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

[Super_Rational]

Reminds me of how others on this thread have failed to comply with this set thinking.

I would assume you aren't talking about me. I'm well-aware of many, if not most, of the creationists' canned arguments & "research." But it is difficult to discuss scientific topics with someone he refuses to read them. I generally don't care if someone doesn't believe the science. They're entitled to believe whatever they want. However, I do care that understand it.

 

[JGG]

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

I can't help but chuckle at this part at the bottom (because I'm just staring at it as I reply) about ears and hearing aids:

"If we all evolved from the same living organism, how come we as humans at the top of the Evolutionary Scale, Need hearing aids? How come we have less hearing capabilities than that of other animals?"

Anyway, my point is that in order to start making criticisms like this (and your bit about the eye above), it really makes a huge difference if you understand what you're talking about. Its far more productive to criticize evolution if you understand how it works. You clearly do not.

Firstly, most of your arguments are quickly reduced to "everything is so complex, it's hard to believe." This is simply an argument from personal incredulence.

The problem with the rest of your arguments is that you don't seem to get that we are not "more evolved" than other animals. These other animals have adapted as they haved needed to in order to survive in their environment.

 

[2 King]

I have a question for you. If thousands and thousands of generations of bacteria yield only bacteria, how many generations would it have taken for a fish to become an amphibian?

 

[Rasta]

I have a question for you. If thousands and thousands of generations of bacteria yield only bacteria, how many generations would it have taken for a fish to become an amphibian?

Non sequiter.

Why do humans have a tail bone?

 

[2 King]

Non sequiter

Yeah it can't be answered because no one can answer it.

Why do humans have a tail bone?

I'm not experienced in this field. Human reasoning and being an Agnostic theist who believed in Theistic evolution for 1 year would tell me that we are related to apes.

But this dosen't seem to coincide with the fact that the human embryo has gill slits.

That is to say, if you recall the White Paper

 

[JGG]

Yeah it can't be answered because no one can answer it.


I'm not experienced in this field. Human reasoning and being an Agnostic theist who believed in Theistic evolution for 1 year would tell me that we are related to apes.

But this dosen't seem to coincide with the fact that the human embryo has gill slits.

That is to say, if you recall the White Paper

Do other ape embryos have gill slits?

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I can't help but chuckle at this part at the bottom (because I'm just staring at it as I reply) about ears and hearing aids:

"If we all evolved from the same living organism, how come we as humans at the top of the Evolutionary Scale, Need hearing aids? How come we have less hearing capabilities than that of other animals?"

Anyway, my point is that in order to start making criticisms like this (and your bit about the eye above), it really makes a huge difference if you understand what you're talking about. Its far more productive to criticize evolution if you understand how it works. You clearly do not.

Firstly, most of your arguments are quickly reduced to "everything is so complex, it's hard to believe." This is simply an argument from personal incredulence.

The problem with the rest of your arguments is that you don't seem to get that we are not "more evolved" than other animals. These other animals have adapted as they haved needed to in order to survive in their environment.

I know how evolution works, I have read the theories, the one about the eye, is soo unlogical, anything to save the theory of Evolution, they make something up that can make people believe by persuasion.

 

[2 King]

Do other ape embryos have gill slits?

Hell if I know.

All I know is that the "White Paper" is a fairy tale for adults.

 

[Super_Rational]

Yeah it can't be answered because no one can answer it.

...or b/c it's not even a valid question. You don't have anything here that would even stump a bio 101 student. Your question just reveals you know nothing about what you're asking. Why does bacteria have to evolve into something else? Why would certain populations of fishes have to evolve into something else? If they are well-suited to their environment, then large evolutionary changes are not always necessary. Many bacteria are still well-suited to their environments. Simple, right?

 

[Rasta]

Yeah it can't be answered because no one can answer it.

It doesn't follow from your assumption. It's like asking: "If oranges are round, how come apples are red?"

A better question to ask is: "How did fish become amphibians?" This has an answer: Information and facts on the evolution of amphibians.

