Atheism and evolution

Beruthiel

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I think evolution is an intrinsically atheist set of beliefs.

Have you ever actually read a book on the theory of evolution?

Doctor DooM

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Accusing me of joking around or whatever slang you have for that is not conducive to actual debate, forget about it, I am genuine.





I cannot accept the idea that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence of God. I admit there are no explicit references to this, but look at it this way. If somebody saw paint suddenly arrange itself into a painting, they would have serious doubts as to whether or not there was such a thing as a painter. Similarly, a theory which postulates that all life on earth was not created by God (an important part of belief in God) but instead came about by the means of natural processes is clearly questioning the whether or God exists. I think evolution is an intrinsically atheist set of beliefs.

Try answering some of our points then, and we can see how mighty your intellect is, as opposed to saying "the bible is right cos I think it is."

In reference to your painter thing, I give you a paraphrase of Douglas Adams:

"After a rain, a puddle finds itself nestled into a hole in the ground.

Amazed that the hole seems to fit it perfectly, the puddle thinks "wow, this situation is so perfect, someone must have created it just for me.""

CerebralCortex

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Accusing me of joking around or whatever slang you have for that is not conducive to actual debate, forget about it, I am genuine.





I cannot accept the idea that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence of God. I admit there are no explicit references to this, but look at it this way. If somebody saw paint suddenly arrange itself into a painting, they would have serious doubts as to whether or not there was such a thing as a painter. Similarly, a theory which postulates that all life on earth was not created by God (an important part of belief in God) but instead came about by the means of natural processes is clearly questioning the whether or God exists. I think evolution is an intrinsically atheist set of beliefs.

I think thats rather limiting the power of a super intelligent, omnipresent being's ability to confuse you no? I baffles me consistently when Christians put faith in this all powerful being but are consistently undermining him at the same time. He can do what he likes if he so powerful including making life capable of evolution.

CerebralCortex

SDooM wrote: »

Try answering some of our points then, and we can see how mighty your intellect is, as opposed to saying "the bible is right cos I think it is."

In reference to your painter thing, I give you a paraphrase of Douglas Adams:

"After a rain, a puddle finds itself nestled into a hole in the ground.

Amazed that the hole seems to fit it perfectly, the puddle thinks "wow, this situation is so perfect, someone must have created it just for me.""

Lol I must read D Adams.

Beruthiel

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Lol I must read D Adams.

For shame if you haven't! Go out and buy the lot right this minute!

seamus

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If somebody saw paint suddenly arrange itself into a painting, they would have serious doubts as to whether or not there was such a thing as a painter.

And rightly so, because it arranged itself spontaneously into a painting.

And if someone saw a painting and had not seen it being painted, they would assume there was a painter, what's your point?

If on the other hand, someone left a canvas on the ground, and over a few hundred thousand years of wind and rain and dirt and mud, a painting emerged, you would quite rightly say, "There was no painter, this painting is the result of thousands of years of nature".

Doctor DooM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Lol I must read D Adams.

Another personal favourite goes something along the lines of:

"2,000 years after someone was nailed to a cross for asking people to be nice, mankind invented wristwatches."

Another one was "I would like to say that all my intelligent friends are atheists with a few notable exceptions, sadly their aren't any."

Gegerty

Is there no proof of evolution? here are 3 very quick obvious proofs:

1. All living things have a parent.
2. Simpler versions of animals and plants existed long before complex ones. For this there is physical evidence in fossils and in some cases fully preserved animals (Wooly mammoth for example). More specifically for the OP we have fossils of early humans, the further back you go the more they resemble apes.
3. We are still evolving, an example of this all around us today is survival of the fittest.

It is not blind faith. We do not believe it simply because it was written down. And as pointed out the wonder of science is that it is scrutinised and tested and debated. Everything we take as fact today is open to criticism, provided that critiscism is itself backed up by proof. Scientists are not afraid to say they got it wrong (Hawkins for example). The irony is it is all part of mans evolution - survival of the fittest minds.

btw, "The bible says so" is not proof.

Doctor DooM

Beruthiel wrote: »

For shame if you haven't! Go out and buy the lot right this minute!

I know this is completely off topic, but I found his predicition of USB replacing "little dongly things" in an essay in "so long and thanks for all the fish" to be really startling. Clever man.

Hudson 4 ever

Beruthiel wrote: »

Have you ever actually read a book on the theory of evolution?

I have actually; I think it was called “On the Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection” by a man named Charles Darwin. Have you heard of it?

