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.
Larry, can you comment on how your evidence suggests that the christian god, and not say the Greek gods, exists?
I'm curious to see what Larry answers. However, let me just say, the answer to this is the reason why I think the Christian God is so unique, and unlike the idols and deities of other religions. To the point where I'm fairly confident that if Christianity is wrong, atheism is the only alternative for me, not another religion.
Interestingly, if did become atheist I still wouldn't consider myself an evolutionist. I would have to wait til it was revised or alternative theory is formulated.
The sad thing, there is nothing controversial about evolution:
Mutation - We all know from observation/common experience that offspring exhibit differences from their parent(s).
Natural selection - We all know from observation/common experience that differences between otherwise similar lifeforms can affect their ability to produce offspring.
What is the problem?
Agreed, those things are not the problem. The assumption that they actually lead a reptile to turn into a bird is the problem.
1. Natural selection is antagonistic to evolution, its what kills off animals and makes them extinct.
2. Most mutations are not all that random. We know the things that cause them, chemicals, radiation, and other mutagens. Those mutations we can't predict, still produce consistent and predictable results such as down syndrome.
Substitution mutations are either silent, at which point it does nothing happens, they are missense mutations in which the change doesn't cause a significant change, or they are flat out nonsense mutations, which cause malfunction. These mutations either don't do anything, or they flat out mess things up. Evolution can't work with these.
Insertions and deletions is where evolution can possibly occur, and these two are almost always disastrous. Genes are made up of three nucleotides. If you insert or delete one, you have a problem. If you insert or delete two, you have a problem. You need to insert or delete three simultaneous, otherwise you get a frameshift mutation, and you have a problem.
Then you better hope those three insertions or deletion actually produce something useful. But not just something useful at the cellular level, it needs to start being useful at the phenotypic level.
I'm sorry, but to think mutations can actually turn a reptile into a bird in this way, is utter lunacy to me.
I'm not really sure what to say:
Small changes in small time periods; sum to bigger changes in longer time periods. I really don't understand your complaint, so maybe what I wrote does not address it; but that is my best attempt.
The odds are stacked against you. Not to mention that the body protects itself against mutations, and tries to fix them. But lets say that by some miracles, there are 10 linear generations of good mutations, the species is on its way to developing feathers. If the 11th' generation gets a bad mutation, its game over. If the 11ths generation gets eaten, its over. That's the end of the line, they're dead, and the progress is dead. You have to start over.
I know people use the monkey in the typewriter analogy, in my opinion, its more like trying to write Shakespeare with a broken typewriter. If at any moment the typewriter decides to add a letter or remove a letter, you better hope its the right one, otherwise the whole project is scrapped, and you have to start over. And I'm talking about an actual person doing the writing. Replace it with a monkey and forget it.
Notice how you keep returning to this cartoon notion that there is only 1 descendant of each lifeform; or that their descendants are identical. Your common experience should tell you that isn't the case. You should also abandon this cartoon notion of "good" mutations.
Of course you don't accept the theory of evolution; because you are using a strawman cartoon version of it. And yes; your strawman cartoon version doesn't make any sense at all; but I suspect that is no accident. We've seen this over and over from you.
They aren't cartoonish strawman, they are analogies intended to get a point across. How is what I said any different from saying that after millions of years of evolution, a meteor came and killed a dinosaur?
Here I'll just use your tactics: "Hypotheses non fingo." I never said there is ONLY 1 descendant of each lifeform. That is a strawman.
I also can't get rid of the notion of good mutations, because its not up for debate. Mutations either hurt you, do nothing, or in the case of evolution improve you.
Actually you did. Remember when you set n=1 in that equation? yeah...
That's funny, I don't see that equation here.
Let me help you:
p(1) = 50%
As mentioned, I don't see that equation here, much less those quotes.
But maybe I'm just blind.
Funny, the title of that post says "Sperm count drop 'may lead to human extinction'" not "Modern scientific finds strongly implies God exists "
I must have missed the part where I said that here. Hmm.
Oh so the non-sense you say about evolution in thread A, isn't applicable in a conversation about evolution in thread B? Good luck with that.
I'm afraid there is plenty of controversy with the theory of evolution. Because just as you made your statement and then failed to demonstrate any factual, proof other than what you say, then it isn't true. It is hear say.
And when offspring come forth it, at least for the offspring that come from two distinct organisms, the offspring have characteristics of both mom and dad. And, and, and, most importantly, they continue in the same kind of organism, or species of organisms. They don't change so much so that they can not be recognize it as the offspring of its mother and father. Which is one of the basic claims given for evolution. That all the organisms developed from one single organism, that came out of nothing or from inorganic matter. And none of these claims have any proof provided to show it happened as the scientists of evolution said, nor have the evolutionists shown how it could have happened.
Not a claim of the theory of evolution.
------------------------------
Also not a claim of the theory of evolution. See a pattern yet?
I think you have a point. There is no present proof, (contrary to the opinion of some), that supports any claims of the Evolutionists where evolution answers any of the questions of how life started and how it came to be as it is. So to go with evolution if all of a sudden God was disproved would be illogical. Because there would still be no proof for evolution.
Gerald, you're new here so I'll take an easy on you.
1) No one is trying to disprove god or any god with evolution.
2) Evolution is a fact not a theory any longer. DNA has proven it beyond doubt.
3) No god has ever been proven and the original post didn't prove there is or ever was a god. Organization theory, intelligent design theory, and every god theory has major gaps and don't come close to logic.
4) Evolution has never tried to answer how life began, only how it evolved after it began.
So no he does not have a point. The OP doesn't have a point, and you don't have a point.
