Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is a faith argument. It is double standards. The reality being you do not believe in God because of will, not evidence or rationality.

You seem confused: it wasn't an argument at all. It was a statement of a conclusion; we haven't talked at all about how I arrived at it.

Well that is a self serving conclusion.

It's "self-serving" to believe that people who devote their lives to a god sincerely believe that they have good reasons for belief?

Intelligent causation as opposed to exclusive non intelligent causes? If as Dawkins says,

''Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.''

It begs the question. If it appears designed and for a purpose then how do they know it was not designed and for a purpose?

I'm not playing this game with you. If you're actually interested in learning what's wrong with ID, spend some time doing some reading here:

An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[JoshuaTree]

Merely not being able to conclusively prove that God doesn't exist is a pretty poor foundation to build a whole religion on.

Respectfully, it is my opinion that many atheists and theists have a backwards concept of religion. Religion... if it exists at all ... should be a spiritual expression rather than a rational procedure to generate a spiritual experience.

 

[dimmesdale]

It's "self-serving" to believe that people who devote their lives to a god sincerely believe that they have good reasons for belief?

They do have good reasons. Othewise they would not do it.

I'm not playing this game with you. If you're actually interested in learning what's wrong with ID, spend some time doing some reading here:

An Index to Creationist Claims

There is a big defference between IDers and Creationists who depend on the Bible. IDers don't. Ken Ham and Stephen Meyer approach it from different perspectives. If you are going to conflate the two then it does not even warrent a click on to your link. The question was valid and yours was a dodge. You have prior comittments which dictates interpretation to answers which does not resonate with reality. All anyone has to do is examine their arm and all it can do and ask was it designed or is it the product of nonintelligenct processes. Which is more reasonable? it is not all that different then the Enterprise on the moon argument. And here is the kicker. If they find the Starship Enterprise on the Moon it will not have all the technology attached to replicate into two. Once we look under the hood at what is going on then natural processes is blind faith to the extreme. So much of biology these days is information technology. That is intelligence to any unbiased reasonable person.[/QUOTE]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They do have good reasons. Othewise they would not do it.

They think they do. Certainly not every reason people have for their actions and beliefs is a good one.

There is a big defference between IDers and Creationists who depend on the Bible. IDers don't.

If you had clicked on the link, you would have seen that it takes you to the section on ID.

 

[viole]

I dont go to astrologers to understand cosmolgy. I find atheism rather dependent on sooth sayers as their personal experts on the topic god to disagree with. It lacks any coherent realty outside religion itaelf.

In the same way afairists lack any coherent reality outside fairism itself.

And?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

There is a big defference between IDers and Creationists who depend on the Bible.

No there is not.
It was shown that the biggest difference in the writings of Creationists and IDers was that the word "Creation" and its derivatives was changed to "Intelligent Design" and its derivatives

Forrest's Testimony: "Creationism" and "ID"
Here are the now-famous word-count charts used by Barbara Forrest in her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover. These charts showed that the words "creation" and "creationist" were systematically changed to "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in the drafts for the book Of Pandas and People, in the aftermath of the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard .
​

You can call it what ever you want to call it, it's still the same old smelly pile of dung.

 

[ecco]

Well my atheist friend hooked up with a Catholic female and showed up at the restaurant with ashes on his forehead on the eve of ash Wednesday. The ashes were evidence, not 100% mind you, of church attendance. So while he does not believe in God, he still goes to church, because of his girlfriend.

Yeah. It's called showing respect for other people's beliefs.

 

[dimmesdale]

They think they do.

They do.

Certainly not every reason people have for their actions and beliefs is a good one.

Well the burden is on you so go ahead. Tell us why the practice of religion is damaging and be fair. Don't go referencing fanatics flying into buildings. Families attend church and form relationships with other families with kids. it is a community activity which brings people from all walks together for a common purpose. It helps them to live better lives, people help each other so i am not seeing where all the damage is. Churches run homeless shelters and food banks. They do all sorts of things. They rent out the church to outside groups to have meetings. Like 12 step groups which help people overcome addictions. All kinds of people can be met at the church from college professors to police officers and families. Rich and poor so i am not seeing where it is all that horrible.

