Bye Bye Ape Man!!!

[The Bellman]

Read my example above about atheists arbitrarily eliminating the possibility of the number being '83' at the start due to bias. It cant be God, because...well, it cant be.

Except that that's not how atheists act - it's your strawman. NOBODY in this thread has said God CANNOT have had anything to do with it - nobody has said it can't be 83. You keep claiming we do, but it's a lie .

 

[Brennin]

Where's yours?

Kurt Gödel has already done the 'heavy lifting' for me. What famous logician/mathematician has argued for your god with the purple hat?

 

[Skaloop]

Kurt Gödel has already done the 'heavy lifting' for me. What famous logician/mathematician has argued for your god with the purple hat?

How does your God fit Godel's proof?

 

[sfs]

It appears that there is no one way to measure the amount of genetic material that is common to chimps and \
humans. One method of measurement yields >98%, another 95%, and yet another 86.7%.

Uh, no. The 98% and the 95% are measurements of different things. You can call either one the amount of genetic material in common if you like, because that description is not clearly defined. If you want to be rigorous, you have to specify exactly what it is you're measuring; the chimpanzee genome paper makes quite clear what the two measurements are and how they were done. If you have objections to the procedures described there, by all means raise them, but your objection here is as silly as complaining that you get different value for the radius of the earth if you measure it around the equator and around the poles.

The 87%, on the other hand, (if it's the measurement I think it is) is an estimate of the same quantity as the 95%. If differs from 95% because it was based on an extremely limited, biased sample of the genome, while the 95% value is based on virtually the entire genome. The 87% value therefore had a large uncertainty. Measurements with uncertainty are also rigorous (all measurements have uncertainty); the key is to remember that they're uncertain and not treat them as if they had small uncertainty, which is what you're doing here.

 

[DMagoh]

Except that that's not how atheists act - it's your strawman. NOBODY in this thread has said God CANNOT have had anything to do with it - nobody has said it can't be 83. You keep claiming we do, but it's a lie .

Really? So, are you saying God COULD have had something to do with it?

 

[DMagoh]

What? No he doesn't. He eliminates anything between 50 and 75. He does not eliminate 83. He is not biased against 83. He just knows that at this point, he's got a 1 in 25 chance, and there's no reason to either accept or reject 83. Not until he has a reason to. You, on the other hand, cling to it being 83. And when it comes up that it's actually between 90 and 100, you for some reason cling to that because it makes you feel better. But when the scientist realizes that it's between 90 and 100, then he does, obviously, reject your idea that it is 83.

No, actually you have already eliminated the possibility of '83'. If you havent, then would you mind saying that there is a possibility that God started it all?

 

[Mumbo]

Really? So, are you saying God COULD have had something to do with it?

One'd have to be a pretty hardcore atheist to think otherwise. Until God is completely disproven, which may very well take awhile, there will always be the possibility of His involvement.

 

[Skaloop]

No, actually you have already eliminated the possibility of '83'. If you havent, then would you mind saying that there is a possibility that God started it all?

A possibility? Sure. One amongst an infinite number of possible supernatural explanations. None of them supported by evidence.

 

[Brennin]

Uh, no. The 98% and the 95% are measurements of different things. You can call either one the amount of genetic material in common if you like, because that description is not clearly defined. If you want to be rigorous, you have to specify exactly what it is you're measuring; the chimpanzee genome paper makes quite clear what the two measurements are and how they were done. If you have objections to the procedures described there, by all means raise them, but your objection here is as silly as complaining that you get different value for the radius of the earth if you measure it around the equator and around the poles.

The 87%, on the other hand, (if it's the measurement I think it is) is an estimate of the same quantity as the 95%. If differs from 95% because it was based on an extremely limited, biased sample of the genome, while the 95% value is based on virtually the entire genome. The 87% value therefore had a large uncertainty. Measurements with uncertainty are also rigorous (all measurements have uncertainty); the key is to remember that they're uncertain and not treat them as if they had small uncertainty, which is what you're doing here.

