Atheism

[Panthera tigris FC]

Look evolution does happen things can evolve over time, but I just turn off when the evolutionist say my ancestors were apes.

What is your view on the beginning of life Disco?

As I said....evolutionary biologists (evolutionists!) don't say that your ancestors were apes, they say that you are an ape.

Cop that! ;D

 

[Tigers of Old]

Cue Panthera.

I hope this post was tongue in cheek...I was expecting this from tigertime, but not TOO.

My short answer to the first is that humans are apes. Our closest extant (living) relative are the chimpanzees and bonobos with whom we shared a common ancestor somewhere in the vicinity of 5 million years ago. So, to be clear, we did not evolve from chimps and bonobos, we share a common ancestor with these species, from which we have all evolved separately for quite some time. The fossil evidence of human evolution is very clear.

As for the fossil record in general, it is amazingly comprehensive when you consider what types of species are most likely to fossilize and under what conditions this occurs. Pointing out gaps in the fossil record is not evidence against evolution - it is expected and predicted by the theories. Rabbits in the pre-Cambrian is evidence against evolution. These have been lacking to date as have other 'out of sequence' fossils

No not tongue in cheek ;D, I don't claim to have all the answers, just happy to be shown the evidence.

'Crocoduck'? ;D

I youtubed it out of interest.
I like this one below..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J0cSnYnFg&feature=related

The went on to watch that Nightline debate. Quite good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waVL35Vxnx0&feature=related

I certainly leaned well towards the atheists argument.
Kirk Cameron's 'designer' argument is very light to say the least.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

My point is not about one over the other, but arguing "I believe" as proof. Faith is "faith" because it is belief without proof. Thats the whole point of having faith. Likewise evolution is a theory, because it cannot be completely proven as law yet. This means its comes down to what is likely and unlikely, which is where the debate should be. This is why I raised the issue of Adamms having us as a part of a giant computer being run by mice. Its impossible to disprove, but this is not proof. Just because something cannot be disproved doesn't mean its not extraordinarily unlikely. This is where we should be talking, what is more likely and less likely, not if you cannot disprove it I must be right.

As for Buddhism, there is no "magic man". There are significant aspects of it however (such as wheel) that do require faith though.

Short of a time machine evolution will never by proven 100%....that is why it is referred to as a theory...as many things in science are. Ignorance of the scientific method will lead to people jumping on this and saying...."see....maybe you're wrong". I am happy to be proven wrong, just provide me with the evidence. The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming, hence its place as the cornerstone of modern biology amidst scathing attacks by creationists since it was first described. To say that both views are equally valid is nonsense.

 

[Tiger74]

Short of a time machine evolution will never by proven 100%....that is why it is referred to as a theory...as many things in science are. Ignorance of the scientific method will lead to people jumping on this and saying...."see....maybe you're wrong". I am happy to be proven wrong, just provide me with the evidence. The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming, hence its place as the cornerstone of modern biology amidst scathing attacks by creationists since it was first described. To say that both views are equally valid is nonsense.

Nonsense is harsh. It comes down to a degree of plausibility.

Do we agree with L Ron that alien souls inhabitied the earth after being sent here in DC 10 like space craft? Most don't, the reason being it is very implausible (space craft like 1950's planes, data only one science fiction writer knows, etc).

Do we agree that Mormons got the next books of the bible? Given their secrecy over sourcing, and complete lack of evidence to justify their claims (Jesus in the US for example), again this is deemed implausible by most.

On Christianity however, we know there was a migration of jews. I'm pretty sure records have been found of jews in babylon as the bible states. More and more evidence is showing that a guy called Jesus was around at the time. Of course the issues like the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, mana from heaven, water into wine, resurrection, etc require faith, but it still remains is it plausable? I personally don't believe these parts of the tale, but they are plausible given there is some historical record correlating to the events in the Bible.

 

[Disco08]

Look evolution does happen things can evolve over time, but I just turn off when the evolutionist say my ancestors were apes.

What is your view on the beginning of life Disco?

Sorry I missed this earlier tigertime. I'm not a scientist so I don't claim any expertise in the area, nor do I claim to have a definitive answer to the question of how life on earth began. However, I have seen and read a lot of evidence which is very compelling as to the possibility of living cells forming from the chemicals that would have made up much of the environment as the earth was cooling.