If you had clicked on the link, you would have seen that it takes you to the section on ID.

Well i just go to the source which is available on line. Not hostile sites or whatever. I don't go to Dem sites for evals on Repubs. It is not good policy

Again, i asked you a valid question based on a quote from Dawkins and you dodged. No surprise there.

 

[shunyadragon]

Beyond possible doubt is an impossible standard to meet since anything is at least possible. So i don't know what you do not understand.

Your previous post was intelligible concerning the topic. Anything being possible does not help your case.

To a degree.

Too common to be concerned with degree.

Well it is not all that hard to figure out. He went to church with his girlfriend because it made her happy. It was probably no big deal to him. She was important to him. He loved her.

So what?!?!?!?!!? It sounds like a dishonest hypocritical expression of belief if one does not sincerely believe for deeper spiritual meaning.

Virtue signaling is not virtuous.

It is a fact on my standard of belief. Meaningless superficial quips do not qualify for a coherent response.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not talking about absolute certainty; I'm talking about relative certainty. And if you don't like fairies, the question works just as well with anything whose existence you effectively disregard without deciding that it's necessarily impossible.

Heck - even consider the actually possible: I assume that you agree that lions are real and that animals sometimes escape from zoos, right? I'd also bet dollars to donuts that you make no special allowances for the definitely non-zero (low, but non-zero) possibility that you might be attacked by a lion that escaped from the zoo, right?

To rationally justify more regard for God than we give to the risk of lion attacks, we need something... some piece of evidence that can be used to rationally draw the conclusion that God is a reasonable proposition.


People who actially recognize that the limits of human knowledge prevent them from having good reason to believe that gods exist don't join religions devoted to a god. (Edit: not for reasons of faith, anyhow. I realize that there are lots of reasons an atheist could be pressured into feigning religiosity and stay closeted)

People who actually think that the existence of gods is something where the evidence doesn't allow a reasonable position consider gods to be nothing more than an intellectual curiosity.

And one implication of saying that there's no evidence for the existence of God is that God, if he exists, is indistinguishable in every measurable and observable way from a god that doesn't exist. This isn't the God of any religion I've ever heard of.

There is an element of truth in the above bold, and I agree that there is no objective verifiable evidence for God, Through the Baha;i I seek no objective verifiable evidence as many ancient religions believe and search for.

Your going to a tremendous effort, and I mean tremendous effort, to present all the arguments that I have heard hundreds of times before from atheists. Many have validity from the materialist perspective, but that is not my game

I believe in God through the Baha'i Faith, and and what it represents and that cannot be found in atheism.I believe the Hebrew, Christian and the Islamic God does not exist as believed in those religions, based on ancient scripture and mythology.

 

[shunyadragon]

How bout the certainty that ape/human common ancestor existed with the certainty that fairies exist? Or is it do as you say and not as you do?

Common ancestry of ALL primates and humans is accepted by 97% of all scientist based on the objective verifiable evidence.

It is called falsification and it does not necessarily have to be conclusive. .

True, but beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[dimmesdale]

Common ancestry of ALL primates and humans is accepted by 97% of all scientist based on the objective verifiable evidence.

Doubtful it is 97% and bandwagon appeals are unscientific. We don't care who they think, only what they can prove and it sounds like an extraordinary claim and that means extraordinary evidence. All they are doing is fitting the evidence into a paradigm from the 1800s. Darwin. He is not all that reliable. Does not make it true. They cannot reconstruct animals from DNA. They do not even have a data base.

