"First off, the reasoning that evolution is true because there are variations in dogs turning into wolves, coyotes, etc, is not evidence because it is actually variations within kinds, not bacteria evolving into fully intelligent human beings."
This is simply your own misunderstanding of what evolution is. Firstly, dogs did not "turn into" wolves, coyotes, etc. because wolves, coyotes, etc. ARE dogs. Modern dogs did not, and do not, evolve into wolves and coyotes, but modern dogs share a common ancestor with wolves and coyotes. Members of an ancient dog species would have gradually undergone small genetic changes that, over time, altered the physical and genetic makeup of the dogs, thus eventually forming what we would classify as a "new species" of dog, which end up including wolves, coyotes, and all other modern canine species. Traced back far enough, all living things will have a common ancestor, where an ancient species changed/branched off into, eventually, the species we have today, including us.
Secondly, bacteria did not morph directly into a human being, obviously. Ancient cellular life forms would have gradually evolved into a plethora of multicellular creatures over the course of 100s of millions of years. As multicellular life forms further evolved, they created new and more "complex" species, which continued all the way through the modern day. Humans did not evolve from bacteria, we evolved from an older primate hominid species.
As a visual, here's an interesting interactive evolutionary map where you can see a simplified tree showing how life changed over time, and you can even click any two species/groups and see what and how far back their common ancestor likely was: https://www.evogeneao.com/en/explore/tree-of-life-explorer
"It's circular reasoning because the definition of evolution changes between the first and second examples, resulting in an absurdity."
Firsly, that's not what circular reasoning means, but more importantly, they literally addressed the two types: "Biologists sometimes define two types of evolution based on scale: • Macroevolution, which refers to large-scale changes that occur over extended time periods, such as the formation of new species and groups. • Microevolution, which refers to small-scale changes that affect just one or a few genes and happen in populations over shorter timescales. Microevolution and macroevolution aren't really two different processes. They're the same process - evolution - occurring on different timescales."
Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
I've diligently read all of your rants against old TruthHurts101, and I have to ask why on earth you even care what ever people believe in if you do not believe in a God or higher power of any kind? Why does it matter to you? If other people can find meaning and value in religion why'd o you feel an obligation to intrude? It doesn't affect you. And yet you just either spent 3 hrs typing this up or asked ChatGPT to do it for you. Why invest all the time and effort when it doesn't affect you? I'm just asking.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
Well the first reason is because I use this site to pass the time while I'm at work, so taking hours of my time to write and respond to people like this is perfectly fine by me, preferable even. The second reason is because I just love debating ideas and engaging in discourse, even stupid discourse that I've heard and disproved a dozen times before; I just enjoy the mental stimulation. The third reason is because the stuff this guy is trying to argue and spread as fact is blatantly false (and that includes all the other political and socio-economic garbage he also advocates), and… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
How is it bad for society? You never addressed that? How is people believing in objective morality, a Higher Law, a Heaven, and a God who gives them purpose BAD for society? If anything that would be good! Even if that belief is "blatantly false" as you claim, why does it affect you if certain people derive meaning from Christianity? It doesn't at all.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
I didn't say that "believing in objective morality or a god/religion" is bad for society, I said that "promoting religious beliefs/values as objective facts over actual science" is bad for society. This is bad for society because doing so is actively promoting misinformation and denying actual evidence, thus creating a society of people who value belief instead of truth.
Of course, this isn't a problem when people who hold religious beliefs accept that their beliefs are based on faith, as well as do not utilize their religious beliefs against others. And for most… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
This is hilariously fallacious. Your argument is that religious fanatics are spreading "misinformation" which is begging the question and assuming the point you're already trying to make. It's a vicious circle and utterly illogical.