I'm not experienced in this field. Human reasoning and being an Agnostic theist who believed in Theistic evolution for 1 year would tell me that we are related to apes.

But this dosen't seem to coincide with the fact that the human embryo has gill slits.

Why? Mammals share a common ancestor with all other mammals. This proto-mammal came from reptillian decent. Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[2 King]

...or b/c it's not even a valid question. You don't have anything here that would even stump a bio 101 student. Your question just reveals you know nothing about what you're asking. Why does bacteria have to evolve into something else? Why would certain populations of fishes have to evolve into something else? If they are well-suited to their environment, then large evolutionary changes are not always necessary. Many bacteria are still well-suited to their environments. Simple, right?

No, it's a valid question...I know what I'm talking about. Biotic statis. Mutations vary around a mean, or a norm; they do not take off into left field creating whole new things. In hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria they are.......still bacteria

Can't you just say, "I honestly don't know" instead of beating around the bush?

It doesn't follow from your assumption. It's like asking: "If oranges are round, how come apples are red?"

A better question to ask is: "How did fish become amphibians?" This has an answer: Information and facts on the evolution of amphibians.



Why? Mammals share a common ancestor with all other mammals. This proto-mammal came from reptillian decent. Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok.

Time to go through the process. Let's run through it.
Is it possible that invisible pink unicorns exist?

 

[Super_Rational]

I know how evolution works, I have read the theories,

Then prove it by providing a reasonable, well-informed argument for once. If you are unable to understand how an eye can evolve (which can be reduced to rather simple selection), then that tells someone like me that you in fact do not understand evolution.

the one about the eye, is soo unlogical, anything to save the theory of Evolution, they make something up that can make people believe by persuasion.

You've been reading too many creationist sites. Now quit parroting arguments from other sites that have been refuted over & over & post some real science.

 

[Super_Rational]

No, it's a valid question...I know what I'm talking about. Biotic statis. Mutations vary around a mean, or a norm; they do not take off into left field creating whole new things. In hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria they are.......still bacteria

Can't you just say, "I honestly don't know" instead of beating around the bush?

Great, you can google for biological terms. But no, tell me why something has to evolve considerably if there is little pressure to do so. You don't get it, do you? According to wacko creationist ideas, things must evolve (& at extremely impossible leaps) or else evolution is all a scam. Btw, you saying that you know what you're talking about does not make it so. Are you saying you should expect fish to evolve directly into amphibians seen today? You do not realize the small changes that accumulate over extremely large periods of time.

I've got a suggestion for you. Since you are not satisfied with the answers here, how about you take your question to a local college or university where the experts are. Maybe even ask these questions in one of the many departmental seminars that you are certainly welcome to attend.

 

[2 King]

Great, you can google for biological terms. But no, tell me why something has to evolve considerably if there is little pressure to do so. You don't get it, do you? According to wacko creationist ideas, things must evolve (& at extremely impossible leaps) or else evolution is all a scam. Btw, you saying that you know what you're talking about does not make it so. Are you saying you should expect fish to evolve directly into amphibians seen today? You do not realize the small changes that accumulate over extremely large periods of time.

All of this applies directly to perspective. To suggest that there was something before nothing suggests that there is a God. Microbologists can believe invisible matter is God.
Actually, scientists nowadays are trying to prove the existence of God with a great underground project in Germany. I think it has something to do with Dark matter and the "God Particle".

I am not saying I expect fish to evolve into amphibians in a short period of time. I'm posing wheter the theory of evolution is really anything more than a theory...You fail obviously, to see that bacteria, is....well....it's bacteria still. Unless you'd go as far as to say, we are all made of bacteria, well that would totally re-define a lot of things. To suggest that bacteria of the millions upon billions of years formed into life is pure specualation and is truly false. If that's the best they can come up with now we all might as well move over to the creationist side of the fence.

Look at the human for example. Pure uniqueness. Yes I've read the replies as to why and the fallicious websites posted. We have moral accountability, have a sense of planning the future, and the ability to communicate abstract ideas via abstract symbols. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

 

[Rasta]

Ok.

