• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

Status
Not open for further replies.

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Yeah whatever.

This is what happens when you try to argue facts based on beliefs, rather than beliefs based on facts.


Actually can you define the word "Facts" for me? Plus, For something to be a Fact like the Existence of Air, That is a "Fact" this is 100% surity that air is real because it is what we breathe and we know it is a fact because it's here, Well how do we know that Evolution with the origins of Life is the correct view?

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]



I also have some other questions to ask you all, but, I have taken Biology class, So don't say I do not know anything about evolution. But, The human brain is connected to your spinal cord, and The brain has three parts 1. Forebrain 2. Midbrain 3. Hindbrain but the Cortex is the largest part of the brain which gives us the ability to think and do actions and is divided into four sections; 1. The Frontal Lobe 2. The Parietal Lobe 3. The Occipital Lobe 4. The Temporal Lobe. Now each one of these has there specific ability according to each of the Lobes.



--The Frontal Lobe is associated with reasoning, problem solving, movement, planning, parts of speech and emotions.
--The Parietal Lobe is associated movement, orientation, recognition, and perception of stimuli.
--The Occipital Lobe is associated with visual processing.
--The Temporal Lobe is associated with perception and recognition of auditory stimuli, speech and memory.


As we see above that the brain is very complex and made up of many different complex systems, in which the Brain is the most complex organ in the body. As we see from above against that with the Occipital Lobe the brain is connected to the eye, and Why is this? This is so we can perceive what we are seeing and react to it. We have a brain to let us know things by knowledge and memory that comes from the Temporal Lobe, So the Temporal Lobe works together with the Occipital Lobe so that we may have knowledge of many different things like the Functions of the Frontal Love and the Parietal Lobe. All of these Lobes work together in order to make the Life of one Human being work correctly therefore that person is able to Walk, Talk, Feel, Think, Feel Emotions, Feel Physical Attributes, Etc...Now lets talk about the occipital Lobe, The brain is connected to the eye by the Optic Nerve, This is so that we are able to perceive what we see, Like if we see a Bear running toward us and we hear it running so we look up and see it, The Eye will see that bear, the information that you have obtained through memory from the Temporal Lobe lets your brain know that you have just seen a bear and it is running toward you, and your brain releases this knowledge throughout body and will release certain toxins in your body to make you run faster, jump higher, etc.. These toxins are called endorphins, which can be acted as Adrenaline. But there are also different functions of the eye other than percieving through the brain. As the person looked up, that person had to focus on that bear in order to perceive that it was a bear. In order to focus in with the eyes of a human being, The Front part of the Choroid has two parts to it. 1. The ciliary body which is a muscular area attached to the lens of the eye, it contracts and relaxes to control the size of the lens for "focusing". 2. Iris is the colored part of the eye that has a adjustable diaphragm. The Iris has two muscles (1.The Dilator muscle which makes the Iris smaller and the pupil bigger which allows more light into the eye. 2. The Sphincter muscle makes the Iris bigger and the pupil smaller, allowing less light into the eye. Which leads me to my next point. The retina is the light-sensing portion of the eye that contains Rods and Cones. One for Light and one for darkness. The cones are sensitive to light and allow us to see greater color and clearer images. The rods are sensitive to low areas of light but have a longer time to adjust since were used to light more than darkness. The pupil size can differ from 2mm to 8mm, this means that the eye can change the amount of light by 30 times.


The chemical called, "Rhodopsin" which converts light into electrical impulses that the brain interprets as vision, Thus you can see the bear and know what it is.



Medial rectus - moves eye toward nose
Lateral rectus - moves eye away from nose
Superior rectus - raises eye
Inferior rectus - lowers eye
Superior oblique - rotates eye
Inferior oblique - rotates eye


These muscles here are attached to the eyes so that the eyes can move in all directions therefore yielding us to see more light. (Yielding = Producing).


Looking through the eyes of a human being, they are like a camera 24/7 when your awake. As you go around and about your life, The lenses are changing the size according to the amount of light perceived through the cornea then the aqueous humor then the lens and vitreous humor then it hits the retina and the rods and cones, when the light contacts these two structures very complex chemical reactions occurs and the chemical formed out of these reactions is Rhodopsin that creates electrical impulses in the optic nerve to the brain. Rhodopsin is a mixture of 11-cis-retinal and scotopsin. As Rhodopsin decomposes by the light entering the eye, activated Rhopopsin is also called Metarhodosin 2, which causes those electrical impulses to happen.


