The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The post I responded to originally said the human brain developed over 7 million years, that's not true. The cranial capacity doubled over night and all those changes became permanently fixed in our Hominid line, about 2mya.

2 million years isn't really overnight...

 

[Tanj]

Would actual peer reviewed scientific evidence suffice or do you require a chase around the mulberry bush?

Peer reviewed would be excellent.

I read through your provided evidence, none of it has anything to do with a doubling of the cranial capacity overnight.

Had I the time I'd be happy to address all these other tangents. I don't, so can't.

Back on topic, please provide the genetic evidence that the cranial capacity doubled overnight.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

In the Hindu religion our reality is actually part of a dream Brahma is having in a pool. In pagan mythology of a more western variety creation did not go back to the gods, the gods were created by elementals:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven, (Enuma Elish, The Epic of Creation)
​

From those waters life was created from the the salt and fresh water marshes that were mixed in the original creation. In pagan mythology even the gods were created from natural elements, earth, air, fire and/or water. There is another myth behind Darwinism that sounds strangely similar to Enuma Elish:

ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing. (The Temple of Nature By Erasmus Darwin)
​

Frontispiece to The Temple of Nature.

Happenstance that a creation myth would seem similar to what Science has discovered independently - that supports the point I made about there being far more valid creation myths than the biblical narrative...

Your right about one thing, most creation myths are very much alike, and very much unlike the Biblical account of creation.

Well, the biblical account doesn't look all that dissimilar to any of the other creation myths when you aren't invested wholly into it to start with - they're all much like each other and likewise unique for their own special reasons.

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

 

[Gene2memE]

• 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them.

Which one would you like to discuss first?

We can discuss this. Particularly in light of recent studies on the origin and mechanisms of production of de novo genes given that studies on de novo genes have really only been going for a dozen years.

 

[mark kennedy]

Peer reviewed would be excellent.

I read through your provided evidence, none of it has anything to do with a doubling of the cranial capacity overnight.

Had I the time I'd be happy to address all these other tangents. I don't, so can't.

Back on topic, please provide the genetic evidence that the cranial capacity doubled overnight.

Already did and it's an obvious fact that the cranial capacity was between 400cc and 500cc until about 2mya. If you don't know that much sorry about your luck, would you like to try paleontology?

I already did provide the genetic evidence, would you like to read it again?

 

[mark kennedy]

2 million years isn't really overnight...

The rise of Hominid cranial capacity is.

 

[mark kennedy]

We can discuss this. Particularly in light of recent studies on the origin and mechanisms of production of de novo genes given that studies on de novo genes have really only been going for a dozen years.

Fine, your thoughts on the paper would be helpful.

 

[mark kennedy]

Happenstance that a creation myth would seem similar to what Science has discovered independently - that supports the point I made about there being far more valid creation myths than the biblical narrative...

Well, the biblical account doesn't look all that dissimilar to any of the other creation myths when you aren't invested wholly into it to start with - they're all much like each other and likewise unique for their own special reasons.

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

Your ignoring the connection to naturalistic, and I do mean elemental forces is conspicuous.

 

[mark kennedy]

Maybe join Dawkins "Circle of Reason" for $85 a month. The topic may come up.


My statement actually said he did not say no such thing. Perhaps read it again. Thanks!


I have noticed most won't delve into metaphysics. That is why a classical education used to include theology even in the more secular of universities. Without it an education is incomplete. Mankind is a curious lot with consciousness and the ability to love. Most other disciplines fail to address this.


There is if one wished to examine such. From what you have written thus far, it is apparent your knowledge of the Hebrew and Christian faiths comes from the skeptics annotated bible and various anti Theist websites. No serious student of theology would come up with the nickel and dime assertions you promote.


Is there any other deity claiming to be the One True God and Creator? Has any others directly interacted with humans revealing themselves?

Perhaps we could discuss that one in the philosophy section.


