A Question for Atheists

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A Question for Atheists

 Since many of you revel in your perceived rational superiority when compared to theists please answer the following question: How does nothing produce something?

To me its seems more rational to hold theist views on creation. We at least have an answer. Now, many will not accept any notion of creation but its the only logical conclusion. Give me your answer to the question and many will see the irrationality of your explanations. Before you counter with the inevitable "Who created God" argument I'll oblige with an answer..... God did as he exists beyond our human perceptions of reality. If he was subject to the limitations in human reasoning he wouldn't be God. So try as you might to answer the question and be thorough. For example, don't just say the Big Bang. Explain how the matter formed out of nothing before the explosion. I look forward to the ridiculous explanations that make a mockery of this web site's name. William of Occam was correct.... the simplest explanation for creation is God.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Coming in late here

Well there are a few problems with the god answer, where did god comes from? Who/what created god? If this universe and everything in it could not have occured naturally and requires and intelligent being, then that intelligent being requires and even more intelligent being to be created.

As for the origin of the universe there are various hypothesis beyond the big bang theory, quantum flux, loop quantum gravity, etc, etc, etc, etc. However, given the most common answer to the above question, why can't energy/matter have always been in some form or another? I mean if god can always have been, the same applies to energy, and even more so energy is a far more simple answer than a more complex god.

As for my reason for not believing in a god of any sorts, no evidence at all that one or any of them exist. Zip, zero nada.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:To me its

scuppers wrote:

To me its seems more rational to hold theist views on creation. We at least have an answer.

 

That's fair enough... you believe as you do because you are in want of an answer... except it is a bit of an unsatisfactory "answer" for the inquiring mind, since it seems to have not much more substance than any other assumption which is neither provable, testable or possible to corroborate in any other way than the subjective and emotional method of "faith" and the constant, interpersonal validation thereof throgh "talking about it".

You say you have an answer. But what is the question?

I, for one, think the human being a little limited in our capacity for ever fully understanding Life, The Universe and Everything. Saying that "God did it" is just retarded. It is bedtime stories for anxious children who can and will shoot off more questions than ten wise men can answer in a day. What I am not getting here is what is so wrong with admitting that we don't know.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
 You are not defending your

 You are not defending your faith very well. And you are being extremely closed minded to anyone else's answers. Saying I don't know isn't good enough? That is the most honest thing a person could say. And it takes great humility to admit it. It was one of the most humbling experiences of my life when I admitted I may possibly be wrong about my faith. As far as origins go, there is no way to know what happened before the singularity. But that just leaves endless possibilities. I have thought of many things such as we (the universe) could be some sort of huge experiment. Who knows. But I like to think like this. Lets assume we know 1% of everything to know about the universe, (that is claiming a lot). Just think about how much we don't know. So to assume one very specific possibility is arrogant and intellectual suicide. Especially if you lack real evidence. Old stories that have been passed down are not good enough for me. 

I think one of the biggest flawed assumptions that religious types make is that we are a perfect species, our world is too perfect to be an accident. Yes, our planet is perfect for our carbon based life, but just look at how big the universe is. Of course you should get at least one place that is perfect. Also assuming that humans are perfect is flawed as well. We breath and eat through the same hole. You know how many people choke to death every year? If there was a deity intelligent enough to create something as complex as our brains, he should have caught the choking to death thing. 

I could type all day about this, but I don't even know if you are willing to consider other possibilities. 

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
 Let me rephrase the

 Let me rephrase the question since you guys can't give me an Let me rephrase the question since you guys can't give me an answer. Why is believing in a creator irrational? Don't give me that mumbo jumbo indoctrination falsehood cause I was raised an atheist.. Why is believing in a creator irrational? Don't give me that mumbo jumbo indoctrination falsehood cause I was raised an atheist.

 

I think considering a creator/designer is not irrational, to consider it the only possibility is. 

 

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Dude, there is a cat in your

marshalltenbears wrote:
Let me rephrase the question since you guys can't give me an Let me rephrase the question since you guys can't give me an answer. Why is believing in a creator irrational? Don't give me that mumbo jumbo indoctrination falsehood cause I was raised an atheist.. Why is believing in a creator irrational? Don't give me that mumbo jumbo indoctrination falsehood cause I was raised an atheist.

 

Dude, there's a cat in your Matrix...

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Ratdog,

scuppers wrote:

 Ratdog, historical and anthropological study is what led me to believe in God. Once I advanced into the upper thresholds of those fields I realized things didn't add up.

In other words, the poster does not have advanced degrees in physics, astrophysics, or any other field that qualifies him to speculate on the origins of the universe.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
 Sorry, I was trying to

 Sorry, I was trying to quote that section that he wrote. Guess I did it wrong.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Well there

latincanuck wrote:

Well there are a few problems with the god answer, where did god comes from? Who/what created god? If this universe and everything in it could not have occured naturally and requires and intelligent being, then that intelligent being requires and even more intelligent being to be created.

As for the origin of the universe there are various hypothesis beyond the big bang theory, quantum flux, loop quantum gravity, etc, etc, etc, etc. However, given the most common answer to the above question, why can't energy/matter have always been in some form or another? I mean if god can always have been, the same applies to energy, and even more so energy is a far more simple answer than a more complex god.

As for my reason for not believing in a god of any sorts, no evidence at all that one or any of them exist. Zip, zero nada.

I gave my hypothesis and can use history quite easily to make a rational case for the Judeo- Christian God. I don't think astronomical studies on the universe refute God. In any case matter/energy have to come from somewhere. Its a basic tenet of astrophysics that in the current state of the universe matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. In fact correlations could possibly exist with string theory and parallel universes as the initial scientific inquiry to a look into a spiritual realm. So as for origins of matter/energy you could postulate all day on possibilities but you are unwittingly just espousing a faith-based belief. To insinuate yours is more rational please provide an answer as to why.  


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
geirj wrote:scuppers

geirj wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 Ratdog, historical and anthropological study is what led me to believe in God. Once I advanced into the upper thresholds of those fields I realized things didn't add up.

In other words, the poster does not have advanced degrees in physics, astrophysics, or any other field that qualifies him to speculate on the origins of the universe.

No but i do in history and anthropology, along with a certificate for a focus in religious studies.  The origin of mankind and our actions provide a template into other fields of interest. Ask a question and I'll oblige an answer.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:scuppers

Marquis wrote:

scuppers wrote:

To me its seems more rational to hold theist views on creation. We at least have an answer.

 

That's fair enough... you believe as you do because you are in want of an answer... except it is a bit of an unsatisfactory "answer" for the inquiring mind, since it seems to have not much more substance than any other assumption which is neither provable, testable or possible to corroborate in any other way than the subjective and emotional method of "faith" and the constant, interpersonal validation thereof throgh "talking about it".

You say you have an answer. But what is the question?

I, for one, think the human being a little limited in our capacity for ever fully understanding Life, The Universe and Everything. Saying that "God did it" is just retarded. It is bedtime stories for anxious children who can and will shoot off more questions than ten wise men can answer in a day. What I am not getting here is what is so wrong with admitting that we don't know.

I never wanted an answer. Less than a year ago I would agree with all the atheist views on here. I am kinda new to the religious perspective on this debate. All I can say is the course of history follows a particular narrative quite well and that the holes in anthropological studies on human origins are full of some nonsensical stuff. (i.e. monkeys floating on an island from Africa to South America accounting for all the fossils of primate on the continent for the last 10 million years is postulated to fill in a huge gap, also only viruses and bacteria are used as examples of beneficial mutation in what can easily be shown to largely not apply to evolutionary progress, and thats just the start in a sea of international intrigue, blackmarket discoveries, and personal vendettas, read about it)


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
fcaustic wrote:scuppers

fcaustic wrote:

scuppers wrote:
If the agnostic position merits consideration ya have to consider one thing. Why would a creator sever the ties to creation as soon as its completed? An artist signs his work when done doesn't he/she. Besides personalities are human descriptors. People ascribe them to God based on their belief or preference. For example, most adherents believe God is love and compassion. Some atheists despise God so much they describe him as vindictive and cruel. Others appreciate the charity and self-restraint it provided for so long but now feel its not needed anymore. We can all apply context as evidence for these views. The truth is no personality can fit something that's not a person. 

If a creator does exist they're being pretty damn discrete about it. I mean why not simply write in the sky "It was me. -God"?

How could an atheist despise a god? You might as well say that atheists despise Sauron, or Voldemort. I think the god described in the Bible (at least in the OT) is an irrational tosser, but I'm also pretty darn sure he doesn't exist so I can hardly despise him.

 

Some surely do. Many a persons on this board's hero, one Mr. Dawkins says it all the time. The guys a good biologist but a third rate philosopher.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
marshalltenbears wrote: You

marshalltenbears wrote:

 You are not defending your faith very well. And you are being extremely closed minded to anyone else's answers. Saying I don't know isn't good enough? That is the most honest thing a person could say. And it takes great humility to admit it. It was one of the most humbling experiences of my life when I admitted I may possibly be wrong about my faith. As far as origins go, there is no way to know what happened before the singularity. But that just leaves endless possibilities. I have thought of many things such as we (the universe) could be some sort of huge experiment. Who knows. But I like to think like this. Lets assume we know 1% of everything to know about the universe, (that is claiming a lot). Just think about how much we don't know. So to assume one very specific possibility is arrogant and intellectual suicide. Especially if you lack real evidence. Old stories that have been passed down are not good enough for me. 

I think one of the biggest flawed assumptions that religious types make is that we are a perfect species, our world is too perfect to be an accident. Yes, our planet is perfect for our carbon based life, but just look at how big the universe is. Of course you should get at least one place that is perfect. Also assuming that humans are perfect is flawed as well. We breath and eat through the same hole. You know how many people choke to death every year? If there was a deity intelligent enough to create something as complex as our brains, he should have caught the choking to death thing. 

