  Your body also produces heat.  A lot of it, actually.  Normally, the heat produced is LESS than the outside temperature so the skin cools.  However, when enough IR has been absorbed, the body will heat up.  The sweat glands then remove said heat by having water evaporate on the skin, which removes heat.

So, where am I going with this?  Well, Eskimos are not a separate species.  Nor did they evolve in the arctic.  They, like most humans, migrated.  Current archeological evidence suggests that humans originated from Africa.  This is why hair was slowly lost over the course of several thousand years: The ice age ended and the planet warmed so the insulating hair wasn't needed as much anymore.  We still have some (chest, genitals, armpits, face, back, head) but not as much as we likely did prior.  Humans then expanded outwards across the world and landed in cold areas.  Hair was very helpful but since most of it was lost prior, they supplemented with animal skins. 

Animals adapt to their surroundings, but not by changing their DNA. Advantageous translations of DNA provide an answer for variation of species but not outright creation of new species let alone a genera.

I really have no idea how to make you understand this.  You have the pieces yet you just won't put them together.

Ok, lets try this:
Take a book.  Say.. War and Peace.
Change 1 word.
Is it still War and Peace?  I mean, you just changed the word Apple to Orange but the story isn't altered.  It's still the same story, thus, the same book.
Change 1 more word.  Ok, you changed Andrei Nikolayevich Bolkonsky to Andrew Nikolavevich Bolkonsky.   Is it still the same book?  Story hasn't changed, right?  Just one instance of the character's name.  It's just a typo, really.

Keep doing that.  When will it be a different story?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

On mobile, so I wont be able to dissect your post, but just to be clear: there is still no experimental evidence of evolution. Correct?

And about your book metaphor... In actual realistic scenario, who is arranging the words? Who is changing the letters? If left up to time and nature alone, which unequivocally trends towards chaos aka entropy, you will end up with a book full of jibberish. You won't end up with an even more masterful piece of literature. It's more like assuming that given time a Dr. Zuess' Red Fish Blue Fish will become War and Peace.

Don't have the exact link but I've read about a computer simulation running over 15 billion times or something insane, just to properly sequence half of the alphabet in order. I will look for source when I'm on my computer, but you have to agree, extrapolating that to how complicated and precise our DNA has to replicate to result in healthy fertile offspring seems like a tough task.

Oh btw, happy Easter   

[Jura-Glenlivet]

On mobile, so I wont be able to dissect your post, but just to be clear: there is still no experimental evidence of evolution. Correct?

And about your book metaphor... In actual realistic scenario, who is arranging the words? Who is changing the letters? If left up to time and nature alone, which unequivocally trends towards chaos aka entropy, you will end up with a book full of jibberish. You won't end up with an even more masterful piece of literature. It's more like assuming that given time a Dr. Zuess' Red Fish Blue Fish will become War and Peace.

Don't have the exact link but I've read about a computer simulation running over 15 billion times or something insane, just to properly sequence half of the alphabet in order. I will look for source when I'm on my computer, but you have to agree, extrapolating that to how complicated and precise our DNA has to replicate to result in healthy fertile offspring seems like a tough task.

Oh btw, happy Easter   

How lucky you were on your mobile, because he demolished you, especially your childlike understanding of natural selection and environments.
And the book analogy A bit clumsy but if each of the changed words has to make sense (i.e. promote survival or at least not hinder it) it kind of works.
But still there is a wealth of studies that show evolution in action, the continued examination of ring species like the Ensatina salamander amongst many others.

But you want us to believe that we have always been here (with the dinosaurs?), that sky god pops in every now and then to give us some tablets and to sacrifice someone to prove the point, raise a city or two to the ground to prove some other thing, whilst insisting we worship it or else.
Give me science with its gradual uncovering of the beauty of natures workings over religion and its fear based mutterings any day.

[Lord Dave]

On mobile, so I wont be able to dissect your post, but just to be clear: there is still no experimental evidence of evolution. Correct?

And about your book metaphor... In actual realistic scenario, who is arranging the words? Who is changing the letters? If left up to time and nature alone, which unequivocally trends towards chaos aka entropy, you will end up with a book full of jibberish. You won't end up with an even more masterful piece of literature. It's more like assuming that given time a Dr. Zuess' Red Fish Blue Fish will become War and Peace.

Don't have the exact link but I've read about a computer simulation running over 15 billion times or something insane, just to properly sequence half of the alphabet in order. I will look for source when I'm on my computer, but you have to agree, extrapolating that to how complicated and precise our DNA has to replicate to result in healthy fertile offspring seems like a tough task.

Oh btw, happy Easter   

How lucky you were on your mobile, because he demolished you, especially your childlike understanding of natural selection and environments.
And the book analogy A bit clumsy but if each of the changed words has to make sense (i.e. promote survival or at least not hinder it) it kind of works.
But still there is a wealth of studies that show evolution in action, the continued examination of ring species like the Ensatina salamander amongst many others.