For one his examination was from the outside or end organs. Beaks and eyes for example. Hardly ever bothering to look under the hood. The exact opposite of how they do biology today. It is inside out not outside only.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The distinction between subjective and objective is a judgment made by your brain, so in that sense it's subjective. However, if you've trained your brain to maximize objectivity you'll find you manage quite well.
Perhaps you'd like to provide a nice clear example of what you mean.

They do. Well the burden is on you so go ahead. Tell us why the practice of religion is damaging and be fair. Don't go referencing fanatics flying into buildings. Families attend church and form relationships with other families with kids. it is a community activity which brings people from all walks together for a common purpose. It helps them to live better lives, people help each other so i am not seeing where all the damage is. Churches run homeless shelters and food banks. They do all sorts of things. They rent out the church to outside groups to have meetings. Like 12 step groups which help people overcome addictions. All kinds of people can be met at the church from college professors to police officers and families. Rich and poor so i am not seeing where it is all that horrible.
Well i just go to the source which is available on line. Not hostile sites or whatever. I don't go to Dem sites for evals on Repubs. It is not good policy

Again, i asked you a valid question based on a quote from Dawkins and you dodged. No surprise there.

All kinds of people can also NOT be found in churches as well, so your point is at best irrelevant. Can you tell me just ONE cruel, heinous, murderous, anti-social act, that can ONLY be committed by an Atheist for Atheistic reasons(their disbelief)? Now, can you tell me just one of these actions that can ONLY be committed by Religious people for religious reasons? A Religious belief can justify good people doing bad things for what they believe is a good reason. Atheism, makes all people responsible for all their actions, period. Again, your question is ill-formed and misleading. The practice of any Religion is real, and requires no burden of proof. It is their truth-claim of a Deity, Prophet, an Afterlife, miracles, Messengers, Sin, talking animals, etc., that requires a burden of proof. Regarding the dangers inherent in the practice of religion,

Religious practices promote an irrational concept of death, and the irrational concept of an afterlife.
Religious practices tend to manufacture personal and global conflict.
Religious practices tend to promote Elitism, an exclusive truth, and a we-they attitude.
Religious practices tend to enslave, rather then liberate. It separates, rather then joins.
Religious practices lead to issues with social dependency, conformity, and the fear of rejection by the group.
Religious practices, and Religions are becoming political and economic systems within themselves.
Religions tend to promote the belief, that we need something to give us freedom from our sins. We don't have any sin, and we are already free.
More violence has been committed in the name of religions, then in any other institutionalized force in human history.
Religiosity is instilled onto the masses by the ruling class, to placate their suffering with a belief that it will eventually lead to happiness(escapism).
Religious practices will eventually lead to open conflict with science.
Religious practices leads to the stifling of individual creativity, and the ability to excel("dumbing-down").
Religious practices result in the loss of innocence, the Will to excel, and the loss of wonderment, due to the early indoctrination of our very young.
Religious practices, and religions allows faith and belief to become the rational alternative, to any evidence for the existence of the supernatural.
Religious practices and beliefs, promote a counter-intuitive argument that other realms of reality exists, without evidence.
People have committed suicide, because they feared that their actions might cause rejection or excommunication by their group.

Everything that I have listed can be support with examples, sites to visit, research studies, historical evidence, and common sense. These are just some of the clear and obvious dangers. I don't in any way mean that there are no positives in religions. I just feel that the negatives far outweigh the positive. Especially, since without any religion, what specifically do you think would change(my next thread)?

 

[dimmesdale]

All kinds of people can also NOT be found in churches as well, so your point is at best irrelevant.

No it is not since they gather together on a regular basis as community. They form relationships. Young and old, all kinds.

Can you tell me just ONE cruel, heinous, murderous, anti-social act, that can ONLY be committed by an Atheist for Atheistic reasons(their disbelief)?

Sure. There is a whole bunch for the 20th century alone.

Now, can you tell me just one of these actions that can ONLY be committed by Religious people for religious reasons?

I'm not sure what you are getting at because it sounds to me like you have some real problems here.