Time to go through the process. Let's run through it.
Is it possible that invisible pink unicorns exist?

If god is a possibility, I see no reason to exclude invisible pink unicorns.

 

[2 King]

If god is a possibility, I see no reason to exclude invisible pink unicorns.

Is it possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter?

 

[sidhe]

All of this applies directly to perspective. To suggest that there was something before nothing suggests that there is a God. Microbologists can believe invisible matter is God.
Actually, scientists nowadays are trying to prove the existence of God with a great underground project in Germany. I think it has something to do with Dark matter and the "God Particle".

I've just been following this silently, but the Large Hadron Collider (apart from, disappointingly, not opening a gate to hell and causing an Event Horizon like catastrophe) is not to prove the existence of any deity...the Higgs-Boson particle is a theoretical particle which explains why objects have mass, not "the existence of God".

I am not saying I expect fish to evolve into amphibians in a short period of time. I'm posing wheter the theory of evolution is really anything more than a theory...You fail obviously, to see that bacteria, is....well....it's bacteria still. Unless you'd go as far as to say, we are all made of bacteria, well that would totally re-define a lot of things. To suggest that bacteria of the millions upon billions of years formed into life is pure specualation and is truly false. If that's the best they can come up with now we all might as well move over to the creationist side of the fence.

Gravity is also only a theory. Remember that.

See, in the scientific world, "theory" is what the rest of us call "fact", and "law" is what the rest of us call "obvious". You're thinking of a theory as a "hypothesis". Not the same thing at all.

 

[Rasta]

All of this applies directly to perspective. To suggest that there was something before nothing suggests that there is a God. Microbologists can believe invisible matter is God.
Actually, scientists nowadays are trying to prove the existence of God with a great underground project in Germany. I think it has something to do with Dark matter and the "God Particle".

I see no reason to conclude knowledge based on the absense of knowledge. I think that's a downright silly position to hold.

I am not saying I expect fish to evolve into amphibians in a short period of time. I'm posing wheter the theory of evolution is really anything more than a theory...

I posted something yesterday, that if read, would have answered this question. Heck, here it is again: Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You fail obviously, to see that bacteria, is....well....it's bacteria still.

No. That's easy to understand. What you apparently don't understand is how natural selection works.

To suggest that bacteria of the millions upon billions of years formed into life is pure specualation and is truly false.

What is this based on? Belief or facts?

If that's the best they can come up with now we all might as well move over to the creationist side of the fence.

Who is stopping you? Go for it. I love it when religions make claims that pertain to physical reality. It shows their true colors, and the legitimacy of their source.

Look at the human for example. Pure uniqueness. Yes I've read the replies as to why and the fallicious websites posted. We have moral accountability, have a sense of planning the future, and the ability to communicate abstract ideas via abstract symbols. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Every animal is unique in their own way. Including the animal called human.

 

[Rasta]

Is it possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter?

If it is operated by god or invisible pink unicorns, sure.

 

[2 King]

I've just been following this silently, but the Large Hadron Collider (apart from, disappointingly, not opening a gate to hell and causing an Event Horizon like catastrophe) is not to prove the existence of any deity...the Higgs-Boson particle is a theoretical particle which explains why objects have mass, not "the existence of God".

True, but in the article I read on National Geographic or something like that, One of the motives specifically included "Proving that there is a deity". Or maybe it wasn't a motive but rather an extra as in, "With this research we could potentially prove the existence of God."

Gravity is also only a theory. Remember that.

See, in the scientific world, "theory" is what the rest of us call "fact", and "law" is what the rest of us call "obvious". You're thinking of a theory as a "hypothesis". Not the same thing at all.

Yes, our views on the word theory is different. Why not just call it a fact? because they risk their accountability and dignity. If they have risk, they call it a theory. I personally don't know of anyone who dosen't believe in gravity. After all, their science is better at proving gravity over proving evolution in a micro-biological POV.