Atheism revisited.

[stagman]

Now how could human senses evolve so perfectly, we humans are so perfectly made...even most animals and insects and plants ..they each have remarkable characteristics...how could they possibly learn such amazing traits through evolution.

SELECTION v EVOLUTION

Selective breeding to enhance certain characteristics has long been common farming practice. Darwin pointed to artificial breeding such as this in his book 'On the origin of the Species'. He saw it(as many do today) as showing that selection can give uphill improvement, which could eventually lead to totally new creatures. However, he was unaware that enhancing one's characteristics through natural selection is likely to be at the expense of others. This is logical, since selection creates no new information, it only 'chooses' from what is there. As a variety becomes more specialized through natural delection, it loses some of the genetic richness of it's ancestors. This is now recognized by world agricultural authorities, who are scrambling to preserve the ancestral 'wild types' of our food crop.

Losing information is the opposite of what needs to occur to turn microbes into man.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The visible universe the the universe that can be observed from earth. When we look at the skies we are seeing light that has travelled many light years to get here. Because light takes time to get here we are essentially looking backwards in time. Looking at a star 4 light years away is seeing that star as it was 4 years ago (light travels 1 light year every year). Therefore if we look as far back as we possibly can we hit the wall so to speak, at this distance backwards what we find is a hot universe emiting light in what appears to be the first time, basically we cannot see any furthur backwards than this - the universe was opaque and no light was able to be transmitted hence no light that we can recieve today. This wall exists 13.7 billion light years away in every direction, this means that at that particular time the entire universe was inconcievably hot, of course you must consider that spacetime itself expands and pulls the energetic photons a big shifting them to a lower energy, so what may have been strong gamma radiation that has a very short wavelength in the beginning has stretched out into longer wavelength microwave radiation over its 13.7 billion year trip. Anyhow the important consideration is that we can only see back 13.7 billion years, 13.7 billion light years if you want distance - beyond that we simply do not know and cannot say weather the universe is infinitely large and we can only see a small piece or that what we can see is all that there is and by sheer chace the earth is the very center of the universe.

I don't believe that all scientists are right about the big bang. I think that rapid inflation is a cheat and I also think that when we understand more about the universe, when we have a more complete theory - a GUT if you will - then we will be able to get closer to understanding what went on. If the universe is indeed finite or if it is infinite, if it is static perhaps.

Firstly you are writing posts to get a "gotcha" moment, it is neither proper form nor good for discourse on the matters at hand.

Secondly, what is the point of this? You are demonstrating that science is not static and that there is debate among the scientific community on matters of cosmology (of course the old adage "cosmologists are always certain of their theory until the new data arrives" is in many ways a trueism). A variable speed of light theory can be scientific and could be revolutionary if it explained the universe better than Einstein could (a good book "faster than light, a story of scientific speculation" covers this topic scientifically).

I am of the opinion that the big bang theory has problems that were invented to explain the evidence namely with inflation and the concept of a fixed speed of light during this period. The idea that big bang is universally accepted is wrong, there are different theories and explainations of the data that are worked on by physicists around the world. Science is a process and in the case of cosmology we still have a lot to learn and the universe has a way of surprising us at every turn. We may one day have a complete and totally infallable model of what the universe is but until we do we will continue to strive to understand in the best way we can, make those steps forward that lead to such a grand theory of everything.

You are writing about the variable speed of light theory, that in order for the homogenous background radiation to exist then the speed of light must have been faster at the beginning of the universe. This is a legitimate field of research and the data about the fine structure constant being variable about two years back could hint towards it being scientific fact - but until evidence is produced that can best be described by VSL it will not become as widely reciognised as the standard model of the big bang, inflation and all.

Science is never a matter of final truth, it is a matter of understanding the world to the best of our abilities with what information is at hand, when we find new evidence that contradicts our view then we must understand why we were wrong and come up with an explaination that can explain the new observations. The big bang is a scientific theory, from it we have had to incorparate ideas such as inflation, dark matter and negative energies. When somebody comes up with a theory that can better explain the red shifting of galaxies at proportional distance and and the cosmic background microwave radiation then it may be accepted. Scientific debate and changes in theories is what makes science different from religion, it is a collection of knowledge and explaination and not superstition and ignorance.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Losing information is the opposite of what needs to occur to turn microbes into man.