A Religious belief can justify good people doing bad things for what they believe is a good reason.

Not really. I think you would have to make a case from the NT where those can justify doing bad things. We use the Bible and in a spec way. The New is the lens for the Old. Actually, the Old is reference material. Bible Christianity is pacifist. That is the way many of the sects apply it. Even the Old has instructions of not following the mob in doing evil. Under yours, the majority can can't be wrong in anything they do.

Atheism, makes all people responsible for all their actions, period.

Then take responsibility. The claim is false on its face so i don't know who you are trying to convince.

Again, your question is ill-formed and misleading.

That is not taking responsibility. The question was based on a Dawkins quote below

'Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.''

It begs the question. If it appears designed and for a purpose then how do they know it was not designed and for a purpose?

It is a valid question and you are not taking responsibility so don't say atheism takes responsibility since your example does not jibe with what is claimed.

The rest of yours are extremely negative and hostile. I don't see any good in addressing point by point since you appear to have your mind made up. Maybe others will. If these are your convictions they i would invite you to leave the United States for perhaps North Korea where there is no religion. It is not going anywhere here and if you act on your hate then you might end up in prison. It is your mentality which is the basis for applied terrorism or violence. All is needed is a plan and a trigger of some sort to set you off.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They do. Well the burden is on you so go ahead. Tell us why the practice of religion is damaging and be fair. Don't go referencing fanatics flying into buildings. Families attend church and form relationships with other families with kids. it is a community activity which brings people from all walks together for a common purpose. It helps them to live better lives, people help each other so i am not seeing where all the damage is. Churches run homeless shelters and food banks. They do all sorts of things. They rent out the church to outside groups to have meetings. Like 12 step groups which help people overcome addictions. All kinds of people can be met at the church from college professors to police officers and families. Rich and poor so i am not seeing where it is all that horrible.

I have no idea what conversation you've imagined up between us, but it sounds fascinating.

Well i just go to the source which is available on line. Not hostile sites or whatever. I don't go to Dem sites for evals on Repubs. It is not good policy

Talk Origins is very good about citing the sources it draws from.

Again, i asked you a valid question based on a quote from Dawkins and you dodged. No surprise there.

I'm under no obligation to follow you down whatever rabbit hole you want to go down.

 

[shunyadragon]

Doubtful it is 97% and bandwagon appeals are unscientific.

The numbers are very accurate based on many polls of scientists over recent history.

From: Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia
The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation-evolution controversy and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific and political issues. The subject is especially contentious in countries where significant levels of non-acceptance of evolution by general society exist although evolution is taught at school and university.

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2]Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.[3]

There are religious sects and denominations in several countries for whom the theory of evolution is in conflict with creationism that is central to their beliefs, and who therefore reject it: in the United States,[4][5][6][7][8][9] South Africa,[10] India, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, and Brazil, with smaller followings in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Japan, Italy, Germany, Israel,[11]Australia,[12] New Zealand,[13] and Canada.[14]

Several publications discuss the subject of acceptance,[15][16] including a document produced by the United States National Academy of Sciences."

In fact only about a dozen or so scientists that work for or associate with the Discovery Institute and other Creationist organizations support alternate Biblical explanations for the history of our physical existence and evolution.

We don't care who they think, only what they can prove and it sounds like an extraordinary claim and that means extraordinary evidence. All they are doing is fitting the evidence into a paradigm from the 1800s. Darwin. He is not all that reliable. Does not make it true. They cannot reconstruct animals from DNA. They do not even have a data base.

For one his examination was from the outside or end organs. Beaks and eyes for example. Hardly ever bothering to look under the hood. The exact opposite of how they do biology today. It is inside out not outside only.

Citing and slandering the limited knowledge of Charles Darwin concerning the science of evolution is egregious and shameful, and actually down right dishonest. The basic concept science of evolution as presented by Charles Darwin based on limited knowledge of the time has been confirmed by science today beyond a reasonable doubt. You need to deal with the science of evolution of today to be honest.