If you provide the citation I'll download the article through JSTOR.

 

[TheGnome]

I've been following this thread for awhile and I find it silly. I see the author of this thread deviated from his original claim. To get back on track, the original claim was that evolution is fatally flawed because a fossil of the species homo habilis was found in the same era and location that homo erectus has been found. This means that instead of habilis evolving into erectus, habilis and erectus share a common ancestor. The author of this thread used that as an example of how science can sometimes be wrong, and therefore science as a whole crumbles. I find that to be a mighty leap in logic, because it's not like we as individuals have never been wrong on a few small events in a story while the story itself is true.

To elaborate on this, let me tell a story. A few years ago, a friend of mine came out of a mall after we just ate from there, and were having a normal conversation. Since the both of us have rather dirty mouths, a rent-a-cop demanded that we do not curse in front of a lady. We were customers at that point, and we did not break any mall rule, and argued with him over it. At one point, I remember my friend making a joke that while he may not curse in front of a lady, he may beat his wife. He remembers me telling that joke, but I am positive that he was the one. Anyway, he goes to bother another rent-a-cop about our actions, and never comes back because we were paying customers not breaking any rules. The story is true, but a minor detail is not. My friend's memory with minute details like those tend to be worse than mine, so I'm going with my story since this isn't the first time he's screwed up minor details, but regardless of that minor detail, the story is true and the story is what counts. Here we have the same situation with the new evidence surrounding homo habilis, and the only thing it does is challenge the claim that erectus evolved from habilis, but it does nothing to challenge the claim that sapien evolved from erectus and that early in our evolutionary history, we evolved the australopithecines.

Another interest thing I see here is the argument of the first cause and where the burden of proof lies. The burden of proof lies to anyone who makes a positive claim. A positive claim is a claim that promotes the existence of something, not the nonexistence. There is much confusion among theists as to where the burden or proof belongs, but it makes no sense to place this burden on individuals who are not adding anything new to an explanation. It is very possible that a deity could have created the universe, but there is no evidence supporting this claim. This is a positive claim. We know this universe exists, and at one point there was a singularity. What is known before this? Nothing, and therefore it would be absurd to make any conclusions, like there being a deity to spark the universe or even that this universe was borne from another. They are interesting things to think about, but they are merely untested hypotheses. I maintain atheism until evidence suggests a deity exists, much in the same way I don't believe that aliens have arrived on the earth or ghosts.
​

 

[DMagoh]

Point out anywhere where I stated that "I can unequivocally say beyond the shadow of a doubt that no deity had anything to do anything"

I also never said I was positive that a god didn't do it. Anything, I suppose, is possible. Particularly when you start throwing omnipotent entities into the mix. ...As I said above, a "god" of some sort certainly could have created everything but I see no reason nor evidence to suggest that.

NOBODY in this thread has said God CANNOT have had anything to do with it...

One'd have to be a pretty hardcore atheist to think otherwise. Until God is completely disproven, which may very well take awhile, there will always be the possibility of His involvement.

A possibility? Sure. One amongst an infinite number of possible supernatural explanations. None of them supported by evidence.

Well, thank you guys. At least you can admit that God is a possibility. Granted, you dont think it's probable, but it is one possibility.

 

[Skaloop]

Well, thank you guys. At least you can admit that God is a possibility. Granted, you dont think it's probable, but it is one possibility.

Sure. Are you willing to admit that the big bang and evolution are possibilities? Are you willing to admit that it's possible that god was not involved, or that god does not exist?

 

[DMagoh]

I've been following this thread for awhile and I find it silly.​

I'm glad you have a sense of humor. I'm glad you didnt use words like 'ignorant' and 'stupid' like most atheists do when they are at a loss for words.​

I see the author of this thread deviated from his original claim.

​

That's because one of your atheist compadres asked a question that sent the thread in a different direction.​

it's not like we as individuals have never been wrong on a few small events in a story while the story itself is true...