I watched a fantastic doco the other day on recently discovered vents in the deepest parts of the ocean. The chemicals emitting from these vents are very similar to what scientists predict would have been abundant in the early stages after the earth's formation. Although there was no sunlight penetrating to these areas, there was an amazing array of life living packed around these vents. Scientists then simulated these conditions and found that some of the basic building blocks of life could synthesize in this environment. Incredible huh?

 

[tigertime2]

Nonsense is harsh. It comes down to a degree of plausibility.

Do we agree with L Ron that alien souls inhabitied the earth after being sent here in DC 10 like space craft? Most don't, the reason being it is very implausible (space craft like 1950's planes, data only one science fiction writer knows, etc).

Do we agree that Mormons got the next books of the bible? Given their secrecy over sourcing, and complete lack of evidence to justify their claims (Jesus in the US for example), again this is deemed implausible by most.

On Christianity however, we know there was a migration of jews. I'm pretty sure records have been found of jews in babylon as the bible states. More and more evidence is showing that a guy called Jesus was around at the time. Of course the issues like the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, mana from heaven, water into wine, resurrection, etc require faith, but it still remains is it plausable? I personally don't believe these parts of the tale, but they are plausible given there is some historical record correlating to the events in the Bible.

Yes good points about Ron L and the mormons.

the account of Jesus life told by many witnesses as recorded in the bible is very credible and real. In our court system things are proven generally with two witnesses and we can see by the recent Collingwood saga that on the evidence that one or more witnesses to the Shaw accident it was proven that Didak was in the car. The many witnesses that gave an account of Jesus life are yet to be proven as false witnesses.

 

[Tigers of Old]

The many witnesses that gave an account of Jesus life are yet to be proven as false witnesses.

Shame that they can't be cross examined.

 

[Disco08]

The many witnesses that gave an account of Jesus life are yet to be proven as false witnesses.

How many witnesses exactly?

 

[tigertime2]

As I said....evolutionary biologists (evolutionists!) don't say that your ancestors were apes, they say that you are an ape.

Cop that! ;D

Which I totally refute, my humane genome or DNA is the "Intelligent CODE" of who I am and all code or lanuage has to come from an intelligent source.

De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning scientist writes:

"In all modern organisms, DNA contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of proteins. More specifically, encoded within DNA is the exact order in which amino acids, selected at each step from 20 distinct varieties should be strung together to form all of the organism's proteins."

To say that this is all put together by chance takes a far greater step of Faith than my belief that we are made in the image of a devine creator.

 

[tigertime2]

How many witnesses exactly?

enough to make our calander be based on his before and after BC & AD

 

[Disco08]

enough to make our calander be based on his before and after BC & AD

Can't you ever answer a question directly?

How many witnesses?

 

[Disco08]

Which I totally refute, my humane genome or DNA is the "Intelligent CODE" of who I am and all code or lanuage has to come from an intelligent source.

De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning scientist writes:

"In all modern organisms, DNA contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of proteins. More specifically, encoded within DNA is the exact order in which amino acids, selected at each step from 20 distinct varieties should be strung together to form all of the organism's proteins."

To say that this is all put together by chance takes a far greater step of Faith than my belief that we are made in the image of a devine creator.

Just because you don't understand how this can happen without the help of a creator doesn't mean it's less likely.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Nonsense is harsh. It comes down to a degree of plausibility.

Do we agree with L Ron that alien souls inhabitied the earth after being sent here in DC 10 like space craft? Most don't, the reason being it is very implausible (space craft like 1950's planes, data only one science fiction writer knows, etc).

Do we agree that Mormons got the next books of the bible? Given their secrecy over sourcing, and complete lack of evidence to justify their claims (Jesus in the US for example), again this is deemed implausible by most.

On Christianity however, we know there was a migration of jews. I'm pretty sure records have been found of jews in babylon as the bible states. More and more evidence is showing that a guy called Jesus was around at the time. Of course the issues like the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, mana from heaven, water into wine, resurrection, etc require faith, but it still remains is it plausable? I personally don't believe these parts of the tale, but they are plausible given there is some historical record correlating to the events in the Bible.

