Evolution has been disproven for over 100 years, and here's why

joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
Evolution has been disproven for over 100 years, and here's why

{Mod Edit: This post is plagiarism. This thread has been frozen and edited to remove the plagiarized text.}


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Not this again...

Not this again...

You're referring to abiogenesis. Evolution does not explain how the first life forms came about.

Read Fallacy #15 on this thread. 


joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, thanks. But if

OK, thanks. But if abiogenesis is merely a hypothesis, then why isn't evolution itself merely a hypothesis? Because you need abiogenesis in order to have evolution.
Since the modern theory of evolution requires its first simple life form to have come from no life, in order for evolution to be a proven fact, abiogenesis must first be proven.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Evolution is not a

Evolution is accepted as fact because there is a mass of evidence for it. We don't have that good evidence for abiogenesis.

Evolution does NOT rely on life coming from nonlife, you're making that up.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
joeparker wrote: OK,

joeparker wrote:
OK, thanks. But if abiogenesis is merely a hypothesis, then why isn't evolution itself merely a hypothesis? Because you need abiogenesis in order to have evolution.
Since the modern theory of evolution requires its first simple life form to have come from no life, in order for evolution to be a proven fact, abiogenesis must first be proven.

Because evolution is not concerned with the origins, just what happened after that, it can be a theory while ideas on origins are not.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
The beginning of the

{mod edit: Post deleted.  Plagiarism is not tolerated.}


joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
Why is abiogenesis tied to

Why is abiogenesis tied to the theory of evolution?


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Not another God of the

Not another God of the Gaps...


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Because people are stupid.

 Why is abiogeneisis tied to the theory of evolution?

 

Because people are stupid. They are two different things. Creationist groups and Intelligent Design proponents have attempted to hijack the public (who are generally very poor in science) by creating confusion and mixing the two.

By the way, I am the author of that long paper that noor posted the link to.

Saying that evolution is wrong because it cannot explain the origin of organic polymers and nucleic acid strings is like saying gravity is wrong because it cannot explain a ham sandwich.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
Ignornance is not a very

Ignornance is not a very strong foundation for discussion.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Your point being? Do you

Your point being? Do you have a rebuttal to my argument?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
Evolutionists can not answer

Evolutionists can not answer one very important question. And that is where did TIME, SPACE and MATTER come from.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
WHAT? You are talking about

WHAT? You are talking about theoretical physics now. Like I said, this has nothing to do with evolution. Like I said before, this is akin to saying that gravity is wrong because it cannot explain a sandwich. What is wrong with you? Evolution explains biological life. The concepts are not even remotely connected by the various scientific fields. There is a gaping chasm in between.

 

Hey! I know! Maybe superstring theory is wrong because it cannot explain why theists are so stupid. Maybe electromagnetism is wrong because it cannot explain why I have to get up and go to work this morning!

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Wait a minute. Let me get

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight.

Quote:
So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance.

Why must it be accepted? Is there something forbidding us from questioning your conclusion further?

How did the alleged 'creative act' happen?  I don't want glittering generalities either. I want theory supported by facts. If your answer is 'god did it' then I want to know HOW.

If you are expecting hard answers then should I not require the same of your hypothesis? You offer nothing more than 'conclusions' with barely tenable precepts while abiogenesis carries with it viable chemical theories.

Our bodies are the combination of chemicals that are readily found in nature - fact.  Let's start there shall we? How many different answers are there? Which answers are supported by science? Which answers have no explanation? Which ones should we analyze first?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I just added the idea that

I just added the idea that evolution not being able to explain the origin of life and/or the universe is a problem to the myths about evolution thread.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the answers and

Thanks for the answers and responses from so many of you. I'll just use this ONE post to respond to all of you to keep this thread from loading up with too many posts from one member.

To those who evaded the main issue and attacked out-of-context sidebar issues, I have no real comment since you didn't either.

To those who actually addressed the issue, thank you. We can discuss a few points:


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
joeparker

joeparker wrote:
Evolutionists can not answer one very important question. And that is where did TIME, SPACE and MATTER come from.

 

Why would a biologist answer a question about cosmology?

And why would a failure in cosmology matter concerning biology?

