Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"My thought is that just because "we can't even imagine it", is not a valid reason to say it couldn't have happened. It may just be beyond current understanding."
I did not actually say it couldn't have happened, but i do think so, for reasons I have not yet explained here.
I said "is the most unlikely thing that could have happened..."
"My thought"
This is what you do not get.
It is not a matter of opinion or knowledge we currently not have.(you and I)
It is a matter of describing science in this manner.
Science is an explanation of facts.
If you cannot even imagine an explanation then there is no science. It is blind faith.
Stop saying, people say this, I DO NOT CARE and neither should you.
It is an argument of popularity Fallacy.
If you go on evolution sites and they cannot deliver the explanation, that is all you need to say that these guys are not scientific.
You cannot say A evolved to become B and not describe the explanation of how it happened.
This is like going to a history professor that studied the Roman-Jewish wars and ask him "how did the Romans defeat Jewish rebels? and his explanation was:
Look there is evidence of Romans in this period and there is evidence of Jewish artifacts in this period.
Your reply would be: "but how the fuck did it happen?
The reply is
"It may just be beyond current understanding."
My opinion of such a history professor is.
This guy does not know anything about history at all, if he doesn't have a clue of what could have happened.
I do not need to know anything about the wars to know that this professor knows next nothing about it.
Basic common sens should get you there too.
The situation here is worse then this current example though.
It is more like this the history professor thinks that the Jews actually won the war but he cannot accept that the evidence is quite the contrary.
"I find this is a very derogatory and judgmental remark. Is it really so hard to have a civil discussion and leave out personal insults?"
You admitted yourself that you would take a position without checking the papers and make an analysis on them.
Why is it so hard to accept that being a fan of the scientific community conclusions does not make you scientific?
It was people like these that made it so hard for aerodynamics to be accepted even if the science behind it was solid rock.
The guys had to actually come up with the money and face persecution and ridicule to make the first plane themselves to prove how everybody was not being scientific.
At the moment macro evolution is contradicted by dna evidence and should not be such a hyped subject but a very skeptic one at best.
You have people saying that human evolution from a Miocene ape is a fact because of propaganda.
This is not mentally healthy and worse of all it is not the truth.
The truth is that no "expert" in the field can even imagine how it could have happened through macro evolution.
EDIT:
You think I am aggressive,, well the sentiment is quite from both sides.
You always stick to your beliefs regardless of what logic I present to you.
Worst of all, you pretend to be unbiased and neutral when you clearly are not.
I hate hypocrites and you appear like one.
I might be wrong and for that reason alone, I try to be as patient as I can with your continuous attempts at finding flaws in everything I say instead of actually try to understand the meaning of it.
I am OK with you finding my mistakes but not at the cost of not understanding basically anything i said.
For a change try for both.
Did you realize that you ignored every single point you did not like in our conversation?
How hard it is to accept that extraordinary claims are those claims which cannot be verified by observation like ever?
It is a fact that macro evolution is such a claim.
Yet somehow this just comes impossible for you to admit.
Basic common sens things do not get to you if you already have an opinion on something.
You can keep blaming my aggressive and stubborn behavior for it but it won't change the fact that you are unreasonable when it comes to change your opinion on things.
I gave you exactly what would change my mind about things, one of them is for you to admit basic common sens things.
Until now you failed in that respect.
when debating a theist I have the very same experience.
If i cannot even agree on basic common sens things I do not even try to debate less supported things with them.
I know it is a hopeless case.
You fall in such a category when it comes to your opinions.
You claim you are ready to change your mind but your actions do not show that at all.
Choosing 1 over 2 basically proved that just because you thought I wanted you to choose 2, it influenced your ability to be rational.
My bet is on Jeff. Now, back to the observation room for me.
@ Jeff
I'm learning and re-evaluating (just like many others) and out of genuine curiosity I asked you a question. But simple discourse with you always seems to end up with a prestige fight, demands, unwarranted assumptions about what the other party is like and a barrage of passive aggressive insults.
I don't have anywhere near the time you seem to have in writing here and the time I do have, isn't worth wasting on listening to this abuse, even if you would be 100% right.
Apparently I'm too forgiving and forgetful to think that you will remain as closed from ordinary discourse as ever before.
My apology for wasting both of our time.
Pragmatic - "My apology for wasting both of our time."
You are trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't think humans are apes. Might as well argue with your stove.
Yea, it does happen when you refuse to accept my answers as valid regardless of how right they are, while ignoring the logic I bring to the table.
I'm always forced to go back to my old conclusions regardless of how much I try to restart anew my opinion of you.
"ordinary discourse"
Yea it is easy to assume that claiming unsupported, illogical, and unscientific things is OK in ordinary discourse.
The truth is far from that.
"My apology for wasting both of our time."
No need to apologize, you did not waste our time, I am pretty sure you learned something and I did too.
Definition of theory : A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.
Yes they are, but they are not facts as the definition clearly says.
here are the definitions:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientif...