Please don't take it easy. I'm here seeking what it appears I have failed to obtain in our schools. That seemingly intangible proof that you seem to think you have, but which I can't see. So please lay your proof, your cards, on the table showing that Evolution is a fact. One point at a time. Give it to us. And then show how that evidence has been demonstrated on how it supports the theory of Evolution.
Why aren't you asking a evolutionary biologist that question? Is it your expectation that every person who can be identified as atheist should have that level of expertise in this particular branch of science?
Freefromgod,
I think I answered that a little further down the line of posts.
Larry
Again, Larry, you jump to a conclusion with no evidence to support those conclusions.
1) You say that time space and matter all came to be at the same time. Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever to prove that is true? If you did you'd be the greatest scientist in history.
2) You say that the odds of what the universe being formed by chance are zero, when in fact that is not the case.
3) You didn't even prove a god exists, let alone prove that that god had anything to do with creating anything.
You have presented a complete failure of logic. If these were submitted for a doctorate or even a theme paper if would be rejected as not logical and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
That isn't sarcasm, it is just the facts.
OK tell us what you believe about how it all came to be.
Also I did not say zero - I said essentially zero. The word 'essentially' is an important qualifier. In science we can't talk about certainties only degrees of probability.
My argument is based on what I have learned is current scientific consensus. If I am wrong about that I would appreciate it if you could point me to an online article that would serve to correct me.
Blessings!
Who are you talking to Larry? Nyar has already posted the math so what is your problem. The probability is not "essentially" zero MR I'll misuse semantics to fit my narrative!
http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-equation-tallies-odds-of-...
The probability of life is quite high and not at all "essentially zero" as you said.
The evidence that God exists many discount altogether, or it is glossed over as an, "Oh, yea, yea, maybe", and then dismissed. And yet the Atheists have yet to show how their theory can in any way be shown to meet the requirements of the scientific method.
And Since God is so impossible, why would it be so easy to find proof in a test tube. There is after all, eyewitness accounts. There is a whole book with testimonies of hundreds of characters, that since the Bible has never been shown to be anything other than a reliable historical document, both good and evil who act as if God does exist. And in your post, I see where you keep saying no proof, no proof, but I fail to see you provide proof that what Larry said did not happen. And since a more probable theory as to how life has come to the place life is currently, and since we know that life only comes from life, and since we know that each species appears to only come from their own kind, God is the most logical conclusion.
@Gerald
What "theory" of atheists are you referring to? The theory is that there is a god. There is no theory that there is not a god. There is no god is fact by default since no god has ever been proven.
There are no eye witness accounts, none that can be corroborated and verified.
The bible has never been proven to be a reliable historical document. And BTW which bible are you talking about? The bible is nothing but a book of folklore and allegory. It isn't a historical record. It isn't verified by an independent means! Hearsay testimony isn't evidence. BTW the Codex Sinaiticus doesn't even have the resurrection and it is the oldest bible on record.
Species don't just come from their own kind. New and totally different species come from a common source. DNA proves it. YOU came from a sea plant. We can trace your DNA that far back. The god theory ISN'T a logical conclusion. It's a lazy conclusion for simpletons! There is NO direct evidence that a god created anything.
The oldest life recorded happened 3.77 billion years ago.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/377-billion-year-old-fossils-stak...
Your bible only accounts for maybe 6,000 years and an area that is a fraction of the entire earth. It doesn't account for dinosaurs, native Americans North and South.
Life came from amino acids. That is a fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
No, he didn't? Well then what is going to be accepted as proof in your eyes? As stated before, you are here and so are millions of other individuals as well as an untold number of other organism all around us. So since we are asking each other where we came from, then we are evidence. You may interpret that evidence differently, than we do, but it is still evidence. Now, what we want to ask ourselves which of these two possible, given choices, best fulfill that evidence. So you look at the scientific method and work on from there. What does the evidence look like is our first question. And both those on each side of the field, have determined that we and all other organisms appear as though they are designed, and were given specific purposes to fulfill through a programming that without their purpose could never have been fulfilled. And how could we explain God. He is God. He is beyond complete human understanding. All we know of God are the attributes, which pertain only to Him. And what the examples that He has left us through His word. You can't put God in a test tube, or a microscope, and study Him as we would part of His creation. Since we with our abstract abilities seem to be able to think outside of the box, and God certainly is a factor outside of the box, then God is not a being that we can determine with just our regular senses. And we must look at His footprints and finger prints that point to only Him as having left them. Now here is fact. If I were you, I would fixate less on the lack of evidence that we can not provide, for a being that is outside of our ordinary senses, and more upon the lack of evidence that you are able to give, supporting the evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact. Because I have not seen any thing more than words from any atheist.
When you are sick with a cold, you get a nice dose of real, tangible evolution. As the common cold virus evolved to circumvent your antibodies that you had for its distant cousin.
Or... I suppose you can give god credit for getting a a cold yet again.
The probability of an event happening(p) in one or more number of locations(n) is =1 - (1 - p)^n
So when you said this had "essentially no chance of happening"; what value did you use for n to come to that conclusion?
You have realized that you are referring to a time where what we consider as common or natural, may not and should not be considered as the norm. And the equations you are referring to could never be proven as viable. All we have therefore is what we can see in the time and space that we now occupy. And the evidence of our observation dictates that life only comes from life. Not from nothing or from inorganic matter. That is what we have always and only observed. And that is what we should be using as an anchor in the hypothesis. And Evolution should be dismissed as a possibility. Because it does not fit the requirements of the scientific model. But please tell me how and why you feel other wise. Of course with proof, since I did explain why I feel Evolution didn't and how Intelligent design did. Or at least allowed it to remain in the running as how all began.
Pages