What's so rational about evolution?

mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
What's so rational about evolution?

You believe that man came from monkeys. Then why is there still monkeys? Why are humans the only 'animal' with a moral conscience? How did that evolve? How does our universe work like clockwork if there is no creator? If the earth were tilted even a little bit off where it is now, it would be either too hot or too cold for life. You believe some random explosion of cosmic goop did that?

 

Sounds irrational to me! 

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
No, the Taliban are far more

No, the Taliban are far more sinful than America. They follow crazy laws of allah and kill people who did nothing at all. Women, children, whatever. I'm glad we don't live under allah's law.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
mythrys, I have a question

mythrys, I have a question for you. Since you detest homosexuality so much why did your loving god create hermaphrodites and asexual beings?


Digital_Babu
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
MarthaSplatterhead

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
mythrys, I have a question for you. Since you detest homosexuality so much why did your loving god create hermaphrodites and asexual beings?

 

To test our faith off course, sheesh. Wink


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
    mythrys wrote: No,

 

 

mythrys wrote:
No, the Taliban are far more sinful than America. They follow crazy laws of allah and kill people who did nothing at all. Women, children, whatever. I'm glad we don't live under allah's law.

 

Can you say "Irony?"

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


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
mythrys,  From what you

mythrys, 

From what you have posted, it sounds perhaps as if you are simply repeating what you've been told.

I would suggest that you "think outside the box" a bit and start reading, studying and learning on your own.  Come to your own conclusions.  Don't assume that what is being fed to you is necessarily true.

Think for yourself!

Read up on evolution and not from a theist point of view, but from a scientific point of view.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I assume you mean humans.

I assume you mean humans. Well, God created man and woman perfect, but satan messed it up, and therefore, hermaphrodite's can't tell what gender they really are. I'm not so sure. I would think that God would forgive them if they commited homosexuality. As for asexuals- can humans even be asexual? 

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
From what you have posted,

From what you have posted, it sounds perhaps as if you are simply repeating what you've been told. Why do people think I learned everything from some church leader? No one taught me this, I learned it on my own. I would suggest that you "think outside the box" a bit and start reading, studying and learning on your own.  Come to your own conclusions.  Don't assume that what is being fed to you is necessarily true.  Again, no one "fed" it to me. I learned on my own. I already considered evolution from a scientific point of view, and it sounded stupid. The big bang, animals coming from other animals...nonsense. I do think for myself, and it lead me to God. At least you tell me in a polite way. Thankyou~  

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Wow. This thread got way

Wow. This thread got way off topic really quick. Impressive.

Oh, and one of my fellow atheists needs a 10-yard strawman penalty but it's late and I can't remember who it was and I don't feel like checking, but you likely know who you are. Sticking out tongue

Meanwhile, back inthe evolution discussion: 

mythrys wrote:

I figured the ancestral population must go extinct according to Darwinism because it's "survival of the fittest". So if apes or some monkey like creature started to evolve because it needed it for survival, shouldn't the other monkeys have died off because they didn't adapt to changes?

 So a group of common ancestors may have been geographically isolated. In the case of humans and apes, our ancestors headed out to the plains and grasslands, while the apes' were in the forest. Then we each adapted to better fit our environment.

Out on the plains, it was advantageous to walk upright to see long distances, run far, and carry stuff (since we'd be running so much) so we developed those traits.

Meanwhile, in the forests, the ape-ancestors who were better suited to living in the forest did better leading to musculature better suited for climbing trees and such.

In each environment, the "new" form outperformed the previous one and eventually replaced it entirely (in our case Austrolopithiceines (sp?), Homo habilus, Homo erectus). 

mythrys wrote:

For the moral conscience, I mean a sense of right and wrong. Of course animals can love and bond, but they don't know what's right or wrong. Strange example, but say two male dogs are trying to mate. (Whether you agree or disagree with homosexuality doesn't matter, it's just for the example). Would another dog come and tell them "Hey, that's wrong!" Animals don't seem to have a system of justice as do humans.

What happens with the two dogs is that if those dogs are inclined to try to mate only with other males, then they would likely not pass on their genes. That's where the "justice" comes in.

 

mythrys wrote:

Nothing made the creator so complex and powerful, because no one or nothing created him- he has no beginning. He has been alive for ever, and will be alive forever.

I'll give you the last one. I honestly don't know. Even I'm stumped sometimes.

So why can't we declare that the universe has been around forever, if your creator can be eternal?

-Triften 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: I don't mean

mythrys wrote:
I don't mean to lump them all together, but every atheist I have ever talked to in my life has been very nasty to me.

Probably because you started the conversation with something like "You believe that man came from monkeys." It is ignorant and rude to tell someone what they believe, especially if you are dead wrong about it.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: No, just in

mythrys wrote:
No, just in general. They call me a "Jesus c*nt" and poke fun at God. Many times, I don't debate, I just share the gospel with them.

Hahaha. No wonder. You proselytize to them and offer no rational debate in return. What do you expect?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Your views on evolution are scientifically incorrect

You believe that man came from monkeys. Then why is there still monkeys? Why are humans the only 'animal' with a moral conscience? How did that evolve? How does our universe work like clockwork if there is no creator? If the earth were tilted even a little bit off where it is now, it would be either too hot or too cold for life. You believe some random explosion of cosmic goop did that?

Sounds irrational to me!

