Actually, that's more of a reductionist view, which ignores emergent properties and has been highly refuted. Furthermore, "beautiful" is a construct and relative to the person.

Evolution naturally produces features that are going to be beneficial to the organism, that's a given. You're still ignoring the fact that if it were by a "Great Architect", then we would be a perfect organism. Take cancer, for example, where the own cells of the body grow out of control and can be fatal. That doesn't sound like perfect design to me.

Yes, homology could indicate evolution or intelligent design.

The fact that we see homology while also seeing imperfect design indicates that animals must have had to adapt to their environment with what they already had (from their common ancestors). Another good example of this would be human spines. Any engineer would have designed a spine to be in the center for walking, but ours are in our backs. One explanation is that our ancestors, which walked horizontally on four limbs, hand their organs hang down, which would have been useful with spines now above the organs for support. When this model was transferred to an upright organism, however, the spine did not adapt because the change would have been too drastic.

Uh... you guys all realize that jolie isn't being serious, right?

Do you think he takes naps when 21,000 people die of hunger everyday?

No, this ignores emergent properties. A reductionist point of view may observe life as a large chain of chemical reactions, but looking at the bigger picture provides something much more, such as conciousness.

I don't believe that there is an overreaching of evidence required to show speciation. Mutations and other forms of genetic diversity can cause differences to accumulate relatively quickly. If allele frequencies can change over time, then why can't new species emerge?

Also, could you go into more depth about the circumstantial evidence?

Adaptation, however, is not equivalent to Evolution. Evolution is an unsubstantiated theory that proposes that all life mutated into its current form from a common ancestor over astronomical periods of time, while adaptation is an observable phenomenon.

Evolution proposes that there is a change in allele frequencies over time, I believe you're referring to abiogenesis.

This misunderstanding tends to be the source of these arguments. One side refers to evolution, specially, adaptation within evolution, and the other understand adaptation and then interprets evolution as abiogenesis.

She didn't get the majority vote- she got 48%. That's not a majority. She did get the popular vote, the most votes. Two different things.

Hillary didn't get the majority vote, but she did win the most votes, therefore meaning she won the popular vote. Even if people were voting anti-trump and anti-hillary, she still got the most votes, so she got the popular vote.

I've no idea what you're trying to accomplish on this site, but whatever it is, I find it hilarious.

Any type of month promoting "heritage" in my idea is stupid, as it's saying that some ethnicities should be held in higher honor of others. There's so many ethnicity groups, Europeans, Hispanics, African, Asian, American, etc, that it's impossible to celebrate all cultures. Heritage should be celebrated, but all at once. Not for a month and only for a certain group.

As said, the conclusion is based on evidence that we have found via fossil record, carbon dating, so on. You are the one who was taught to believe that God created the universe, so you try to deny everything else vecause you think you are serving some God. Don't you understand? Christianity has made you into a pawn, a person who cannot do anything to cross Supreme Leader out of fear of burning in hell. If any other being proposed eternal suffering for refusing to submit, he would be called a dictator and sociopath.

You're being used and you relish every moment of it because you get satisfaction from serving Supreme Leader. You claim I was the one being brainwashed- but I was given a choice. Christianity says you have no choice.

Source? Without proper evidence, you're just saying things. I have just as much reason to believe you as I would a person who is trying to convert me to islam.

You've already lost thia argument. Stop trying to change the definition of animal. Homo sapien is an animal, "the image of God" does not change that.

Do you also deny that we are mammals?

If you're going to be in adamant denial, then just admit it. If you're going to refute my argument, then please do.

Evolution, which is the theory that allele frequencies change over time, can very much exists without abiogenesis- there are many Christians who believe in it, such as you.

You think that me arguing in abiogenesis excludes morality? Nope. I fully accept that things I've done are my fault- unless there's an omniscient being, ironically.

"If God knows what I will do tomorrow, then I have no choice but to do that thing. If I do not, then God was wrong and he is not omniscient. If I do, then his knowledge means I do not have the freedom to do otherwise."

This passage summarizes the free-will omniscience paradox, which essentially means that either only a.) we have free will, or only b.) there is an omniscient creator is true- the two cannot coexist.

"Hit me with fact over fact..........hahahhaha........telling me you believe in evolution is not hitting me with any fact except for the fact that you believe in evolution and the only thing proven by that fact is that you are gullible."

Me telling you I believe in evolution is not hitting you with a fact, correct. Me explaining the best current hypothesis of abiogenesis with detailed explanations based on observations is, however.

I agree with you in the fullest that consciousness and our perception are some "divine gift" or whatever you want to call it. Life can arise naturally, but consciousness and our perception of reality is an interesting emergence within us. I'm not sure how we got it, but the truth remains. Consciousness aside, evolution is very much a thing, and abiogenesis could very possibly be very much a thing. Even if you deny that it's very possible that basic life could have arisen with the right conditions, you could at least accept that maybe God planted RNA world or the first organism on Earth, and then we came from there.

Even then, it's highly illogical for that to happen. By what method would creation be done? Would it follow the laws of physics? And so on. If our universe currently follows natural laws, then by uniformitarianism, those laws should persist throughout time.

"Things that cannot be observed cannot be studied scientifically."

While we can't make baseless assumptions without observation, we can take what is observed and then draw inferences from it. That doesn't mean that those inferences are correct, but we can use parsimony to figure out the "most correct" hypothesis. In the case of RNA world, it's the hypothesis that makes the most sense given the observations we have made about our current life.