To elaborate on this, let me tell a story... ​

Surely you jest. Maybe you understand physics, but you should bone up on making analogies.​

Another interest thing I see here is the argument of the first cause and where the burden of proof lies. The burden of proof lies to anyone who makes a positive claim. A positive claim is a claim that promotes the existence of something, not the nonexistence. There is much confusion among theists as to where the burden or proof belongs, but it makes no sense to place this burden on individuals who are not adding anything new to an explanation.

That would be true if I was trying to make a positive claim - which I wasnt. I was discussing a possibility, not a positive claim. All I was after was the admission that a deity was possible. If I tried to get someone to admit He definitely existed, then you would be right. Six atheists in this thread (if I include you) have admitted that it is a possibility (one of many).​

It is very possible that a deity could have created the universe...

​

And this is why I count you among the six.​

I maintain atheism until evidence suggests a deity exists, much in the same way I don't believe that aliens have arrived on the earth or ghosts.

​

The only problem with this practice is that IF you are wrong, you wont know until it's too late and you are standing before Him. It seems like, if it is a possibility, even a remote one, you would want to investigate it as much as possible, since a lot would be riding on it.

By that, I mean it looks like you would want to have serious discussions with Christians instead of patronizing ones where you immediately dismiss them with comments like "you're ignorant", and "do you still believe in Santa Claus too?". Talk with a Christian who doesnt just believe cause Mommie told me to. A Christian who believes because he has looked at various facts, situations, and events and made a decision. Anyway, just a thought.

​

(P.S. - Feel free to PM me anytime if you are interested in an intelligent discussion.)

 

[sfs]

If you provide the citation I'll download the article through JSTOR.

Nature 437:69-87 (Sep 2005)

 

[Elduran]

So.... are you saying God might exist?

I'm saying that as an agnostic atheist I'm open to the possibility should evidence come along. I think it's almost certain that a god doesn't exist, at least not one characterised by man in any of the various holy texts, but I am merely accepting the null hypothesis for all gods until evidence to support their existence is introduced. I strongly suspect that it never will.

The "multitudes of christians worldwide who accept evolution" do NOT accept atheistic evolution, and there is a HUGE difference. My questions do not even come into play, because Theistic evolution HAS an answer - God started it.

In this case you are demonstrating that you are looking at this problem from entirely the wrong perspective. Science looks at the evidence that exists, and comes to conclusions based on it. This is regardless of faith, it's practically the very definition of how science has to operate.

The evidence shows evolution. The evidence shows a big bang.

What came "before" the big bang is unknown to science. As such, more work is done in the cosmology field to see if we can glean further evidence, and in the quantum physics field for the same reason. Maybe some day we'll find more evidence that clues us in to the nature of reality a bit more.

One thing you can guarantee though is that no decent scientist will ever stop and say "well, I don't know what happened before this, therefore god did it". It's entirely unscientific, illogical and pointless as a claim, because it explains nothing and only leads to the further question of "well, where did god come from", invariably answered by "god is eternal and didn't need creating", which begs the question as to why energy couldn't fulfil the role of eternal necessity, or quantum foam, or something else we haven't yet discovered.

Strangely enough, theistic scientists do pretty much the same thing when researching into that field. They don't ever just conclude that "before" this event, god much have taken direct action.

Those that believe in atheistic evolution are who I am addressing, because THEY have a serious problem.

Only in your weird perspective of science do atheists have a serious problem.

There is no answer to the question.

Some of the questions you've been asking so far might not have an answer yet (while others have been just plain silly, like the conservation of matter one...), but that's not a problem to someone intellectually honest enough to realise that "I don't know yet" is a better answer than "<insert deity of choice> did it, end of story!"

Which is why when the question is asked, they get defensive and start calling people stupid and ignorant and doing the "superior dance".