Oh boy, another fallacy. Tell u what mythrys. Read the WHOLE essay which I wrote below, then come back to me.

I have never met a theist who has ever had any understanding of evolution. I work in molecular biology and genetics, so I have studied it for years. Since you have no idea what you are talking about, I'll teach you.

First of all.

 

. I often hear the argument, “if humans evolved from chimps, why are they still here”. A foolish argument. Evolution by gene drift works on individuals, not species. If the new combination is successful, the individual will have a greater survival chance and reproduce more, passing the new gene to his children. As long as a gene exists in the pool, the individual and his offspring have the chance for further advantageous mutations to occur (and occur they will, for mutation happens during every single undergoing of mitosis, which happens millions of time per day). The survival of an organism matters little so long as s/he had reproduced, is the gene that matters. An old species does not “disappear” if a new one arises. It might disappear only if the new species is superior and destroys its predecessors (early humans most certainly undertook genocide against the Neanderthals).

Both during storage and copying, there are accidents in genetic code, called mutations. This occurs when incorrect nucleotides are slotted in. Some of these mutations are good, others are damaging, most have no effect, but through endless repetition of this cycle, organisms evolve. If a string of DNA only has a regulatory role, it will change based on the probability of random frequency.

But if a gene codes for an essential amino acid, it does not change very easily. Faults are immediately repaired by the genetic repair mechanisms. Such genes are highly conserved. The highly conserved genes are one of the few mechanisms that are yet unaltered by evolution. Is this not proof enough for you? There are 400 highly conserved genes that have not changed in three billion years.

At the heart of evolution is mitosis. Every time a cell divides, its genetic material lines up and splits. As the DNA base pairs replicate, 6 billion bases have to go into the right place (at least for humans), this is really hard, the only way a nucleotide can recognize it’s counterpart is that the activation energy needed for them to bond is less than if incorrect nucleotides bonded, so if it takes place with an abundance of adenosine triphosphate, it is guaranteed some will end up in the wrong slots on the ribose-phosphate ring, thus forming new strings of genes. DNA controls protein synthesis. The proteins carry out every cellular function. When a protein is needed, the transcriptase enzyme for that protein is secreted, as this enters the cell’s nucleolus, it causes the chromosome containing the DNA to unwind, where a piece of single helix containing a particular string of base pairs is “cut” from the double helix by the enzyme. This piece is identical to the code of the protein. Using templated polymerization, free bases (a nucleotide bound to a sugar-phosphate) make the mirror image of this code, where the correct nucleotides are slotted in, A to T and C to G. Then the strand is peeled apart and the template is returned to the genetic code, where the new strand is ejected from the nucleus where RNA (differs only in one nucleotide and ribose instead of D-Ribose for the backing) called messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) is assembled from a second round of polymerization, the mRNA binds to a ribosome (a ribosome is a giant macromolecular protein assembling machine that just trundles along) in the endoplasmic reticulum, where it is run through it like a conveyer belt, as different tRNAs (transfer RNA) line up with the codons in order, bound to a specific amino acid, stitching them together before leaving the ribosome, creating the protein necessary for whatever function the cell needs to perform.

Thus a base-pair swapping (called genetic drift) might enable the carrier to produce a new protein with a new function (it does not stop it from producing the old protein as DNA has massive redundancies and back-up, in fact, only 9% of our DNA seems to have any use at all). The introduction of new alleles into the gene pool by mitosis affects the Advantage of Trait Gradient, which determines if a genetic trait is advantageous enough; it confers increased survival probability to the point where it will become a permanent inclusion in the gene pool. We call this gene flow, and it takes, as you guessed, a very long time. Although not always. The survival advantage of trait is inversely proportional to the amount of time it takes. It is relatively easy to observe genotype transition today. For instance, in parts of Africa where malaria is most prevalent, the allele containing the single copy of sickle-cell anemia can be found in almost 100% of the population. Another good instance of this is common lawn grass. Consider dandelions, a totally nuisance type of weed. As people of suburbia ruthlessly take their lawnmowers to the grass, the dandelions that happens to have genetic combinations that inhibit it’s Auxin growth factors find it useful because they are far more likely to survive, too short to be cut by the blades. These pass their genotype to their children who in turn will be unusually short and survive the lawnmower blades while their tall counterparts perish and in time, a new species, the lawnlion, may arise.

Interestingly enough, this is more than enough proof to debunk the idea that God created life. Any engineer would snicker at the sloppiness and inefficiency of the biosystem. Evolution has no foresight, no objective. It is a driving force that reeks of impatience. A benefit now may be worthless in a million years. Intelligent Design (The idea that life was too complex to arise by evolution) likes to use the Watchmaker analogy, that if you found a watch, you wouldn’t assume it assembled itself. But evolution is a blind watchmaker. It cannot see what it is assembling, it tries different parts, but if it hears the tick, it knows it works.

People think macroevolution as a total overhaul in an organism’s phenotype and speciation. When the Origin of Species was published it was scoffed at for three reasons. One was that it contracted religious scripture, which at the time was held to be absolute. two, it seemed laughable to the British, especially seeing they were convinced of their racial superiority, that they could possibly be descended from apes, and three, because it seemed so ridiculous that environmental natural selection could bring about the huge changes in phenotype that accounted for speciation. It seemed that such metamorphosis was totally implausible.