I could type all day about this, but I don't even know if you are willing to consider other possibilities. 

I guess it works both ways. My most humbling experience was when I found God. The issues between atheist and religious people can get muddled in the esoteric, intellectual honesty, and other shades of grey. The hardest thing for me to explain is the strength of true belief. Unlike others who are nominally aligned with a religion due to cultural factors, I came to it despite all my social networks that previously lead me to other more "rational" conclusions. I know what your saying and I could compromise to consider an alternative solution but then thats truly being dishonest to myself. Btw, my religion says I'm anything but perfect. Flawed until birth and death (you know original sin and all). The Bible says nothing about restrictions of life in other places in the universe. And those holes we breathe and eat through are magnificent biological traits that allow us to voice sounds in such a complex way that speech is possible instead of grunts and groans as well as aiding functions of the body such as breathing and body temp. regulation. Its what seperates man and animal along with the brain and they combine to function together and form the basis of all anthropological theories on evolution of human social/cultural behavior which in turns produces consciousness of thought. They are the same traits that make humans stand out from australopiths and Neanderthals. Its a small trade-off to chew your food to reap these benefits. 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:latincanuck

scuppers wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Well there are a few problems with the god answer, where did god comes from? Who/what created god? If this universe and everything in it could not have occured naturally and requires and intelligent being, then that intelligent being requires and even more intelligent being to be created.

As for the origin of the universe there are various hypothesis beyond the big bang theory, quantum flux, loop quantum gravity, etc, etc, etc, etc. However, given the most common answer to the above question, why can't energy/matter have always been in some form or another? I mean if god can always have been, the same applies to energy, and even more so energy is a far more simple answer than a more complex god.

As for my reason for not believing in a god of any sorts, no evidence at all that one or any of them exist. Zip, zero nada.

I gave my hypothesis and can use history quite easily to make a rational case for the Judeo- Christian God. I don't think astronomical studies on the universe refute God. In any case matter/energy have to come from somewhere. Its a basic tenet of astrophysics that in the current state of the universe matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. In fact correlations could possibly exist with string theory and parallel universes as the initial scientific inquiry to a look into a spiritual realm. So as for origins of matter/energy you could postulate all day on possibilities but you are unwittingly just espousing a faith-based belief. To insinuate yours is more rational please provide an answer as to why.  

That's the mistake you are making, you assuming it has to come from somewhere, intelligent, then where did god come from?  You haven't answered my question, where did god come from? If you are going to use occams razor then you have to be able to explain god as well, as for the spiritual realm part, give me the evidence that it exists, so far yo haven't done any of that, just made a statement that god exists because it makes sense to you. Other than that, you haven't really posted anything on the evidence that it's true.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so it can exist in one form or another. Parallel universes, multi-verse theory and string theory are not about the spiritual realm. Even then god still doesn't answer the question because if lets say the multi-verse is true, then god did not create this universe,. So far, we have more or less a natural explanation for the formation of this universe and god is not required, the most simplest answer is a natural answer, not one that requires A) a leap of faith that has no evidence to back it up, b a being more complex than is required.

I would like to see your hypothesis and rational case for the judeo-christian god. I would like to see if it cannot be supplemented with any other god. So far I have yet to see 1 person make a rational case for the christian god at all, that actually proves the christian god is the only god.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Marquis

scuppers wrote:

Marquis wrote:

scuppers wrote:

We at least have an answer.

because you are in want of an answer

I never wanted an answer.

 

So you became psychotic. There's no shame in that. Get some medication and you'll soon be back to normal.

Normal; meaning that you understand your human limitations and that there is no God trying to make contact with you.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:scuppers

latincanuck wrote:

scuppers wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Well there are a few problems with the god answer, where did god comes from? Who/what created god? If this universe and everything in it could not have occured naturally and requires and intelligent being, then that intelligent being requires and even more intelligent being to be created.

As for the origin of the universe there are various hypothesis beyond the big bang theory, quantum flux, loop quantum gravity, etc, etc, etc, etc. However, given the most common answer to the above question, why can't energy/matter have always been in some form or another? I mean if god can always have been, the same applies to energy, and even more so energy is a far more simple answer than a more complex god.

As for my reason for not believing in a god of any sorts, no evidence at all that one or any of them exist. Zip, zero nada.

I gave my hypothesis and can use history quite easily to make a rational case for the Judeo- Christian God. I don't think astronomical studies on the universe refute God. In any case matter/energy have to come from somewhere. Its a basic tenet of astrophysics that in the current state of the universe matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. In fact correlations could possibly exist with string theory and parallel universes as the initial scientific inquiry to a look into a spiritual realm. So as for origins of matter/energy you could postulate all day on possibilities but you are unwittingly just espousing a faith-based belief. To insinuate yours is more rational please provide an answer as to why.  

That's the mistake you are making, you assuming it has to come from somewhere, intelligent, then where did god come from?  You haven't answered my question, where did god come from? If you are going to use occams razor then you have to be able to explain god as well, as for the spiritual realm part, give me the evidence that it exists, so far yo haven't done any of that, just made a statement that god exists because it makes sense to you. Other than that, you haven't really posted anything on the evidence that it's true.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so it can exist in one form or another. Parallel universes, multi-verse theory and string theory are not about the spiritual realm. Even then god still doesn't answer the question because if lets say the multi-verse is true, then god did not create this universe,. So far, we have more or less a natural explanation for the formation of this universe and god is not required, the most simplest answer is a natural answer, not one that requires A) a leap of faith that has no evidence to back it up, b a being more complex than is required.

I would like to see your hypothesis and rational case for the judeo-christian god. I would like to see if it cannot be supplemented with any other god. So far I have yet to see 1 person make a rational case for the christian god at all, that actually proves the christian god is the only god.

Ya see its like science. Ya can't  prove theories ya can just make a good case and argument for or against. I'm not saying the multi-verse is true its just a theorhetical postulation that can can be argued one way or another. By stipulating God created the universe I at least give the razor substance to cut and I implore you to attempt to shred it with your ideas and I'll do the same. By saying "lets say" your using jargon to substitute 'I believe" or more appropriately "I believe maybe" in your case. My retort would be if natural material was always in existence then there would be no need come up with theories on creation. The scientific viewpoint does hold that something created the universe so I argue for an intelligent creator. I f ya believe energy always existed in some eternal form you mirror Hindu belief. Pick a god and I'll make a historical argument for its falsehood but it would be foolish to insist on 100% proof. No evolutionary biologist could giva ya 100% proof on evolution. They just make their best argument with incomplete shreds of evidence. I can also combat evolution if ya phrase me a specific question. Jus offering alternatives which most of ya say your open to.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:scuppers

Marquis wrote:

scuppers wrote:

Marquis wrote:

scuppers wrote:

We at least have an answer.

because you are in want of an answer

I never wanted an answer.

How is it psychotic? No one with any small degree of social science knowledge would deny the benefits of religious belief. Instead of only worrying about myself anymore the last 8 months saw me  concerned for those I previously ignored. I donate to charity instead of buying mentally distracting electronics, read books instead of digesting the nonsense on television, and just all around improved my behavior toward my fellow man. Whether you believe it or not, true belief does affect one's actions and mine can hardly be described as psychotic. 

 

So you became psychotic. There's no shame in that. Get some medication and you'll soon be back to normal.

Normal; meaning that you understand your human limitations and that there is no God trying to make contact with you.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:true belief

scuppers wrote:

true belief does affect one's actions

 

Duh. Of course it does. Which is why I am the kind of atheist who sees "faith" as politically useful.

But it's still psychotic; in the sense that it's delusional. However, for the weak-minded, it works.

So, happy trails to you. It must be wonderful to be privy to "the truth".

*barf*

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:scuppers

Marquis wrote:

scuppers wrote:

true belief does affect one's actions

 

Duh. Of course it does. Which is why I am the kind of atheist who sees "faith" as politically useful.

But it's still psychotic; in the sense that it's delusional. However, for the weak-minded, it works.

So, happy trails to you. It must be wonderful to be privy to "the truth".

*barf*

 

so according to your logic human history is nothing but the actions of deluded madmen for the most part. You obviously don't know much about the science of human behavior and culture. Religion, mine or someone else's, past or present, serves functions beyond political mechanisms. Its is an essential component of civilization and cultural development. Before I accepted religion I never dared bash it as delusional. I didn't believe it but recognized it as an important development of human thought. Some say say we evolved past the need for it but I would say that's delusional. If all religions were swept out of human culture then the scientific solutions for global warming and over population could be lead to quite inhumane solutions for the better of the species as a whole. Without religion eugenics and social darwinism would still prevail in the mainstream. The contradictions of those theories as it aligned with the religious beliefs of some in the scientific fields provoked the efforts to eliminate the thoughts by disproving it. Sociobiology is opening the cracks for such thought to reappear. We need checks and balances to prevent inhumane solutions to problems of humanity. 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:human history

scuppers wrote:
human history is nothing but the actions of deluded madmen for the most part

 

Yes, this is correct. And this is how it will remain, for as long as there is a human race.

We are by an large little but insane monkeys.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:If you

scuppers wrote:

If you believe abiogenesis tookplace that's faith in its purest form. The Bible doesn't state that the Earth if flat it states its round (Isaiah 40:22) Tell me where if ya can. It was logical reasoning at the time that led them to that belief. The best hypothesis as it were. The Catholic Church leaders all fell prey to their human inclinations toward sin. Galileo was a good Christian. He was friends with the Pope and well respected in intellectual circles in highly religious late 16th and early 17th century Italy. He was convinced that Christianity and the Copernician view were not just compatible but complimentary. He visited Rome 5 times in attempts to get permission to publish his book. He almost succeeded. He never lost his faith while under house arrest. Good book about these visits is Galileo in Rome: A Troublesome Genius by William R. Rhea (a secular historian) It contains huge portions of his letters to the Pope, Vatican officials, and others  such as religious officials and powerful leaders/families of Florence and Rome, and more.

