I don't know why you even fuss about this. Atheists, if they are intellectually honest and clued up, cannot use or abuse the theory of evolution to support their atheism or as an argument against theism and religion. It is as simple as that. Similarly, you cannot support theism or argue against atheism by attacking the theory of evolution. Many people on both sides appear to be confused about this.
I don't know why this has to continually be said to you. You appear to be confused as well. You bring religion into it when it's been explained that it's not about religion but about truth. What irks me is how evolution is claimed to be truth with such certain smugness that is the case when it cannot be claimed to be truth. We can turn the debate around and talk about green unicorns with me claiming they exist without proof to back it up and you'll say the same thing I'm saying here.
I disagree. You and your cousin have a common ancestor. That is common descent within species. Your problem, again, appears to be common descent at the species level. To me, the anatomical evidence, genetic evidence and age of the earth suggest that common descent at the species level is a justified belief to hold.
It's not
my problem. It's the problem of evolution that universal common descent and even common descent among very similar species is entirely unproven. Some take exception to evolution being called just a theory because they mistakenly think the word is being used to refer to a guess. Well guess what, when it comes to common descent it actually is just a guess. You hit the nail on the head that to you the evidence points to common descent being a justified belief. Not everyone needs to hold that belief and taking into account the nature of the evidence and the evidence to the contrary it's also justified to hold a different belief.
That is still evolution. Micro-evolution if you want.
As it refers to the initial comment it is not micro-evolution. Evolution requires change to occur - genetic change. The comment didn't show that any change was occurring but merely that genes was passed on in a selective manner. That is not proof for evolution.
I don't know how you can rationally and logically come to the conclusion that there is no absolute truth. It comes across as self-refuting. Anyway, I disagree about that.
You are correct that it is a language issue and so often disagreements are about differences in people's understanding of concepts. The concept of "proof" is just another example. The problem with claiming that there is no absolute truth (as you claim) is that all conversations looking for truth collapses into irrationality since the goal of such a conversation is irrational or logically unjustified. If this conversation is not about truth, then what is it about? Just disagreeing because you want to or what?
I think I need to clarify. When I say there's no absolute truth I mean the beliefs we hold as truths. The actual truth is something completely separate, non-reliant and completely unchangeable from what we hold to be true. For the purpose of having a discussion we need to have common ground first that we can try to understand what those truths are and even come very close in some instances but have to acknowledge that we can never with certainty ascertain what the actual truths are. As someone said the only certainty is certainty. Now let's all argue what the certainties are.
So if a child inherits from both parents, That child is not an exact copy of either one of parents. The child is slightly different. Also, do you agree that even the genes inherited from the parents can be altered slightly?
Different from which parent? When something has characteristics of multiple individuals we commonly see it as different but it's not possible to point out the differences because for all of them there's also similarities. Do differences override similarities? I don't think so.
I have no problem with genes being slightly altered. In fact if you're familiar with what most creationists that know what they're talking about say it's not even about changes on a species level. It's about the nature of those changes. Information is always lost or used in a different way. It's never added to like evolution requires.
What a cop out. If you argue that the Eiffel tower is made of chocolate, do I need to prove that it's not before you tell me why you think it is?
You are applying the cop out. If you claim that evolution is capable of all these great feats it's the equivalent of claiming the Eiffel tower is made of chocolate. The onus is on you to prove it. Read up on the burden of proof.
As I said, I happen to think you are being intellectually dishonest because all of your research into evolution is so you can argue against it. On the other hand, I have read or heard nothing to convince me that evolution is not a fact, and unlike you, I have no agenda that pushes me one way or the other or drives my reading. If is proved we are living in the matrix, I have no problem with that. Similarly, if you can show me that the earth was designed by a creator, great, go ahead. I'm ready willing and able to receive these facts.
You see, I have no ulterior motive and until you can say the same, you are being dishonest with yourself and everyone else.
I can say it till the end of days that I don't have an agenda but you won't believe it because in your mind you've already convinced yourself that I must have one to argue against evolution instead of the real truth being that the preponderance of information simply doesn't support it. I also refer YOU to
here
I can also turn this around like with Orbitaldawn and claim that it is indeed YOU with an ulterior motive. Do you see where your baseless arguing is heading?
As for intellectual honesty this is again the double standard being applied here. All of your research into evolution is so you can argue for it. So if I'm being intellectually dishonest then so are you!
Yeah, it wasn't me saying those things it was Swa and I was repeating them.
Nonsense. Read the comments again and see why it was said. You're taking it completely out of context.