You fail to see that random mutations occuring during life and the vast ammounts of new variation that appears within new organisms resulting from sexual reporduction are sources of new information.

You seem to know enough about the principles of natural selection as far as it takes to attack them but not to fully understand them, I could be wrong on that count but simple errors like this turn your arguments into swiss cheese.

It is Very Simple Indeed to understand evolutiion if you give it a try; Variation Selection Inheritance.

 

[stagman]

Wanderer... I just wish that these theories would be stated as such(only theories) more often....too many times it seems to be considered fact and is being rammed down childrens throats as truth...
They are assumptions, not many assumptions end up as utter truths now do they.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Human beings exist on earth - a factual statement. The statement you made is contradictary and illogical, you state that something exists and then state that its existence is impossible.

I mean that it would be possible only with a creator.
if you take the creator out of the equation it's impossible.

You have no solid evidence to base this with, you have a collection of assumptions and conjecture but you lack evidence. We know from the Miller experiment that it is possible to create organic molecules from inorganic matter through chemistry alone, now consider what happens when you have the total surface area of a terrestrial planet as your experimental chamber and billions of years of time to wait and see, is it not possible that a self replicating polypeptide sequence may come into being, is it not also possible that within inorganic phospholipid drops that such a sequence of amino acids may wind up creating an organism? and if you have this replicating organism is it not possible for its decendants to replicate billions of times over sometimes with slight variation that gives it a compeditve edge over other populations of organisms without that change until after a few billion years you have diverse forms of life on the planet.

I am saying that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for God's existence. From this we must look at what we know,

1: Life exists on the planet earth.

2: Metabolic processes are chemical in nature, life as we know it is chemical in nature.

3: Life as we know it requires liquid water, energy and carbon.

4: If these three criteria can be met withing a range of environmental conditions then it is possible for life to come into existence in a manner no different than that of earth or quite possibly mars.

Speculating on the probabilities of things that we know little about (such as the number of stars with terrestrial planets, the number of planets where life can exist, the number of planets where life does exist etc. is unscientific until the actual facts on them are determined, until that point saying that other planets with life in this univese is rare, probable of certain it is pure speculation and trying to use uncertainties like that to claim scientific case for God is unscientific and dishonest.

 

[stagman]

But when these criteria are met... how does the ball start rolling?
what sets off the process of evolution? You talk of chemical actions or reactions but for this to all start processing into 'life that breathes'...it just seems incomprehensible to me...
I've been trying to argue from a logical point of view...maybe to you it does'nt seem so because I am biased toward God.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Wanderer... I just wish that these theories would be stated as such(only theories) more often....too many times it seems to be considered fact and is being rammed down childrens throats as truth...
They are assumptions, not many assumptions end up as utter truths now do they.

Scientific theories are not assumptions, they are models of understanding. In common usage a theory is seen as a guess or hypothesis but in science a theory is more specific, a scientific theory is the explainations to explain scientific data.

For example Isaac Newton observed that objects will fall to the ground at at equal speeds in a vacuum regardless of their mass. This is a scientific fact, the observed evidence. he runs experiments with weights at different heights and comes to this conclusion and the experiments can be replicated and the same observations made.

Now from this observation - all things fall down at the same speed - he was able to create a theory. In the case of Newton this theory was his law of universal gravitation: F = G * (m1*m2)/(r^2)

where F is the gravitational force between two masses, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are mass 1 and mass 2 respectively and r is the distance between them.

This scientific theory can explain that objects will fall at equal rates regardless of their mass (ignore air resistance, which is simply an upward force that cancels out some of the downward force from gravity). It can make accurate predictions about the movement of bodies (newtonian equations were used to send man to the moon) and fitted all of the data that was available at the time.