Of course, today we understand that phenotype depends on genotype. The speciation variable is not that huge. A human shares 99% of his DNA with a chimpanzee. That means that 1% (5,000 genes) produces 5,000 proteins that the chimps do not have. We only differ in 2 amino acids (out of 22 known to life) but these two can create vast combinations of proteins. These proteins control advanced neurogenesis, hair follicle growth, skin collagen makeup, eye colour variables, hormone-stimulated growth, all the ways in which we differ from chimps. Evolution works with scaffolding. The vast majority of genes in all mammals are the same, the genes that control enzymatic response, angio and vasculogenesis, the genes that control immunological responses and stem cell arrangements, they control basic development of brain functions that all mammals have, they control metabolism, mitosis, apoptosis, sensory development, the development of spermatogenesis in male mammals and mammary glands in females. By far and large, the genome across the mammalian class is identical. Massive changes in phenotype are caused by a few changes in genes. Even with the simple banana, 50% of our genotype is identical. This groundbreaking work was done by Richard Dawkins, who wrote about the crucial part of the genotype in his book The Selfish Gene.

we define macroevolution as so many successful mutations occurring within a pool that the phenotype of the organism is totally altered. This is essentially the same as microevolution, just over a longer time frame. Genes are very powerful, and they can easily massively alter the phenotype of an organism. You seemed to define macroevolution as speciation. That is, that the cumulative genetic change in an individual and their descendants has been large enough that the gametes no longer match with the original species of the prototype, that is the very first organism of a species that carried a mutation with a slight advantage, which over many hundreds of thousands of years and generations, eventually became so much that the gametes will no longer fuse with those of the original species, if it still exists.

 

 

This is part of the most powerful evidence for this evolution. Ancient fossils are more shaky as evidence. But this we can observe and have even shaped it ourselves. Witness the common canine. All canines are of common descent from the wolf, but as man found a useful hunting partner and friend, he started to selectively breed these wolves. Different breeders wanted different traits, and within a thousand generations, we had altered the dog beyond recognition. Numerous different breeds had cropped up as breeders had selected the most golden, or the most furry, or the fastest, and made them breed to produce the phenotype they wanted. Another good example is the vegetables we eat. All descended from the same green plants. As humans developed agriculture, they started selectively breeding green plants to make the food they wanted. Cucumbers, lettuce, beans and potatoes are all created by selecting specific traits from plants that we want and making them breed. The change in phenotype made them unrecognizable within a few thousand generations. Another example is bacterial resistance to antibiotics. From penicillinase secreting enzymes to VRE, bacteria have this extraordinary ability to evolve so fast because evolution works at a rather different scale in those sizes. Since the number of organisms and generations is so vast, the immediate survival advantage of the useful genetic mutations that allow certain individuals to survival antibiotic bombardment is massively multiplied, and bacterial resistance can be spawned very fast.


What makes life remarkable is that it needs no designer, it is an autocatalytic cycle, bound to happen by the laws of chemistry, fixed in the nature of molecular interaction. It’s processes are self assembling, it’s mechanisms self-regulating. The autocalalytic cycle looks like this:

 

Life as an Autocatalytic Cycle

-DNA reproduces, free nucleotides are assembled into polynucleotides

-The polynucleotides specify the code to make proteins from amino acids.

-The catalytic function of proteins is used to assemble polynucleotides from nucleotides, which is then used to assemble proteins from amino acids

 

Let us go back in time now to the Mesoproterozoic era. In fact, the Earth was mostly Carbon Dioxide. Simple Prokaryotic life forms survived by metabolizing Carbon Dioxide. They were happy and there was no need for them to evolve. They slotted perfectly into the simple taxonomy, into the mud and shale and very warm climate that made up the ancient Earth. But trouble was brewing. The by-product of their metabolism was oxygen, a gas that was toxic to these little prokaryotes. As oxygen in the atmosphere increased, it started to resemble more and more what we see today: A 21% oxygen atmosphere. As soon as the oxygen reached this number, it caused a bacterial apocalypse. Oxygen is highly reactive and toxic, it interfered with their metabolic systems and protein synthesis. Only a few hardy bacteria survived. They were the ones buried deep in the mud and shale, who could escape to the anoxic world, but it could not last. Eventually, a new class of bacteria arose by the very same process of genetic evolution I covered in detail before. These new cells could metabolize oxygen and thus gave rise to the next stage in evolution: The dawn of the Eukaryotes. Every cell in every advanced organism is more or less the same. A fluid filled membrane with a nucleus containing a series of base pairs that encode for all the proteins that make up the organism, surrounded a cytoplasm swimming with Lyosomes and Peroxisomes and other organelles that play a function in life. The endosymbiosis theory states that the oxygen-hating bacteria of the old world found their home in symbioses with the Eukaryotes. They became our mitochondria, safe from the oxygen of the outside world, metabolizing gases and powering their new homes. Because the cell is a fluid-filled sac with an amphipathic hydrophobic/philic bilayer, it can simply engulf other smaller cells and organisms. So the Eukaryotes started as predators, our immune system B-Cell Phagocyte still does. Indeed, there is vast evidence to support this (notice this is called endosymbiosis theory, not hypothesis). The extraordinary structural similarities between Prokaryotes and mitochondria. Because of the symbioses, looking at our mitochondria is like looking back in time. They haven’t had to evolve, just like their oxyphobic brethren of the Mesoproterozoic world did not. And of course, the fact that this is the only organelle besides the nucleus that has its own genetic code is a clear indicator of endosymbiosis.