To address some of the points people are making:

If we are to advance our knowledge in a scientific manner we need to examine the theory of evolution carefully and with an open mind. This is how scientists usually conduct themselves, examining the evidence before them objectively and without any preconceptions. This is the basis of the scientific method. However, in the case of evolution this is not possibly for many mainstream scientists, and for a very basic reason. Science is based on a materialistic world view, and this decrees that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Scientists therefore look at the possible explanations for our existence from a skewed perspective; they are not open to the possibility that God is the intelligent designer of life on earth. If they were proceeding with an open mind like creationist such as Michael Behe and Duane Gish they would be more able to see the reality. Take the bacteria flagellum. This incredibly complex organ would simply cease to function if any single part of its composition was altered or removed. It is therefore impossible that it could have been formed by a step by step process like evolution. A far more parsimonious and logical conclusion is to say that it must have been designed. The same came be said of the eye. Darwin himself admitted that the very idea that is was formed by natural selection is an absurd one.

pH

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Evolution is testable. No God theory / hypotheisis is.

Have to say I disagree with this. Lots of God theories are testable, just not the ones that theists have been forced to adopt recently.

Let's imagine a world where blasphemers are struck by lightning from the sky. There's no reason why science couldn't study this effect even if the source of the lightning was not directly accessible, it would be strong evidence for the existence of a supreme being who doesn't like his name used in blasphemy.

Scientists could measure the lethality of the strike, the words and phrases that cause it etc. etc. Yes in this fictional word some may insist that the lightning has a natural explanation, but science would definitely be on the side of the God theory.

All God theories that are testable pretty much have been tested and have failed (Intercessory prayer, direct creation etc.) God theories are not by definition untestable, it's just that the only way for theists to have any left standing at this stage was to introduce some that can't be tested.

marco_polo

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I have actually; I think it was called “On the Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection” by a man named Charles Darwin. Have you heard of it?

To address some of the points people are making:

If we are to advance our knowledge in a scientific manner we need to examine the theory of evolution carefully and with an open mind. This is how scientists usually conduct themselves, examining the evidence before them objectively and without any preconceptions. This is the basis of the scientific method. However, in the case of evolution this is not possibly for many mainstream scientists, and for a very basic reason. Science is based on a materialistic world view, and this decrees that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Scientists therefore look at the possible explanations for our existence from a skewed perspective; they are not open to the possibility that God is the intelligent designer of life on earth. If they were proceeding with an open mind like creationist such as Michael Behe and Duane Gish they would be more able to see the reality. Take the bacteria flagellum. This incredibly complex organ would simply cease to function if any single part of its composition was altered or removed. It is therefore impossible that it could have been formed by a step by step process like evolution. A far more parsimonious and logical conclusion is to say that it must have been designed. The same came be said of the eye. Darwin himself admitted that the very idea that is was formed by natural selection is an absurd one.

How can anyone declare themselves to be a creationist and to have an open mind at the same time?

The fact that they arrive at their conclusions first and then go looking for "evidence" to support it suggests quite the opposite to me.

Oh the ironing.

CerebralCortex

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

....Scientists therefore look at the possible explanations for our existence from a skewed perspective; they are not open to the possibility that God is the intelligent designer of life on earth.

Why should they? "Hey buddy I don't want you study computer engineering unless you consider there is a God and that computers have little computer fairies inside."

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If they were proceeding with an open mind like creationist such as Michael Behe and Duane Gish they would be more able to see the reality.....

So only creationists can have an open mind? Do they have to be Christian? What if you're a Buddhist scientist?

CerebralCortex

marco_polo wrote: »

....Oh the ironing.

:pac: roflmao

Beruthiel

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

A far more parsimonious and logical conclusion is to say that it must have been designed.

An oxymoron.

Tim Robbins

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I have actually; I think it was called “On the Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection” by a man named Charles Darwin. Have you heard of it?

To address some of the points people are making:

If we are to advance our knowledge in a scientific manner we need to examine the theory of evolution carefully and with an open mind. This is how scientists usually conduct themselves, examining the evidence before them objectively and without any preconceptions. This is the basis of the scientific method. However, in the case of evolution this is not possibly for many mainstream scientists, and for a very basic reason. Science is based on a materialistic world view, and this decrees that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Scientists therefore look at the possible explanations for our existence from a skewed perspective; they are not open to the possibility that God is the intelligent designer of life on earth. If they were proceeding with an open mind like creationist such as Michael Behe and Duane Gish they would be more able to see the reality. Take the bacteria flagellum. This incredibly complex organ would simply cease to function if any single part of its composition was altered or removed. It is therefore impossible that it could have been formed by a step by step process like evolution. A far more parsimonious and logical conclusion is to say that it must have been designed. The same came be said of the eye. Darwin himself admitted that the very idea that is was formed by natural selection is an absurd one.