When the question is asked politely by someone who has done their research, it's generally answered politely. You did neither. You charged on to this forum full of righteous arrogance, proclaimed that evolution was wrong, then abandoned that line when it became clear that you had completely misunderstood the article that you claimed was a problem for evolution, then you shot off on another tangent that you thought would be profitable and made some elementary mistakes there too. It's not so much a "superior dance" as trying to point out that what you think is crippling to atheists isn't, but doing so for the thousandth or more time. After that long it just gets a little trying. You're not the first creationist to come on here claiming to have some proof that evolution or the big bang didn't happen, and you're not even the most successful.

Really, you should learn a lot more about something you intend to debunk before you even try. It will help you out enormously.

It's all a distraction, but it doesnt work with me. I still want to know the answer. How do you explain the original matter/energy?

Call it eternal if you like. Makes more sense than an eternal god arbitrarily being called upon to solve the issues. At least we have proof that matter and energy actually exist.

In all seriousness, the answer is still "we don't know for sure", and that's fine. It's the way science works, always exploring the boundaries of knowledge. If we knew, what would be the point of looking into this issue any more?

 

[The Bellman]

I'm glad you have a sense of humor. I'm glad you didnt use words like 'ignorant' and 'stupid' like most atheists do when they are at a loss for words.​

Ad hominem - particularly sweeping derogatory generalisations about a group of people - doesn't help your cause. Nobody has called you stupid. I and others have called you ignorant, not because we are or were at a loss for words, but because on the subject of evolutionary theory you are ignorant. There's no shame in that - most people are. And all of us are ignorant about a huge amount of stuff. The shame lies in being ignorant about it and still arguing the point as if you know what you're talking about.

Really? So, are you saying God COULD have had something to do with it?

Of course a god COULD have had somehting to do with it. Your god, the muslims' god, the hindus' god, the IPU, any other god you can think of. The point is that there is no evidence that they did. The vast majority of atheists will happily concede this, showing that your claims about their position are completely bogus.​

 

[TheGnome]

Surely you jest. Maybe you understand physics, but you should bone up on making analogies.

My analogy was fine. Perhaps you should address the problem with the fallacy before hand waiving it away.

That would be true if I was trying to make a positive claim - which I wasnt. I was discussing a possibility, not a positive claim. All I was after was the admission that a deity was possible. If I tried to get someone to admit He definitely existed, then you would be right. Six atheists in this thread (if I include you) have admitted that it is a possibility (one of many).

I believe in the possibility of many things. I don't know what you're getting from us by having us admit God is a possibility. Gnomes are also a possibility and so is the invisible unicorn, but it's another thing to say they're probable. God is a positive claim, and that is why I don't believe in any deity without some extraordinary evidence.

The only problem with this practice is that IF you are wrong, you wont know until it's too late and you are standing before Him. It seems like, if it is a possibility, even a remote one, you would want to investigate it as much as possible, since a lot would be riding on it.

Here we have a problem. What if the real God rewards skepticism over blind faith? I'll go to heaven because I use the mind he created instead of completely put all my cards in a collection of books called the Bible. The problem with your explanation, which mirror's Pascal's wager, is that it assumes that there are only two options, the Christian heaven or hell options, or the nothingness option if one isn't a Christian. Surely there are more options than that, correct? Perhaps God does reward skepticism, or perhaps we'll be reincarnated. Maybe some old pagan religion is right and everyone on this planet is going to hell for not choosing the right gods.

It seems to me like I can't have all bases covered. Another issue with your wager is that I would have to fear hell, and therefore believe in hell for it to be even a deciding factor for me. I don't believe in hell, and I find it illogical for a hell to even exist. It makes no sense to have eternal punishment for the finite crime of disbelief. Does a deity so jealous deserve worship that someone who didn't even choose to be born goes to hell for not believing in a deity who never shows himself?