But you want us to believe that we have always been here (with the dinosaurs?), that sky god pops in every now and then to give us some tablets and to sacrifice someone to prove the point, raise a city or two to the ground to prove some other thing, whilst insisting we worship it or else.
Give me science with its gradual uncovering of the beauty of natures workings over religion and its fear based mutterings any day.

I'm waiting for him to disect my post.  Its been 2 days.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

There's no need Dave. Any objective reader of this thread will see how flimsy your evidence of evolution is. Without your little cheerleader here you would realize how abysmally you're defending evolution. I see no reason to continue down this never ending loop of a debate with you or her. When you both realize that you are on the minority on this one here maybe you won't feel so damn smug. OP gives you the statistics. So just be glad you have your spherical earth but the numbers aren't on your side on this issue.

[Lord Dave]

There's no need Dave. Any objective reader of this thread will see how flimsy your evidence of evolution is. Without your little cheerleader here you would realize how abysmally you're defending evolution. I see no reason to continue down this never ending loop of a debate with you or her. When you both realize that you are on the minority on this one here maybe you won't feel so damn smug. OP gives you the statistics. So just be glad you have your spherical earth but the numbers aren't on your side on this issue.

Its like you're delusional.
No one, not a single person on this forum, has supported you.  You are alone.
We are the majority, you are the minority.  We have evidence, you have a book written by people who didn't even know about germs.

I've refuted everything you've thrown out yet you still claim superiority? 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

There's no need Dave. Any objective reader of this thread will see how flimsy your evidence of evolution is. Without your little cheerleader here you would realize how abysmally you're defending evolution. I see no reason to continue down this never ending loop of a debate with you or her. When you both realize that you are on the minority on this one here maybe you won't feel so damn smug. OP gives you the statistics. So just be glad you have your spherical earth but the numbers aren't on your side on this issue.

Its like you're delusional.
No one, not a single person on this forum, has supported you.  You are alone.
We are the majority, you are the minority.  We have evidence, you have a book written by people who didn't even know about germs.

I've refuted everything you've thrown out yet you still claim superiority?

You can have this forum, I'm talking about the 85% of Americans that share my view that life is too magnificent, too complex, too improbable to be the result of lightning striking a primordial ooze.

You haven't refuted a thing I've said. In fact, throughout this debate I've been the one knocking down any circumstantial wikipedia article you've posted.

As I said, if you really think you have converted anyone on the fence who would even look at this miserable thread, which no one is, it's just us, then you would be ashamed to find out your conjectures and circle logic failed at making me rethink my position for even one split second.

Oh btw, read Leviticus, there's a fair amount in there about cleanliness and how to avoid "germs."

EDIT:

And this isn't a pecker contest Dave. I'm not here to prove my superiority over anyone. Ideas aren't validated on an ego to ego basis. Obviously you have some deep sense of self on the line here, where becoming inferior is a real possible outcome to an internet forum debate. Logic trumps emotion and you acting like a little bitch right now.

[Lord Dave]

There's no need Dave. Any objective reader of this thread will see how flimsy your evidence of evolution is. Without your little cheerleader here you would realize how abysmally you're defending evolution. I see no reason to continue down this never ending loop of a debate with you or her. When you both realize that you are on the minority on this one here maybe you won't feel so damn smug. OP gives you the statistics. So just be glad you have your spherical earth but the numbers aren't on your side on this issue.

Its like you're delusional.
No one, not a single person on this forum, has supported you.  You are alone.
We are the majority, you are the minority.  We have evidence, you have a book written by people who didn't even know about germs.

I've refuted everything you've thrown out yet you still claim superiority?

You can have this forum, I'm talking about the 85% of Americans that share my view that life is too magnificent, too complex, too improbable to be the result of lightning striking a primordial ooze.

Logical fallacy.  Ad populum.

You haven't refuted a thing I've said. In fact, throughout this debate I've been the one knocking down any circumstantial wikipedia article you've posted.

If you say so.

As I said, if you really think you have converted anyone on the fence who would even look at this miserable thread, which no one is, it's just us, then you would be ashamed to find out your conjectures and circle logic failed at making me rethink my position for even one split second.

Yeah, I noticed.  You're one of those people who would proclaim something as fact even if God himself came from heaven and told you otherwise.

Oh btw, read Leviticus, there's a fair amount in there about cleanliness and how to avoid "germs."

Oh, it talks about microscopic organisms?  Or is it just "Wash your hands after touching pig shit"?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Logical fallacy.  Ad populum.

Funny, you certainly made a point to let me know just how alone I was on this forum. You know, how much of a minority I was here. I guess it's only a valid logical argument when it comes from someone with the same point of view as you.