Show me the others.

In a word, no, there are no others, there is only one God who created the universe and life on this planet. The pagan myths are all naturalistic in their orientation, that much is clear from their myths both modern and ancient.

 

[Gene2memE]

Fine, your thoughts on the paper would be helpful.

Ok.

There are now several known mechanisms to produce de novo genes.
There aren't actually 60 de novo genes unique the human brain, there seem to be about 15 to 25 - depending on how you slice it.
These de novo genes evolved at a slow and steady rate, not "overnight"
Your hypothesis of "dramatic, giant leaps" in human brain development is not played out by the evidence.

 

[Tanj]

Already did

You most definitely did not.

and it's an obvious fact that the cranial capacity was between 400cc and 500cc until about 2mya. If you don't know that much sorry about your luck, would you like to try paleontology?

No thanks, I'd rather assume you were telling the truth and could provide genetic evidence. I don't know much about palaeontology. I have been working in genetics for over 30 years.

I already did provide the genetic evidence, would you like to read it again?

No, I have read those papers before and looked back through them since you posted. You provided links to sets of genetic data highlighting some of the differences between chimps and humans, and some references to genetic lesions.

At no time have you provided any genetic evidence that cranial capacity doubled overnight.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You do realize that this whole paragraph is full of beliefs, right? The idea that all people deserve equal treatment is a belief, as is the claim that the environment is something that we should care about. Beliefs I share, sure, but that doesn't make them magically not beliefs anymore.

Well I certainly didn't say they weren't beliefs... did I? What you'll likely find though is scientific evidence to support our beliefs. This doesn't make them correct by any stretch, but they certainly aren't based on unevidenced writings that are thousands of years old written by long lost civilisations that didn't understand the universe they found themselves in.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Good point and I'm glad you see that at some point there was a beginning to the universe.

I wonder why you say this as if you think to have scored some kind of point.

Is anybody denying that the universe, as we know it, began at some point - likely 13.7 billion years ago?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's not true, the cranial capacity does not approach the hominid range untill 2 million years ago.

You compared chimps to humans.

Chimps and humans have common ancestors some 7 million years ago, if memory serves me right.

Which means that both species have been on their own evolutionary path for that same amount of time.


Also, 2 million years is quite a long time as well.
Perhaps you should reflect on how long that is, considering the average human life span of 35 years (not counting the last 2 centuries).

 

[DogmaHunter]

If the universe is removed then what is left?

I don't know. Neither do you.

Where were you 10 yrs prior to your conception?

I did not exist.

It sounds like you are asserting a universe and subsequent life from nothing is better than a universe from Something.

No. I'm saying that I don't know how the universe originated. And neither do you. That's why we train scientists, to try and find out.

Appeals to ignorance.

No. Acknowledgement of ignorance.
If you don't know, then you don't know. You can try and pretend to know, but you'll still don't know.

The start point for science today is assumed atheism.

No. The start point is reason and evidence.
If you want your preferred god to be included in science, then provide evidence of it and a demonstration of how he is any kind of a factor in observable reality.

‘’The physicist Paul Davies tells us that “science takes as its starting point the assumption that life wasn’t made by a god or a supernatural being’’

Off course... Unlike religion, science doesn't try and provide the answers before asking the questions. If you are on a quest to try and find out how life came about, why would you start by assuming "it came from X"? That makes no sense.

"Let's find out how life originated!"
"It was made by god"
"Ow... okay, I guess we're done then"

No Divine footprint in the door.

Or more generally put: no undemonstrable, undetectable, unsupportable, unfalsifiable assertions.

That means God as first cause is eliminated from consideration deemed unscientific meaning scientifically false.

With as underlying reason that such is undemonstrable, undetectable, unsupportable and unfalsifiable.

God is demarcated. God refused to be considered. This is atheism.

It's evidence based reasoning.
Fairies, ghosts and leprachauns are "excluded" for the same reason.