But we got better at measurements and by the end of the 19th century we discovered that things in this universe didn't travel instantaneously fast, the speed of light was found. Now this presented a unique problem with newtonian physics, it works on the assumption that gravity too works instantaneously. The long and the short of this is that having a speed of light that nothing can go faster than makes newtonian physics break down when put in extreme situations. With this new scientific evidence the old theory became less accurate, it couldnt explain everything. To remedy it a brilliant individual named Albert Einstein created the theory of General Relativity which explained how gravity can work when there is a speed of light. This new theory can do everything newtons could when dealing with slow speeds but when you get into extreme situations like black holes it was able to explain things where newtons theory became illogical.

Scientific theories are the very best explainations for observed phenomenah, we can never be 100% sure that they are right because we can never be 100% certain, but things like Evolution and the Big Bang theory have high levels of confidence and support because they can explain what we currently know better than any other theories out there, when we learn more about these things and a theory cannot explain it then it may need to be modified or we may adopt a theory that can better explain it.


I recomend that you read this little definition on scientific theory so that you can understand why when teaching people about science theories are given such strong weight and why scientists do not treat theories that dont explain the evidence as junk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

[A_Wanderer]

I recomend that you consider what science is and what belief is. They are seperate issues, one one hand science offers the facts and explainations, cold logic and on the other religion offers faith and hope. Being a person of faith does not mean that you must forfeit your brain, you can still learn and understand the universe scientifically and you may just find that your faith is affirmed by such a wonderous thing. On the flipside being of the scientificly inclined are not disqualified from having faith.

I am certain that if God exists then that being would not want to see its creations ignore the wonderful mechanisms of life such as evolution - one could think of it as one of the mysterious ways that a deity works through - because a mortal human being starts telling them that no matter what you see around you only their interperatation of the bible is true.

Be more critcal towards what you are told or what you read, you obviously have the capacity for it, ask yourself questions about the agenda of those in the creationist movement such as Ken Ham and the Answers in Genesis movement. Learn about science yourself and dont just take little bits and pieces, its a tapestry of knowledge - when you take an individual piece it may seem to be nonsense but when you look at the big picture you will see where it comes from and how it fits in.

Keep your faith strong but for goodness sake don't waste your obviously critical and dare I say scientific brain away on creationism or intelligent design, learn about cosmology and biology from the science book and matters of faith from the bible, or whichever teachings you subscribe. A person is only foolish if they refuse to learn both sides of the story.

 

[AcrobatMan]

A_Wanderer

 

[swissair135]

A_wanderer.. good work.

But you still cannot prove that intelligent design is a flawed theory.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I can, modern intelligent design begins with the assumption that in order for life to exist it must be created, it then works backwards and selects isolated bits of evidence to substantiate this claim.

A creator in the context of ID is an unfalsifiable element hence unscientific therefore ID is a flawed theory or more specifically a hypothesis that lacks evidence.

 

[swissair135]

A_wandered,

Again, I am under the belief that everything has a maker. While I do not object to the ideas of the big bang and evolution, science has a tough time explaining WHY things happen?

Who created matter? Who created our "perfect bodies"? How did this perfect world exist?

There are too many perfections in life, that the scientific community cannot grasp. Too man coincidences that science cannot explain, or explain as a "perfect convenience"... hence, the origin and continual growth of faith.

Q - The standard answer "yes but you have no evidence, therefore your cannot substiante your argument".

A - Thats a fair question/statement.

Here are two vital principles that must be kept in view: (1) It is possible that an object possesses purposeful design but that its design is not recognized by the observer; and (2) It is possible that an object once clearly reflected purposeful design, but that through the process of degeneration, its obvious design has been erased. Let us consider these two points as applied to some atheistic presuppositions.

Suppose that a native, strolling through the jungle, should come across a watch. Examining it, he cannot perceive its function. Does the fact that he sees no practical purpose in the instrument prove that it has no design?

If there is one thing that we do know about this world, is that everything has a maker. Every "human" creation requires a maker or an intelligent designer. Things just dont come together, they are assembled, intelligently.

A_wanderer, im still looking for specific and undeniable evidence that intelligent design is a false theory... ive been searching all night

Best Regards,

Mark

 

[2Hearts]

You fail to see that random mutations occuring during life and the vast ammounts of new variation that appears within new organisms resulting from sexual reporduction are sources of new information.