You haven't refuted a thing I've said. In fact, throughout this debate I've been the one knocking down any circumstantial wikipedia article you've posted.

If you say so.

Still absolutely no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming multi-cellular, OR any evidence of a species branching "up" to become a new genera, OR any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that any fossil is a transitional species, as opposed to just another extinct species.

Oh, and I demolished your idea that, given time, the 10⁴⁰ probability of life in its present form eventually, naturally happens. The Third Law of Thermodynamics destroys that idea, and we realize that time alone doesn't make the impossible possible. Your book metaphor was slain by very simple logic.

Yet every time, you just pull some other trick from your hat to divert from the Truth we've discovered together.

Yeah, I noticed.  You're one of those people who would proclaim something as fact even if God himself came from heaven and told you otherwise.

Was the irony there intentional? I do admit though, you give yourself a lot of credit to equate your words to those of God's himself. Maybe your inferiority complex isn't as bad I've inferred.

Oh btw, read Leviticus, there's a fair amount in there about cleanliness and how to avoid "germs."

Oh, it talks about microscopic organisms?  Or is it just "Wash your hands after touching pig shit"?

You'd be surprised just how uncommon that knowledge was. Doctors used to think washing their hands was a waste of time until the 19th century. Also tell me how one verifies the existence of microscopic organisms when a microscope wasn't invented for another 3,000 years.

Remember Dave, this isn't a battle with winners or losers. Even engaging in a conversation like this there is something we can learn. May God bless you in your journeys.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Yet again you fail to check your own figures, 85% of Americans may well believe in a god but they sure as fuck don't all agree with you. In fact of those Americans in the largest 12 Christian denominations, 71% belong to churches that support evolution education, including Catholics, United Methodists, National baptist convention, Presbyterian church (USA), Lutherans & Episcopal churches.

The McLean Vs  Arkansas lawsuit against the balanced treatment for creation science and evolution science was instigated by the Reverend William McLean a United Methodist and 11 other clergy from differing religious groups.
So if you do actually believe any of the rubbish you post, it's from some back water fundamentalist standpoint that just a small percentage of loons accept.

But you don't have to check any thing because you are just trolling, you lose every argument have no one on your side but the troll goes on.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Yet again you fail to check your own figures, 85% of Americans may well believe in a god but they sure as fuck don't all agree with you. In fact of those Americans in the largest 12 Christian denominations, 71% belong to churches that support evolution education, including Catholics, United Methodists, National baptist convention, Presbyterian church (USA), Lutherans & Episcopal churches.

The McLean Vs  Arkansas lawsuit against the balanced treatment for creation science and evolution science was instigated by the Reverend William McLean a United Methodist and 11 other clergy from differing religious groups.
So if you do actually believe any of the rubbish you post, it's from some back water fundamentalist standpoint that just a small percentage of loons accept.

But you don't have to check any thing because you are just trolling, you lose every argument have no one on your side but the troll goes on.

Saying the theory of evolution isn't incompatible with religion isn't the same as professing that it actually happened. Besides, Christianity has a long history of assimilating popular views, as I've already been over. With that said, I'm yet to see any scientific experimental evidence of evolution. In fact, we're all waiting for that smoking gun that propels evolution out of theory into reality. In the mean time, I'd respect you more if you would admit that evolution is as faith based as religion is.

Take solace in the one or two other people here trying to discredit what I say, who I am, what I believe etc. You aren't indicative of any reasonable cross section of people who's opinion would even matter to me. You, in particular, are an affront to civilized discourse. You devolved this conversation into name calling and insults from the beginning, all with an overwhelming air of smug pretentiousness that probably makes you a blast at parties. At least Dave tries to use information and logic in his argument (poorly). You, however, just try to attack my intellect, and convince me that I'm wrong just because you say so. Please go watch some more clouds and leave the logical, reason ruled conversation for the men. 

[Rama Set]

Still absolutely no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming multi-cellular, OR any evidence of a species branching "up" to become a new genera, OR any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that any fossil is a transitional species, as opposed to just another extinct species.

Stop watching Law & Order. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for legal evidence.

Oh, and I demolished your idea that, given time, the 10⁴⁰ probability of life in its present form eventually, naturally happens. The Third Law of Thermodynamics destroys that idea, and we realize that time alone doesn't make the impossible possible. Your book metaphor was slain by very simple logic.

The Earth is an open system, constantly receiving more energy. The 3rd law of thermodynamics does not apply to the development of life on Earth.

By the way, where does your absurd factoid of 10⁴⁰ probability even come from?  Can you cite the paper that calculates it?

Yet every time, you just pull some other trick from your hat to divert from the Truth we've discovered together.

Yeah, I noticed.  You're one of those people who would proclaim something as fact even if God himself came from heaven and told you otherwise.

Was the irony there intentional? I do admit though, you give yourself a lot of credit to equate your words to those of God's himself. Maybe your inferiority complex isn't as bad I've inferred.