This is nothing to do with having an open mind, it's about not being deluded.
As was pointed out to you in an earlier post, Science and Scientific method is a tentative philosophy, explain specifically what's closed about that?

As for your argument there it has already rebutted. If you bothered to even investigate it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Irreducibly_complex.3F

There are simple rebuttals to that, from wikipedia:

"Potentially viable evolutionary pathways have since been proposed for the bacterial flagellum.[37][38] In addition, the Type III secretory system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components, meaning that it is not irreducibly complex.[39]

Behe's arguments have been examined and rejected by the scientific community. Exaptation explains how systems with multiple parts can evolve through natural means.[40]"

If you favour objectivity, you'd be better off reading some up to date science. There is much more evidence for evolution since Darwin. Most obvious is DNA and plenty of rebuttals to any crack pot intelligent design psuedo science.

Now you speak of open mind, read some science books, even ones written by Christians such as Finding Darwin's god by Ken Miller, at least do that or get your coat and join the creationist thread.

Suggest thread be locked?

Doctor DooM

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I have actually; I think it was called “On the Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection” by a man named Charles Darwin. Have you heard of it?

Ho ho, why you certainly pwned her! Try this- I read the bible as a kid and it seemed made up then, let alone as an adult.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

To address some of the points people are making:

THis isn't addressing anyones points. Here, do it like this, with quotes. Otherwise we wont know what point you are addressing.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If we are to advance our knowledge in a scientific manner we need to examine the theory of evolution carefully and with an open mind.

So far, so good.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

This is how scientists usually conduct themselves, examining the evidence before them objectively and without any preconceptions. This is the basis of the scientific method. However, in the case of evolution this is not possibly for many mainstream scientists, and for a very basic reason.

How so, pray tell?

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Science is based on a materialistic world view, and this decrees that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

Incorrect, it has simply never found any evidence of the supernatural, despite many, many experiments.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Scientists therefore look at the possible explanations for our existence from a skewed perspective; they are not open to the possibility that God is the intelligent designer of life on earth.

Not true. Scientists weigh up all hypotheticals and formulate their theories based on the most likely. Which god? Zeus is kinda cool, I hope he did, but I can't ask any of them.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If they were proceeding with an open mind like creationist such as Michael Behe and Duane Gish they would be more able to see the reality.

You mean, how you percieve reality.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Take the bacteria flagellum. This incredibly complex organ would simply cease to function if any single part of its composition was altered or removed. It is therefore impossible that it could have been formed by a step by step process like evolution.

Eh, no. Evolution implies gradual change. Extra bits don't just pop on one morning.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

A far more parsimonious and logical conclusion is to say that it must have been designed. The same came be said of the eye. Darwin himself admitted that the very idea that is was formed by natural selection is an absurd one.

There is no logic in assuming that a sky god decided he wanted to create a world like this but wants us to love him because he is insecure.

As for the eye, you are aware several animals retain the photosensitive nerve clusters which evolved into eyes, right?

I haven't read that Darwin quote, but he isn't the "god" of scientists you know. His word isn't law.

See, that wasn't too hard, was it?

seamus

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Take the bacteria flagellum. This incredibly complex organ would simply cease to function if any single part of its composition was altered or removed. It is therefore impossible that it could have been formed by a step by step process like evolution.

Those exact examples have been countered already, but you need to stop thinking of evolution as a "step by step" process, like building a house, but more of a progressive process, such as the sea laying down a new beach, grain by grain.

One big problem is that human beings have trouble thinking about long periods of time. To us, something which happens "quickly" happens in a matter of seconds, and something which takes a long time takes anywhere from days to 50 years.
For us, something which happens in 100 milliseconds is indistinguishable from instantaneous, and something which takes thousands of years appears completely static.
Depending on the POV of the observer, either of these timeframes could be an eternity or instantaneous, respectively.

As such, many people find the concept of a slow, progressive evolution hard to understand because such a change cannot be observed within their lifetime.

Hudson 4 ever

SDooM wrote: »

Ho ho, why you certainly pwned her! Try this- I read the bible as a kid and it seemed made up then, let alone as an adult.



THis isn't addressing anyones points. Here, do it like this, with quotes. Otherwise we wont know what point you are addressing.