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
joeparker wrote: 1.

joeparker wrote:
1. Evolution requires that life comes from non-life. The first living cell is supposed to have come from non-living organic material in the oceans.

Nope. You're talking about a genesis theory, not a progression of already living creatures.

joeparker wrote:
2. Life coming from non-life is called spontaneous generation. The dictionary confirms this: "Supposed production of living from non-living matter as inferred from appearance of life (due in fact to bacteria etc.) in some infusions..." [Oxford Concise Dictionary]

Same thing.

joeparker wrote:
3. Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation back in the 19th century when he placed a sterilised beaker with a straight entry tube alongside one with a crooked tube. Bacteria collected in the straight-tubed beaker but not in the crooked-tubed one, where instead they lodged in the bends of the pipe. He concluded that life only comes from life. This is now known as the law of biogenesis.

That doesn't prove anything. You're looking at things too big.

joeparker wrote:
4. Since evolution requires life from non-life (spontaneous generation or abiogenesis), and Louis Pasteur disproved this, evolution has been rendered impossible on account of life not being able to generate from non-life.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Evolutionists can

Quote:
Evolutionists can not answer one very important question. And that is where did TIME, SPACE and MATTER come from.

Absolutely correct.  They cannot answer that question.  Why is it important to an evolutionist?  Evolution began quite a long time after time, matter, and space, if in fact, they had a beginning.

Out of curiosity, are you familliar with the logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance?  You should look into it.

Quote:
The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet?

no, it doesn't raise the question.  It simply describes what happened after the beginning of life.

I don't know what the origin of life was.  Neither do you.

Out of curiosity, are you familliar with the logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance?  You should look into it.

Quote:
But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.

No, it's not the only possible conclusion.  It's also possible that life does arise from non-life.  It doesn't really matter much that you don't want to accept that as a possibility.  It is.

And for the record, what exactly are you trying to prove with your Pasteur reference?  That scientific experiments can be proven to be invalid due to poor methodology?  I accept this conclusion.  What does it have to do with anything?

Quote:
It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it.

 Out of curiosity, are you familliar with the logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance?  You should look into it.

Quote:
Ignornance is not a very strong foundation for discussion.

It appears you are familiar with the logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance.  Why is it difficult for you to catch yourself using it so often?

Quote:
To those who evaded the main issue and attacked out-of-context sidebar issues, I have no real comment since you didn't either.

What?  You mean the people who didn't want to talk about physics or cosmology?  As I recall, the thread topic is EVOLUTION, which has nothing to do with your own diversions into other sciences.  Kettle's calling the pot black, methinks.

I'm sorry that you don't want to admit that evolution owes no explanation for the genesis of life, or the possible beginning of time, space, or matter.   Perhaps if you did a little more critical thinking about the study of evolution.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Yiab
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Let's get a few things

Let's get a few things straight.

Theories

Evolution: "Give me a single cell and I'll give you all the complexity and biodiversity of modern life."

Modern Cosmology: "Give me 1 Planck time after the big bang and I'll give you planets, stars, galaxies, black holes and everything else we see in the universe."

Astrobiology: "Simple organic molecules are very common in interstellar space."

Hypotheses

Quantum physics: "The idea of quantum foam can give us 1 Planck time after the big bang from nothing at all. Maybe."

Non-Euclidean Geometry: "Finite, unbounded 4-dimensional manifolds give us an idea of how we don't even need a beginning to time for it to be finite; you might simply have 1 Planck time after the big bang."

Overgeneralizations

Pateur: "If it can't happen in a short period of time in modern Earth conditions, it'll never happen anywhere in the universe no matter what the conditions."

Remaining Questions

Origins of DNA: "How did we get from abundant simple organic molecules in interstellar space to basic self-replicating molecules here on earth?"

Origins of Life: "What was necessary for basic self-replicating molecules to form a cell wall around themselves?"

Origins of the Universe: "Which of the variety of available explanations best explains how we got to 1 Planck time after the big bang?"

 

Any questions?


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Creationism requires that

Creationism requires that life comes from non-life (non-existence or nothing).  So your treatise would involve a disproof of creationism.  Evolution involves the passing on of genetic material.