The rise of the Eukaryotes was crucial. Oxygen is much more reactive than Carbon Dioxide, therefore metabolism involving it is much faster. Eukaryotic evolution could work so much faster because it was based upon a much faster fuel. Mitosis and breeding speed increased, and clumps of quasi-independent cells would clump to form tissues that would later make up plant-like organisms, as the process of photosynthesis developed from the simple carbon dioxide metabolism. In Eukaryotes, the once RNA dominated world was being replaced by DNA. It is the double helix that allows for the error in copying during mitosis. Microevolution had begun. The Hypothesis goes that as the Eukaryotic genetic code evolved (as it could now evolve due to the new process of genetic mutation), it would pave way for a massive explosion in large life forms and tissue groups and DNA could shift to perform the genesis functions that could assemble life from seemingly quasi-independent cells. This process where the Eukaryotes underwent gene shifting took half a billion years, but by the Cambrian, it was ready.

At the same time, another mechanism was being assembled at this time. Photosynthesis. This remarkable chain contains 50 chemical reactions which have the astonishing ability to create glucose using atmospheric gas catalyzed by sunlight. It has not been fully unlocked, but photosynthesis is crucial to life. It would be no joke to say that at its fundamental level, this is the single most important metabolic process known. You see, there was a lot of oxygen in the air, but the amount of carbon dioxide that was still present was blocking Eukaryotic evolution. The first simple algae that arose did so in the same way as mitochondria, through endosymbiosis, the chloroplasts are remnants of ancient prokaryotes, and it is they who find their home among the plant Eukaryote cell, able to survive in the water where the first biology originated, they became nature’s factories, removing carbon dioxide and adding more oxygen.

In biochemistry circles, there are four pieces of evidence that are special in that they not only support evolution but disprove design. We call these the magic four. They are 1. Endogenous retroviral gene insertion, 2. Vestigial organs, 3. Biochemical spectrum similarity and 4. Endosymbiosis. I won’t go into these, but I want to look at #4 because it is the one I mentioned above. Our mitochondria’s metabolic by-product is a highly destructive form of oxygen called free radicals which ricochet around inside our fragile cells and occasionally slam into DNA, causing it to undergo unpleasant mutation, sometimes it destroys the apoptosis code and lo and behold a cancer cell is born. In terms of evolution, this offers no disadvantage as it takes many years and most humans did not live long enough to get cancer, but tell me this, if God created us perfect, why did he have to call upon a parasite that gives us cancer to perform the most crucial function of life, respiration?

 

Evolution does NOT PLAY WITH CHANCE! IT is no random process, it is a naturally selective process, bound by the laws of chemistry. The primordial "goop" you idiotically refer to is water, a permanent dipole containing biomolecules like carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfer, magnesium, potassium, chloride and nitrogen.

 

Perhaps, after you too have studied evolution for ten years, you can come back and talk to me.

 

 

 

 

"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


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote:

triften wrote:

Wow. This thread got way off topic really quick. Impressive.

Oh, and one of my fellow atheists needs a 10-yard strawman penalty but it's late and I can't remember who it was and I don't feel like checking, but you likely know who you are. Sticking out tongue

Meanwhile, back inthe evolution discussion:

I didn't set up a strawman. I said the same thing he was saying only applied to him instead of other people.

He openly admits he has no problem with making arbitrary rules and killing people who break them do you really think he's going to get your geographic isolation speech?

Somehow I doubt it. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: I assume

mythrys wrote:
I assume you mean humans. Well, God created man and woman perfect, but satan messed it up, and therefore, hermaphrodite's can't tell what gender they really are. I'm not so sure. I would think that God would forgive them if they commited homosexuality. As for asexuals- can humans even be asexual?

You cannot be serious.  Satan does not create, right?  That would make him a god too.  Hermaphrodites can too tell what gender they are.  They have a vagina and a huge clitorus/penis.  They would have to commit homosexuality if they had sex. 

I wasn't saying humans could be asexual but it is another term for hermaphrodites.  

I can't take you serious anyway by referring to satan messing up god's creations.  You theists will find a way to rationalize anything, won't you?  BTW, there is only one way to heaven and that is Amedei Chocolate.                              


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: I didn't set

Gauche wrote:

I didn't set up a strawman. I said the same thing he was saying only applied to him instead of other people.

I didn't name names, Gauche. In fact, looking back, I'm not even sure where I thought I saw it.

Gauche wrote:

He openly admits he has no problem with making arbitrary rules and killing people who break them do you really think he's going to get your geographic isolation speech?

Somehow I doubt it.

Hey, don't crush my hopes and dreams! Smiling 

-Triften 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod, you've just

deludedgod, you've just blinded me with science. Eye-wink

I wish I knew more. I avoided biology like the plague in school, and now I regret it. I really only learned to appreciate natural select after learning about genetic algorithms.


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I know satan doesn't

I know satan doesn't create- I meant that God created, and satan messed it up. If satan didn't screw it up, there would be no hermaphrodites (they would be normal).

 I'm sorry about the asexual thing- I didn't know it was synonymous with hermaphrodite. I thought you meant like the kind of animals that reproduce with themselves, which would be really weird for a human. 