I'd like to know your thoughts on the development of the human genome as we know it today. Do mutation, variation and a few billion years adequately explain how something so complex came into existance? I kind of compare it to a complex piece of software. Sure, Microsoft can design and create an incredibly complex system (e.g. Windows NT consisted of 30 million lines of code), but they didn't write the human genome.

If you do not see the similarity between the two, please explain the differences. To me, both are information systems that perform a specific task. That's why I compare them.

 

[Irvine511]

i can hear the Creationists quiver with fear when A_W walks into the room ... you give facts, they respond with "but this is what i believe!" you give proof of evolution, they stammer ask for proof that intelligent design isn't entirely, 100% wrong. and if there is a 1% that cannot be unequivocally disproved, then they use that to reassert their beliefs.

nicely done.

 

[swissair135]

This thread is not about creationism smart guy.

Its about atheism, and the lack of physical evidence for god.

Still crying that America is a christian society?

(for the record: I am not a typical creationist christian.. I believe in evolution) .. but I believe in intelligent design..

 

[Irvine511]

This thread is not about creationism smart guy.

Its about atheism, and the lack of physical evidence for god.

Still crying that America is a christian society?

(for the record: I am not a typical creationist christian.. I believe in evolution) .. but I believe in intelligent design..

like many threads on FYM, it has shifted focus and became a very involved, and very interesting discussion/dissertation on evolution. yes, the lack of physical evidence for God might have been a jumping off point, but it has evolved into something else altogether. or maybe you weren't reading the posts closely?

crying that America is a Christian society? gosh, please show me from what post you're able to make such an inference/judgement. or maybe you find it easier to label me, assume a set of beliefs, file me away into another category, and then view all that i might write through one particular, self-serving, self-reinforcing prism?

that's happened to me before. i won't worry about it.

and good luck with your intelligent design kerfuffle -- you sound really cutting edge not being a "typical christian creationist." zowie!

 

[coemgen]

For those of you who are atheists, what do you see as the point of life, or is there none since everything just "happened." Yes, I'm a Christian, but I seriously and respectfully want to hear what you think on this.

 

[swissair135]

Thank you irvine.... youve officially become the sour grape in this thread.

This was a respectful and positive intellectual conversation, but you managed to throw in your half-assed comments.

You should be proud.

 

[Irvine511]

Thank you irvine.... youve officially become the sour grape in this thread.

This was a respectful and positive intellectual conversation, but you managed to throw in your half-assed comments.

You should be proud.

hmmmmmmmmmm ... i seem to remember commenting on A_W, and leaving it at that. you were the one who picked up on the comment and used the condescending word "smart guy" and following with a set of half-assed comments.

i.e., "Still crying that America is a christian society?"

really, how was that respectful and positive, let alone intellectual?

oh well. you should read more closely. and once you start posting a little more, you'll understand that off-comments are consistently made, and should do little to derail a thread; and also that threads spin off in different directions, often not in the way you intended.

but you'll figure it out soon.

and drop the name calling. quickly.

 

[swissair135]

i can hear the Creationists quiver with fear when A_W walks into the room ... you give facts, they respond with "but this is what i believe!" you give proof of evolution, they stammer ask for proof that intelligent design isn't entirely, 100% wrong. and if there is a 1% that cannot be unequivocally disproved, then they use that to reassert their beliefs.

nicely done.

Yeah Irvine.. your an innocent little boy/girl/both.

You start with your very sarcastic, yet very brash comment about how believers fear A_W.

In case you didnt know, your comments are SIMPLY THERE TO FLAME.

No christian on this thread, including me, have not shown, atheists (including one of my best friends in this thread) any disrespect. Yet, you seem to think that you can not show that same respect.

Do me a favor.... go do something with your time, and let this thread continue to be a good source of discussion and ideas.

 

[Irvine511]

Yeah Irvine.. your an innocent little boy/girl/both.

You start with your very sarcastic, yet very brash comment about how believers fear A_W.

In case you didnt know, your comments are SIMPLY THERE TO FLAME.

No christian on this thread, including me, have not shown, atheists (including one of my best friends in this thread) any disrespect. Yet, you seem to think that you can not show that same respect.

