Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Krumple wrote:

I would like to add to rosborne979's comment that usually those who attack the theory of evolution really don't attack the theory at all, they attack a strawman. They have constructed out of a bad definition either they have been misled to believe or their lack of education on the subject.

In all of the history of A2K there has never been a Creationist who demonstrated even a reasonable understanding of evolution. I even started a thread on that subject hoping that we would find someone who both understood it, and rejected it. A couple of the usual Creationist players entered the fray but they only recited the usual propaganda (which has been thoroughly refuted many many many times before).

The funny thing is you actually think anyone else cares about what you have to say.

I am the only one and quite honestly I don't even really care all that much.

I have no idea. I've had a fair amount of positive feedback for what that's worth. Look at my up and down thumbing record. Thousands I should guess. People must care one way or the other to thumb up or down don't you think. fm can't resist making a noise at me even when he has nothing to say.

I am the only one and quite honestly I don't even really care all that much.

And I don't give a spit on a hotplate whether you care or not. If you do it's for your own use and equally so if you don't. It has nothing to do with me.

I want atheists to get their sodding act together and get selling themselves instead of copping out by continually carping about religious people. What a soft option that is.

Different woman every night laws. No romance (load of fanny). No art (load of free-loaders). No houses (really inefficient). Top down management (you silly fuckers in charge).

I can't wait. You're languishing in the opinion polls like a duck in an oil spill. Get on with it eh? Let's have a laugh.

Another strawman.

That might be because atheists vote both ways because they aren't a group that has one political agenda?

It is not at all meaningless. It is a positive action by people and thus never meaningless.

Why is --"I want atheists to get their sodding act together and get selling themselves instead of copping out by continually carping about religious people. What a soft option that is." a straw-man?

By the way--there's a hyphen in straw-man.

That might be because atheists vote both ways because they aren't a group that has one political agenda?

So what will they do when the come to power? Fight it out. How can they when they are spread out so thinly? How many political agendas have they? There's only one science. It's cut and dried. The instruments tell them what to think.

Because you are pigeon holing all atheists to have the same political or social points of view. They don't and never will. Some atheists are republicans and others are dems and some are libertarians and others want nothing to do with politics.

Which is why I can only reason it out to be that you are either a moron or a troll, there is no other explanation.

Do you believe that there is such a thing as [Moral Law]?

Do you believe that there is such a thing as [Meaning of Life]?

Do you believe that there is such a thing as [the ridiculousness of the idea that Art, Culture, Altruism, this discussion thread... evolved from single-celled organisms]?

Do you believe that there is such a thing as [Truth]?

If you answered "yes" to all of these questions (and I very much hope you did), then you can answer "yes" to this also:

Do you believe that there is such a thing as [God]?

[God] is a very simple concept, don't try to complicate it.

What actual form are things existing in the imagination? What do they consist of?

That's soul Krumpie. Scientific materialism does not recognise immaterial entities.

You cannot "see" [God] as a whole, just as you cannot see tectonic plates moving.

That's a species of emotional bullshit. We can only speculate on the emotional source but in my experience such tantrums derive from pantsdown positions.