I didn't say I know what abiogenesis is. That is the difference between me and you.

Here are the biblical text that lead to Galileo's persecution. Christianity is always on the forefront of stopping science. The blocking of stem cell research is the most recent instance.

THE BIBLE

 

Can we agree the earth is round like a ball and not a plate?

Then we should also be able to agree that something round does not have corners or ends. Also, you cannot see everything on a ball at once. There is no where on the earth that I can stand which will allow me to see the entire world.

Isaiah 11:12

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth

Revelation 7:1

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

Job 38:13

That it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Jeremiah 16:19

O LORD, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in time of distress, to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth 

Daniel 4:11

The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

Matthew 4:8

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

 

I think we agree the earth is always moving.

Psalm 104:5

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Psalm 93:1

The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10

Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.

 

I think we agree the earth goes around the sun. It doesn't race around our planet.

Ecclesiastes 1:5

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

Joshua 10

Joshua pleads with God to stop the sun and the moon in the sky so he could continue killing the Amorites. God did

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

The physics of this are astounding. We know now that it was not the sun that stopped but the earth was stopped on its axis. The earth spins around 1000 miles an hour at the equator. If the earth suddenly stopped all life would be smeared eastward. That would have been the end of humanity. Let's say we forgo that and say it happened. The ancient world was fixated on the sky and yet there is not one story outside the Bible about the sun being stopped. It would have been a serious story picked up by all mankind, but instead nothing.

 

So, what about Isaiah 40:22 then

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

 

This is easily observable when you stand outside especially at night. Have you seen pheasant under glass? The plate (the earth) is flat but in the shape of a flat circle. The dome above is actually what is round. Being this is the only text to defend the Bible reporting a round earth and it easily fits into the context of a flat earth with a sphere above it, it would be in agreement with all the above noted text. I see no evidence to believe the Bible was in agreement with Copernicus and Galileo and so the Church was biblical accurate to persecute them.

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:scuppers

Marquis wrote:

scuppers wrote:
human history is nothing but the actions of deluded madmen for the most part

 

Yes, this is correct.

Little arrogant on your part isn't it. Your not special nor smarter than those peoples of the past. You delude yourself into thinking your better than all who came before you. Trust me, the human race is just as flawed now as its ever been and your high praise for yourself verifies it. I sincerely doubt you figured out the problems of humanity considering the ones that still plague the world. If ya did your doing a tremendous disservice by not spreading your solutions.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Marquis

scuppers wrote:

Marquis wrote:

scuppers wrote:
human history is nothing but the actions of deluded madmen for the most part

 

Yes, this is correct.

Little arrogant on your part isn't it. Your not special nor smarter than those peoples of the past. You delude yourself into thinking your better than all who came before you. Trust me, the human race is just as flawed now as its ever been and your high praise for yourself verifies it. I sincerely doubt you figured out the problems of humanity considering the ones that still plague the world. If ya did your doing a tremendous disservice by not spreading your solutions.

 

You know what? Fuck you.

I reserve the right to speak my mind freely, and I acknowledge that you have the same right.

But none of us spek on behalf of anything but our singular selves.

Neither I nor you have any idea what is "good for the human race". Nor is this any of our business.

You do what you think s right and I shall do what I think is right. And the world will keep on spinning round and round.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:scuppers

ex-minister wrote:

scuppers wrote:

If you believe abiogenesis tookplace that's faith in its purest form. The Bible doesn't state that the Earth if flat it states its round (Isaiah 40:22) Tell me where if ya can. It was logical reasoning at the time that led them to that belief. The best hypothesis as it were. The Catholic Church leaders all fell prey to their human inclinations toward sin. Galileo was a good Christian. He was friends with the Pope and well respected in intellectual circles in highly religious late 16th and early 17th century Italy. He was convinced that Christianity and the Copernician view were not just compatible but complimentary. He visited Rome 5 times in attempts to get permission to publish his book. He almost succeeded. He never lost his faith while under house arrest. Good book about these visits is Galileo in Rome: A Troublesome Genius by William R. Rhea (a secular historian) It contains huge portions of his letters to the Pope, Vatican officials, and others  such as religious officials and powerful leaders/families of Florence and Rome, and more.

I didn't say I know what abiogenesis is. That is the difference between me and you.

Here are the biblical text that lead to Galileo's persecution. Christianity is always on the forefront of stopping science. The blocking of stem cell research is the most recent instance.

THE BIBLE

 

Can we agree the earth is round like a ball and not a plate?

Then we should also be able to agree that something round does not have corners or ends. Also, you cannot see everything on a ball at once. There is no where on the earth that I can stand which will allow me to see the entire world.

Isaiah 11:12

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth

Revelation 7:1

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

Job 38:13

That it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Jeremiah 16:19

O LORD, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in time of distress, to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth 

Daniel 4:11

The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

Matthew 4:8

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

 

I think we agree the earth is always moving.

Psalm 104:5

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Psalm 93:1

The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10

Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.

 

I think we agree the earth goes around the sun. It doesn't race around our planet.

Ecclesiastes 1:5

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

Joshua 10

Joshua pleads with God to stop the sun and the moon in the sky so he could continue killing the Amorites. God did

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

The physics of this are astounding. We know now that it was not the sun that stopped but the earth was stopped on its axis. The earth spins around 1000 miles an hour at the equator. If the earth suddenly stopped all life would be smeared eastward. That would have been the end of humanity. Let's say we forgo that and say it happened. The ancient world was fixated on the sky and yet there is not one story outside the Bible about the sun being stopped. It would have been a serious story picked up by all mankind, but instead nothing.

 

So, what about Isaiah 40:22 then

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

 

This is easily observable when you stand outside especially at night. Have you seen pheasant under glass? The plate (the earth) is flat but in the shape of a flat circle. The dome above is actually what is round. Being this is the only text to defend the Bible reporting a round earth and it easily fits into the context of a flat earth with a sphere above it, it would be in agreement with all the above noted text. I see no evidence to believe the Bible was in agreement with Copernicus and Galileo and so the Church was biblical accurate to persecute them.

 

 

 

Well your not showing me anything that says "flat." Ya just apply what ya know out of context with ancient writings. The people writing those lines needed descriptors at the time and they they did the best they can. They were subject to info./images that no one could comprehend unless described to in a context that fit their present state of understanding the world. By applying context it would make sense for them to say corners because they didn't even have an idea of how big the world was. Ptolemy hit on the shape but it didn't stop him from making conclusions that seem ridiculous today. Just because we know more today doesn't mean we should interpret writings out of context. Furthermore, if God wanted his message known I imagine that the best way he would proceed is to make it as comprehendable as possible to those he wished to disseminate it to. Newton makes the same case and he worked somewhat obsessively on applying science to scripture as two fields that combine to conclude advance all aspects of life. But don't believe me read any number of books on Newton and Christianity. He defended Christianity as much as his laws of physics. I think we can agree that he had no intention of halting scientific progress. Also, Galileo was in great error when it came to his theories on tides (he was much more passionate about this cause it was his original idea and not a continuation of Coperinicanism) but that goes to show people will always be flawed in their ideas no matter how rational it seems.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:scuppers

Marquis wrote:

scuppers wrote:

Marquis wrote:

scuppers wrote:
human history is nothing but the actions of deluded madmen for the most part

 

Yes, this is correct.

Little arrogant on your part isn't it. Your not special nor smarter than those peoples of the past. You delude yourself into thinking your better than all who came before you. Trust me, the human race is just as flawed now as its ever been and your high praise for yourself verifies it. I sincerely doubt you figured out the problems of humanity considering the ones that still plague the world. If ya did your doing a tremendous disservice by not spreading your solutions.

Sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention. Ya can call me crazy, stupid, arrogant or ignorant as it relates to my opinion but please refrain from emotional vulgarities as it serves no purpose.

 

You know what? Fuck you.

I reserve the right to speak my mind freely, and I acknowledge that you have the same right.

But none of us spek on behalf of anything but our singular selves.

Neither I nor you have any idea what is "good for the human race". Nor is this any of our business.

You do what you think s right and I shall do what I think is right. And the world will keep on spinning round and round.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Well your

scuppers wrote:

 Well your not showing me anything that says "flat." Ya just apply what ya know out of context with ancient writings. The people writing those lines needed descriptors at the time and they they did the best they can. They were subject to info./images that no one could comprehend unless described to in a context that fit their present state of understanding the world. By applying context it would make sense for them to say corners because they didn't even have an idea of how big the world was. Ptolemy hit on the shape but it didn't stop him from making conclusions that seem ridiculous today. Just because we know more today doesn't mean we should interpret writings out of context. Furthermore, if God wanted his message known I imagine that the best way he would proceed is to make it as comprehendable as possible to those he wished to disseminate it to. Newton makes the same case and he worked somewhat obsessively on applying science to scripture as two fields that combine to conclude advance all aspects of life. But don't believe me read any number of books on Newton and Christianity. He defended Christianity as much as his laws of physics. I think we can agree that he had no intention of halting scientific progress. Also, Galileo was in great error when it came to his theories on tides (he was much more passionate about this cause it was his original idea and not a continuation of Coperinicanism) but that goes to show people will always be flawed in their ideas no matter how rational it seems.

  

Thank you. You have just agreed with my original point "I believe this sets quite a precedent to be skeptical of world views originating from a primitive desert religion."

The creation myth was one such story.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:latincanuck

scuppers wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

scuppers wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Well there are a few problems with the god answer, where did god comes from? Who/what created god? If this universe and everything in it could not have occured naturally and requires and intelligent being, then that intelligent being requires and even more intelligent being to be created.