Do me a favor.... go do something with your time, and let this thread continue to be a good source of discussion and ideas.

then stop responding to my posts

and you'll notice i said "creationists" not "christians" (again, that reading closely thing).

and, since you're not a creationist, why are you so offended?

unless you're looking to be offended?

mmmmmm ... i can feel the self-righteousness.

and i'm done now. carry on, all.

and again, i'll give my kudos to A_Wanderer. he's clearly mopping the floor in this thread. just offering a to someone who uses logic, reason, and science to construct and argument.

 

[coemgen]

 

[Judah]

For those of you who are atheists, what do you see as the point of life, or is there none since everything just "happened." Yes, I'm a Christian, but I seriously and respectfully want to hear what you think on this.

Would you also say that a "creator" is needed to, therefore, give life a "point" and/or meaning?

There are many who don't need a creator to find meaning in life. Life is self-defined and full of meaning for those who wish to instill meaning into it themselves, without having to rely so much on mythologies.

(Personally, i really really really hope there's no God. I would feel very special (and unique) if i was a result of randomness (cosmically speaking) rather than if someone designed me because they wanted to for their own purpose.)

 

[Anthony]

swissair135 - cool it, please. I think you will find the moment you call anyone 'smart guy' and comments of sorts, you are targeting someone directly and personally, and your tone was far from respectful.

Cool it, please.


Ant.

 

[2Hearts]

i can hear the Creationists quiver with fear when A_W walks into the room ... you give facts, they respond with "but this is what i believe!" you give proof of evolution, they stammer ask for proof that intelligent design isn't entirely, 100% wrong. and if there is a 1% that cannot be unequivocally disproved, then they use that to reassert their beliefs.

nicely done.

Why congratulate A_W, Irvine? You have added much more to this discussion than him. I say Congrats to YOU!! Creationists may quiver when A_W walks into the room, but they run away squealing like little piggies when you drop by.

 

[coemgen]

Judah, thanks for responding. I understand that we can attach meaning to our lives without considering a creator. I'm talking about meaning that we don't have to attach — a genuine purpose. Something bigger than anything we can attach. (And, to clear things up, my faith isn't based on mythologies.)

You said that you really, really, really hope there is no God because you would feel special and unique if you were the result of radomness. I don't mean this to sound bad, but does that mean you're happy being considered an accident? I'm seriously just wandering. I'm not trying to start a big argument or anything. I just want to understand this point of view. As far as being designed for God's purpose, that's only part of it. As a Christian, I also believe he created me out of love. It's much like your parents having you as a baby. It was done more so out of love than for their own purpose. If God is God, he doesn't need any of us for his purpose, he created us out of love. Maybe that sounds trite to others here, but think about it. Does that make sense?

 

[Irvine511]

Why congratulate A_W, Irvine? You have added much more to this discussion than him. I say Congrats to YOU!! Creationists may quiver when A_W walks into the room, but they run away squealing like little piggies when you drop by.

no, i fully admit i've added nothing of intellectual value to this thread. i just wanted to pat A_W on the back, as i've done before, because i think he's one smart cookie. i wanted to leave it at that, but i also will not shy away from defending myself when i am attacked personally (instead, attack my arguments! that's why were here!)

can't speak for Creationists "squealing like little piggies" -- don't know where that came from.

let's ignore me, and let's focus on Coemgen's questions. much more interesting.

 

[swissair135]

Irvine,

Because most christians are creationists. Your comments were purely intended to flame and provoke other christian members on this board, who have everY right to believe what they will. You will find that the majority of the people in your country believe this story too.. I dont agree with it, but I dont disrespect them on a public message board either.

Again, there is no disrespect directed to anybody on this this thread until you dropped by.

 

[coemgen]

Can you feel the love in tha room? Irvine, as a Chrstian, I don't take offense to anything you said. Let's ALL move on and put our two cents toward something more valuable.

 

[2Hearts]

Irvine,
I agree, let's get back to the discussion. (The 'piggies' line was just a little more sarcasm I added to the fire.) My next post will be on topic, just like my first ones were.