By that, I mean it looks like you would want to have serious discussions with Christians instead of patronizing ones where you immediately dismiss them with comments like "you're ignorant", and "do you still believe in Santa Claus too?". Talk with a Christian who doesnt just believe cause Mommie told me to. A Christian who believes because he has looked at various facts, situations, and events and made a decision. Anyway, just a thought.

I'm on their side, unfortunately for you. You're ignorant about human evolution. I mean, you could learn, but you choose to be ignorant. You took an article you didn't quite understand, and claimed it to be about something that it was not. People pointed this out to you, and yes, it is okay to be ignorant. However, instead of admitting ignorance and went on to read more about human evolution, you pretended that they were simply scared of the article.

The fact that you haven't taken it upon yourself to read up on the basics of evolution and the evidence surrounding it shows me that you're not looking for an honest, intellectual discussion. I'd have more faith in you if you admitted that you didn't fully understand the article, which is perfectly okay. There are plenty of things I've read that I didn't understand at the time because I was ignorant, but the key here is to do more reading.
​

 

[Logic_Fault]

That would be true if I was trying to make a positive claim - which I wasnt. I was discussing a possibility, not a positive claim.

From your post here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37514454&postcount=72

"You dont know. So, it could be a supernatural being. Either way, something supernatural had to happen, or it violates science's law regarding the creation of matter."

Sounds to me like you're making a positive claim.

All I was after was the admission that a deity was possible. If I tried to get someone to admit He definitely existed, then you would be right. Six atheists in this thread (if I include you) have admitted that it is a possibility (one of many).

And now, since you haven't any more idea of atheism than you do of evolution or cosmology, you think you've won something, right?

The only problem with this practice is that IF you are wrong, you wont know until it's too late and you are standing before Him. It seems like, if it is a possibility, even a remote one, you would want to investigate it as much as possible, since a lot would be riding on it.

That's awful close to being a Pascal's Wagerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager. I hope you weren't planning on dragging that one out too.

Why is it you think we haven't "investigated" any of this?

By that, I mean it looks like you would want to have serious discussions with Christians instead of patronizing ones where you immediately dismiss them with comments like "you're ignorant", and "do you still believe in Santa Claus too?".

I find the comparison of gods to Santa Claus to be an effective one in pointing out various things to theists. Perhaps not the best example that could be used but it has it's place.

Telling someone they're ignorant of a subject is not intended to be insulting. It's to let them know that they need to brush up on a few things before they go spouting off and trying to tear down a theory that's withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny for nearly 150 years.

Talk with a Christian who doesnt just believe cause Mommie told me to. A Christian who believes because he has looked at various facts, situations, and events and made a decision. Anyway, just a thought.

I haven't met one yet. They tend to believe because they were brought up that way and never questioned it or because of some subjective "evidence" like a nebulous "feeling." Warm fuzzy feelings are subjective evidence. Seeing "signs" or "visions" is subjective evidence. Anecdotes about how you used to be a baby eating heathen and then "found the Lord" are anecdotal evidence.

Real evidence is objective. Actual claims that can be backed by supportive evidence found outside of the Bible. As far as I'm aware, there is none that verifies Christian claims. Given that, it would be pretty difficult for any Christian to have come to the religion by looking at any facts that point to it's truthfulness.

 

[Loudmouth]

Except it doesnt matter whether it's matter or energy - it had to come from somewhere. So where??????

Don't know.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since you dont know how the universe started, and there is no explanation for how it could have possibly happened, how do you KNOW God did not start it? You say you dont have any evidence to support that God exists, but you also dont have any proof that He doesnt exist.

You do not have any evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, nor Zeus, Thor, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Vishnu, and thousands of other names that humans have uttered. I just happen to disbelieve in one more god than you do. Why does that make me wrong?

If there is evidence that a suepernatural deity started the universe I will go along with the evidence. Until then, I will keep looking for evidence and follow that evidence where ever it leads. Shaming me into believing in your God will not work. Evidence will. Replacing our ignorance with your god is not impressing me. I prefer our ignorance over make believe.