If you are holding an empty hand (ignorance) then God wins by default.

No idea what that means.

Atheists have not falsified God.

You can't falsify the unfalsifiable.

That being since all your appeals to science means adherence to science method.

Off course. Do you know of a better method to find out how stuff works and originates?
I sure don't. Science seems to work pretty well.

Via abduction. See above.

Above, is nothing but blind assertions and insistence on science including your particular religion, but you give exactly zero reason for why it should do that.

Why should science include your god?
And how? Where does this god play a detectable role? How does this help us? What can we learn from those processes? How to find out if it's really your god that's playing this detectable role and not Thor or whatever?

What do you have, besides your whining that science doesn't care about unfalsifiable propositions?

If there are two options then one needs to be eliminated. God exists by necessity.

So you keep saying.
When are you going to demonstrate it?

In the same manner as triangles, squares, equations, and nothing exists. They are abstract entities.

Haaa... I agree.
Yes. God exists as an abstract entity, like symbols. Indeed. Such abstract concepts only "exist" between people's ears. They don't actually exist in the real world, outside of our brains.

Get back to us when you falsify an intelligent designer.

Hilarious shifting of the burden of proof.
Give me something to falsify first.

Let's not presuppose a level playing field when we all know atheists are playing a rigged game.

It's not rigged. It just has one simple rule: provide evidence for your assertions.

Theists just happen to fail at that.
Just like you. Read your post. It's assertion after assertion, with nothing to back it up.

If science does not deal with absolute certainty then the same or proximate should not be required for God.

Science not dealing in absolute certainties, does not mean that all propositions are equally likely. It's all about the evidence.

Humans are intuitively theistic, moral, and justice seeking. That means we are programmed and that implies a programmer.

And that "programmer", is evolution.

Humans aren't intuitively theistic. They rather are instinctively pattern seeking, like most animals, and are driven by the desire to survive and reproduce. As a direct result, we are prone to false positives, brain farts, paranoia, superstition,... Again, like most animals.

Being curious, is a dangerous thing in the wild. I'm sure you heared this example before...

You are a hominid somewhere in Africa. You hear a noise in the bush behind you. It could be the wind. It could be a harmless bird or rodent. Those are most likely. It could also be a dangerous predator sneaking up on you. What do you do? If you run, you live - no matter what the noise was. If you stand around to investigate, you'll die if it is a predator.

This is rather important. It means that natural selection would favour those who make assumptions. Those who assume intent. It's easy to see how such "instinctive" behaviour (jumping to conclusions on slim or bad evidence and being prone to assuming intent concerning your person), would lead to theistic beliefs.

As for morality and justice... we are a social species. Morals/justice are at bottom, "rules" on how to behave within a group, for the benefit of the group. Every social species has some kind of set of rules on what is appropriate behaviour and what isn't. As well as some kind of response to those who break these rules.

Groups wouldn't survive otherwise.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No the part you emboldened is called; "prove it with Science", which is rhetorical in origin because I do not think it can proven with Science.

The problem is that you made a blank assertion that a god/causer is responsible for the universe and instead of providing evidence for that assertion, you pointed to scientific ignorance. As if science not knowing (yet) somehow advances your blank assertions.

I have explained already in previous posts, currently not in the mood to rehash.

Are you in the mood to provide a link?

By your assertion the overwhelming vast majority of humanity throughout history have been irrational at the most fundamental level of reality, ultimate reality, is a rather high and lofty assertion

lol, appeal to popularity.

And yes. And I'll happily state it clearly on record:

To believe things on faith, that is to say: without evidence, is irrational.
Astrology, homeopathy, crystal healing, fortune tellers, psychics, sceances, theism,...
These are all faith based beliefs as opposed to evidence based beliefs.

Yep, to believe/accept those things, would be irrational - by very definition of the word "irrational".