As for the origin of the universe there are various hypothesis beyond the big bang theory, quantum flux, loop quantum gravity, etc, etc, etc, etc. However, given the most common answer to the above question, why can't energy/matter have always been in some form or another? I mean if god can always have been, the same applies to energy, and even more so energy is a far more simple answer than a more complex god.

As for my reason for not believing in a god of any sorts, no evidence at all that one or any of them exist. Zip, zero nada.

I gave my hypothesis and can use history quite easily to make a rational case for the Judeo- Christian God. I don't think astronomical studies on the universe refute God. In any case matter/energy have to come from somewhere. Its a basic tenet of astrophysics that in the current state of the universe matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. In fact correlations could possibly exist with string theory and parallel universes as the initial scientific inquiry to a look into a spiritual realm. So as for origins of matter/energy you could postulate all day on possibilities but you are unwittingly just espousing a faith-based belief. To insinuate yours is more rational please provide an answer as to why.  

That's the mistake you are making, you assuming it has to come from somewhere, intelligent, then where did god come from?  You haven't answered my question, where did god come from? If you are going to use occams razor then you have to be able to explain god as well, as for the spiritual realm part, give me the evidence that it exists, so far yo haven't done any of that, just made a statement that god exists because it makes sense to you. Other than that, you haven't really posted anything on the evidence that it's true.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so it can exist in one form or another. Parallel universes, multi-verse theory and string theory are not about the spiritual realm. Even then god still doesn't answer the question because if lets say the multi-verse is true, then god did not create this universe,. So far, we have more or less a natural explanation for the formation of this universe and god is not required, the most simplest answer is a natural answer, not one that requires A) a leap of faith that has no evidence to back it up, b a being more complex than is required.

I would like to see your hypothesis and rational case for the judeo-christian god. I would like to see if it cannot be supplemented with any other god. So far I have yet to see 1 person make a rational case for the christian god at all, that actually proves the christian god is the only god.

Ya see its like science. Ya can't  prove theories ya can just make a good case and argument for or against. I'm not saying the multi-verse is true its just a theorhetical postulation that can can be argued one way or another. By stipulating God created the universe I at least give the razor substance to cut and I implore you to attempt to shred it with your ideas and I'll do the same. By saying "lets say" your using jargon to substitute 'I believe" or more appropriately "I believe maybe" in your case. My retort would be if natural material was always in existence then there would be no need come up with theories on creation. The scientific viewpoint does hold that something created the universe so I argue for an intelligent creator. I f ya believe energy always existed in some eternal form you mirror Hindu belief. Pick a god and I'll make a historical argument for its falsehood but it would be foolish to insist on 100% proof. No evolutionary biologist could giva ya 100% proof on evolution. They just make their best argument with incomplete shreds of evidence. I can also combat evolution if ya phrase me a specific question. Jus offering alternatives which most of ya say your open to.

Yeah see massive misunderstanding, I am sorry I though you had a grasp about science, theories are explanations of observed and tested facts, much like evolution, the theory is the explanation of the observed and tested phenomena. They can also be proved mathematically, although not directed tested or observed. By saying god, you are basically not answering the question, it leaves even more and more questions, what created god? The attributes given to god can also be tested, so far god has never passed those tests that prove it exists.

The scientific view point is that the universe began, not created, it formed, but never created, only those from the theistic community believe it was created.

So far your argument isn't really much of an argument, you keep saying that it must be an intelligent creator, but you never explain why exactly, and second, who created the intelligent creator. After all the intelligent creator had to be created, therefore it need an even more intelligent creator, who needs and even more intelligent creator etc, etc, etc, etc.

We are open to alternatives, as long as you have the evidence to back up your statements, again so far you have NOTHING to back up your claim of an intelligent creator. You can say it, but you can't prove it. The HUGE difference between science and your point of view. Big bang, lots of evidence, evolution, lots of evidence....god.........nothing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Scuppers,your comments

Scuppers,

your comments suggest a disbelief in evolution, or at least that it has major holes.

There is massive evidence for evolution.

Emergence of new characteristics in E.Coli under environmental pressure has been demonstrated in bacteria in a continuing experiment which has now been running for over twenty years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment.

There has been some concern over how the South American primates got there directly from Africa, but it would have been at a time when the continents were much closer together and the sea-level lower, meaning probably more islands, so it would seem to only require the ability to survive for a week or two on floating plant debris (not floating 'islands' !!!), which has been demonstrated, to ultimately island-hop across.

Our Universe did not require the NET creation of new matter-energy in the Big Bang.

Quantum Theory and experiments at the level of atoms and smaller show that things can occur for no clear reason at random times, such as radio-active decay, so unless you want to assert tha God is monitoring every unstable atom in the Universe and willing it to decay at a time perfectly consistent with purely random statistics, there is no justification for assuming any primary cause was intelligent in any sense.

The concept of God requires the assumption of the possibility of a whole slew of attributes totally beyond our observation and experience, and a whole 'level of reality' with fundamental 'laws' totally beyond what we find in our reality. With such assumptions, there is ultimately no way to disprove the existence of such an entity. Almost anything that can be vaguely imagined can be 'justified' by such 'principles'.

However,  if you are going to make such assumptions, you have to defend why you chose your specific form of ultimate reality out of the literally infinite number of 'possibilities' such assumptions allow. Until you can provide at least as much strength of independently testable evidence to support your version of God as we can point to for the plausibility of natural explanations and theories,you have not justified your beliefs. Feelings of 'truthiness', no matter how strong, cannot say anything about the independent truth of any position or idea.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Human Ape (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Christianity is a disease.

 Its takes personal revelation and a true belief to see through the limitations of human perception.

 

Speak for yourself wacko. My perception is not limited by anything.

 

Also, your personal revelation is usually called a mental illness.

 

Also, you seem to think there's some virtue in believing in things that don't have any evidence. Like for example your idiotic childish belief that there's a Master of the Universe who gives a shit about an educated moron like yourself.

 

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:  If the

scuppers wrote:

  If the agnostic position merits consideration ya have to consider one thing. Why would a creator sever the ties to creation as soon as its completed? An artist signs his work when done doesn't he/she.

 

  Yes they do.  However what signature of god are you referring to exactly?  The Bible?  That would be assuming it is his signature before proving it and won't do.  So, infact God has left us no visible signature like an artist .  So following with your argument about the merritts of agnoticism, atleast they are admitting they haven't seen any magic Jon Hancocks from god floating around.  An artist doesn't put an invisible dot somewhere in his painting and call it his signature, he rights that shit blatantly on the bottom with a date for all to see.   


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:scuppers

latincanuck wrote:

scuppers wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

scuppers wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Well there are a few problems with the god answer, where did god comes from? Who/what created god? If this universe and everything in it could not have occured naturally and requires and intelligent being, then that intelligent being requires and even more intelligent being to be created.

As for the origin of the universe there are various hypothesis beyond the big bang theory, quantum flux, loop quantum gravity, etc, etc, etc, etc. However, given the most common answer to the above question, why can't energy/matter have always been in some form or another? I mean if god can always have been, the same applies to energy, and even more so energy is a far more simple answer than a more complex god.

As for my reason for not believing in a god of any sorts, no evidence at all that one or any of them exist. Zip, zero nada.

I gave my hypothesis and can use history quite easily to make a rational case for the Judeo- Christian God. I don't think astronomical studies on the universe refute God. In any case matter/energy have to come from somewhere. Its a basic tenet of astrophysics that in the current state of the universe matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. In fact correlations could possibly exist with string theory and parallel universes as the initial scientific inquiry to a look into a spiritual realm. So as for origins of matter/energy you could postulate all day on possibilities but you are unwittingly just espousing a faith-based belief. To insinuate yours is more rational please provide an answer as to why.  

That's the mistake you are making, you assuming it has to come from somewhere, intelligent, then where did god come from?  You haven't answered my question, where did god come from? If you are going to use occams razor then you have to be able to explain god as well, as for the spiritual realm part, give me the evidence that it exists, so far yo haven't done any of that, just made a statement that god exists because it makes sense to you. Other than that, you haven't really posted anything on the evidence that it's true.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so it can exist in one form or another. Parallel universes, multi-verse theory and string theory are not about the spiritual realm. Even then god still doesn't answer the question because if lets say the multi-verse is true, then god did not create this universe,. So far, we have more or less a natural explanation for the formation of this universe and god is not required, the most simplest answer is a natural answer, not one that requires A) a leap of faith that has no evidence to back it up, b a being more complex than is required.

I would like to see your hypothesis and rational case for the judeo-christian god. I would like to see if it cannot be supplemented with any other god. So far I have yet to see 1 person make a rational case for the christian god at all, that actually proves the christian god is the only god.

Ya see its like science. Ya can't  prove theories ya can just make a good case and argument for or against. I'm not saying the multi-verse is true its just a theorhetical postulation that can can be argued one way or another. By stipulating God created the universe I at least give the razor substance to cut and I implore you to attempt to shred it with your ideas and I'll do the same. By saying "lets say" your using jargon to substitute 'I believe" or more appropriately "I believe maybe" in your case. My retort would be if natural material was always in existence then there would be no need come up with theories on creation. The scientific viewpoint does hold that something created the universe so I argue for an intelligent creator. I f ya believe energy always existed in some eternal form you mirror Hindu belief. Pick a god and I'll make a historical argument for its falsehood but it would be foolish to insist on 100% proof. No evolutionary biologist could giva ya 100% proof on evolution. They just make their best argument with incomplete shreds of evidence. I can also combat evolution if ya phrase me a specific question. Jus offering alternatives which most of ya say your open to.

Yeah see massive misunderstanding, I am sorry I though you had a grasp about science, theories are explanations of observed and tested facts, much like evolution, the theory is the explanation of the observed and tested phenomena. They can also be proved mathematically, although not directed tested or observed. By saying god, you are basically not answering the question, it leaves even more and more questions, what created god? The attributes given to god can also be tested, so far god has never passed those tests that prove it exists.

