Atheism

[jayfox]

As I said mate, I don;t know enough about it but if I had to answer I would say that we have an appendix that seems to serve no purpose. Maybe it has some purpose that we are yet to discover.

Does your belief in the Bible tell you that it's impossible that it's an ancestral genetic remnant passed down from close biological relatives that used them to break out of eggs?

My belief in the Bible tells me that it is likely that God created them that way for some reason. I don't discount natural selection in making some changes however.

 

[Disco08]

I don't discount natural selection in making some changes however.

Glad to hear it.

 

[jayfox]

Well something, someone must be responsible for creation. We need to get to the bottom of this.

I have to say Harry, that I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts today. Keep up the good work. Very entertaining.

 

[jb03]

I have weighed up the possiblity of god/creation vs the possibilty of evolution. Though neither can be proved or disproved totally (IMO) I find one option more probable than the other.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I have weighed up the possiblity of god/creation vs the possibilty of evolution. Though neither can be proved or disproved totally (IMO) I find one option more probable than the other.

Yes both are explanations for the diversity of life on this planet. However one argument has the weight of physical evidence on its side.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Evo - What are your thoughts on religious moderation? Do you agree with Harris' conclusions?

 

[evo]

Evo - What are your thoughts on religious moderation? Do you agree with Harris' conclusions?

Yes of course.They have to carry some of the can.

I'm big on free speech and people saying what they think whether it be political,religous or societal.No sacred cows.If fundies are being buffoons or dangerous,tell them so.

Unlike sixpack I don't find Christians opinions on gays 'offensive' but I do think these opinions should be open to examination or ridicule.

'Political correctness' is a crock IMO.

 

[Djevv]

Spot on Harry, this is why the Martian probes spent so much investigating for life. They were trying to support evolutionary ideas (if it happened once on Earth we should see it everywhere as it is the normal outcome of chemical processes). No evidence was found. SETI hasn't uncovered any yet either. In fact this is a major prediction of Evolution which has not validated the 'warm pond' theory.

Firstly, scientists do not predict that life should spring up everywhere because it happened on Earth. They recognise that it is highly improbable for all the parameters required for life to begin to occur together as they did on Earth.

Given the sheer number of stars, great lengths of time and that the chemical processes should be robust and repeatable, there SHOULD be life on other worlds. If evolution of molecules to intelligence is factual on Earth then it should also work elsewhere. Ergo intelligent life on other worlds should be a given. In fact I once read a very interesting article that stated if there was intelligent life out there that had conquered the stars millions of years ago (why not), they would be likely be into interstellar engineering by now - and you should actually be able to see their work in the night sky.

So, you athiests, I suggest you 'watch the skys' .

BTW on another track, I'm not sure evolution predicts species either. Why are there species? Shouldn't the entire globe be filled with viable transitional forms all evolving into their little niche? Especially after 570 million years of multicellular organisms. Creationism, on the other hand, predicts species.

Only a minute amount of actual life is fossilised, so expecting 'the entire globe be filled with viable transitional forms' is ridiculous. Here's a page which describes examples of transitional fossils including reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, ape-humans and legged sea creatures.

How does creation account for these specimens?

I was referring to living creatures. If there are multiple non-linear 'branches' on the way to all levels of organisms from the species (only can breed with other members is my definition) level up where are they? Presumeably they were all viable.

In regard to apemen, where are they? Why did they not persist?

 

[Djevv]

God is infinite.... He is not held by time and space. He is beyond time and space.

In your opinion.

No, a prediction from the idea that something like the universe must have a credible, sufficient cause.

Hmm, another thing, I'm getting a sense of Deja Vu about this thread (I wonder why? ;D)

 

[evo]

Given the sheer number of stars, great lengths of time and that the chemical processes should be robust and repeatable, there SHOULD be life on other worlds.

Who says there isn't?

Well apart from Christians.Wheres that emoticon....

If evolution of molecules to intelligence is factual on Earth then it should also work elsewhere. Ergo intelligent life on other worlds should be a given. In fact I once read a very interesting article that stated if there was intelligent life out there that had conquered the stars millions of years ago (why not), they would be likely be into interstellar engineering by now - and you should actually be able to see their work in the night sky.

LOL

The Universe is so vaste and we've only explored 1 moon and some of Mars intimately yet this is evidence theres no life ANYWHERE.

It's a laughable hypothesis unbefitting 21st century adults.

So, you athiests, I suggest you 'watch the skys' .

Will do.Despite Christians claims that theres only man, and Gods just here for our benefit.

In regard to apemen, where are they? Why did they not persist?

I know the answer to this one.They died in a world flood,right?

 

[Disco08]

In fact I once read a very interesting article that stated if there was intelligent life out there that had conquered the stars millions of years ago (why not), they would be likely be into interstellar engineering by now - and you should actually be able to see their work in the night sky.

lol, I'm sure that was a very well-informed article. How exactly did the author predict the level of intelligence evolution on other planets would produce?

I was referring to living creatures. If there are multiple non-linear 'branches' on the way to all levels of organisms from the species (only can breed with other members is my definition) level up where are they? Presumeably they were all viable.

All living creatures are transitionary if you think about it . You're obviously not impressed by the fossil record of evolution or the tell tale signs of evolution in creatures we see today then?

Hmm, another thing, I'm getting a sense of Deja Vu about this thread (I wonder why? ;D)

Me too. Wouldn't be because the conversation always seems to get dragged back to christianity would it?