Oh btw, read Leviticus, there's a fair amount in there about cleanliness and how to avoid "germs."

Oh, it talks about microscopic organisms?  Or is it just "Wash your hands after touching pig shit"?

You'd be surprised just how uncommon that knowledge was. Doctors used to think washing their hands was a waste of time until the 19th century. Also tell me how one verifies the existence of microscopic organisms when a microscope wasn't invented for another 3,000 years.

So nothing about germs then?  Yeah we knew.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

But time and time again you post stuff that just doesn't bear up to the slightest of tests, claiming 85% of the USA is with you, is just the last, and the figure for how many Americans don't believe in Humans developing from earlier species is nearer 40% according to a study in Science, with the amount that do about the same, so even in your backward leaning neck of the woods there is no consensus, the study looked at 32 European countries and Japan and apart from Turkey you were the lowest in believers, across most of Europe & Japan it was closer to 80% that do believe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Views_on_Evolution.svg/960px-Views_on_Evolution.svg.png

 I don't have to insult your intellect, the fact you are unable to understand evolution, the laws of thermodynamics (see Rama above) or statistical analysis is testament enough.

When you had finished typing “ leave the logical, reason ruled conversation for the men. “  didn't you cringe just a little? Run it past a woman that is currently in your life at the moment, I'm guessing it will have to be your Mom.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

But time and time again you post stuff that just doesn't bear up to the slightest of tests, claiming 85% of the USA is with you, is just the last, and the figure for how many Americans don't believe in Humans developing from earlier species is nearer 40% according to a study in Science, with the amount that do about the same, so even in your backward leaning neck of the woods there is no consensus, the study looked at 32 European countries and Japan and apart from Turkey you were the lowest in believers, across most of Europe & Japan it was closer to 80% that do believe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Views_on_Evolution.svg/960px-Views_on_Evolution.svg.png

 I don't have to insult your intellect, the fact you are unable to understand evolution, the laws of thermodynamics (see Rama above) or statistical analysis is testament enough.

When you had finished typing “ leave the logical, reason ruled conversation for the men. “  didn't you cringe just a little? Run it past a woman that is currently in your life at the moment, I'm guessing it will have to be your Mom.

You may not directly insult me, but it's more of an annoying, subtle prick and poke. I've been with many women just like you. Assumption after assumption and passive aggressive statement after statement bearing little to no resemblance to reality. As much as it disturbs me to point it out, the reality is most women, from my personal experience, are dominated by their emotions. Maybe you've never dated one, but reason and logic are not effective ways to resolve any conflict. This isn't just my opinion. This is a widely known consensus. Comedians joke about it, television shows and moves portray it, ancient philosophers pondered over it. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

I'd have an easier time digesting your points of view if they weren't so drenched in a poisonous layer of contempt. I've tried to remain civil with the lot of you but the personal attacks have made this conversation very unpalatable. I'll stand on what I've said because as Dave stated, God himself could come down and tell you the reality of our existence and you would remain unconvinced.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

For between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle. - Hobbes

[Saddam Hussein]

I've been with many women just like you. Assumption after assumption and passive aggressive statement after statement bearing little to no resemblance to reality. As much as it disturbs me to point it out, the reality is most women, from my personal experience, are dominated by their emotions. Maybe you've never dated one, but reason and logic are not effective ways to resolve any conflict. This isn't just my opinion. This is a widely known consensus. Comedians joke about it, television shows and moves portray it, ancient philosophers pondered over it. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

What in God's name does this have to do with literally anything?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

For between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle. - Hobbes

Relevant?

I get it. I've got to be a bible thumping, inbred, hillbilly moron to ever hold the beliefs I do. But my beliefs aren't the result of being told something by a pastor when I was a kid. My beliefs are the result of years of research and study. You may not agree with them but to label them a result of ignorance is insulting.

Regardless how you feel, some people need guidance in their lives. The golden rule isn't always obvious to some. That is the reason why religion as an institution is supposed to exist. I dont consider myself any particular religion, I have an eclectic view that makes sense to me. Through logic, which all men (and some women :p) have been gifted, we can strip away the layers that shroud any mystery and find truth.

As far as I'm concerned, a lot of things about evolution in particular don't make sense to me. And it's not for lack of trying, or inability to understand. Belief in God may be the same to you. But I'm not going to call you ignorant if you haven't read the entire bible, or looked deeper into the meanings behind the symbols we see everyday.

It is your personal decision to believe whatever you may, and I'm not an evangelical so I really don't care what you want to believe either. I apologize for any insults I've sent your way, internet forums have a way of bringing the worst out in people. If you still want to personally think of me as an idiot for what I believe, then that's fine, but please don't continue to insinuate that lack of knowledge is why I have arrived where I have. Thanks.