 Francesco Redi debunked the notion of spontaneous generation back in 1668.  Louis Pasteur continued the long line of scientific studies by refining them to exclude other possible variables.

 It would be nice if creationists followed the example of the scientists who debunked the notion that flies spontaneous generate from rotting matter.  To date creationists haven't present one serious scientific study debunking evolution.  Yet they have managed to collect millions upon millions of dollars.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Gen 2:7   And the LORD

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

What could be more abiogenisis than this. Life coming from dust.

Kent Hovind many times made fun of evolution as being the belief that life came from a rock. What is dust? It's a rock, finely eroded. 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
The main reason, however,

{mod edit: Post deleted.  Plagiarism is not tolerated}


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
*bangs head against

*bangs head against wall*

It doesnt need to. That is the job of primordial chemists and cosmologists. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Again, you're not

Again, you're not understanding the point. Evolution is NOT about studying the origins of the first forms of life.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
joeparker wrote:The main

joeparker wrote:
The main reason, however, that evolution theory cannot provide a full explanation of our origins, is that it can’t take us right back to the beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, a lot of things must already be the case.

It's true that evolution does not, and in fact doesn't try to provide the answer from the very beginning. It only explains how complexity arises spontaneously. However, having a mechanism for increasing complexity makes the whole question of origin much easier, don't you think? It covers the time from the first simple replicators all the way through plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, and even the mighty homo sapiens.

joeparker wrote:
For example: there must be biological organisms;

There must be molecules capable of replicating themselves. What, exactly, the first of these would be is not yet known, and can only be hypothesized at this time.

joeparker wrote:
there must be an environment capable of supporting them;

It's trivial to assume that they would only come about in an environment that could support them. That's why it happened on Earth, but not on, for instance, Venus.

joeparker wrote:
they must be capable of reproduction;

Yes, but they don't need to do anything as complex as even bacteria would. It would probably be a single molecule, RNA or something like it. But this is just a guess. We don't really know what it was.

joeparker wrote:
random mutations must introduce variety.

This is a given in almost any environment.

joeparker wrote:
How did these things come to be the case? Where did these simple organisms capable of reproduction come from?

Likely by random chance under the appropriate environmental conditions, i.e. the Early Earth. But science doesn't have a definitive answer to this yet.

joeparker wrote:
Why do we have an environment capable of supporting life?

Life occurs where it is possible for life to occur. So even if planets capable of supporting life are only 1 in a hundred trillion, it should be no great surprise to the life on that rare planet that it finds itself someplace suitable. This is called a selection effect.

joeparker wrote:
Evolution theory cannot provide an answer to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met. Evolution theory therefore cannot provide a full explanation of the origins of life.

Evolutionary theory would not attempt to provide a complete solution. You're being unreasonable. It does, however, tell us a great deal. Does it undermine god? I think so, at least the notion of a caring personal god who created humans specifically and intentionally, because it is hard to imagine that such a being could be in any way personal when he, at most, created a tiny molecule billions of years ago and then turned it over to natural selection. And it isn't nearly as hard to believe that a simple self-replicator could come about spontaneously as it is to believe that an elephant just popped out of nowhere.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
The unreasonableness of

{mod edit: Post deleted. Plagiarism is not tolerated}

 


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
nice copy and paste

nice copy and paste job.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-athism.htm

 

You should give credit when you do that.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
I like that, you completely

I like that, you completely ignore everything and go on to a new topic..


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Beat me to it, Mindspead.

Beat me to it, Mindspead. lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: I like that,

noor wrote:
I like that, you completely ignore everything and go on to a new topic..
Of course it's the classic, "Wah wah! the don't agree... they sux!!1!"  argument.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I'll play along with this

I'll play along with this copy-paste idiot

 If the definition of an atheist is: someone who believes that there is NO God. Then we can ask 'how does he or she know?'

Typical. Confusing

I do not believe X is true

Versus I believe X is not true

We do not KNOW there is no God, we merely point out that there is no evidence for such a being therefore it is reasonable to assume it does not exist until proven to exist. There is no such thing as 100% certianty.

 A much more reasonable position is that of the agnostic who claims that he or she does not know whether there is a God and is open to the evidence.

