-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
jayfox said:
That's easy. A soft egg (without a shell) still has thin film or membrane protecting it. Over time, the more robust eggs would survive to a higher degree - promoting an evolutionary strengthening of the membrane until finally we have the end result of a hard shell rather than a soft membrane.
Anti-evolutionary theorists also use eyes as an example of a complex structure that could not develop through an evolutionary process - but of course this misses the point. Eyes evolved from simple light sensing cells to much more complex structures over a long period of time with gradual changes.
jayfox said:
No Jay, we haven't. Nor have we been able to even come close to discovering and monitoring all of the species on the planet.
jayfox said:
As the mammals in question were small, their eggs would have been extremely delicate and therefore AFAIK there are no actual fossil mammal eggs. However there is other evidence which points quite conclusively to this being the case. For instance, all egg-laying creatures are born with something to help them get out of their egg. Mammals such as echidnas, possums, koalas, bandicoots and other earlier more primitive mammals have the same things. Also, marsupials actually form a transient shell around their young during development only for the shell to be reabsorbed before forming.
jayfox said:
Why though Jay? Surely God proved beyond all doubt that this isn't the case - he could have just kept popping them out infinitely couldn't he and done away with the perilous process of reproduction? Had god not considered the issue of reproduction prior to noticing that man was lonely and pinching a rib? What was his plan for reproduction prior to coming up with the woman concept?
Why is it ok to steal a rib but not an apple?
Why did he need the rib?
If you need a rib in the ingredients to create a person, where did he get the rib to create Adam?
If god didn't need a rib to create men just women, what did he need?
Where did he get it from? Why didn't he just materialise a rib instead of stealing it?
Why even bother? Why not just make it possible for men to reproduce with other men?
If we were lonely, why not just create another man and get us foxtel for free?
Old testament religion is a joke, you would be better sticking to something that you can possibly explain away.
BTW i don't think it is accurate to say that Christians believe homosexuality is wrong. Some do, some don't.
rosy23 said:
His trap? Nice stab there Rosy. There are two possible explanations in my view -
1. God used evolution to create the Earth and all it's creatures. It's possible (Biblically as well).
2. The scientific date testing methods are not reliable and could have given us false readings. This is possible too.
Disco08 said:
So we don't have any physical proof in the way of fossilized eggs but we know that "they were all born with something to help them get out of their egg." Sorry, but that doesn;t sound very scientific to me. Couldn't it be said that most creatures have 'something' that could help them get out of an egg, should they be born in one?
Would it be fair to say that atheists beleive in life in outer space?
Christians would believe that earth is the centre of gods creation and that the billions of stars and galaxies merely make up our surroundings making the sky beautiful at night.
In turn atheists should/would believe that earth is merely a part of the universal surrounding. As an extension of evolution and the big bang thoery, it would be fair to assume a high likelyhood of billions of other big bangs taking place during billions of years creating billions of scattered rocks amongst billions of stars. Some of these scattered rocks would have surely been located in a position where a star/s would have provided sufficient light for life form to take place on these rocks, just as it did here on earth many many years ago.
Do atheists beleive in aliens or does there need to be evidence of this?
Christians would believe that earth is the centre of gods creation and that the billions of stars and galaxies merely make up our surroundings making the sky beautiful at night.
In turn atheists should/would believe that earth is merely a part of the universal surrounding. As an extension of evolution and the big bang thoery, it would be fair to assume a high likelyhood of billions of other big bangs taking place during billions of years creating billions of scattered rocks amongst billions of stars. Some of these scattered rocks would have surely been located in a position where a star/s would have provided sufficient light for life form to take place on these rocks, just as it did here on earth many many years ago.
Do atheists beleive in aliens or does there need to be evidence of this?
jayfox said:
The Bible gives lineages of some important characters which is how historians use it to come up with approximate dates for things like Noah's Ark and the Garden of Eden. I don't see how this can be compatible with a evolution which theorizes that the Earth is around 14 billions years older than the Bible claims.
jayfox said:
14 billion years is a long way to be out, especially when numerous methods all give similar results.
jayfox said:
That's the point. Lizards and birds have these things (an egg tooth or a caruncle) to help them get out of their eggs. Early mammals also have these things as do some modern mammals who no longer lay eggs. Why would God create a koala with a caruncle to help it get out of an egg if koala's have never been born in eggs?
Harry said:
I think it's safe to say that atheists believe in the probablilty of alien life.
From the knowledge that astronomers have collected on the universe so far you can make the following assumptions. To be able to possibly produce life (as we know it, evolving from simple chemical beginnings) a planet has to meet certain criteria. The odds of all these criteria being met by a single planet such as earth is very high. Conservatively, you could estimate that probability at 1 billion to 1. If that is a true assumption there are at least one billions planets that meet the criteria.
hutstar said:
God always had a plan but the story of creation was clearly written in a way that we could understand the process.
Why not just keep creating animals and people until the Earth was full? Where's is the journey (or fun) in that?
God would have always known that 2 genders were required for reproduction so clearly woman would have
been in his mind. Maybe He was looking for any other possible way to avoid manbeing nagged for all the days of his life! ;D
God didn't 'steal' a rib from Adam, he was continuing with his creation. Don't you think Adam was pleased that Eve was created? Besides, God makes the rules and he gave clear instructions not to eat the apple.
He probably didn't need the rib but he created woman from man as a symbol that they are one and perfect partners for each other. He didn't use a rib to create Adam, he formed Adam from the dirt. We are talking about an infinitely powerful spiritual being here and you are putting human limitations on Him. You cannot do that to God because He doesn't operate within our boundaries.
Old Testament religion is not a joke but God's accurate description of the makings of our world. I couldn't care less if other options are "easier to explain away" because this is the truth. Sure it can be tricky to comprehend everything in the Bible but God wanted it to be that way so that we would study it in depth.
Disco08 said:
1. God is not bound by time though Duckman. For the first 3 or 4 days of creation there was no sun so how was a 'day' during that time calculated? The Bible is clear in saying that "a thousand years is as a day to God" so it is 'possible' that the earthly 24 hour days only occurred in the later part of creations account. I don;t necessarily believe this but it is on theory.
2. Science is calculated by imperfect humans and is constantly up for review. It would not surprise me to see these calculations changed in times to come. A genuine question for you - How long has science dated the Earth's age at 14 Billion years? 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
jayfox said:
That's the whole point of the scientific method. If better evidence through better technology results in a better theory or description, the new better science wins.
So a theory that the Earth is 14 billion years old only holds until someone has new and better evidence that it is older - or not as old. This is the strength of science, not a weakness.
If you are an atheist you have to beleive that there is life elsewhere. We are merely a dust particle floating in a massive room. If you keep going in the same direction you should hit a wall. Where is the wall? That's right there is no wall. The Universe is infinite, it never ends. It keeps going on and on and on and on. And on. Probability keeps increasing the more you go on and on. Infinite would mean increasing to a point where you get 100%. Atheists can't be definite about there being no God as it can't be proven, then say there is a probability of life elsewhere. A probability of there being no God perhaps? But this wouldn't make one an atheist now would it?