The scientific view point is that the universe began, not created, it formed, but never created, only those from the theistic community believe it was created.

So far your argument isn't really much of an argument, you keep saying that it must be an intelligent creator, but you never explain why exactly, and second, who created the intelligent creator. After all the intelligent creator had to be created, therefore it need an even more intelligent creator, who needs and even more intelligent creator etc, etc, etc, etc.

We are open to alternatives, as long as you have the evidence to back up your statements, again so far you have NOTHING to back up your claim of an intelligent creator. You can say it, but you can't prove it. The HUGE difference between science and your point of view. Big bang, lots of evidence, evolution, lots of evidence....god.........nothing.

You can insist on the merit of your opinions too but in way can ya prove evolution or the Big Bang. Its that pesky observable part of the method. We could both expound on the flaws of prophecy or extrapolating micro-to-macro evolution as it relates to these. My whole point is to suggest many atheists replace faith in God with faith in human ideas at any given time. Some pan out right while some pan out wrong. Galilieo's work is a good example. He improved our knowledge about by successfully defending Copernicanism but failed in his explanations on tidal activity.  We pick alternate sides on occassion and all we can do is ponder and come to what the best interpretation is according to the evidence. All will not agree but most should defend what they discover for themselves (and not what their told) and defend it unapologetically.  


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science Freak
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Yes, you have an answer.The

Yes, you have an answer.

The validity thereof is suspect and improbable which leaves you with...nothing.

Allow me to demonstrate.

"Do you think Brad and Angelina will work it out after all?"

"Three pounds flax."

Yes, it is an answer, but unintelligible to those of us not steeped in the xtian mysteries. As to your elliptical argument as to the existence of god validated by the...existence of god, this type of argument is beneath contempt. I am a bit surprised that so many people have chosen to respond to you; this type of solipsism is anathema to a thinking individual. Please peddle your ignorant ravings elsewhere; few people have either the time or the inclination to engage such misconstructions.  


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Scuppers,

your comments suggest a disbelief in evolution, or at least that it has major holes.

There is massive evidence for evolution.

Emergence of new characteristics in E.Coli under environmental pressure has been demonstrated in bacteria in a continuing experiment which has now been running for over twenty years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment.

There has been some concern over how the South American primates got there directly from Africa, but it would have been at a time when the continents were much closer together and the sea-level lower, meaning probably more islands, so it would seem to only require the ability to survive for a week or two on floating plant debris (not floating 'islands' !!!), which has been demonstrated, to ultimately island-hop across.

Our Universe did not require the NET creation of new matter-energy in the Big Bang.

Quantum Theory and experiments at the level of atoms and smaller show that things can occur for no clear reason at random times, such as radio-active decay, so unless you want to assert tha God is monitoring every unstable atom in the Universe and willing it to decay at a time perfectly consistent with purely random statistics, there is no justification for assuming any primary cause was intelligent in any sense.

The concept of God requires the assumption of the possibility of a whole slew of attributes totally beyond our observation and experience, and a whole 'level of reality' with fundamental 'laws' totally beyond what we find in our reality. With such assumptions, there is ultimately no way to disprove the existence of such an entity. Almost anything that can be vaguely imagined can be 'justified' by such 'principles'.

However,  if you are going to make such assumptions, you have to defend why you chose your specific form of ultimate reality out of the literally infinite number of 'possibilities' such assumptions allow. Until you can provide at least as much strength of independently testable evidence to support your version of God as we can point to for the plausibility of natural explanations and theories,you have not justified your beliefs. Feelings of 'truthiness', no matter how strong, cannot say anything about the independent truth of any position or idea.

 

Their is evidence that makes it seem likely evolution is possible but that doesn't automatically refute evidence against it. I 'll go into that evidence in detail for ya but first let me explain something. I'm avoidin falling into the trap of using prophecy, being born again (its like a metaphysical blast of pure love, wierded me out), or Biblical explanations for manifestations of the supernatural that perplex humanity all throughout its existence. I'm sure you guys heard it all before and would be prepared.  What I can do is make an argument against your best arguments. I'll start here with evolution. You can ask me about misconceptions as it relates to the secular  history/ sociology/anthropology  of Christianity, other ancient mythologies/civilizations/beliefs or loosely related fields. Its my expertise.

Problems with evolution:1. West African human populations. Some of the groups that occupy the region are scientifically accepted as the oldest human populations on earth. These group members share dominant characteristics yet among them the highest degree of genetic variance exists. Kinsmen in these groups are more varied genetically than you are to an Inuit. Some say this only is more evidence for evolution but think about it.  These people ain't superhuman or subhuman their just human and untarnished from the explanation that humanity has slowed its evolution from increased gene flow due to global traffic. Their genetics could suggest genetic variance doesn't mandate eventual speciation. 

2. Bacteria and viruses. I don't trust wikipedia as its not scholarly and subject to errors. Not that that is wrong but its untrustworthy. I don't know what it said but with bacteria evolutionists most always point to antibiotic resistant strains. These strains simply drop a ribosome that an antibiotic attaches through mutation. Sounds beneficial and seems to support evolution but upon further experimentation any antibiotic resistant bacteria that is introduced to a normal population (i.e. one with the ribosome) will succumb to the one without mutation. It seems to me to suggest mutation only has a benefit when subjected to the artificial selection imposed by human activity. Its the same with dogs. We subject them to various genetic crossings to develop traits that suit our preference but after a while disorders in "pure breds' become prevalent because of the genetic manipulation. Color, size, bone structure, and many other traits vary to a large degree but a pug is still the same species as a german sheperd. As for viruses they work similarly to bacteria. Someone afflicted with drug-resistant AIDS that developed due to mutation have only one dangerous course to remedy the situation (actually 2 if new drugs prove helpful but there is concern here about making it more resistant and not a good long term solution). They need to stop taking medication so the virus once again produces in a non-mutated  form in a sufficient fashion to overrun the mutated strains. Treatment is effective once again at this point suggesting again that mutation is only beneficial in artificially created situations. Viruses and bacteria are the most common bits of evolutionary evidence for beneficial mutation by observing the initial change but by observing the the effects of a mutated population in interaction with a biologically normal population than a logical interpretation can be that mutation serves as a detriment to the principle of natural selection itself.

3. Cyanophycea (a kind of blue-green algae). Shows extremely minimal variation over 1.5 billion years. Surely this is not an example of a 'drop in the bucket' of evolutionary time like other organisms that fail to evolve.

4. New World Monkeys. Yes, island hopping has been demonstrated in the fossil record but that was by the much more intelligent Homo erectus going from Asia to Australia through the Indonesian island chain. This distance doesn't come close to the distance between Africa and S. America (even 35 mya). Some serious anthropologists even postulate that New World monkeys may have traversed Antarctica. Kinda far-fetched but its fills gaps. 

5. Fauna fossils. Faunas of certain geological time periods seem to have been exposed to massive catastrophes that occured at the same time as catastrophes on land, in the ocean, or both. 

6. Man's single phyletic line. No one knows why only a single phyletic line out of more than a billion led to man. This requires such an extreme of special conditions that all evolutionary biologists are perplexed. (ID *gasp*)

7. DNA. Specifically the amount in each nucleus. In higher forms of animals only 5,000 to 50,000 genes can be observed as evidence for evolution while DNA can provide the material for over 5 billion genes. This would suggest rapid evolution is not only possible but should be prevalent based on the Modern Synthesis and its reliance on genetics. Doesn't work that way, however, in reality

8. Chromosomes in eucaryotes. In many groups of animals the number of chromosomes will remain constant in some but variable in others. In plants and animals the number of chromosomes will also vary from high to low in different groups. Same with size of chromosomes. This presents problems as it seems natural selection cannot explain this evidence that is prevalent in many plants and animals. They insist its controlled by natural selection but take the intellectually honest stance of "we don't know" how natural selection  does it but it does.  


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Unrepentant_Elitist

Unrepentant_Elitist wrote:

Yes, you have an answer.

The validity thereof is suspect and improbable which leaves you with...nothing.

Allow me to demonstrate.

"Do you think Brad and Angelina will work it out after all?"

"Three pounds flax."

Yes, it is an answer, but unintelligible to those of us not steeped in the xtian mysteries. As to your elliptical argument as to the existence of god validated by the...existence of god, this type of argument is beneath contempt. I am a bit surprised that so many people have chosen to respond to you; this type of solipsism is anathema to a thinking individual. Please peddle your ignorant ravings elsewhere; few people have either the time or the inclination to engage such misconstructions.  

I'm new to religion but I assure you I'm not ignorant in history, evolutionary science (especially hominins), anthropology, social science, mythology, and related fields. Answer my questions above using any sort of well thought out vernacular and humble yourself, man. I can't prove God exisists but you can't prove he don't. That's the essence of science...disproving things. Also, if ya didn't have your nose up in the air you would have noticed this a board that encourages this kinda of debate, or so I presumed from the title. Relax on the hate and participate.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

scuppers wrote:

  If the agnostic position merits consideration ya have to consider one thing. Why would a creator sever the ties to creation as soon as its completed? An artist signs his work when done doesn't he/she.

 

  Yes they do.  However what signature of god are you referring to exactly?  The Bible?  That would be assuming it is his signature before proving it and won't do.  So, infact God has left us no visible signature like an artist .  So following with your argument about the merritts of agnoticism, atleast they are admitting they haven't seen any magic Jon Hancocks from god floating around.  An artist doesn't put an invisible dot somewhere in his painting and call it his signature, he rights that shit blatantly on the bottom with a date for all to see.   

I'd say Jesus would constitute as a sufficient signature but you'll never accept that will ya? One thing that can't be denied was the influence of the man. Some of you guys are foolish enough to postulate he didn't exist but you may not deny his historicity. If ya do I'll give the skinny held by most respectable historians.     