What do you mean about satan not messing up God's creations. That's the whole basis of why evil exists. It's the story of the Bible- God made everything good, satan messed it up.  

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
If God is so powerful, why

If God is so powerful, why can't he just make the Devil good?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: I know satan

mythrys wrote:
I know satan doesn't create- I meant that God created, and satan messed it up. If satan didn't screw it up, there would be no hermaphrodites (they would be normal).

So hermaphrodites are like the Orcs in Lord of the Rings?


extreme cold weather
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
So hey, why would God

So hey, why would God create humans with an appendix? The appendix is a totally useless organ with no function in the human body.

Old World Monkeys have an appendix that is more developed than humans. 

In modern herbivores an appendix-like organ called the cetum secretes bacteria so the animals can digest celluose that the animals couldn't normally use.

 If God was creating individual animals and whatnot, why would He create them with useless vestigal organs?

 Why would God create things like the Ebola virus or the bacterium/virus/whatever responsible for the Black Death -- a plague that killed people regardless of whether they devoted their lives to worshipping God or whether they were primarily concerned with farming or begging or drinking all day?

Why would God need us to worship him and reward us or punish us accordingly? Why would God need to send his son to Earth to sacrifice himself to save us from him?  (okay, I'm getting off topic here, so I'll stop)


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
No, you're not getting

No, you're not getting off-topic. Those are some good questions and you're making a good point. Eye-wink


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Mythrys   I offered you a

Mythrys

 

I offered you a direct challenge in a previous post yesterday. You have not responded. Please respond.  

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: You believe

mythrys wrote:

You believe that man came from monkeys. Then why is there still monkeys? Why are humans the only 'animal' with a moral conscience? How did that evolve? How does our universe work like clockwork if there is no creator? If the earth were tilted even a little bit off where it is now, it would be either too hot or too cold for life. You believe some random explosion of cosmic goop did that?

 

Sounds irrational to me! 

Of course it sounds irrational. You just made it all up, like your religion was made up. Actually go out into the world and learn something for a change.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
how does satan cause



how does satan cause hermaphroditism? What does he actually do to screw things up?

how many "natural" problems in the world does satan account for, (hermaphroditism being one of them, right)?


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
also, why would satan cause

also, why would satan cause hermaphroditism? is it so he can automatically claim a soul for hell? does he have that power?

and if Satan causes hermaphroditism-as it is not possible for a human to make that choice- who's to say, assuming this worldview where satan has this kind of power, that he doesn't cause homosexuality?

which "evils" of the world are choices, and which ones have nothing to do with free will(thus are caused by satan)?


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
extreme cold weather

extreme cold weather wrote:

So hey, why would God create humans with an appendix? The appendix is a totally useless organ with no function in the human body.

Not only that, but the appendix can be responsible for death. 


extreme cold weather wrote:
If God was creating individual animals and whatnot, why would He create them with useless vestigal organs?

Why would he want to trick us too, by making the universe different then it seems. 

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


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: I know

mythrys wrote:

I know satan doesn't create- I meant that God created, and satan messed it up. If satan didn't screw it up, there would be no hermaphrodites (they would be normal).

I'm sorry about the asexual thing- I didn't know it was synonymous with hermaphrodite. I thought you meant like the kind of animals that reproduce with themselves, which would be really weird for a human.

What do you mean about satan not messing up God's creations. That's the whole basis of why evil exists. It's the story of the Bible- God made everything good, satan messed it up.

 

Rationalize, Rationalize, Rationalize!  Show me a verse in the buybull where it says any such thing!


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist wrote: If

American Atheist wrote:
If God is so powerful, why can't he just make the Devil good?

Because that would make sense, and God is not sensible.  He's mysterious

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
AL wrote: American Atheist

AL wrote:

American Atheist wrote:
If God is so powerful, why can't he just make the Devil good?

Because that would make sense, and God is not sensible. He's mysterious.

That explanes Noah's ark and all that.

[Cosby]Ya, right. What's a cubit? 

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


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Because God also gave us

Because God also gave us free will. If you want to be evil, you can.


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Go to the Library

There is really no point in resonding. You know nothing about evolution if that is what you think. I recommend that you go read some books and some scientific journals and then come back.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


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

RationalSchema wrote:
There is really no point in resonding. You know nothing about evolution if that is what you think. I recommend that you go read some books and some scientific journals and then come back.

Right. The only people who try to debate evolution itself are those who know nothing of evolution.

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

Books on atheism.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
MOD DELETE: Repeated post

MOD DELETE: Repeated post

"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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote:

mythrys wrote:

You believe that man came from monkeys. Then why is there still monkeys?

If my ancestors came from Poland, why are there still Pollacks? You're saying the EXACT same thing.

Quote:
Why are humans the only 'animal' with a moral conscience?

Are we? Define "moral conscience".

Quote:
How did that evolve?

Should I start listing books that I know you'll never read or was that a rhetorical queation?

Quote:
How does our universe work like clockwork if there is no creator?

How, exactly, does it work "like clockwork", and even IF it did, HOW would that imply a supernatural creator? Shouldn't such a creator require a maker as well? Why or why not?

Quote:
If the earth were tilted even a little bit off where it is now, it would be either too hot or too cold for life.

And either life as we know it would be different or you wouldn't be here to ask such a question. Can you dare apply such falty reasoning to something as big as the universe?

Quote:
You believe some random explosion of cosmic goop did that?