"You owe God for every moment of your time, and your sins have separated you from Him so you are not worthy to be in His presence. Demanding proof that Hell is real and sinners will be confined there forever will get you nothing but the proof you do not want. You can be saved from Hell, God Himself died for you as God the Man Christ Jesus, paid your prices so you can be relieved of the debt you owe God for your time, you can be pardoned and set free from the curse of sin and death by the One who conquered death and is the King of Creation, coming back to rule the world. He will be your Savior and your sins will be covered by His blood or you will stand before Him in Judgement with His blood trampled under your feet after He died for you and you hated Him with no remorse."

I don't think that I hate God, as I don't think he exists. As you said, observations must be made for scientific study to occur. In this case, I haven't made any observations about either hell or God from which I could draw an inference that a Christian god exists. I do think that consciousness is a sign of an ultimate source or being, I don't think it means anything for proof of a Christian god that rules in heaven, nor does it provide evidence for hell.

"If you will not believe, it's only because you hate God and you love death and you are getting it as you want it, eternity void of any sign of God's goodness like fresh air, sunshine, and water......in the fire of Hell where there is nothing good from God and sinners get what they want, reality void of anything good from God."

I don't believe because I don't have a reason to. No one's given me any observable evidence that god exists, only stories and faith, so why should I believe in it? I also don't believe that aliens created humans because I don't have any evidence either. While it's possible either of these might be true, I believe in abiogenesis because it makes the most sense to me. Why should I be punished by god because there's more evidence that he didn't create the universe? If god wanted be to believe, then why would he try so hard to make it seem like he doesn't exist?

"God is being good to you now, and you are spitting in His face. Somebody is making a fool out of you, and you are cooperating with them to your own destruction."

God is being good to me how? I haven't seen any examples of divine intervention in my life so far. Furthermore, I mean no harm against the god I think exists. How is questioning him equate to spitting in his face? If you think that wondering why a Christian god would want us to serve him is a crime, then you're the one who wants people to have their lives controlled.

Bio 101, basic critical thinking and detailed refutation of misconceptions and creationist arguments.

The things I'm saying aren't really observable- it's inference and inductive reasoning. Evolution, as a change in allele frequencies, however, is very much so. I think one misconception here is that you're confusing the theory of a universal common ancestor with evolution. One says all life originated from one or more organisms, while the other just says that there is a change in allele frequencies over time within a population.

Now that I've hit you with fact over fact and explanation regarding these hypothesis or theories, whatever you wish to call them, can I hear some support for your hypothesis of an intelligent designer?

It's all theory. However, there's plenty of evidence for about everything endosymbiosis and beyond. We can infer that endosymbiosis occurred due to how mitochondria and chloroplasts reproduce separately, have double membranes, and have their own mitochondrial (or plastid) DNA.

Before endosymbiosis, we can provide some evidence. Protobionts are thought to have a bilayer lipid membrane (naturally forming in water due to hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails) like all life, with RNA world and it's storage and self-replication in the center it would act as the precursor to all life.

The basis of "life" is considered an emergent property, and originated with cells. Living things do very much so come from non-living things- we are all made of non-living things- atoms arranged in such a way that we are alive. In a different order, they are not alive, but with the order we're in, they are.

If this is true, why wouldn't it be true that given enough time it could occur in an environment with lots of energy, time, and the same organic molecules?

Started with biological molecules with lots of energy to create RNA world, which was a ribozyme, useful for catalysation. Given natural selection, the most efficient reproductions were chosen until protobionts, enclosed by a bi layer lipid membrane, formed. Endosymbiosis allowed for much more efficient energy transfer, resulting in the first eukaryotic cells, and eventually everything after. Eubacteria (along with Archeabacteria) prokaryotic, so they instead have a nucleoid region and some free-floating ribosomes. They evolved earlier.

Are you ready to yet admit that you're in blatant denial of all that I've said?

Look, I know that you're not ready to accept evolution because, well, I don't think you can handle it. You're afraid of what a lack of an intelligent designer might mean. You're afraid that life is going to end and you're just be rotting in the ground, so you search for some meaning in life, some reassurance that it won't just end. That's where the idea of heaven comes from- people desperately want to believe that there is an eternal good, so they do.

Nihilism, which is the belief that life is meaningless, is hard to accept, but it might be what I currently believe in. We can't prove or refute the existence of an afterlife- so why bother? We get to enjoy the nature of life, so let's just enjoy it, and if there's an afterlife, so be it, lucky us. If not, so what? We have to accept that and embrace it.

I don't know why, but the typical Christian rhetoric likes to use fear-mongering and brainwashing by saying that we all have a choice between eternal suffering and eternal peace, and the only way to achieve eternal piece is to agree with them and join their faith- just like many other religions do. Most say that you'll be punished if you don't accept their way of thinking, the one true way of thinking, so which one do you believe? There's no winning.

You don't have to be in constant denial and fear that rejecting the Christian way of faith will give you eternal suffering. If God's way of thinking is "join me and have peace, or have eternal pain for questioning me", then that's not justice at all. That's blatant brainwashing and is nothing more than a threat- why is it such a crime to question the nature of said God and what he does? Wouldn't a just God encourage open discussion and debate, the spreading of information and the instillment of cooperation, not the "my way or the highway" philosophy as seen in extremists and monarchs?

All in all, said God wants us to use "faith", believing in him without the use of evidence- that goes against all critical thinking. Should people be punished because they don't believe in something that there's a lack of evidence for, instead deciding to say that another way of thinking that has more supporting evidence is likely more correct?

What? I don't understand the point you're making here. Are you implying muslims don't exist?