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Some of you

scuppers wrote:
Some of you guys are foolish enough to postulate he didn't exist

 

Quite so. Which I call "hook, line and sinker".

Others, however, say that it doesn't fucking matter.

The problem isn't whether or not Jesus existed. The problem is that you are hallucinating.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:scuppers

ex-minister wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 Well your not showing me anything that says "flat." Ya just apply what ya know out of context with ancient writings. The people writing those lines needed descriptors at the time and they they did the best they can. They were subject to info./images that no one could comprehend unless described to in a context that fit their present state of understanding the world. By applying context it would make sense for them to say corners because they didn't even have an idea of how big the world was. Ptolemy hit on the shape but it didn't stop him from making conclusions that seem ridiculous today. Just because we know more today doesn't mean we should interpret writings out of context. Furthermore, if God wanted his message known I imagine that the best way he would proceed is to make it as comprehendable as possible to those he wished to disseminate it to. Newton makes the same case and he worked somewhat obsessively on applying science to scripture as two fields that combine to conclude advance all aspects of life. But don't believe me read any number of books on Newton and Christianity. He defended Christianity as much as his laws of physics. I think we can agree that he had no intention of halting scientific progress. Also, Galileo was in great error when it came to his theories on tides (he was much more passionate about this cause it was his original idea and not a continuation of Coperinicanism) but that goes to show people will always be flawed in their ideas no matter how rational it seems.

  

Thank you. You have just agreed with my original point "I believe this sets quite a precedent to be skeptical of world views originating from a primitive desert religion."

The creation myth was one such story.

I don't think ya agree. or maybe understand what I'm saying. Lets simplify it. I think I'm right and you think I'm wrong. Neither of us will prove ourselves. Doesn't change my belief and it doesn't change yours. One will be right (i think me) and one will be wrong (i think you). We can keep bouncing our opinions repeatedly but in the absence of disproof it is like a game of pong. Its where the ball (the answer) goes that determines the victor not the actions of the paddles (us)


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:scuppers

Marquis wrote:

scuppers wrote:
Some of you guys are foolish enough to postulate he didn't exist

 

Quite so. Which I call "hook, line and sinker".

Others, however, say that it doesn't fucking matter.

The problem isn't whether or not Jesus existed. The problem is that you are hallucinating.

Since ya don't believe he existed lets clarify. Ancient history requires a different approach than modern or Medieval history (exceptions in early Medieval). Any serious student of history knows this. If sources for ancient historical characters during their lifetime were required than our history books would be quite thin for those times. Sources that post-date a historical figures life are helpful, especially if supported in cultural development (i.e. art, archeology, poems, etc.). So by the parameters set by academia Jesus represents a very well supported historical figure (better than Sumerian kings missing from partial king lists, nobles in all civilizations of antiquity whose families extend to far into the annals of history, or influential military men). At the very least any respectable historian can look at the evidence for Jesus and determine with certainty that he was a public figure, he gathered some kind of following, he went Jerusalem, and was tried and executed. That is all. The rest is up to interpretation. 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That's the essence of

Quote:

That's the essence of science...disproving things.

 

This is a joke, right?


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:

That's the essence of science...disproving things.

 

This is a joke, right?

Ya never heard the all ravens are black method of explaining this? No one can prove all ravens are black but ya can disprove it by finding a white one. Its deduction vs. induction. 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
The essence of science is to

The essence of science is to understand physical reality.  That is not equivalent to disproving things.  That job is left to skepticism.


 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Problems with

scuppers wrote:

Problems with evolution:1. West African human populations. Some of the groups that occupy the region are scientifically accepted as the oldest human populations on earth. These group members share dominant characteristics yet among them the highest degree of genetic variance exists. Kinsmen in these groups are more varied genetically than you are to an Inuit. Some say this only is more evidence for evolution but think about it.  These people ain't superhuman or subhuman their just human and untarnished from the explanation that humanity has slowed its evolution from increased gene flow due to global traffic. Their genetics could suggest genetic variance doesn't mandate eventual speciation. 

2. Bacteria and viruses. I don't trust wikipedia as its not scholarly and subject to errors. Not that that is wrong but its untrustworthy. I don't know what it said but with bacteria evolutionists most always point to antibiotic resistant strains. These strains simply drop a ribosome that an antibiotic attaches through mutation. Sounds beneficial and seems to support evolution but upon further experimentation any antibiotic resistant bacteria that is introduced to a normal population (i.e. one with the ribosome) will succumb to the one without mutation. It seems to me to suggest mutation only has a benefit when subjected to the artificial selection imposed by human activity. Its the same with dogs. We subject them to various genetic crossings to develop traits that suit our preference but after a while disorders in "pure breds' become prevalent because of the genetic manipulation. Color, size, bone structure, and many other traits vary to a large degree but a pug is still the same species as a german sheperd. As for viruses they work similarly to bacteria. Someone afflicted with drug-resistant AIDS that developed due to mutation have only one dangerous course to remedy the situation (actually 2 if new drugs prove helpful but there is concern here about making it more resistant and not a good long term solution). They need to stop taking medication so the virus once again produces in a non-mutated  form in a sufficient fashion to overrun the mutated strains. Treatment is effective once again at this point suggesting again that mutation is only beneficial in artificially created situations. Viruses and bacteria are the most common bits of evolutionary evidence for beneficial mutation by observing the initial change but by observing the the effects of a mutated population in interaction with a biologically normal population than a logical interpretation can be that mutation serves as a detriment to the principle of natural selection itself.

3. Cyanophycea (a kind of blue-green algae). Shows extremely minimal variation over 1.5 billion years. Surely this is not an example of a 'drop in the bucket' of evolutionary time like other organisms that fail to evolve.

4. New World Monkeys. Yes, island hopping has been demonstrated in the fossil record but that was by the much more intelligent Homo erectus going from Asia to Australia through the Indonesian island chain. This distance doesn't come close to the distance between Africa and S. America (even 35 mya). Some serious anthropologists even postulate that New World monkeys may have traversed Antarctica. Kinda far-fetched but its fills gaps. 

5. Fauna fossils. Faunas of certain geological time periods seem to have been exposed to massive catastrophes that occured at the same time as catastrophes on land, in the ocean, or both. 

6. Man's single phyletic line. No one knows why only a single phyletic line out of more than a billion led to man. This requires such an extreme of special conditions that all evolutionary biologists are perplexed. (ID *gasp*)

7. DNA. Specifically the amount in each nucleus. In higher forms of animals only 5,000 to 50,000 genes can be observed as evidence for evolution while DNA can provide the material for over 5 billion genes. This would suggest rapid evolution is not only possible but should be prevalent based on the Modern Synthesis and its reliance on genetics. Doesn't work that way, however, in reality

8. Chromosomes in eucaryotes. In many groups of animals the number of chromosomes will remain constant in some but variable in others. In plants and animals the number of chromosomes will also vary from high to low in different groups. Same with size of chromosomes. This presents problems as it seems natural selection cannot explain this evidence that is prevalent in many plants and animals. They insist its controlled by natural selection but take the intellectually honest stance of "we don't know" how natural selection  does it but it does.  

I provide evidence and ya guys tuck tail and run. Dispute this by all means if ya can. Think about what it means if ya can't. 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well, Scuppers


scuppers wrote:

 The thing is its you who doesn't know while a theist very much does know. I understand no argumentative conversation is going to convince someone who is sure in their belief, theist or atheist. Its takes personal revelation and a true belief to see through the limitations of human perception.  I used to combat religious people all the time.  I'd throw scientific evidence in their face all the time and use the same mockeries many will surely subject unto me. Once you believe, however, answers become clearer. History and science prove the existence of God but only for those with eyes to see. Anyway, I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you. If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world.


If your arguments for science were anything like your arguments for god it's no wonder you fell to the dark side of the force. Additionally, do me the favour of ceasing your suggestions that without god we'd all be out there killing and raping. It's an offensive pile of shit. Lo, there is no god and we are doing nothing of the fucking sort.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Problems with

scuppers wrote:

Problems with evolution:1. West African human populations. Some of the groups that occupy the region are scientifically accepted as the oldest human populations on earth. These group members share dominant characteristics yet among them the highest degree of genetic variance exists. Kinsmen in these groups are more varied genetically than you are to an Inuit. Some say this only is more evidence for evolution but think about it.  These people ain't superhuman or subhuman their just human and untarnished from the explanation that humanity has slowed its evolution from increased gene flow due to global traffic. Their genetics could suggest genetic variance doesn't mandate eventual speciation. 

Yet again, you seem not to understand evolution, which basically states that a species will adapt to its environment, and those best suited for that environment will thrive, those that are not, will not. If a species is well suited for it's environment and no other successful or dominate mutation or variation has occurred then the genetic part wouldn't change. In other words why would they be SUPER human or sub human if being human has helped them survive. I don't understand your point on this one.

Quote:

2. Bacteria and viruses. I don't trust wikipedia as its not scholarly and subject to errors. Not that that is wrong but its untrustworthy. I don't know what it said but with bacteria evolutionists most always point to antibiotic resistant strains. These strains simply drop a ribosome that an antibiotic attaches through mutation. Sounds beneficial and seems to support evolution but upon further experimentation any antibiotic resistant bacteria that is introduced to a normal population (i.e. one with the ribosome) will succumb to the one without mutation. It seems to me to suggest mutation only has a benefit when subjected to the artificial selection imposed by human activity. Its the same with dogs. We subject them to various genetic crossings to develop traits that suit our preference but after a while disorders in "pure breds' become prevalent because of the genetic manipulation. Color, size, bone structure, and many other traits vary to a large degree but a pug is still the same species as a german sheperd. As for viruses they work similarly to bacteria. Someone afflicted with drug-resistant AIDS that developed due to mutation have only one dangerous course to remedy the situation (actually 2 if new drugs prove helpful but there is concern here about making it more resistant and not a good long term solution). They need to stop taking medication so the virus once again produces in a non-mutated  form in a sufficient fashion to overrun the mutated strains. Treatment is effective once again at this point suggesting again that mutation is only beneficial in artificially created situations. Viruses and bacteria are the most common bits of evolutionary evidence for beneficial mutation by observing the initial change but by observing the the effects of a mutated population in interaction with a biologically normal population than a logical interpretation can be that mutation serves as a detriment to the principle of natural selection itself.