No, I don't. Selection is the OPPOSITE of random.

Quote:
ounds irrational to me!

Sounds like you don't know the first thing about the subject you are trying to argue against, to me.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Jutter
Jutter's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2006-08-24
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote:

MrRage wrote:
mythrys wrote:
I figured the ancestral population must go extinct according to Darwinism because it's "survival of the fittest". So if apes or some monkey like creature started to evolve because it needed it for survival, shouldn't the other monkeys have died off because they didn't adapt to changes?
I am not a biologist, but it's not inconceivable that a population could still survive after a another species evolved from it. It would have to do with the environment they live in.

Apes (both chimps, gorillas and urang utangs), are endangered species to my knowledge, and we are the cause of that (deforestation and poaching come to mind). Many animals and plants, I think it's safe to say, merely survive because we allow them to (and now several types of fish and matching fishing restrictions come to mind).

By the way mythris; animals don't evolve because they need to survive, in the process called evolution not every replication will be impeckable -to get to the technical nitty gritty of it-, and survival is how we named the rammification of some mutations inevitably outlasting other ones. It's only us humans who are capable of consciously pursuing this result.

Quote:
mythrys wrote:
Nothing made the creator so complex and powerful, because no one or nothing created him- he has no beginning. He has been alive for ever, and will be alive forever.
This is somehow easier to accept than evolution by natural selection?

And also what a convenient exception to make. This universe, it being as marvelous as it is, appearantly demands a maker, yet somehow someone amazing enough to create this marvelous universe doesn't.

~Let us be reasonable~

You want to claim there's such a thing as "the supernatural"? Fine. I hereby declare you to be "paracorrect" in doing so. 


Diosdato
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
extreme cold weather

extreme cold weather wrote:

So hey, why would God create humans with an appendix? The appendix is a totally useless organ with no function in the human body.

Old World Monkeys have an appendix that is more developed than humans.

In modern herbivores an appendix-like organ called the cetum secretes bacteria so the animals can digest celluose that the animals couldn't normally use.

If God was creating individual animals and whatnot, why would He create them with useless vestigal organs?

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG read this post by a physiologist on Scientific American.com 

Nothing more to say. Atheists can be really dumb sometimes. 


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Diosdato wrote: extreme

Diosdato wrote:
extreme cold weather wrote:

So hey, why would God create humans with an appendix? The appendix is a totally useless organ with no function in the human body.

Old World Monkeys have an appendix that is more developed than humans.

In modern herbivores an appendix-like organ called the cetum secretes bacteria so the animals can digest celluose that the animals couldn't normally use.

If God was creating individual animals and whatnot, why would He create them with useless vestigal organs?

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG read this post by a physiologist on Scientific American.com

Nothing more to say. Atheists can be really dumb sometimes.

I fail to see your point. The organ is not disputed to be vestigual, you simply proposed to still serve some function. So what? that isn't news, and fails to make a point.

No evolutinists (other than the equally uniformed who argue that way) claims the organ is USELESS. They claim the function is diminished and not as it is in corresponding structures in related organisms - VESTIGUAL. Learn the fucking concept and WHY it is significant. Like the wings of an ostrich - which they do still make use of, but obiviously don't fly. A VESTIGUAL organ.

Understand the concepts we are discussing before arrogantly posting lame ass failed rebuttals in the future. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Diosdato
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Diosdato wrote:
extreme cold weather wrote:

So hey, why would God create humans with an appendix? The appendix is a totally useless organ with no function in the human body.

Old World Monkeys have an appendix that is more developed than humans.

In modern herbivores an appendix-like organ called the cetum secretes bacteria so the animals can digest celluose that the animals couldn't normally use.

If God was creating individual animals and whatnot, why would He create them with useless vestigal organs?

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG read this post by a physiologist on Scientific American.com

Nothing more to say. Atheists can be really dumb sometimes.

I fail to see your point. The organ is not disputed to be vestigual, you simply proposed to still serve some function. So what? that isn't news, and fails to make a point.

No evolutinists (other than the equally uniformed who argue that way) claims the organ is USELESS. They claim the function is diminished and not as it is in corresponding structures in related organisms - VESTIGUAL. Learn the fucking concept and WHY it is significant. Like the wings of an ostrich - which they do still make use of, but obiviously don't fly. A VESTIGUAL organ.

Understand the concepts we are discussing before arrogantly posting lame ass failed rebuttals in the future.

I do understand the concept. More so than you do, that's obvious. You blindly lead people down a road which you really don't even understand.

Did you even read the article?  The physiologist explains the necessary function of the appendix to fetuses and lymphocyte function. You need to read the scientific article with an open mind. You are more close minded than I am by far and yet, when countered with real scientific evidence that contradicts your belief, you get angry and spout profanity at me........Maybe you need to realize that with your limited knowledge and understanding of life and the universe that there could be a God.  

BTW: its V - E - S - T - I - G - I - A - L  not vestigual....look it up in a dictionary. Don't just copy from a harebrained website that incorrectly uses the word. How old are you y#5? Maybe your too young to be wise or maybe you just are too in love with sin to believe in God.

Scientists use to believe the thyroid was vestigial too, until they determined its function. Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it vestigial. Also, scientists have only predicted that the appendix was used as a cecum for cellulose digestion, a presumption b/c no one could know for sure. Now a scientist presents evidence of its true function and that just isn't acceptable to you b/c it doesn't fit in your evolution box.