I agree but I am using "fact" in lay terms. I am eating my cake and holding on to it too. I contest the loose definition of "theory" by theists as similar to hypothesis. Then I show my gratitude and trust in science by calling a cornerstone theory "fact' as in "Take that , touché' ".Pardon my double standard JeffVellaLeone.
np, Just wanted less confusion among us atheists, theists make already too much on their own.
Bill Nye titled his book on evolution "Undeniable". I should follow his example and use adjectives rather than nouns. A point well taken.
Christianity, or another sorbet of a different flavor, will consider evolution when the tools to prove it are extant and the evidence indisputable. At that moment avowing evolution as a spiritual gift will be announced and religion can get on with business as usual.
@ Pathway machine
Hi.
Lots of other people want their say, so I'm answering here to your post ( http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/33317 ).
I am doing my best to keep an open mind, not only to new ideas, but also to the viewpoint of others. What I write here is my honest interpretation of your views and my honest impression of David Berlinski. I have no ill will or grudge.
"I think that the beginning of this video, the second part of eight might address your question regarding Berlinski's position on the fossil record better than I could. https://youtu.be/dFPeQW5XLcc"
Thanks for the video clip. I have a hard time watching him though... why won't he even let people ask a complete question without interrupting? His manner when discussing is appalling. That is often a tell tale sign of a person who tries to win arguments by just talking over the opponent, simply because that person lacks good arguments.
I don't get why you even submitted this video to help your point of view?! He avoids the questions he is given and answers questions he wasn't given, while also not allowing them to finish their sentences. What is compelling to believe in what he says, he brings nothing to the discussion himself? I really don't get it.
"I don't think that Berlinski believes in ID"
He does what he can to avoid it admitting it, but... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-4-_W1cqzo
He demands that Darwinian evolution must have proof similar to the "hard sciences", even mathematical proof! He claims to have attempted to created such a mathematical formula, a genetic algorithm, and it didn't work?? Not so surprising...
He also shares the "default position" that: "some creative act was necessary to bring the panorama into existence", completely based on assumptions without any proof or mathematical formulas what so ever. He even assumes that it is the default position, without taking into account that not a single baby is born believing that from the start. Everyone is born as neutral non-believers.
Where did his high standards of proof go?
My honest impression of this man, is that he is a professional ID and Creationist defender (as in, he gets payed to do it). But to avoid getting labeled as such, he does what he can to avoid admitting he has unfounded faith in a creator.
David Berlinski: "Darwin theory of evolution is the last of the great 19th century mystery religions."
Calling the "Theory of evolution" a religion is a gross misuse of words. There is no worship, there are no traditions or rituals, there are no deities involved. How is that a "religion"? This only reveals a dishonest agenda. Regardless if evolution is true or not, I don't find this man anything else than a dishonest liar.
The only real question I have for you is this:
I don't see this man bringing a single piece of evidence of anything to the table. The only thing he is doing is pointing at the gap between two fossils and saying that "this won't do, there is gap here". He makes very high demands for proof and simultaneously gives absolutely nothing as proof for his own position.
You distrust the establishment and think evolution is a fabrication (despite the massive amount of evidence in the fossil record, DNA comparison, comparative anatomy, species distribution, observation of micro evolution, accurate predictions, and so on...), but what in the arguments of David Berlinski convinces you? What is it that tells you "this man is correct"? I can't see it.
@ The Pragmatic
I posted the video and the link to offer you and the other readers a possible alternative perspective, which questions evolution, and you have graciously given it the attention you think it deserves. That's all I could ask. I can't defend his position but to answer your question, I have listened to many of his discourses because I think that it is important for those questions to be asked, for those criticisms to be heard.
@ Pathway Machine
"you have graciously given it the attention you think it deserves. That's all I could ask."
Thanks for the acknowledgement. :)
"I can't defend his position but to answer your question, I have listened to many of his discourses because I think that it is important for those questions to be asked, for those criticisms to be heard. "
Okay, fair enough. Questions should be asked, no-one or nothing should be above scrutiny.
As I find your somewhat unusual stance interesting, my questions then becomes:
1. I'm not clear on what you actually believe. You say you have bible based beliefs, but you do not believe in a god? Other than that, you say you don't believe in evolution. But what is it you DO believe?
2. If you can't defend David Berlinsky's arguments, what then makes you disbelieve in evolution?
The Pragmatic: As I find your somewhat unusual stance interesting, my questions then becomes:
1. I'm not clear on what you actually believe. You say you have bible based beliefs, but you do not believe in a god? Other than that, you say you don't believe in evolution. But what is it you DO believe?
PM: I can't imagine what I could have said that made you think I don't believe in God, Jehovah. Of course I do. I believe the Bible.
The Pragmatic: 2. If you can't defend David Berlinsky's arguments, what then makes you disbelieve in evolution?
PM: Since I was first taught evolution in school I didn't believe it. Or the movie planet of the Apes. Since then people like Lee Strobel, Kent Hovind, David Berlinski, Ben Stein have entertained me. I have to point out. I don't take evolution seriously, and I never have.