Yes, people who hold such beliefs, hold irrational beliefs.
Not that that is not the same as saying that those people are irrational.
They are irrational concerning those particular subjects. That doesn't mean they are irrational accross the board.

You may call this an ad populum argument, but regardless it is a fact,

It is a fact that the majority of humans have supernatural (faith based)beliefs, sure.
That is a fact, absolutely.

However, it is a fact about what people believe - it doesn't say anything about the actual accuracy, or rationality, of such beliefs.

along with the mountain of evidences supporting the Judeo/Christian faith mentioned previously.

There is no evidence of anything supernatural, anywhere.

Do tell of another alternative, do tell.

Again with the argument of ignorance.

I don't require any "alternative". YOU are the one making claims.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Science is not the obedient slave to atheism. It was and always has been a no brainer to me. Any Intelligent first causer would falsify atheism which explains nothing. Even if it was not personified. Off to work where ignorance is not tolerated. Not something to hangs ones hat on if required to do productive things on someone else's dime. Have a nice day.

I'll take that as a "I don't have such evidence"

ps: there is nothing in atheism to falsify, because atheism isn't a claim. It's rather a response to a claim of theism. Atheism is not an explanation. It is a single position on a single issue.

It is saying "no" to the question "do you accept as true that a god exists?". Nothing more, nothing less. It's not a claim.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Maybe join Dawkins "Circle of Reason" for $85 a month. The topic may come up.

Thanks, but no thanks. lol! That's a religion thing to do... tho probably still cheaper than tithing...

My statement actually said he did not say no such thing. Perhaps read it again. Thanks!

Sorry, my bad! I read it to mean you believed he said that - perhaps surround everything said by someone else in quotes for people like me... sometimes I don't read past first impression reading and the comma made me think you were done with his quote...

I have noticed most won't delve into metaphysics. That is why a classical education used to include theology even in the more secular of universities. Without it an education is incomplete. Mankind is a curious lot with consciousness and the ability to love. Most other disciplines fail to address this.

Well, what value does metaphysics have in Science? Let me help you out here - nothing of value.

Not sure why you've included consciousness and love into the mix there, those things are very real things we can study and learn more about right here in reality, In fact we've learn't quite a lot about them - they certainly aren't unique to religion...

There is if one wished to examine such. From what you have written thus far, it is apparent your knowledge of the Hebrew and Christian faiths comes from the skeptics annotated bible and various anti Theist websites. No serious student of theology would come up with the nickel and dime assertions you promote.

Well then, feel free to correct me anytime you like - It's pretty hard to avoid the bible critiques in these circles but if they're unfounded or misunderstood then surely you can correct me, right?

How do you know there's an answer, btw?

Is there any other deity claiming to be the One True God and Creator? Has any others directly interacted with humans revealing themselves?

How can you be sure this one has for a start? There are plenty of claims for other Gods being the one true God or even being the first of many gods. Then, there's claims for other gods that your God doesn't make - so i guess all of them have their peculiar traits, and your God is no different.
Perhaps we could discuss that one in the philosophy section.[/quote]
Not yet, because first we need to establish that there is a God for a start, then that it's your God, then that he had anything to do with the bible & to what extent if he did. All of which are an exercise in our epistemology and therefore firmly in the realm of Science since that's the single most reliable way we have to come about the truth of something.

Show me the others.

...there are so many! Well, here's a few links to get you started but seriously, haven't you read _anything_ else besides your particular bible??

meaning of life (Hinduism)
Zoroastrian beliefs
What’s the Purpose of Life?
Jain Beliefs
Neopagan Beliefs​

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The rise of Hominid cranial capacity is.

and your evidence?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

In a word, no, there are no others, there is only one God who created the universe and life on this planet. The pagan myths are all naturalistic in their orientation, that much is clear from their myths both modern and ancient.

what of all the Gods and religions that existed before Zoroastrianism, let alone the Abrahamic religions? Do you have any evidence of this or is it all on faith?