Grow up and accept that you don't know everything. 


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Diosdato

Diosdato wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Diosdato wrote:
extreme cold weather wrote:

So hey, why would God create humans with an appendix? The appendix is a totally useless organ with no function in the human body.

Old World Monkeys have an appendix that is more developed than humans.

In modern herbivores an appendix-like organ called the cetum secretes bacteria so the animals can digest celluose that the animals couldn't normally use.

If God was creating individual animals and whatnot, why would He create them with useless vestigal organs?

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG read this post by a physiologist on Scientific American.com

Nothing more to say. Atheists can be really dumb sometimes.

I fail to see your point. The organ is not disputed to be vestigual, you simply proposed to still serve some function. So what? that isn't news, and fails to make a point.

No evolutinists (other than the equally uniformed who argue that way) claims the organ is USELESS. They claim the function is diminished and not as it is in corresponding structures in related organisms - VESTIGUAL. Learn the fucking concept and WHY it is significant. Like the wings of an ostrich - which they do still make use of, but obiviously don't fly. A VESTIGUAL organ.

Understand the concepts we are discussing before arrogantly posting lame ass failed rebuttals in the future.

I do understand the concept. More so than you do, that's obvious. You blindly lead people down a road which you really don't even understand.

How, exactly?

Quote:
Did you even read the article? The physiologist explains the necessary function of the appendix to fetuses and lymphocyte function. You need to read the scientific article with an open mind.

NO, I don't I as I granted you your point that the appendix servers a function. And as I said, so what if it does?

Quote:
BTW: its V - E - S - T - I - G - I - A - L not vestigual....look it up in a dictionary. Don't just copy from a harebrained website that incorrectly uses the word. How old are you y#5? Maybe your too young to be wise or maybe you just are too in love with sin to believe in God.

You are seriously going to use a typo, made when I was quite drunk, as a point? What does it matter how I spell it when the concept is all that matters? You've bitched and moaned a whole bunch here, but you've yet to address my point.

Quote:
Scientists use to believe the thyroid was vestigial too, until they determined its function.

Which just goes to show that you know how to spell the word but fail to understand the meaning behind it. We see similar structures in many organism, but the structure is not as functional in some as in others. The structure could be done without by some, but not others. This along with countless other lines of evidence, shows us that species are changing, evolvling and related.

Quote:
Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it vestigial.
No, the fact that we can remove the organ and function just fine does.

Quote:
Also, scientists have only predicted that the appendix was used as a cecum for cellulose digestion, a presumption b/c no one could know for sure. Now a scientist presents evidence of its true function and that just isn't acceptable to you b/c it doesn't fit in your evolution box.

It fix my "toolbox" just fine.

Quote:
Grow up and accept that you don't know everything.

When did I ever claim I did?

Your biggest objection to my argument was a mispelling of the term. What does that tell you about your argument?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Diosdato wrote:I do

Diosdato wrote:

I do understand the concept.

If you did, you'd not have committed the basic error you commit in your post.

Quote:

Did you even read the article? The physiologist explains the necessary function of the appendix to fetuses and lymphocyte function.

Did you even read Yellow's response? "Vestigial' means that an organ no longer serves its original function.

Quote:

Scientists use to believe the thyroid was vestigial too, until they determined its function. Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it vestigial.

That's not how scientists deem an organ 'vestigial'

Again, a vestigial organ can and often does play a new role in the organism.

In fact, that is how evolution works: by cobbling together old entities for new purposes.

Consider the evolutionary process of "Exaptation". In exaptation, a precursor system evolves for a different function, or a series of precursor systems, cobbled together, form to serve a new function.

Quote:
.Maybe you need to realize that with your limited knowledge and understanding of life and the universe that there could be a God.

This is an argument from igorance. You concede that there are limits to our understanding, yet go on to imply that these very limits are a reason as to why one ought to consider that there is a god, somehow lurking right beyond our limits...

Sort of how ancient mapmakers might write 'there be dragons here'... in the uncharted areas.

You need to realize that our limits in knowledge and understanding only tell us that there are limits to our knowledge and understanding. That's it. To say more is to argue from ignorance.

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

Books on atheism.


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: You believe

mythrys wrote:

You believe that man came from monkeys. Then why is there still monkeys? Why are humans the only 'animal' with a moral conscience? How did that evolve? How does our universe work like clockwork if there is no creator? If the earth were tilted even a little bit off where it is now, it would be either too hot or too cold for life. You believe some random explosion of cosmic goop did that?

 

Sounds irrational to me!

i know this has already been sufficiently addressed, but come on dude.  open a book.  monkeys still exist because they haven't gone extinct yet.  they will one day, and so will man.  besides, it seems as though you're using "monkey" as a generic term.  

Homo sapiens evolved from a long line of primates, not simply "monkeys".  we were evolutionary offshots - this doesn't mean that the proceeding species has to go extinct immediately.  they coexist for a period of time, then eventually become extinct.  

and i would say that evolution by natural selection is far more rational than any creation myth you're likely to read.  it certainly isn't observable in real time (as no long-term scientific process is), but ample scientific evidence exists in support of evolution.  

i don't believe in creation ex nihilo, but i do believe that god set the mechanism of life (what we understand to be evolution by natural selection) into existence ex nihilo.  


curus
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
This would be the same as

Matt said "prove that animals have no morals"

This would be the same as proving that God does not exist. The proof is on the one who says something does exist.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Granted. However, anyone who

Granted. However, anyone who spends time with animals would ridicule the idea that they don't have morals. They just don't have the SAME morals that you or I do.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Because I

mythrys wrote:

Because I have been forgiven by Jesus for my sins. He takes the punishment for you. If a capital offender were to repent, then he doesn't get the death penalty any more. He still deserves it, but hes forgiven and sincerely sorry.