I am not saying the beliefs are complete nonsense (although sometimes they are), I am saying that belief that both points are equally supported by the evidence is nonsense. Sorry for not making that clearer.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Which I totally refute, my humane genome or DNA is the "Intelligent CODE" of who I am and all code or lanuage has to come from an intelligent source.

De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning scientist writes:

"In all modern organisms, DNA contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of proteins. More specifically, encoded within DNA is the exact order in which amino acids, selected at each step from 20 distinct varieties should be strung together to form all of the organism's proteins."

To say that this is all put together by chance takes a far greater step of Faith than my belief that we are made in the image of a devine creator.

No...the genome does not need an intelligent designer, in fact if it was designed the engineer should be fired! How much of the DNA that makes up the human genome do you think actually carries the code for the proteins that make up and drive the chemistry of life?

3%

Just let that sink in for a moment. You claim that the DNA you carry is evidence of an intelligent creator. Well when you look at it (and it is freely available) - only a small amount of it encodes what you refer to as "what I am".

The rest of your DNA is the result of a number of different processes - many of them parasitic in nature. We have DNA sequences that exist just because they are very good at making copies of themselves. They don't (with some very rare exceptions) contribute to the functioning of the human organism. In fact, if you look at the DNA of related organisms (ie. humans and chimps) you will find some of these sequences at the same positions in the respective genomes! Compelling evidence of common descent. There are even older parasitic sequences that are common to humans, chimps and gorillas! Again in the same positions! How do you explain that in your creation model?

BTW It is a common misconception to think that evolution occurs by chance. Natural selection is the opposite of chance. Variation occurs by chance...one of the main drivers of evolution occurs by selection of the most suitable variants in their respective environments.

Also - your DNA and that of a chimp's is between 95% and 98% identical, depending on what types of sequences you look at (the protein coding part that you say is so important is the 98% identical sequences). So much for the unique position of humans (at least from the perspective of DNA sequence).

 

[Disco08]

Was it Anthony Garrett?

I'm going to assume it was. He's the only former atheist, former committee member of the Australian Skeptics and current professor at Cambridge that has converted from atheism to Christianity.

Here's a couple of interesting quotes from him:

almost all the Christians who actually understand the theory of evolution and what it says, find that there is no clash between the Biblical account and the account due to natural selection. The clash is made up of atheists on one side, and Christians who hold a particular interpretation of the Biblical account on the other..... Darwinists, both secular and Christian, believe that man has evolved by a continuous chain of reproduction, over millions of years, from far simpler creatures. On the other side are the Christians who have faith that the account of the creation of the world and of man given in the book of Genesis is, literally true. Since this account cannot be reconciled with that of evolution, they maintain in all sincerity that evolution is false.

Here now, is the evidence that man is descended by a continuous chain of reproduction from simpler organisms. First, the fossil record shows an ever-increasing complexity of organisms as time goes on, including some intermediate forms, and most recently bipedal, man-like creatures. Then there are similarities between species, suggesting common ancestry. For example, the forelimb - the upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand and fingers - can be matched bone for bone in creatures as diverse as the horse, porpoise, bat, rat, mole and man. Given the widely differing uses of the forelimb across all these species, it is implausible to argue that similar functions have necessitated such close similarities. Next is the existence of organs such as the appendix, without which humans survive perfectly well, but which is vital in animals of close structure to man's. What else could this imply than a common ancestor followed by divergence?

More evidence for common ancestry comes from embryology: the embryos of lizards, birds and mammals are at stages indistinguishable from each other, showing a similarity in those genes expressed at this early stage of an individual's life.

Finally, there is molecular evidence for evolution. Insulin, for example, has the same function in differing animal species, including man, but slightly different amino acid structures across species. A family tree can be reconstructed based on these differences. Moreover, the DNA of man is very close, link by link, to that of even very simple creatures, and the similarity grows as the complexity of the creature grows, mirroring the fossil record.

Evolution explains all these facts through a single principle. Rejecting evolution, they become merely an unrelated collection of observations crying out for explanation.