Electrical Impulses:



  1. The cell membrane (outer layer) of a rod cell has an electric charge. When light activates rhodopsin, it causes a reduction in cyclic GMP, which causes this electric charge to increase. This produces an electric current along the cell. When more light is detected, more rhodopsin is activated and more electric current is produced.
  2. This electric impulse eventually reaches a ganglion cell, and then the optic nerve.
  3. The nerves reach the optic chasm, where the nerve fibers from the inside half of each retina cross to the other side of the brain, but the nerve fibers from the outside half of the retina stay on the same side of the brain.
  4. These fibers eventually reach the back of the brain (Occipital Lobe). This is where vision is interpreted and is called the primary visual cortex. Some of the visual fibers go to other parts of the brain to help to control eye movements, response of the pupils and iris, and behavior.
Now this is my point as a whole, The human brain and eyes are very complex. Now just remember of all the complexity of the animals at the same time, because they have different eyes than ours, and far better. Which I will indeed post some later on that topic.

But don't worry about the complexity of our minds and eyes, It all just came from the starting Chemicals of the earth that caused the "first" single-celled organism that evolved over time into what we are today. Don't worry the 127 million photovoltaic receptors we have that convert light into electricity and transmitted along one million nerves to the 1% of the cortex is just existing without a creator because it exists to just exist.



How could chance, acting with one gene at a time, start with a sightless organism and produce an eye with so many interdependent precision parts? The retina would be useless without a lens; a lens would be useless without a retina.
Paley asks,
"Is it possible to believe that the eye was formed without any regard to vision; that it was the animal itself which found out that, although formed with no such intention, it would serve to see with?"
"...There cannot be design without a designer, contrivance without a contriver...The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person must have been God."
Darwin himself suggested the complexities of the human eye negate his own theory of evolution







 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 King
Upvote 0

Rasta

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2007
6,274
184
42
✟29,944.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Actually can you define the word "Facts" for me?

Yes I can. "Knowledge or information based on real occurances."

Plus, For something to be a Fact like the Existence of Air, That is a "Fact" this is 100% surity that air is real because it is what we breathe and we know it is a fact because it's here, Well how do we know that Evolution with the origins of Life is the correct view?

Read it all.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How could chance, acting with one gene at a time, start with a sightless organism and produce an eye with so many interdependent precision parts?

The first real question. The answer is natural selection.

"Is it possible to believe that the eye was formed without any regard to vision; that it was the animal itself which found out that, although formed with no such intention, it would serve to see with?"

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

"...There cannot be design without a designer, contrivance without a contriver...The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person must have been God."

You know, it is possible to believe in god and evolution. You know this right?
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Yes I can. "Knowledge or information based on real occurances."



Read it all.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The first real question. The answer is natural selection.



Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye



You know, it is possible to believe in god and evolution. You know this right?


Yes it is possible, but for me no, why? because Evolution is wrong, Creation is correct, Evolution of the eye is impossible, it is to complex, It does not matter how evolution states how it evolved. It matters who designed it with its complexity.
 
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟65,945.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Yes it is possible, but for me no, why? because Evolution is wrong, Creation is correct, Evolution of the eye is impossible, it is to complex, It does not matter how evolution states how it evolved. It matters who designed it with its complexity.

"I reject your reality...and substitute my own."
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Okay well, JGG, You do that.

Evolution of the eye theory is so stupid, No evolution can happen to the Human eye. Anything that can disprove Darwin's beliefs, Evolutionists must find a way that it evolved or that would be a main conflict between creation and evolution, I say this Evolution of the is just a rescuing device to save the presumptions of evolution. Evolutionists have no evidence of evolution of the human eye, and the Human brain itself is more complex than the complexity of eyes of animals and humans put together. Evolution cannot account for evolution of the brain, Our brain has not changed in the past 3,000 years than it did in the 3000 years before that, We have the same eyes as we did 3000 years ago, they have not changed not even slightly. If so, Show me the evidence of our eyes changing. (Wait) Hold it!

On Your Mark! Get Set! GO!

I know you guys are going to search like crazy to find anything you can to prove your presupposition of beliefs based upon other scientists work.
 
Upvote 0

Penumbra

Traveler
Dec 3, 2008
2,658
135
United States
✟26,036.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
I meant nothing to lose in comparison to something infinite. Sorry, that wasn't clear in my wording. Regardless, I'm still saying that Pascal is dead wrong about that.