We have an overwhelming data base today in DNA and fossil evidence to support the science of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. It is very obvious that your attack on the science of evolution is based on a religious agenda, and NOT your knowledge of science, which is extremely lacking big time.

 

[dimmesdale]

The numbers are very accurate based on many polls of scientists over recent history.

A lot superficial adhere to avoid backlash. Medical persons might make a better yardstick since they do not have to adhere to group think and backlash regarding origins.

Citing and slandering the limited knowledge of Charles Darwin concerning the science of evolution is egregious and shameful, and actually down right dishonest.

Yawn. Stop making manipulative appeals to outrage and try some rationality. These braindead accusations only appeal to low info types who operate on sub-optimal levels.

The basic concept science of evolution as present by Charles Darwin based on limited knowledge of the time has been confirmed by science today. You need to deal with the science of evolution of today to be honest.

Common descent is from Darwin. If his knowledge was limited then why is common descent adhered to and defended? Besides in his time they had knowledge Darwin did not address. He was outright wrong about eyes and i can dig up sources from his time which shows he was off. His background basis was the old earth geology of Charles Lyell. Also lassez-faire economics of his time all applied to his book. His methodology was outside change.

We have an overwhelming data base today in DNA and fossil evidence to support the science of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is straight up garbage. It is a faith claim. Fossil evidence only shows remains. That is it since they do not come with lineage attached. That is all ginned up after the fact. None of it makes it true and the further back they go the more theoretical it gets. Humans did not have a unknown nonhuman common ancestor with apes. There is no way they can reconstruct the genome of the mystery creature from DNA.

They can't even get to a baseline for any of it. They don't know how. It can make no predictions and they cannot tell which animals are evolving and which are not nor can they tell rate. When we get to the details they cannot tell much of anything. They make claims about nature as the catalyst for change and the process is all nonintelligent blind blah blah blah. It involves simple to complex in violation of 2nd law which can even apply to relationships. Things fall apart in nature, they do not get better and better due to mutations and blind unguided processes. We intuitively know 2nd law and all the energy from the sun does not affect anything. It is ad hoc excuses. There are plenty of stars in the universe which radiate energy to satellites. I could go on and on. How does the fetus get input for change from nature? Can nature predict the future to direct the fetus to change? The change has to be three types, passed on and permanent also beneficial all via undirected processes. You can't even pass on vaccine immunity to offspring. How can nature do it? Anyone in medicine can tell mutations normally bring about catastrophic results. They don't have a clue. Get out of town with your myths.

It is very obvious that your attack on the science of evolution is based on a religious agenda, and NOT your knowledge of science, which is extremely lacking big time.

Well make your case and if you can't then don't blame the audience. If you cannot build a rational case then that simply demonstrates incapacity. Evolution is failed on many levels and that is all based on what is known and not on what is not known. It does not stand to scrutiny nor do its adherents tolerate it. They dismiss critics as creationists, flat-earthers, etc. These are all irrational fallacies. If their case is so strong then they should be able to make it all in a professional manner. Most of us have to adhere to professional standards in our work life where name calling is not tolerated. It is the tactics of losers. Also useless indictments/accusations which are personal attacks.

In Judeo Christianity the timeline is from Adam to God. There is no animal intermediaries. Animal lineage is urban legend. The two are contradictory histories and either both are false or one or the other is false.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No it is not since they gather together on a regular basis as community. They form relationships. Young and old, all kinds.
Sure. There is a whole bunch for the 20th century alone.

Im not really sure what you are getting at because it sounds to me like you have some real problems here.
Not really. I think you would have to make a case from the NT where those can justify doing bad things.
Then take responsibility. The claim is false on its face so i don't know who you are trying to convince.


That is not taking responsibility. The question was based on a Dawkins quote below

'Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.''

