Workch:
should I share a link to download Darwins original paper so you can show me?

Darwin didn’t know about fossils right?

Maynman:


Don’t believe me.
What year was fossils discovered again?

hey here, download the Darwins paper for natural selection.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjI1Lq9tur8AhUjgP0HHTvqD1oQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw0uatI9ajtKJqqiZsJU-Q7e

Go through it and show me where he provided fossil evidence

Maynman:


Darwin didn’t know about fossils right?

hey here, download the Darwins paper for natural selection.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjI1Lq9tur8AhUjgP0HHTvqD1oQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw0uatI9ajtKJqqiZsJU-Q7e

Go through it and show me where he provided fossil evidence

Workch:
hey here, download the Darwins paper for natural selection.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjI1Lq9tur8AhUjgP0HHTvqD1oQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw0uatI9ajtKJqqiZsJU-Q7e

Go through it and show me where he provided fossil evidence

What year was fossils found?
Darwin didn’t know about fossils right?

Maynman:

What year was fossils found?
Darwin didn’t know about fossils right?

just open the book and show me where he linked evolution with fossil


hey here, download the Darwins paper for natural selection.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjI1Lq9tur8AhUjgP0HHTvqD1oQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw0uatI9ajtKJqqiZsJU-Q7e

Go through it and show me where he provided fossil evidence

Maynman:

What year was fossils found?
Darwin didn’t know about fossils right?

show me where he linked evolution and fossil in the book

Workch:
show me where he linked evolution and fossil in the book

Waiting

This Is What Destroys Successful People

Apostle Joshua Selman

Listen And Learn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlQ7f96cmuE

Workch:
just open the book and show me where he linked evolution with fossil


hey here, download the Darwins paper for natural selection.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjI1Lq9tur8AhUjgP0HHTvqD1oQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw0uatI9ajtKJqqiZsJU-Q7e

Go through it and show me where he provided fossil evidence

Waiting

Maynman:


Waiting

lol, this guys.

Atheists know how to ask for evidence, but they runway when you ask them too 😂😂

I'm sure that everyone will now see that Atheism is just same idea with theism but from an opposite angle.

Both runway from evidence when it's not in their Favour.

Bye dude

Workch:
lol, this guys.

Atheists know how to ask for evidence, but they runway when you ase them too 😂😂

I'm sure that everyone will now see that Atheism is just same idea with theism but from an opposite angle.

Both runway from evidence when it's not in their Favour.

Bye dude

Waiting

You made this statement first, when i used it on you, you started wailing.
Agnostics are hypocrites

I hope you take similar position on other things without evidence. (“I don’t know whether Bigfoot exists; I don’t know whether Santa Claus exists, etc.”) Without taking positions similar to those, being agnostic toward god(s) is usually inconsistent.

Maynman:

Waiting

I take that back, darwin knew about fossils but darwin never knew how fossils got there.

The first person to argue fossils for evolution was lamarck. He did that more than 20years after Darwins death. I was wrong thee

Workch:
I don't also think Harbour the idea of casualty because it creates a huge problem but my point is that no one know what actually happened, no one should reach a conclusion.
No one can know what happened then.

I don't know if no one can know but we don't right now so the best we can do is speculate. I just like my own speculations to have a bit of reality in them.

LordReed:


I don't know if no one can know but we don't right now so the best we can do is speculate. I just like my own speculations to have a bit of reality in them.

So why can't you just leave it at you don't know instead of you don't know if no one can know?

Secondly, do you know if we can travel at the speed of light?

Workch:
I take that back, darwin knew about fossils but darwin never knew how fossils got there.

The first person to argue fossils for evolution was lamarck. He did that more than 20years after Darwins death. I was wrong thee

Alright man, i also want to say that darwin worked on pre existing facts, evidences and he also craft his own evidences to arrive at his conclusions.

Maynman:

Alright man, i also want to say that darwin worked on pre existing facts, evidences and he also craft his own evidences to arrive at his conclusions.

How does this mean that Darwin used fossils to proof evolution? Tell me

Workch:
How does this mean that Darwin used fossils to proof evolution? Tell me

Where did i say he used fossils to proof evolution?
Can you screenshot it?