@ Pathway Machine
My apologies for the late reply (swamped at work, house guests, etc).
"PM: I can't imagine what I could have said that made you think I don't believe in God, Jehovah. Of course I do. I believe the Bible."
My bad! You're absolutely right.
I must have misinterpreted some previous response or mixed you up with someone else. Sorry about that.
I checked your description in your profile. For simplicities sake, I'm quoting it here:
"Was born and raised an atheist and became a believer in the Bible after beginning an intense study of the Bible in order to debunk Christianity. I have never and will never belong to any religious organization. My beliefs are Bible based with the pagan influence of apostate Christianity removed. Very similar, though not exactly like that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. "
By "raised an atheist", I assume you mean you were raised without any beliefs in a god?
Then, when you studied the bible in order to debunk Christianity, you became a believer.
I find this very fascinating.
This is my main point of interest: Is there something in particular in the bible or that happened at that time, that made you change your views? Did you study the bible by yourself, or together with others?
You now believe in the bible, with as I understand it, some interpretation.
I don't know if I'm repeating a question you have already been asked, but: Which bible to be more precise? Is it a specific version/translation?
You seem see through organized religion, and realize that there are major problems with such institutions?
Pathway Machine, are you planning on retracting your accusation, or should I just chalk it up to standard apologists dishonesty?
Nyarlathotep, you said, earlier in this thread, that formally speaking, theories can not be proved. You also said that informally when someone says the word proved they typically mean the idea has performed extremely well at the validity of a theory as solely determined by how accurate these prediction match observations and you concluded by saying: "if you live in the western world, with access to the internet and modern medicine, and don't think the theory of evolution meets the requirements of #3 with flying colors. You are dumb on purpose."
And you're suggesting I'm dishonest? You got a lot more nerve than you got sense, I'll give you that. You sure you're not a school teacher? Used to be a school teacher and became a cop?
"And you're suggesting I'm dishonest?"
Yes. You said I should stop saying evolution has been proved. I never said it has been proved. That makes you a liar. I gave you the benefit of the doubt; thinking perhaps you confused me with some other poster by giving you the opportunity to retract the statement, twice. But you have failed to do so.
Nyarlathotep,
You did say evolution is proved, informally, by your own definition. No retraction forthcoming.
You sir; are a dirty liar. I never said evolution was proved; you will not be able to find a message of me saying that anywhere. I will no longer respond directly to you.
Nyarlathotep,
This means a lot to you, doesn't it, Ny, old buddy?
I've rethought the matter and given that I am admittedly ignorant of the terms of evolution, I've decided to retract my statement that you said evolution was proved. Even though it seemed as though you did, by my understanding of your definition of informally speaking.
I was wrong, and I apologize.
Pathway Machine - "I was wrong, and I apologize."
Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------
Pathway Machine - "Even though it seemed as though you did, by my understanding of your definition of informally speaking."
I was explaining why it can't be proved (no theory can be proved), and also explaining why you might hear someone say a theory was proved (they typically mean it does a good job). Something that is proved can NEVER be wrong, and it is a very difficult thing to achieve. For example: I can prove that no finite list of prime numbers exist; but I can not prove I ate cornflakes for breakfast.
What makes science a superior method for gaining knowledge is its ability for falsification. A scientific theory is never considered "proven" merely based on its strengths . A theory supported by data and its abilitiy to make predictions about future events such as the location of a black hole in another galaxy is considered valid.
Scientists aggressively try to disprove each others claims. Fred Hoyle's theories on the nuclear synthesis of elements within stars are still upheld today. His rejection of the Big bang was his biggest blunder. The falsifications of theories lead to greater understanding and knowledge. The way that religion in the past has reacted to falsification of its concepts was through persecution , torture, and death by burning. Oh , poor Bruno! No reason to hold Pathway machine accountable for that grisly murder though. Welcome to the realm of critical argument !
That's good, Chimp - Thanks ;)
Are you complimenting my rapier wit or are you assuming I am supporting any of your irrational creationist claims? Please clarify : "That's good ,Chimp-Thanks;)".
If you believe any of my retorts support any claims you have made please confront me with my idiocy. Otherwise , flattery will get you no where. I am 56 years old and divorced. My self esteem is founded on much more than faux compliments from on-line peers.
Chimp,
The thanks was for this: "Oh , poor Bruno! No reason to hold Pathway machine accountable for that grisly murder though. Welcome to the realm of critical argument !"
Your welcome PM. Now that theory and fact have been defined accurately we can move on . Based on theories, science has made predictions that have led to more knowledge being gained in the last 500 years than all of human history before. Can you name one piece of knowledge contributed by religious thinking in the last 500 years? Medicine , cosmology , biology - anything?
You've got the wrong man, Chimp, I despise religion. Loath organized religion even more than science. Almost as much as governments.
Why do fundamentalists preach creationism and then deny they are religious? Very fashionable these days. As if their personal relationship with a mythical deity is anything but the definition of religion.
Pages