It begs the question. If it appears designed and for a purpose then how do they know it was not designed and for a purpose?

It is a valid question and you are not taking responsibility so don't say atheism takes responsibility since your example does not jibe with what is claimed.

My point was not to criticize the communal nature of religions, or its positive practices. It was to say that you don't have to be a religious believer to enjoy a sense of community. It also exists in the secular world without the any added belief attachment. They also form relationships, both young and old, and with people from all walks of life.

Sure. There is a whole bunch for the 20th century alone.

Okay, out of this "whole bunch", can you just demonstrate ONE? The question was "Can you tell me just ONE cruel, heinous, murderous, anti-social act, that can ONLY be committed by an Atheist for Atheistic reasons(their disbelief)?". Remember, only an Atheist can do it, and it must be because of his non-belief. Not because many Atheist tend to be liberal minded, scientists, scholars, or value the importance of objective evidence

The second question was much easier. "Now, can you tell me just one of these actions that can ONLY be committed by Religious people for religious reasons? I do not mean to imply that no atrocities were carried out during secular wars, but they were not done because of their non-belief. But, not only were the heinous actions in either testament were committed by man in the name of God, but history is riddled with all manner of atrocities committed by man in the name of God. Including the atrocities of Mother Teresa, disguised as a Saint for the sick and dying in Calcutta.

Then take responsibility. The claim is false on its face so i don't know who you are trying to convince.

My comment was that "Atheism, makes all people responsible for all their actions, period.". Why is this claim false? Do you think that all people should NOT be responsible for their actions? If you read any definition of Biology, it will read as, the natural science that studies the function, chemistry, and organization of all living systems on this planet. There is nothing about design or purpose in its definition. Richard was just responding to Stein's carefully crafted and designed question. In either case, Richard is NOT an advocate for Intelligent Design, or any rational belief in a God. If you want to believe that there is an Intelligence behind the birth of a new star, then that is your subjective belief. Science does however make a clear distinction between what appears to be designed, and what actually is designed.

Unless I've missed something, what exactly do Atheist need to take responsibility for? What examples do not "jibe" with what is claimed? Do you agree or disagree with any of my examples of the dangers of religions or their practices? If so why?
.

 

[dimmesdale]

My point was not to criticize the communal nature of religions, or its positive practices. It was to say that you don't have to be a religious believer to enjoy a sense of community. It also exists in the secular world without the any added belief attachment. They also form relationships, both young and old, and with people from all walks of life.
Okay, out of this "whole bunch", can you just demonstrate ONE? The question was "Can you tell me just ONE cruel, heinous, murderous, anti-social act, that can ONLY be committed by an Atheist for Atheistic reasons(their disbelief)?".

It sounds to me like you are engineering the question in such a way to as to ignore all the damage, the body count which happened under atheistic regimes in the 20th century. At the start of the Ruskie revolution the Bolsheviks went in and murdered the Romanovs including helpless children.They took them to the basement and shot them. It was perfectly natural and violated nothing in nature. There was nothing objectively wrong with what they did since atheism assumes no judgment from God for murder of children.

I do not mean to imply that no atrocities were carried out during secular wars, but they were not done because of their non-belief.

Non belief is the catalyst for all atrocities and murders in history. If they believed in judgement from God then they would not do it out of fear alone. God will not acquit the guilty. Ex. 23:7.
Do not kill the innocent and the just, for I will not acquit the guilty.

That is a direct quote attributed to the Living God. It applies to everyone equally . It presupposes a judgment.


That is why the two midwives in Exod 1 refused to murder Hebrew male infants. They feared God more than Pharoah. Under atheism the rational thing to do was murder the infants since there is no God to fear. There is only Pharoah and he can do as he pleases including family members. Nobody in their right mind is going to march women and children off to the gas chambers for mass murder if they really believed God knows exactly what they are doing and will judge them at the judgement, also their immediate family members are placed in jeopardy. God is not mocked. The problem with you atheists is you hate God more than you love your children. Even if they claim they do not.