Workch:
please kindly let me know how that's a black swan. I do not see how

it's not black swan if it's a known fact that we cannot.
Let me give you an example: can humans ever build a device that can achieve speed of light? No, it's impossible, that's not black swan, it's only possible theoretical. Same applies to knowing if there's a creator.
Its practically impossible for humans to figure what happened before time and space was formed, which is why we cannot know if someone or something actually formed that singularity or not.
We cannot build a device capable of looking back in time to see beyond the beginning of big bang for mathematical provable reasons, just like traveling at the speed of light.
It's provable that we cannot know what happened before big bang, there even no before big bang from a human perspective. How can you even look back in time to know what happened then when even time didn't exist then? so it's not black swan.

Just because you think something is impossible doesn't mean it actually is. Skepticism teaches never to be 100% certain about anything.


100 years ago the humans of the time would have said it was "practically impossible" to suspend a 5000kg piece of metal in the air. Today, we have airplanes.

Even the idea of smartphones would have been totally impossible to humans living as early as 30 years ago. Today we have chatGPT.

It is self-absorbed to claim that just because evidence of a creator hasn't been provided now it never will. What you can do is argue for god being unlikely or why theists haven't provided evidence despite the time that they have had to do so.

But it is ignorant to claim it is impossible to provide evidence for a god.

Same with time travel, as science continues to discover new things and make bigger breakthroughs, who knows what is possible in the next 20 or 30 years talk less of 100 or 500 years.

Agnosticism is a very valid position. I do agree with you on some level that we can never be too sure of anything and hard theists (that claim there is a god) and hard atheists (that claim there is no god) have the burden of proof.

But in the same vein, if you're truly trying to be as skeptical as possible, you cannot claim that it is impossible to prove god or in fact prove any other thing.

Maynman:


Where did i say he used fossils to proof evolution?
Can you screenshot it?

here.

This picture

Workch:
here.

This picture

I can’t see “ Darwin used fossils to proof evolution”?

Bacteriologist:


Just because you think something is impossible doesn't mean it actually is. Skepticism teaches never to be 100% certain about anything.

So it's possible that a God exist l?

100 years ago the humans of the time would have said it was "practically impossible" to suspend a 5000kg piece of metal in the air. Today, we have airplanes.

does this also apply to God?

Even the idea of smartphones would have been totally impossible to humans living as early as 30 years ago. Today we have chatGPT.

It is self-absorbed to claim that just because evidence of a creator hasn't been provided now it never will. What you can do is argue for god being unlikely or why theists haven't provided evidence despite the time that they have had to do so.

atheism will be dead if you apply this logic to the existence of God

But it is ignorant to claim it is impossible to provide evidence for a God.

Everything cannot be possible, it's a fact. There are something that will be impossible, it's how the universe works.

Same with time travel, as science continues to discover new things and make bigger breakthroughs, who knows what is possible in the next 20 or 30 years.

sincerely, we have been doing trme travel since before the first MAN was lunched to space, but if you mean time travel like going back to live with dinosaur? That's fiction.
The layman's understandkng of time travel and that of science is different.

Agnosticism is a very valid position. I do agree with you on some level that we can never be too sure of anything and hard theists (that claim there is a god) and hard atheists (that claim there is no god) have the burden of proof.

But in the same vein, if you're truly trying to be as skeptical as possible, you cannot claim that it is impossible to prove god or in fact prove any other thing.

Trying to know what happened before big bang is like trying to move an object with mass at light speed.

It's not possible in mathematics, in reality or in anyway you want to think about it.

You know why? You will mathematically need infinte amount of energy to move any object, that is as little as 0.000000001 micrograms heavier than light photons at that same speed. It means that you need to use up all the energy in the universe and it will not still get at that speed.

Some things are impossible. Everything cannot be possible.

Same applies to looking back to before big bang, because "before big bang" doesn't not exist in science.
My point is, some things are impossible because repeatable evidence says so.

It's same reasons why I don't think the christian God is possible. Evidence says to

Workch:
So why can't you just leave it at you don't know instead of you don't know if no one can know?

Secondly, do you know if we can travel at the speed of light?

Because you said no one can know, that is not something that can be determined at the moment.

No I don't know. It doesn't look possible because of the energy required but who knows there might be work arounds we don't know about yet

Workch:
So why can't you just leave it at you don't know instead of you don't know if no one can know?

as long as you take a similar position on other things without evidence. (“I don’t know whether Bigfoot exists; I don’t know whether Santa Claus exists, etc.”) And also you would judge the probability of any gods’ existence to be 50.00000%. Any evidence you receive should tip your belief in one direction or the other.

LordReed:


Because you said no one can know, that is not something that can be determined at the moment.

No I don't know. It doesn't look possible because of the energy required but who knows there might be work arounds we don't know about yet

if I ask you if a God exist and you give this second answer, would that not be pure Agnosticism?