Yet again you seem to fail to understand what evolution states, if it is beneficial it will survive, if it is not, it won't same applies here, even if the mutation was beneficial if removed from that environment and introduced to a new population that A) doesn't have the mutation, B) doesn't require it to survive, it will eventually die off. So far I haven't seen why this isn't evolution.

Quote:

3. Cyanophycea (a kind of blue-green algae). Shows extremely minimal variation over 1.5 billion years. Surely this is not an example of a 'drop in the bucket' of evolutionary time like other organisms that fail to evolve.

What do you mean failed to evolve, again here is something that suggests you don't have a proper grasp as to what evolution states. If the cyanophycea has survived this long, then it's is very will suited to where it is thriving, until there are environmental factors that would force it to adapt, then there is no reason to change really, if what works work, why change it? Nature tends to behave in this manner, it's a miser with energy and if it doesn't need to change it won't.

Quote:

4. New World Monkeys. Yes, island hopping has been demonstrated in the fossil record but that was by the much more intelligent Homo erectus going from Asia to Australia through the Indonesian island chain. This distance doesn't come close to the distance between Africa and S. America (even 35 mya). Some serious anthropologists even postulate that New World monkeys may have traversed Antarctica. Kinda far-fetched but its fills gaps. 

The genetic information proves their origin from Africa, the question is how, continental drifting is out, so island hopping is more of a possibility or rafting drifting mangroves for example, it's all online you simply have to do more research than wikipedia really

As for the last 4 I will let someone else with better knowledge answer them, but they are not evidence that your god exists, or any god. Even if they they do actually point towards a god, it doesn't specify anything about which god and what the desires are of this god. In the end I don't know is a valid answer, although not a particularly helpful one, however it leads us to search for the answer even more, saying god did it, doesn't answer anything and doesn't lead anywhere.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:You can

scuppers wrote:

You can insist on the merit of your opinions too but in way can ya prove evolution or the Big Bang. Its that pesky observable part of the method. We could both expound on the flaws of prophecy or extrapolating micro-to-macro evolution as it relates to these. My whole point is to suggest many atheists replace faith in God with faith in human ideas at any given time. Some pan out right while some pan out wrong. Galilieo's work is a good example. He improved our knowledge about by successfully defending Copernicanism but failed in his explanations on tidal activity.  We pick alternate sides on occassion and all we can do is ponder and come to what the best interpretation is according to the evidence. All will not agree but most should defend what they discover for themselves (and not what their told) and defend it unapologetically.  

First off there is no micro-macro evolution, there is simply evolution, that's it that's all. It's nice that you suggest that atheists replace their faith, but you haven't proven it at all. Second all atheists have simply no belief that god or any gods exist. Outside of that they don't have to believe or accept what science says about nature or the origins of the universe.

Yes we can prove evolution and we can prove the big bang, please do far more research other than the the least amount of skimming of the information that you have proven to have done so far on those topics. Why is the big bang accepted? because evidence of it occurring has been found and observed. Again do some research on this. What hasn't been proven is what triggered the big bang. Evolution is very well documented and the evidence behind it is far far greater than you give credit to.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:1.  ... could

Quote:

1.  ... could suggest...

 

That's not very scientific.

 

Quote:

It seems to me to suggest mutation only has a benefit when subjected to the artificial selection imposed by human activity.

 

Humans haven't been around long enough for this to have affected ALL evolution, rather a vary short time of it.  Your talk of dogs means little; 'species' is just a word that, in short, we use to distinguish what living things have a close enough genetic strain to reproduce with each other.  A new species would only come about if they could no longer reproduce with those in their previous category, and this issue lies with humanity's labeling system, not nature itself.

 

Quote:

Viruses and bacteria are the most common bits of evolutionary evidence for beneficial mutation by observing the initial change but by observing the the effects of a mutated population in interaction with a biologically normal population than a logical interpretation can be that mutation serves as a detriment to the principle of natural selection itself.

 

Mutations aren't detrimental or beneficial on the whole.  Some will be good, some will be bad.  Natural selection simply says that if a mutation is bad enough, it will prevent survival, and consequently the mutation cannot spread.  It is possible for mildly bad mutations to permeate, but if they prohibit the entity they are in from reproducing, they will die with their entity.  As far as a 'normal' population and a 'mutated' one are concerned, if an entire population is mutated, isn't that normal to that population?  This is how diversity arises, one group with certain traits mates with another with different traits, thus resulting in combined traits.  Natural selection is again based on the idea that truly harmful mutations can't be passed because they either kill the entity with them, or inhibit reproduction.

 

Also, as far as humans are concerned, we upset natural selection by being capable of manipulating the environment in attempts to overcome death.  Consequently, it is entirely possible for humans to keep bad genes in the gene pool, by means of keeping those with the 'mutations' alive.

 

Quote:

3. Cyanophycea (a kind of blue-green algae). Shows extremely minimal variation over 1.5 billion years. Surely this is not an example of a 'drop in the bucket' of evolutionary time like other organisms that fail to evolve.

 

I can't speak to this without context.  If they've lived in the same environment for that period of time, is it not possible that there were so few changes encountered by the organism as to not necessitate mutation?  It is my understanding that mutations don't just randomly occur, i.e. there is a cause for the mutation, in some form.

 

Quote:

4. New World Monkeys. Yes, island hopping has been demonstrated in the fossil record but that was by the much more intelligent Homo erectus going from Asia to Australia through the Indonesian island chain. This distance doesn't come close to the distance between Africa and S. America (even 35 mya). Some serious anthropologists even postulate that New World monkeys may have traversed Antarctica. Kinda far-fetched but its fills gaps.

 

I am not versed enough on these to add much, but is it possible for them to have evolved separately after what is now africa and what is now south america were no longer the same continent?

 

Quote:

5. Fauna fossils. Faunas of certain geological time periods seem to have been exposed to massive catastrophes that occured at the same time as catastrophes on land, in the ocean, or both.

 

I don't understand; this seems redundant.  And doesn't this have nothing to do with evolution?

 

Quote:

6. Man's single phyletic line. No one knows why only a single phyletic line out of more than a billion led to man. This requires such an extreme of special conditions that all evolutionary biologists are perplexed. (ID *gasp*)

 

There were more than just our species, but either they died off or we, in our more primitive stages, killed them off.  Also, it doesn't make any sense that 'man' can have two evolutions, because then they wouldn't both be man.  Looking at the definition of phyletic, there can only be one line for ANY species.

 

Quote:

7. DNA. Specifically the amount in each nucleus. In higher forms of animals only 5,000 to 50,000 genes can be observed as evidence for evolution while DNA can provide the material for over 5 billion genes. This would suggest rapid evolution is not only possible but should be prevalent based on the Modern Synthesis and its reliance on genetics. Doesn't work that way, however, in reality

 

I cannot comment on this due to no knowledge in the area.

 

Quote:

8. Chromosomes in eucaryotes. In many groups of animals the number of chromosomes will remain constant in some but variable in others. In plants and animals the number of chromosomes will also vary from high to low in different groups. Same with size of chromosomes. This presents problems as it seems natural selection cannot explain this evidence that is prevalent in many plants and animals. They insist its controlled by natural selection but take the intellectually honest stance of "we don't know" how natural selection  does it but it does. 

 

I would think that it shouldn't matter which.  If it works for certain plants, then they obviously developed either constant or variable.  Natural selection is all about what survives and what doesn't.  I see no reason to be surprised that even plants evolved differently per species.

 

Note:  I am not a biologist.  I am going on my understanding of how evolution works, in conjunction with what I see as making sense.  These aren't rigorously scientific arguments and shouldn't be treated as such.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:

1.  ... could suggest...

 

That's not very scientific.

 

Quote:
suggesting is critical to theory. Its called a hypothesis

It seems to me to suggest mutation only has a benefit when subjected to the artificial selection imposed by human activity.

 

Humans haven't been around long enough for this to have affected ALL evolution, rather a vary short time of it.  Your talk of dogs means little; 'species' is just a word that, in short, we use to distinguish what living things have a close enough genetic strain to reproduce with each other.  A new species would only come about if they could no longer reproduce with those in their previous category, and this issue lies with humanity's labeling system, not nature itself.

 It was merely to illustrate that variation doesn't mandate species evolution. Genetic or physical variation. The point is no one has ever observed a population isolated for a long enough time to lose breeding capabilities with another pop. What we have observed led me to suggest (hypothesize) variation is rampant in the natural world but in no way automatically means eventual evolution. And I used all this evidence to support it.

Quote:

Viruses and bacteria are the most common bits of evolutionary evidence for beneficial mutation by observing the initial change but by observing the the effects of a mutated population in interaction with a biologically normal population than a logical interpretation can be that mutation serves as a detriment to the principle of natural selection itself.

 

Mutations aren't detrimental or beneficial on the whole.  Some will be good, some will be bad.  Natural selection simply says that if a mutation is bad enough, it will prevent survival, and consequently the mutation cannot spread.  It is possible for mildly bad mutations to permeate, but if they prohibit the entity they are in from reproducing, they will die with their entity.  As far as a 'normal' population and a 'mutated' one are concerned, if an entire population is mutated, isn't that normal to that population?  This is how diversity arises, one group with certain traits mates with another with different traits, thus resulting in combined traits.  Natural selection is again based on the idea that truly harmful mutations can't be passed because they either kill the entity with them, or inhibit reproduction.