But, not only were the heinous actions in either testament were committed by man in the name of God, but history is riddled with all manner of atrocities committed by man in the name of God. Including the atrocities of Mother Teresa, disguised as a Saint for the sick and dying in Calcutta.

That book was an unprofessional piece of toilet paper. No notes.

My comment was that "Atheism, makes all people responsible for all their actions, period.". Why is this claim false? Do you think that all people should NOT be responsible for their actions?

I showed you why you are not responsible with the question you ignored.

 

[shunyadragon]

A lot superficial adhere to avoid backlash. Medical persons might make a better yardstick since they do not have to adhere to group think and backlash regarding origins.
Yawn. Stop making manipulative appeals to outrage and try some rationality. These braindead accusations only appeal to low info types who operate on sub-optimal levels.

Common descent is from Darwin. If his knowledge was limited then why is common descent adhered to and defended? Besides in his time they had knowledge Darwin did not address. He was outright wrong about eyes and i can dig up sources from his time which shows he was off. His background basis was the old earth geology of Charles Lyell. Also lassez-faire economics of his time all applied to his book. His methodology was outside change.
This is straight up garbage. It is a faith claim. Fossil evidence only shows remains. That is it since they do not come with lineage attached. That is all ginned up after the fact. None of it makes it true and the further back they go the more theoretical it gets. Humans did not have a unknown nonhuman common ancestor with apes. There is no way they can reconstruct the genome of the mystery creature from DNA.

They can't even get to a baseline for any of it. They don't know how. It can make no predictions and they cannot tell which animals are evolving and which are not nor can they tell rate. When we get to the details they cannot tell much of anything. They make claims about nature as the catalyst for change and the process is all nonintelligent blind blah blah blah. It involves simple to complex in violation of 2nd law which can even apply to relationships. Things fall apart in nature, they do not get better and better due to mutations and blind unguided processes. We intuitively know 2nd law and all the energy from the sun does not affect anything. It is ad hoc excuses. There are plenty of stars in the universe which radiate energy to satellites. I could go on and on. How does the fetus get input for change from nature? Can nature predict the future to direct the fetus to change? The change has to be three types, passed on and permanent also beneficial all via undirected processes. You can't even pass on vaccine immunity to offspring. How can nature do it? Anyone in medicine can tell mutations normally bring about catastrophic results. They don't have a clue. Get out of town with your myths.
Well make your case and if you can't then don't blame the audience. If you cannot build a rational case then that simply demonstrates incapacity. Evolution is failed on many levels and that is all based on what is known and not on what is not known. It does not stand to scrutiny nor do its adherents tolerate it. They dismiss critics as creationists, flat-earthers, etc. These are all irrational fallacies. If their case is so strong then they should be able to make it all in a professional manner. Most of us have to adhere to professional standards in our work life where name calling is not tolerated. It is the tactics of losers. Also useless indictments/accusations which are personal attacks.

Rambling based on a religious agenda. You obviously have no background in science to support any of this.

In Judeo Christianity the timeline is from Adam to God. There is no animal intermediaries. Animal lineage is urban legend. The two are contradictory histories and either both are false or one or the other is false.

What actual objective verifiable evidence outside the Bible can you provide to support this assertion based on science?

Actually your indictments/accusations are the personal attacks against Charles Darwin and the science of evolution without any scientific support Still waiting???

No, Medical personnel in general alone are not the best test, but nonetheless: The National Academy of Sciences includes ALL the sciences including Medical personal, and they passed the resolutions supporting the science of evolution without descent.

National Academy of Sciences

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a United States nonprofit, non-governmental organization. NAS is part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, along with the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM).

Group think without any competent science background nor evidence is the problem of fundamentalist Christianity with a religious agenda. None of the sciences are a product of group think. They are the product of many many years of scientific research from all of the world by the best universities of the world.