IMO, the point about more than two options (atheism and Christianity) is only a minor flaw in his argument compared to the integrity issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark
I don't think it was an integrity issue for Pascal. The way the argument is used online, and with today's collection of knowledge available, then I would agree there is an integrity issue there. But I think Pascal himself had a lot of integrity and I don't think the argument put forth at the time was an attack on integrity.

I mean, it's the mid-1600s. No Mendel, no Darwin. Newton was alive but had not yet developed his scientific framework, being younger than Pascal. No atomic theory. Astronomy was mostly limited to the solar system. Before Pascal and Torricelli figured it out, nobody even had much of a clue about how the atmosphere functions. No significant knowledge of modern psychology. Cheap, mass-printed books available for an hour's wages were not available, so everyday people couldn't just decide to learn about other religions. Obviously no radio, tv, or internet for sharing ideas.

Taking the collection of knowledge as a whole, arguments for atheism would have been very lacking compared to what knowledge is known today. Pascal himself is quoted as saying that by being an atheist, one demonstrates that he has a healthy and active mind, but only to an extent. He felt that reason pointed to god. In addition, he believed he had two personal experiences with the divine, so it wasn't much faith for him.

Pascal studied science when his religious group said he should not. He laid the groundwork for our understanding of the atmosphere and for the field of probability. Most importantly integrity-wise, he anonymously wrote a series of witty/humorous letters to the French public discrediting the Catholic Church in a time when he could have been killed for that, and was eventually found out. I think his character and life work were very much full of integrity, and I don't think his wager, when taken in full context of how he meant it, reduced integrity. It seems that his character is often judged by what we know today, instead of by what was available to be known then.

-Lyn
 
Upvote 0
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟15,360.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes it is possible, but for me no, why? because Evolution is wrong, Creation is correct, Evolution of the eye is impossible, it is to complex, It does not matter how evolution states how it evolved. It matters who designed it with its complexity.

Guess you can't argue with that. I'm convinced.

No, seriously. This has been refuted/discussed over & over. Do you even at least google for counter arguments first?
 
Upvote 0
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟15,360.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I know you guys are going to search like crazy to find anything you can to prove your presupposition of beliefs based upon other scientists work.

I'm not going to search for anything. That's your job, and you failed at it. But you don't search for explanations, you search for that one sentence that you think makes science look stupid. Then you gloat & go on about how dumb you think scientists are. Again, your examples been discussed in extreme detail.

I don't believe that you've taken any respectable biology course above high school. Flunking out/sleeping through it doesn't count, either.
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not going to search for anything. That's your job, and you failed at it. But you don't search for explanations, you search for that one sentence that you think makes science look stupid. Then you gloat & go on about how dumb you think scientists are. Again, your examples been discussed in extreme detail.

I don't believe that you've taken any respectable biology course above high school. Flunking out/sleeping through it doesn't count, either.



How about we go back to the argument i posed about the complexity of the eye?

No I did not flunk, I have a 4.05 G.P.A, I take school seriously Rational.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟15,360.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How about we go back to the argument i posed about the complexity of the eye?

Go ahead & go back to it if you want. But I'm not going to rewrite what is readily available by a simple google search. Do your research.

No I did not flunk, I have a 4.05 G.P.A, I take school seriously Rational.

That's good that you take school seriously. Great actually. But your knowledge of anything science says otherwise. For that, I give you an F-. If you are young, then that is understandable, but it doesn't necessarily give you an excuse to ignore all the science easily available & to cherry-pick against arguments that don't agree with creationism...especially when it's pointed out over, & over, & over.
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
lol, I am not even going to post anything about me doing research, lol. I am not going to say what I ought to say, haha. Just have a nice day tomorrow Rational, I mean since it is just a Chemically Reaction Active day made of nothing but evolving organisms. lol. Oh and that is not what I was going to say about you but oh well.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟15,360.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
lol, I am not even going to post anything about me doing research, lol.

There would be nothing to post, anyway.

I am not going to say what I ought to say, haha.

Then why say that you're not going to say what you ought to say? You're not going to offend me at all, just maybe everyone's common sense.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 10, 2009
648
25
✟23,430.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Ah. Wings of Eagles. Helping the evolutionists gain ground with every post.