That is what atheists believe. They believe that until evidence comes along, it can be assumed God does not exist.

 

 The atheist has no reasonable explanation for the 'first cause' of the universe. Because there is no ultimate first cause one must assume that it just popped into existence -

It is the theist who believes in ex nihlo creation, that God literally created the universe out of nothing. That is impossible. Not even God can break the laws of thermodynamics. We appeal to the laws of physics. You appeal to magic.

 The atheist view also results in a universe where there is no ultimate justice, the bad guys get away with it. The atheist seems to be quite happy that life is extinguished at death; of what ultimate consequence is the life of an atheist?

How exactly does this break scientific laws?

 The atheist is happy to critique the theist view but is blind to the philosophical implications of his own view. He likes to object to the problem of evil but is blind to the fact of the ultimate lack of justice resulting from atheism.

Are you telling me we need omnipotent justice? Are you telling me we are so weak and pathetic we need it made for us. JUSTICE IS A MAN MADE CONCEPT, we create justice. Furthermore, this breaks no scientific law.

 but as old or middle age approaches and the pleasures of youth become just dreams and you consider your own mortality then you begin to realise the futility and meaningless of atheism. When you are in the grave who will remember you and for how long?

 This seems to be an argumentum ad consequintium. Ignorance is bliss indeed. Theists under the delusion that they will have an afterlife when they die. This typical argument from despair is so typical of theists. I do not care for what makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, I care for TRUTH!

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
joeparker

  I'M the case against evolution , Science ,AGNOSTICISM , god,Atheism ,satan,hell ,heaven, christianity,judaism, islam and or any other bull sh!t cr@p ...


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Is it just me or does that

Is it just me or does that look like one of AnonymousMaster's posts?


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: Is it just me

noor wrote:

Is it just me or does that look like one of AnonymousMaster's posts?

Yeah, it's probably the same person, we'll have him banned.

 


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
joeparker wrote: I'M the

joeparker wrote:
I'M the case against evolution ,

I got a really good joke for you.

joeparker wrote:
Science

Please get off the computer, dump any medicine you have, and live in the forest, naked. 

joeparker wrote:
bull sh!t cr@p ...

Oh come on, if you are going to fill in letters, fill in more then half. 

 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote:

noor wrote:

Is it just me or does that look like one of AnonymousMaster's posts?

Heh, it is. What's funny is as soon as you point out he's cut-n-pasting he goes into super troll mode.

Someone needs to ban his IP address.


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
joeparker wrote: 1.

joeparker wrote:
1. Evolution requires that life comes from non-life.

 Hey, Kent!  I didn't realize that you could use the internet during a prison sentence.  My, how times have changed.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
joeparker wrote: I'M the

joeparker wrote:
I'M the case against evolution , Science ,AGNOSTICISM , god,Atheism ,satan,hell ,heaven, christianity,judaism, islam and or any other bull sh!t cr@p ...

Um... is there anything you believe in?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
joeparker wrote: The

joeparker wrote:
The unreasonableness of Atheism:

The title to this should be changed to 'The unreasonableness of my strawman version of atheism, based on my ignorance of what atheism means, and how deductive proofs work"

Let's count the basic errors in this post.

Quote:
 

 If the definition of an atheist is: someone who believes that there is NO God.

Error number 1. Atheism is defined as a-theism... not holding to the claims of theism.

Quote:
 

Then we can ask 'how does he or she know?'

Error number 2. Confusing an inductive claim for a deductive claim.

Strong atheists hold that 'god' does not exist, but they make the claim based on a deduction.  We can rule out the existence of claims that lead to internal contradictions.

Quote:
 

In order to know that there is no God he or she must know all that there is to know.

Error number 3. In order to know that there are no square circles, we need not know everything. Square circles are contradictory, ergo they cannot exist.

We can therefore rule out 'god' if we can form a deductive proof.

 

Quote:
 

And therefore he would be God.

Error number 4

Quote:
 

But we know that an atheist is just like us, a man with imperfect knowledge. However in claiming to be an atheist he is setting himself up, instead of God, as a kind of mini-god, since he claims that there is no God but is making himself to be a god with all knowledge.