 

Also, as far as humans are concerned, we upset natural selection by being capable of manipulating the environment in attempts to overcome death.  Consequently, it is entirely possible for humans to keep bad genes in the gene pool, by means of keeping those with the 'mutations' alive.

 Ya see though the only instances of beneficial mutation ever to be observed are in bacteria and viruses. I examined the interaction with what is labeled beneficial mutation with the the ones natural selection says should succumb and found the only half the story is praised as sound evidence while the other half is never mentioned. Why that happens I can't be sure but politics and personal relationships always weigh on accredited peer review. No one can deny that (ask any scientist/historian that gets published in respected circles)  

Quote:

3. Cyanophycea (a kind of blue-green algae). Shows extremely minimal variation over 1.5 billion years. Surely this is not an example of a 'drop in the bucket' of evolutionary time like other organisms that fail to evolve.

 

I can't speak to this without context.  If they've lived in the same environment for that period of time, is it not possible that there were so few changes encountered by the organism as to not necessitate mutation?  It is my understanding that mutations don't just randomly occur, i.e. there is a cause for the mutation, in some form.

 This is simple. The contest is time. 1.5 BILLION yrs saw tremendous environmental change everywhere on the globe and provided ample tie for beneficial and harmful mutations to arise on multiple occasions. That is of course you assume that the earth 4.5 bya and i'm sure ya do.

Quote:

4. New World Monkeys. Yes, island hopping has been demonstrated in the fossil record but that was by the much more intelligent Homo erectus going from Asia to Australia through the Indonesian island chain. This distance doesn't come close to the distance between Africa and S. America (even 35 mya). Some serious anthropologists even postulate that New World monkeys may have traversed Antarctica. Kinda far-fetched but its fills gaps.

 

I am not versed enough on these to add much, but is it possible for them to have evolved separately after what is now africa and what is now south america were no longer the same continent?

 There is a huge gap in the fossil record. Anthropologists presume they had to come from Africa because of physical traits in the fossils such as dental formula, bone shape, etc. Its like they force puzzle pieces together because they are the same color instead of fitting comfortably together.

Quote:

5. Fauna fossils. Faunas of certain geological time periods seem to have been exposed to massive catastrophes that occured at the same time as catastrophes on land, in the ocean, or both.

 

I don't understand; this seems redundant.  And doesn't this have nothing to do with evolution?

 Evolution is based on the fossil record that is embedded in geological strata. Fauna fossils have been found in deep layers of geological time that show similar disturbance from catastrophe taking place on the topsoil at the time. Whatever happened at this time confounds evolutionists. They can't say that whatever happened seemed to layer the earth very quickly so they are silent (i.e. no publishing) till they can SUGGEST something rational. Ya probably know what I would suggest

Quote:

6. Man's single phyletic line. No one knows why only a single phyletic line out of more than a billion led to man. This requires such an extreme of special conditions that all evolutionary biologists are perplexed. (ID *gasp*)

 

There were more than just our species, but either they died off or we, in our more primitive stages, killed them off.  Also, it doesn't make any sense that 'man' can have two evolutions, because then they wouldn't both be man.  Looking at the definition of phyletic, there can only be one line for ANY species.

 Thats not true. In fact one line is rare. Dogs serve as a good example of multiple lines. Some of the more racist evolutionists will say ethnicity can amount to lines but genetics and the acceptance of the Out of Africa hypothesis refute them. Unless you hold to the Candelabra Theory the human race has only one. The only special thing about humanity many of the atheists hold on this board is the trust of themselves (this isn't directed at you. I just couldn't resist to prod the others). I feel we are special and science supports or suggests my interpretation

Quote:

7. DNA. Specifically the amount in each nucleus. In higher forms of animals only 5,000 to 50,000 genes can be observed as evidence for evolution while DNA can provide the material for over 5 billion genes. This would suggest rapid evolution is not only possible but should be prevalent based on the Modern Synthesis and its reliance on genetics. Doesn't work that way, however, in reality

 

I cannot comment on this due to no knowledge in the area.

 

Quote:

8. Chromosomes in eucaryotes. In many groups of animals the number of chromosomes will remain constant in some but variable in others. In plants and animals the number of chromosomes will also vary from high to low in different groups. Same with size of chromosomes. This presents problems as it seems natural selection cannot explain this evidence that is prevalent in many plants and animals. They insist its controlled by natural selection but take the intellectually honest stance of "we don't know" how natural selection  does it but it does. 

 

I would think that it shouldn't matter which.  If it works for certain plants, then they obviously developed either constant or variable.  Natural selection is all about what survives and what doesn't.  I see no reason to be surprised that even plants evolved differently per species.

 If ya hold to the LCA (last common ancestor) aspect of evolution it would be more linear. The randomness showed in kingdoms, orders, genus, etc.. doesn't mesh with the straightforwardness of evolutionary lines as it relates to specie progress.

Note:  I am not a biologist.  I am going on my understanding of how evolution works, in conjunction with what I see as making sense.  These aren't rigorously scientific arguments and shouldn't be treated as such.

I'm not either. Just a historian who dabbled in anthropology for awhile.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Yet again, you seem not to

 

Yet again, you seem not to understand evolution, which basically states that a species will adapt to its environment, and those best suited for that environment will thrive, those that are not, will not. If a species is well suited for it's environment and no other successful or dominate mutation or variation has occurred then the genetic part wouldn't change. In other words why would they be SUPER human or sub human if being human has helped them survive. I don't understand your point on this one.

 

Yet again you seem to fail to understand what evolution states, if it is beneficial it will survive, if it is not, it won't same applies here, even if the mutation was beneficial if removed from that environment and introduced to a new population that A) doesn't have the mutation, B) doesn't require it to survive, it will eventually die off. So far I haven't seen why this isn't evolution.

Quote:

3. Cyanophycea (a kind of blue-green algae). Shows extremely minimal variation over 1.5 billion years. Surely this is not an example of a 'drop in the bucket' of evolutionary time like other organisms that fail to evolve.

What do you mean failed to evolve, again here is something that suggests you don't have a proper grasp as to what evolution states. If the cyanophycea has survived this long, then it's is very will suited to where it is thriving, until there are environmental factors that would force it to adapt, then there is no reason to change really, if what works work, why change it? Nature tends to behave in this manner, it's a miser with energy and if it doesn't need to change it won't.

[

The genetic information proves their origin from Africa, the question is how, continental drifting is out, so island hopping is more of a possibility or rafting drifting mangroves for example, it's all online you simply have to do more research than wikipedia really

As for the last 4 I will let someone else with better knowledge answer them, but they are not evidence that your god exists, or any god. Even if they they do actually point towards a god, it doesn't specify anything about which god and what the desires are of this god. In the end I don't know is a valid answer, although not a particularly helpful one, however it leads us to search for the answer even more, saying god did it, doesn't answer anything and doesn't lead anywhere.

Don't accuse me of looking up info that I studied for 2yrs. In fact the textbook definition of natural selection ya gave makes me wonder what your defending your argument with. Ya really think I don't know how natural selection works. Silly man.  Any way, the whole point here is that i'm suggesting (hypothesizing) that natural selection leads to variation and nothing more. Lets use the blue-green algae for my argument. Its been around for 1.5 BILLION yrs. This is long enough for an organism to witness environmental change of varying extremes many many times. If environmental circumstances lead to evolution than why does this particular organism seem to be immune from environmental change leading to evolution. It display some variation but nothing more despite the vast array of climates natural history says it must have endured. Are we to presume this organism was perfect in its makeup and immune to evolutionary theory. In such a case ya should adopt it as your god as it defies your precious theory. Also, when ya work on science or history online sources ain't to be trusted unless ya have a membership to a scholarly site filled with journals and the like. So if ya knew this ya would have stumbled on the fact that genetics do not prove New World monkeys are from Africa. We don't have the DNA from 35 mya. The conclusion is deduced from shared physical traits present in the fossils such as dental formulas, bone structure, amount of digits, etc. Have faith in the island or mangrove sailing theory if ya want. Maybe thats how your new algae god travels. ( Don't mean to offend with these quirks but as you can see they do illustrate a point, agreed?) 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 The thing is its you who doesn't know while a theist very much does know. I understand no argumentative conversation is going to convince someone who is sure in their belief, theist or atheist. Its takes personal revelation and a true belief to see through the limitations of human perception.  I used to combat religious people all the time.  I'd throw scientific evidence in their face all the time and use the same mockeries many will surely subject unto me. Once you believe, however, answers become clearer. History and science prove the existence of God but only for those with eyes to see. Anyway, I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you. If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world.

 

If your arguments for science were anything like your arguments for god it's no wonder you fell to the dark side of the force. Additionally, do me the favour of ceasing your suggestions that without god we'd all be out there killing and raping. It's an offensive pile of shit. Lo, there is no god and we are doing nothing of the fucking sort.

 

 

If people with your disposition were the only ones around I truly wonder. I simply suggest an alternative and you get so riled up and angry about a difference in opinion you lash out with hatred. Who would ya turn that on without people like me? Provide some substance to the debate or ignore it if ya don't like it. You can't do that, however, and describe my belief as "the dark side" which implies your disdain for people of differing opinions. You indirectly prove the moral argument with linguistic instances of opposition and vulgar reactions. I'm new to religion not science or history so yeah i'm the first to admit my theology is novice in content. I respect your opinion even tough i don't believe it but can you do the same?Probably not based on your own word content. BTW I'll pray for ya tonight


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Listen scuppers, ya twit...

 

scuppers wrote:

Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

 

Why don't ya take the import of this obnoxious statement turn it sidewards and shove it up ya fucken ass.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
  Why don't ya take the

 

 

Why don't ya take the import of this obnoxious statement turn it sidewards and shove it up ya fucken ass.

 

  RE: Keep proving me right and continue with such immoral reactions. I'll refrain.