So far, so good.



How so, pray tell?




Incorrect, it has simply never found any evidence of the supernatural, despite many, many experiments.




Not true. Scientists weigh up all hypotheticals and formulate their theories based on the most likely. Which god? Zeus is kinda cool, I hope he did, but I can't ask any of them.



You mean, how you percieve reality.

Eh, no. Evolution implies gradual change. Extra bits don't just pop on one morning.



There is no logic in assuming that a sky god decided he wanted to create a world like this but wants us to love him because he is insecure.

As for the eye, you are aware several animals retain the photosensitive nerve clusters which evolved into eyes, right?

I haven't read that Darwin quote, but he isn't the "god" of scientists you know. His word isn't law.

See, that wasn't too hard, was it?

I am far too lazy to write out the whole thing like that, but you basically just ignored what I said and continued with your own presuppositions, congrats, I'm not surprised you're an evolutionist.

marco_polo

Beruthiel wrote: »

An oxymoron.

There is too much oxy in that sentence .

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I am far too lazy to write out the whole thing like that, but you basically just ignored what I said and continued with your own presuppositions, congrats, I'm not surprised you're an evolutionist.

So are you just going to ignore the last four pages then or are you going to actually reply to a few of the points raised?

Beruthiel

marco_polo wrote: »

There is too much oxy in that sentence

You can sing that!

Doctor DooM

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I am far too lazy to write out the whole thing like that,

Never heard of copy and paste so?

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

but you basically just ignored what I said and continued with your own presuppositions, congrats, I'm not surprised you're an evolutionist.

No I didn't, I argued every point in a structured way, which you couldnt or wont reply to, which makes me think troll tbh.

I'm not an evolutionist, that implies I believe in it. If anything, I am a Briantologist.

Dades

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I cannot accept the idea that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence of God.

Of course you can't, if you hold the bible creation story to be the literal truth. Your problem is not with the overwhelming body of evidence supporting evolution - it's with the fact that it contradicts your Christian beliefs. For you that is the only issue.

And when you are unwilling to set aside a belief and look objectively at a situation your opinion is about as useful to humanity as cholera.

Doctor DooM

Dades wrote: »

Of course you can't, if you hold the bible creation story to be the literal truth. Your problem is not with the overwhelming body of evidence supporting evolution - it's with the fact that it contradicts your Christian beliefs. For you that is the only issue.

And when you are unwilling to set aside a belief and look objectively at a situation your opinion is about as useful to humanity as cholera.

Cholera COULD be useful... if it forces humanity to, you know... evolve.

Mena

Why do Creationists still constantly purport the bacterial flagellum to be some sort of anti-proof against the theory of evolution...? Is this all they really have? Hell, I'm no scientist but even I can understand the counter-arguments against this, which are well documented, yet, invariably, the first thing a creationist spouts on about is the poor flagellum.

Please come up with something original as to be honest, hearing this and then re-hearing the rebuttals gets boring.

Perhaps I am a little jaded but I can't, for the life of me understand how any sane, rational and logical person could even, for one second, entertain this creationist malarky. This is a generalisation but, did you (collective - creationists) stop thinking for yourselves at age 12?

I'm baffled...

CerebralCortex

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I am far too lazy to write out the whole thing like that, but you basically just ignored what I said and continued with your own presuppositions, congrats, I'm not surprised you're an evolutionist.

No he didn't ignore what you said he answered and quite convincingly and far better and objectively than I could.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I'm not surprised you're an evolutionist.

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. I think this thread should be locked and you banned because you obviously have an agenda of pushing your pro-Christian crackpot ideas as undeniable fact.

Doctor DooM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No he didn't ignore what you said he answered and quite convincingly and far better and objectively than I could.


Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. I think this thread should be locked and you banned because you obviously have an agenda of pushing your pro-Christian crackpot ideas as undeniable fact.

Thanks. *Head expands*

I think it should be left open, Kelly1 isn't around anymore to defend Christianity and I never got to talk to a creationist before (no way am I heading into that thread.)

Dades

The OP deserves a chance to continue to respond.

And if the thread is locked - it won't be because the OP holds a different view to the majority here.

Hudson 4 ever

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. I think this thread should be locked and you banned because you obviously have an agenda of pushing your pro-Christian crackpot ideas as undeniable fact.

This is the market place of ideas, deal with it

Beruthiel

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

This is the market place of ideas, deal with it

How can you expect us to take you seriously?
I've not seen one logical, concise answer yet, instead we get the above.