Errors 5 and 6. Again, one can rule out a contradictory claim, we can do so deductively. This is pretty basic... It does not require god knowledge to rule out that 2+2 equals five. 

The amount of basic ignorance in this post is astonishing.

Quote:
 

This is unreasonable. However in practise there might be other emotional rather than logical reasons why a person chooses atheism.

Error 7 

And now the theist turns to their favorite attack on atheism: that it is an emotional position.

This is not an an error so much as it is a projection: theists hold to their religion on emotions, ergo they assume everyone else responds the same way.

Quote:
 

Disillusion with established religion, the problem of evil, 

 

Error 8 - the problem of evil is not an 'emotional position' it is a logical position. 

Quote:
 

personal tragedy,fear,

Error 9, and another projection... why would a person NOT believe in a god out of fear? Theism inculcates people THROUGH fear.

Quote:
 

 personal comfort and pleasure etc.

 Error 10, another projection: it is religion that offers the consolation for death....

Quote:
 

 A much more reasonable position is that of the agnostic who claims that he or she does not know whether there is a God and is open to the evidence.

 

Error number 11 and 12

First, most atheists are agnostics, so most atheists do in fact hold to their atheism this way.

Second, even a strong atheist is open to conceding error, the strong atheist simply believes he has a deductive proof against theism.  

 


Quote:

Atheism is also unreasonable because it cannot explain the origin or cause of the universe or the scientific laws that uphold it.

Error 13 and 14. Argument from ignorance and false dichotomy error.  The fact that an atheist does not have a full account of cosmology is of no matter, and it is simply false to assume that without a full cosmology one must hold to theism!

Quote:
 

The atheist has no reasonable explanation for the 'first cause' of the universe.

Errors 15 and 16

The atheist does not need one to reject theism

There is no reason to believe that there MUST have been a first cause in the first place, so this is a false dilemma.

Quote:
 

Because there is no ultimate first cause one must assume that it just popped into existence - which is really belief in magic or miracles.

Error 17. Quantum tunneling from a zero dimensional state has been shown to be possible by Tryone and Vilekin.

Quote:
 

 You could say that the universe is just the product of happenstance - it just happened. But very few atheists even think about these things.

 

Because its a false dilemma that an atheist must provide a full account of cosmology to be an atheist. 

Quote:
 

Some atheists seem to be happy to live in a universe of happenstance and the resulting absurdness and meaningless of our existence.

 

Error 18. Atheists feel that they get to choose the meaning for their lives, and find this to be a more pleasant role for themselves over being a worthless pawn only worthy of destruction, or groveling before a 'god'.

Quote:
 

 The atheist view also results in a universe where there is no ultimate justice, the bad guys get away with it.

If you use this to hold to theism, then you have error 19:  

This is the fallacy of arguing from adverse consequences. 

Quote:
 

The atheist seems to be quite happy that life is extinguished at death;

And this annoys the fuck out of theists who fear death so much that they must delude themselves with religion to blot out the fear.

Quote:
 

of what ultimate consequence is the life of an atheist?

 Whatever impact one's life has on others.

What consequence is a life in theism, where people are worthless, and works do not matter at all?

Quote:
 


The atheist is happy to critique the theist view but is blind to the philosophical implications of his own view.

 

If only you had the slightest clue what an atheist was.... then maybe you might have something useful to say.

Quote:
 

 He likes to object to the problem of evil but is blind to the fact of the ultimate lack of justice resulting from atheism.

The problem of evil is a refutation of christianity.

The fact that there is no 'sky judge' to ensure that everyone 'gets justice' is just a fact of life.. wishing otherwise won't change reality. It only means that we all should strive to be more fair to each other.

Quote:
 

 Of course if you are an atheist and have answers to these problems let me know. Of course one can be a happy atheist, I do not deny that, but ignorance is bliss.

What a hollow complaint, coming from a theist.

Quote:
 

And of course the young atheist in the fullness of vigour can find life happy and satisfying, but as old or middle age approaches and the pleasures of youth become just dreams and you consider your own mortality then you begin to realise the futility and meaningless of atheism. When you are in the grave who will remember you and for how long?

 

In other words, when you begin to fear death, you cling to the delusion of religion to reduce your death fears.