I focused on this sin because we were talking about it. I don't particularly hate gays or anything. Do you want me to focus on my own sins? I'm a sinful person.

I have looked at pornography , I have used vulgar language and still do if I am very angry. I have disrespected my mom many times and disobeyed her. I have used the name of God in vain. I have had other gods besides the real god. I have looked at a woman with lust MANY times. I have lied, cheated, and stolen. I have been envious of other people. I don't always put God first in my life. I sometimes want to hurt other people. I cheat on tests.

You sound like a perfect christian, actually. Following the book to the fullest.

You disrespect your parents? Jesus told you to hate them. 

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother...he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

You steal? Jesus made his disciples steal.

 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."(Luke 19:29-34)

You swear? Jesus swore. 

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." (Matthew 23:27) (It is important to note that, to the Pharisees, being called liars, dead on the inside AND unclean at the same time was probably the worst insult they could have suffered, as they are dead, breaking a commandment, and defiled)

 You lie? God said it was OK.

And Elisha said unto him, go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.(2 Kings 8:10)
 
 
 
 
I could go on, but you get the point.
 
 
Also, reply to DeludedGod please. 


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
You came from your parents.

You came from your parents. Why do your parents still exist? They could be dead, of course, but this is irrelevant.

According to your argument, your parents should die the instant you are born because they cannot exist if you came from them.


rpcarnell
atheist
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Animals don't have

Animals don't have morality?

 

Well, maybe they don't. Then again, I don't see animals giving each other electric shocks, nor do I see a dog beating up his bitch, and I don't see dogs crashing planes against buildings in the name of some dog-God nobody gives a fuck about.

 

 


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
doG is the dyslexic God. 

doG is the dyslexic God. 


rationalfriend
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-08-01
User is offlineOffline
 Why would you believe

Why would you believe animals don't have morals? I own 4 dogs. The pack rules that they live by are strict and they do have a mutual respect for each other. Like humans sometime they fall short and like in any human family there are sanctions. I did have 5 dogs but the pack decided to kick one of them out. This was a puppy that grew into adulthood and decided since he was bigger than the rest he should be the pack leader. The pack loved him while he was growing up but ganged up on him too many times once he began to break the rules. I had to eventually find him a new home.  

What do you think would happen if an 18 year old decided he was going to be the head of the household just because he was the biggest person living in the household? He was be morally sanctioned so animals do have a sense of right and wrong.


GodHacks
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-08-10
User is offlineOffline
Shrimps!!!!!   Hmmm, maybe

Shrimps!!!!!

 

Hmmm, maybe we should suggest testing this via scientific method.  Get a shrimp eater, a gay guy and a plain old non-shrimp eating non-gay person.  Now watch them and see what happens.

 

I am unfortunately straight, but I would love to be the shrimp eater(if free shrimps are supplied). 

 

For another control we can have a gay shrimp eater that would yell "forgive me god" after every bite of shrimp and during every move of his sexual activity (though this must be most annoying to his lover) 


waldteufel
High Level DonorRational VIP!Superfan
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Mythrys needs some science education. . . . . . .

The 'arguments" put forth by Mythrys are common among creationists who have little or no science education.  There is no way to rationally argue with someone who just doesn't have the education to understand that which you are arguing about.

I would be curious to know, however, if Mythrys is a young-earth or old-earth creationist.  This would help us to determine where on the "delusional to batshit crazy" continuum Mythrys should reside. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Dear religion, please die. Thx.

You believe that man came from monkeys.

 

Wrong. We share a common ancestry with they and other primates. Read a book, bitch. NO, not that one again! A different one.

 

Then why is are there still monkeys?

 

Because Jesus hates you.

 

Why are humans the only 'animal' with a moral conscience?

 

Are you saying there's no social order for other animals? If there has to be a meta reason, can you prove this meta reason exists? That is, if man is moral because it helps his society survive, and therefore helps he and his genes survive--and this basic reason is similar to the motives of a doberman--does this make man immoral? Does he have to do it because a bigger, more powerful entity told him to do it?

 

How did that evolve?

 

Because the animals that randomly killed each other died? The ones that didn't feel  an overwhelming murderous urge bred, and genes representing a controllable degree of murderous rage were favored by natural selection?

 

How does our universe work like clockwork if there is no creator?

 

Isn't stuff always crashing into other stuff? I'm pretty sure stuff does that. Where do you buy your clocks?

 

If the earth were was tilted even a little bit off where it is now, it would be either too hot or too cold for life.

 

You mean like the other planets? Yeah, the odds of life developing ain't great. We have like tons of other planets to show us that. So much wasted space. You know, from a life perspective.

 

You believe some random explosion of cosmic goop did that?

 

I've got a random explosion of cosmic goop for you.

 

Sounds irrational to me!

 

But an omnipotent immaterial being that's all needy doesn't. GO FIGURE.