The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten.
Oh man that is just white washing SO much history. Everything is definitely set more or less in stone by around 450 A.D. Before that you've got the canonization process, a lot of non-canon books that are on the cutting room floor, different languages, and each book has it's own history about when it was written and how old the oldest discovered copy is, and who plagiarized who. Then you have the old testament, or the Hebrew Bible as it were. And this is the really REALLY important bit I want to stress: The old testament was very fluid. If you think "The Bible" popped into existence and has never changed then you're shortchanging yourself a rich bit of history.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't think it was an integrity issue for Pascal. The way the argument is used online, and with today's collection of knowledge available, then I would agree there is an integrity issue there. But I think Pascal himself had a lot of integrity and I don't think the argument put forth at the time was an attack on integrity.

You misunderstand me. I'm not accusing Pascal of a character flaw. I'm not saying that he personally lacked integrity. I'm saying that his wager fails to account for the idea that an atheist's integrity may effectively have "infinite" value for her, which botches the structure of his wager.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟65,945.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Okay well, JGG, You do that.

Wow, really great quotes are really lost on some people

Evolution of the eye theory is so stupid, No evolution can happen to the Human eye.

Ummm...why not?

Anything that can disprove Darwin's beliefs, Evolutionists must find a way that it evolved or that would be a main conflict between creation and evolution, I say this Evolution of the is just a rescuing device to save the presumptions of evolution.

Sure, when you say it like that it sounds bad, however, that's how science works. If someone challenges a theory with new information, the theory must somehow explain that information, or the theory must be discarded. You saying that the eye disproves evolution is simply a challenge (or was a challenge 250 years ago) to show how evolution has worked upon the eye. And whadaya know? It did! Discarding a perfectly workable theory because you don't like it would be dumb.

Evolutionists have no evidence of evolution of the human eye

Firstly, the human eye itself may not have evolved much at all, and the trick of evolution is, that we don't concern ourselves with the human eye, but the eye itself. Realistically, I don't like Wikipedia for scientific information, but since you're obviously starting at the bottom, here's the page for evolution of the eye so you can familiarize yourself with the basics.

...and the Human brain itself is more complex than the complexity of eyes of animals and humans put together. Evolution cannot account for evolution of the brain

Oh, I think it can. Luckily, I'm a psychologist, so before you start claiming that brain could not have evolved, you might want to be sure that you have a pretty good idea of what we actually know about how the brain works.

I tell you what, here's another WikiPage on the hippocampus (a very important part of the brain, and the one that I tend to be most involved with), with a section on how it evolved. It's difficult to look at how the entire brain evolved because it is so complex. So we look at how each section evolved.

Our brain has not changed in the past 3,000 years than it did in the 3000 years before that, We have the same eyes as we did 3000 years ago, they have not changed not even slightly. If so, Show me the evidence of our eyes changing. (Wait) Hold it!

3000 years? If our eyes have been serving us well for those past 3000 years, then no, they probably haven't evolved much at all. What development would have occurred where we would need to adapt our eyes? Evolution works on the millions of years scale.

I know you guys are going to search like crazy to find anything you can to prove your presupposition of beliefs based upon other scientists work.

Yeah, I'm not doing anything too crazy. Wikipedia is a good starting point for you. Its where we all have to start out. And of course I'm going to use other scientists' work. My own research is somewhat irrelevant to your question. And for the record, I'm sure that the E&C section is still available here, take your conversation there.
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
33
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟24,383.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Evolution works on the millions of years scale.


Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of changes of processes in the past were the same in the past as we observe today, this is called the principle of uniformitarianism.

(Note: Evolution use this biblical creation principle in order to do any science whatsoever because this precondition of intelligibility is only senseable in a biblical creation worldview not evolutionary worldview.)


The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.


<snipped by staff>

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth and the Universe
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Rasta

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2007
6,274
184
42
✟29,944.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Yes it is possible, but for me no, why? because Evolution is wrong, Creation is correct, Evolution of the eye is impossible, it is to complex, It does not matter how evolution states how it evolved. It matters who designed it with its complexity.

Why do you ask questions if you are not interested in answers?
 
Upvote 0
Jul 2, 2009
198
7
Portland, OR
✟15,360.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
<staff edit>

Now in regards to scientific research, creation sites, especially those that have "creation ministries" in the title, aren't going to win you many supporters or converts who know how biased, scientifically illiterate, & downright dishonest creation sites can be, and often are.

The site you plagiarized from has no scientific credibility in the real world. In other words, they, or their writers, don't contribute anything useful to the scientific world. I also hope this is not how you do your school assignments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.