Workch:
So it's possible that a God exist l?


does this also apply to God?

atheism will be dead if you apply this logic to the existence of God

Everything cannot be possible, it's a fact. There are something that will be impossible, it's how the universe works.

sincerely, we have been doing trme travel since before the first MAN was lunched to space, but if you mean time travel like going back to live with dinosaur? That's fiction.
The layman's understandkng of time travel and that of science is different.



Trying to know what happened before big bang is like trying to move an object with mass at light speed.

It's not possible in mathematics, in reality or in anyway you want to think about it.

You know why? You will mathematically need infinte amount of energy to move any object, that is as little as 0.000000001 micrograms heavier than light photons at that same speed. It means that you need to use up all the energy in the universe and it will not still get at that speed.

Some thing are impossible. Everything cannot be possible.

Same applies to looking back to before big bang, because before big bang doesn't not exist in science.

I know how time travel works. You're making this assumption based on our current understanding of science. A human living before planes were invented would also give you the mathematical impossibility of why a Metal couldn't possibly be suspended in air using density equations.

Like I said, all that's required is a breakthrough in science and time travel in any manner could be possible. It's all about keeping an open mind. Skepticism does not teach close mindedness.

And the fact that it is possible for evidence for god to be provided does nothing to invalidate the claim of an atheist. An atheist, quite simply, suspends belief until evidence is provided. So, the fact that evidence for god has not been provided (yet) very well justifies the position of the atheist.

As usual, all your claims of something being impossible doesn't mean they actually are. You seem to be confusing "improbable" with "impossible." Please look into the difference of these two terms.

Workch:
if I ask you if a God exist and you give this second answer, would that not be pure Agnosticism?

Can we add s to this to make it, GodS.
Is that also pure Agnosticism?

If you say one god you are already on the side of monotheism.

Bacteriologist:


I know how time travel works. You're making this assumption based on our current understanding of science. A human living before planes were invented would also give you the mathematical impossibility of why a Metal couldn't possibly be suspended in air using density equations.

Like I said, all that's required is a breakthrough in science and time travel in any manner could be possible. It's all about keeping an open mind. Skepticism does not teach close mindedness.

And the fact that it is possible for evidence for god to be provided does nothing to invalidate the claim of an atheist. An atheist, quite simply, suspends belief until evidence is provided. So, the fact that evidence for god has not been provided (yet) very well justifies the position of the atheist.

As usual, all your claims of something being impossible doesn't mean they actually are. You seem to be confusing "improbable" with "impossible." Please look into the difference of these two terms.

I am making my assumption based on the current available evidence. The difference is evidence for or against. Skepticism means that you follow the evidence no matter what.

We have evidence That you cannot travel at the speed of light or see anything beyond big bang. There are proofs even in mathematics for that.


There's none for or against God. That's the difference for me.

Another example is, it's impossibe for someone to enter a wall, we have evidence for this. We can test it.

We cannot test "God exist or God doesn't exist" its why I am neutral

Workch:
if I ask you if a God exist and you give this second answer, would that not be pure Agnosticism?

It would be an agnostic answer and that's exactly the kind of answer I would give about the subject of the existence of gods.

LordReed:


It would be an agnostic answer and that's exactly the kind of answer I would give about the subject of the existence of gods.

okay, i thought you were an atheist

Workch:
okay, i thought you were an atheist

Atheism means non belief in god or gods.
The capital G, is religion people trying to honor their various deities.

Agnosticism is saying they don’t know if god or gods exist. That’s understood.

If you look at the word “atheism”, it comes from “atheos” which means godless.
Theos refers to the Olympus gods, before it was use in the Christian text, New Testament was written in greek.
Atheists reject all gods.

Workch:


I am making my assumption based on the current available evidence. The difference is evidence for or against. Skepticism means that you follow the evidence no matter what.

We have evidence That you cannot travel at the speed of light or see anything beyond big bang. There are proofs even in mathematics for that.


There's none for or against God. That's the difference for me.

Another example is, it's impossibe for someone to enter a wall, we have evidence for this. We can test it.

We cannot test "God exist or God doesn't exist" its why I am neutral

Correct. But you have completely gone off the rails here my friend.

I am neutral because:

"There is no current evidence for or against god"

IS DIFFERENT FROM

"I am neutral because it is impossible to provide evidence for or against god."

The latter is your initial position. Kindly stay on it and don't deflect to the former.

And FYI, there are gods that can be shown to not exist as a result of logical contradictions.