How utterly revealing of the true emotions behind religion: the need to quell death fears.

 

Final tally: At least 19 basic errors, not one point about what atheism is.....   and I was kind in my scoring...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
  ... seventeen,

 

... seventeen, eighteen, nineteen. Nineteen errors, and counting! Hah-ah-ah!


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
The original post can be

The original post can be found here here.

His third post is here

His 8th post can be found here under the heading, "Prerequisites for Evolution."

mindspread pointed out his copying in his ninth post.

All this copying and pasting, and no credit.

As noor out, the last post was similar to a troll's post on this thread. This is probably the same troll.

So, everyone, don't waste your time. Mods, you know what to do.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
shhhhhhh... be vewy vewy

shhhhhhh...

be vewy vewy quiet...

I'm hunting twolls...

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: The original

MrRage wrote:
The original post can be found here here. His third post is here His 8th post can be found here under the heading, "Prerequisites for Evolution." mindspread pointed out his copying in his ninth post. All this copying and pasting, and no credit. As noor out, the last post was similar to a troll's post on this thread. This is probably the same troll. So, everyone, don't waste your time. Mods, you know what to do.

 

It's one thing to steal someone else's writing and post it as if it were your own... it's quite another to steal something utterly STUPID and post it as if it were your own...

If you're gonna steal, steal something worthwhile... I have no respect for theives with no class. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
joeparker wrote: The main

joeparker wrote:

The main reason, however, that evolution theory cannot provide a full explanation of our origins, is that it can’t take us right back to the beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, a lot of things must already be the case. For example: there must be biological organisms; there must be an environment capable of supporting them; they must be capable of reproduction; random mutations must introduce variety.

How did these things come to be the case? Where did these simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? Why do we have an environment capable of supporting life? Evolution theory cannot provide an answer to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met. Evolution theory therefore cannot provide a full explanation of the origins of life.

How did life come about? FOR THE FINAL TIME: WE DO NOT KNOW - AND NEITHER DO YOU!!!

Evolution does not expand into this metaphyiscal area of philosophy. Evolution is a scientific theory - not a philosophy. Get this through your thick skull.

We have various hypothesis concerning how life came about - and that is all we have. There are no concrete records of how life came about - and we shall be perpetually ignorant of such until we discover otherwise.

Abiogenesis is quite possible - citing outdated scientific research will not help your case.

A question: Why are you being so cynical concerning a well evident scientific conclusion? While I would not be one to tell people to not be skeptical of things - as I question every new piece of theory - I see no cause for your question.

What do you think accurratly describes the beginning of time, space, and matter - since this is so clearly what you are interested in discussing - in spite of your false claim that this is about evolution? 


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
I would think you would be

I would think you would be ashamed of Plaguarism... but... eh... God will forgive... so might as well let the sin flow, right?

joeparker wrote:
The unreasonableness of Atheism:

If the definition of an atheist is: someone who believes that there is NO God. Then we can ask 'how does he or she know?' In order to know that there is no God he or she must know all that there is to know. And therefore he would be God. But we know that an atheist is just like us, a man with imperfect knowledge. However in claiming to be an atheist he is setting himself up, instead of God, as a kind of mini-god, since he claims that there is no God but is making himself to be a god with all knowledge. This is unreasonable. However in practise there might be other emotional rather than logical reasons why a person chooses atheism. Disillusion with established religion, the problem of evil, personal tragedy, fear, personal comfort and pleasure etc. A much more reasonable position is that of the agnostic who claims that he or she does not know whether there is a God and is open to the evidence.


The definition is of an atheist is someone who lacks belief in a god or goddesses. What point is there to this paragraph. In the same IDENTICAL SENSE that an atheist must have ALL KNOWLEDGE to claim there is NO god - a theist (like yourself) must also pretend to have ALL KNOWLEDGE to say there IS a god. But this isn't the case - you simply believe in a god - and we simply do not- it is as simple as that!

Don't be such a hypocrite! Prick.