.......bad theology has led to bad science in the creation scientists' material interpretation of Genesis and their consequent torturing of the scientific facts to construct crazy scientific theories like the 6000 year old earth, that they believe, in genuine sincerity.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s17040.htm

 

[evo]

Evo, looks like we have another believer in the crocoduck :hihi (its actually been a while since we had some Kirk Cameron gold, anything new out there?)

I think I'll be a good Stoic and show some compasion for once. :angel:

 

[tigertime2]

I'm going to assume it was. He's the only former atheist, former committee member of the Australian Skeptics and current professor at Cambridge that has converted from atheism to Christianity.

Here's a couple of interesting quotes from him:

almost all the Christians who actually understand the theory of evolution and what it says, find that there is no clash between the Biblical account and the account due to natural selection. The clash is made up of atheists on one side, and Christians who hold a particular interpretation of the Biblical account on the other..... Darwinists, both secular and Christian, believe that man has evolved by a continuous chain of reproduction, over millions of years, from far simpler creatures. On the other side are the Christians who have faith that the account of the creation of the world and of man given in the book of Genesis is, literally true. Since this account cannot be reconciled with that of evolution, they maintain in all sincerity that evolution is false.

Here now, is the evidence that man is descended by a continuous chain of reproduction from simpler organisms. First, the fossil record shows an ever-increasing complexity of organisms as time goes on, including some intermediate forms, and most recently bipedal, man-like creatures. Then there are similarities between species, suggesting common ancestry. For example, the forelimb - the upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand and fingers - can be matched bone for bone in creatures as diverse as the horse, porpoise, bat, rat, mole and man. Given the widely differing uses of the forelimb across all these species, it is implausible to argue that similar functions have necessitated such close similarities. Next is the existence of organs such as the appendix, without which humans survive perfectly well, but which is vital in animals of close structure to man's. What else could this imply than a common ancestor followed by divergence?

More evidence for common ancestry comes from embryology: the embryos of lizards, birds and mammals are at stages indistinguishable from each other, showing a similarity in those genes expressed at this early stage of an individual's life.

Finally, there is molecular evidence for evolution. Insulin, for example, has the same function in differing animal species, including man, but slightly different amino acid structures across species. A family tree can be reconstructed based on these differences. Moreover, the DNA of man is very close, link by link, to that of even very simple creatures, and the similarity grows as the complexity of the creature grows, mirroring the fossil record.

Evolution explains all these facts through a single principle. Rejecting evolution, they become merely an unrelated collection of observations crying out for explanation.

.......bad theology has led to bad science in the creation scientists' material interpretation of Genesis and their consequent torturing of the scientific facts to construct crazy scientific theories like the 6000 year old earth, that they believe, in genuine sincerity.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s17040.htm

Yes that is the guy, as I said I had some interesting conversations with him.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Do you disagree with his thoughts on evolution?

 

[tigertime2]

No...the genome does not need an intelligent designer, in fact if it was designed the engineer should be fired! How much of the DNA that makes up the human genome do you think actually carries the code for the proteins that make up and drive the chemistry of life?

3%

Just let that sink in for a moment. You claim that the DNA you carry is evidence of an intelligent creator. Well when you look at it (and it is freely available) - only a small amount of it encodes what you refer to as "what I am".

The rest of your DNA is the result of a number of different processes - many of them parasitic in nature. We have DNA sequences that exist just because they are very good at making copies of themselves. They don't (with some very rare exceptions) contribute to the functioning of the human organism. In fact, if you look at the DNA of related organisms (ie. humans and chimps) you will find some of these sequences at the same positions in the respective genomes! Compelling evidence of common descent. There are even older parasitic sequences that are common to humans, chimps and gorillas! Again in the same positions! How do you explain that in your creation model?

BTW It is a common misconception to think that evolution occurs by chance. Natural selection is the opposite of chance. Variation occurs by chance...one of the main drivers of evolution occurs by selection of the most suitable variants in their respective environments.

Also - your DNA and that of a chimp's is between 95% and 98% identical, depending on what types of sequences you look at (the protein coding part that you say is so important is the 98% identical sequences). So much for the unique position of humans (at least from the perspective of DNA sequence).

Also the DNA of clay is very similar. From dust you come and from dust you return.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Also the DNA of clay is very similar. From dust you come and from dust you return.

???

If you are really interested in discussing this matter it would be nice to engage in real discourse.

DNA of clay?