 

[Djevv]

So it's like an egg tooth, yes?

Come on Djevv,ya gotta admit that's pretty good.

Say Carnucle! Say Uncle

Say it.......

;D

Carnucle!! Never heard of it before today!

God moves in mysterious ways is my explanation for the moment. I'll do some research in my copious spare time .

 

[evo]

[God moves in mysterious ways is my explanation for the moment.

he surely does.

 

[Disco08]

Caruncle. Just so you don't get stuck at the point of googling for the wrong word. A lot of birds have them.

 

[Djevv]

In fact I once read a very interesting article that stated if there was intelligent life out there that had conquered the stars millions of years ago (why not), they would be likely be into interstellar engineering by now - and you should actually be able to see their work in the night sky.

lol, I'm sure that was a very well-informed article. How exactly did the author predict the level of intelligence evolution on other planets would produce?

Well it happened on Earth .............why not elsewhere?

If it is soooooo unlikely it is indistinguishable from the miracle that I believe in.

I was referring to living creatures. If there are multiple non-linear 'branches' on the way to all levels of organisms from the species (only can breed with other members is my definition) level up where are they? Presumeably they were all viable.

All living creatures are transitionary if you think about it . You're obviously not impressed by the fossil record of evolution or the tell tale signs of evolution in creatures we see today then?
[/quote]

If you've read my posts you should know that I do believe in evolution in a limited way. Microevolution. Big changes and jumps between major forms I have a problem with. The signs of evolution we see today are the ones microevolution can explain. But it doesn't explain the big gaps between major forms. We see on Earth today what we see in the fossil record - persistence of species - and few, if any, transitional forms.

We have Horse types, Cattle types, Dog Types, Cat types, Kangaroo types, shark types etc. Where are the inbetween types that evolution PREDICTS should be there.

Hmm, another thing, I'm getting a sense of Deja Vu about this thread (I wonder why? ;D)

Me too. Wouldn't be because the conversation always seems to get dragged back to christianity would it?
[/quote]

I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, I just though Harry had a point.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I was referring to living creatures. If there are multiple non-linear 'branches' on the way to all levels of organisms from the species (only can breed with other members is my definition) level up where are they? Presumeably they were all viable.

"Only can breed with other members" is an extremely limited, although widely cited, definition of 'species'. What about asexual organisms? Are they not species? It is a difficult question because of the blurring of the lines between species that diverged relatively recently.

As to where the transitionary species are, in many cases they are all around you, having diverged a long time ago many species go through morphological and physiological differentiation, thus they may not appear to be a single step (as many people falsely see evolution as). In other cases extinction events, and the fossil evidence of such, explain the absence of such 'transitional' form, like the human-relative fossils, or the toothed relative of the baleen whales - a personal fave because it was found just down the road Janjucetus. These are just a couple of the many such examples from the fossil record alone.

If you've read my posts you should know that I do believe in evolution in a limited way. Microevolution. Big changes and jumps between major forms I have a problem with. The signs of evolution we see today are the ones microevolution can explain. But it doesn't explain the big gaps between major forms. We see on Earth today what we see in the fossil record - persistence of species - and few, if any, transitional forms.

We have Horse types, Cattle types, Dog Types, Cat types, Kangaroo types, shark types etc. Where are the inbetween types that evolution PREDICTS should be there.

There aren't big gaps between 'major forms'. What we see is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. There are numerous species and subspecies within the major groups that you just listed. I am not really sure what you expect to see. In many cases the species we see today have diverged significantly from the last common ancestor of other animals --> no transitional forms required, only fossils that are common to two or more extant species and there are plenty of these.

Why don't you make a prediction that your theory makes and we will have a look at how it stands up in the natural world?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, I just though Harry had a point.

Harry's point = theists have an unsupported assertion that god created everything. Atheists have scant scientific knowledge of the origins of the universe and are open on the areas of uncertainty. Somehow this means that both stances are equally valid in Harry opinion. This is classic God of the Gaps (insert emoticon) deduction and is a logical fallacy.

The difference between these positions is that theists are making unsupported claims, whereas atheists do not. If you think both views are equally as valid, I can assert an infinite number of views that are equally as valid. The burden of proof lies with those making the extraordinary claims and all religions have fallen short in this area.

 

[Disco08]

Well it happened on Earth .............why not elsewhere?

If it is soooooo unlikely it is indistinguishable from the miracle that I believe in.

Not at all. Earth is evidence of it's possibility. Where's the evidence for God again?

Of course it's possible elsewhere, but as evo says 'elsewhere' isn't just around the corner. Imagine a beach. Each grain of sand represents a planet that could possibly have life on it. We've looked at how many of those grains? 6? 10? 20?

Big changes and jumps between major forms I have a problem with. The signs of evolution we see today are the ones microevolution can explain. But it doesn't explain the big gaps between major forms. We see on Earth today what we see in the fossil record - persistence of species - and few, if any, transitional forms.

Not true at all. Take the horse for example. There are numerous fossils which clearly show the evolution from small, 55 million year old specimens through many different transitionary species to the modern horse. You can read about it here if you're interested.

 

[Six Pack]

Hi Disco, I was thinking of getting some badges and t-shirts made up for our Atheist club. You in for a couple?

 

[Disco08]

I think I'll pass 6pack. The last couple of flights I've been on I've been reading Dawkins or Harris and both times I was sitting next to a christian who insisted on then telling me why I should believe in God. I think wearing a badge or t-shirt is just asking for trouble. ;D