Quote:
Atheism is also unreasonable because it cannot explain the origin or cause of the universe or the scientific laws that uphold it. The atheist has no reasonable explanation for the 'first cause' of the universe. Because there is no ultimate first cause one must assume that it just popped into existence - which is really belief in magic or miracles. You could say that the universe is just the product of happenstance - it just happened. But very few atheists even think about these things. Some atheists seem to be happy to live in a universe of happenstance and the resulting absurdness and meaningless of our existence. The atheist view also results in a universe where there is no ultimate justice, the bad guys get away with it. The atheist seems to be quite happy that life is extinguished at death; of what ultimate consequence is the life of an atheist?


Your ignorance and overly arrogant pretense of atheistic philosophy is appalling!!! I (and most atheists) have our own personal hypothesis of what the origin of the universe is. Unlike arrogant theistic twits (like yourself) - we do not parade around claiming our thoughts are the "absolute truth" - instead we awcknowledge that they are simply our own personal philosophies and reguard them honorably as such.

For my personal theory? The laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only transfered. They also state that something cannot come from nothing. This would make energy eternal. If it cannot be created or destroyed - it has neither a beginning nor an end. The interesting status of energy is that it is neither something nor nothing.

Thus - energy is the fundamental of the universe - it is mindless. as to specifically HOW energy brought the universe about is another theory that i am more than willing to elaborate on if you are so interested.

Quote:
The atheist is happy to critique the theist view but is blind to the philosophical implications of his own view. He likes to object to the problem of evil but is blind to the fact of the ultimate lack of justice resulting from atheism. Of course if you are an atheist and have answers to these problems let me know. Of course one can be a happy atheist, I do not deny that, but ignorance is bliss. And of course the young atheist in the fullness of vigour can find life happy and satisfying, but as old or middle age approaches and the pleasures of youth become just dreams and you consider your own mortality then you begin to realise the futility and meaningless of atheism. When you are in the grave who will remember you and for how long?


My... you are quite the arrogant little shit! Why don't you get off your ego-thronged high horse and come back down to reality - get your head out of the clouds - you're not the center of the universe - prick!

"lack of justice resulting from atheism"? What are you talking about? What "lack of justice"???

"futility and meaningless of atheism"? I give my own life meaning. In my experience - it is the young atheists who are typically frustrated with the world around them - dealing with arrogant prick-ass twits like yourself at such a young age - bringing them down... versus the atheists in old age who seem to be at peace and have grown immune to your type of bullshit.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
This has to be that same

This has to be that same troll.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: This has

MattShizzle wrote:
This has to be that same troll.

So much for theists being the moral ones. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Regardless of who this

Regardless of who this troll is or is not, I'm of the opinion that being caught in plagiarism and continuing to plagiarize is a clear case of spamming the boards, which is a violation of the rules.

So, to any trolls who might be reading...

I'm checking for cut and paste jobs.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Who said life can come from

Who said life can come from non-life. Who said non-life to life is magical and spontanous? Put the begining elements of RNA(first forms of structor like DNA) and then, at the time the atomosphere of the planet would of been thin, different elements that make up the atmosphere. Now, radiation from space, as we know we are bombared but our atmosphere now stops most harmful radiation that can cause masive mutations, or death such as gamma rays, x-rays, etc. Even solar winds are stoped most of the time now. Now the elements are in one area, they are getting hit by radiation, and it changes the make-up and makes a form of RNA. First bacteria come. How is that spontanous? The even chance of it happening is low, I agree, I think it happened a lot, and it so happened they survived just once to create the rest of evolution.

 

Now, how is that spontanous hmm? Did that not just explain it? I know it might not of been that way it happened, but you saying we have no explainations on how non-life became life is idiotic.

 

Also, i'm pretty sure 100 years ago, no one could come up with a reason non-life became life, but now we can. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


joeparker
joeparker's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
joeparker

there is no creation evidence and no evolution evidence. All we have is . . . evidence.

Looking for 'molecular fossils'?

Is evolutionism correct? Could time, chance and natural chemical processes have created life in the beginning?

Were Bacteria the First Forms of Life on Earth?
Does anyone know anything about this?
from where the very first life came from.?any avolutionist?
finding the evolutionary origin of proteins and DNA is tricky as each requires the other for its own synthesis-which came first?
any gold,silver or core member???
I'M   not a atheist or theist  
cheers joeparker!!!!