The Athiest thread

[NotAnEasyThing]

4 centuries of investigation does not a complete picture make.

There is no complete theory of life, there are various theories that can often be applicable in particular circumstances. There is no need for God in this, there is no need to actively work to deny the influence of God in biology because God is a negligable element that cannot be proven or disproven.

Evolution is a fact, over the generations changes are taken up into the gene pool and the frequency of their expression can increase or decrease depending on the population pressures - this occurs and the evidence that we have for it gives it a very large confidence level. Now there is the fact, the scientific theory is how this can be explained, be it natural selection, puntuated equallibrium or any manner of theories regarding the mechanisms that drive evolution. Likewise gravity is a fact, the theories to explain it can be improved as tools of investigation are increased. We have gone from a clockwork view of a newtonian universe to the concept of a fixed speed of light with general relativity - the theory to explain gravity has changed but that has not altered the fact that gravity exists.

Yup, but why? (I'm starting to sound like my son ).

Evolution is not a fact -it is what some believe is the best way to describe the origin of life. It may just happen that science comes up with an even better way of explaining this. But it still doesn't answer the underlying question- why? Maybe that question is irrelavent to you... I don't know. To me though that seems the more important question.

It's like a boy asking his Dad "why is the kettle boiling?" The Dad's reply is "Well son, it's because the combustion of the gas transfers heat to the bottom of the kettle which, being a good condcutor transfers heat to the water. The molecules of water become more and more agitated, give off steam and there is your boiling." Dissatisfied the kid asks his mother the same question. Finally he gets the answer he's been looking for; "the kettle's boiling because I'm about to make us all a cup of coffee".

 

[A_Wanderer]

No evolution is a fact, take 1000 fruit flys and expose them all to subzero tempretures for 20 minutes killing off 90% of them, and then take the surviving fruit flys and breed them then put this new population in sub zero tempretures for 20 minutes; the tollerance for these conditions will be greater in this new generation than the original because the particular differences that enabled the parents to survive have been passed down genetically to the offspring. That is evolution in action, the taking up of minor mutations into a population due to pressures on reproductive sucess. We can see these in actions all over, from insecticide resistance pests to sickle cell disease in some African tribes - the sickle shaped cells make the sufferer immune to malaria ergo the chances of survival and reproduction are increased and the genes for the disease are passed on.

Evolution is a fact - the mechanisms are the theory.

 

[beli]

It's like a boy asking his Dad "why is the kettle boiling?" The Dad's reply is "Well son, it's because the combustion of the gas transfers heat to the bottom of the kettle which, being a good condcutor transfers heat to the water. The molecules of water become more and more agitated, give off steam and there is your boiling." Dissatisfied the kid asks his mother the same question. Finally he gets the answer he's been looking for; "the kettle's boiling because I'm about to make us all a cup of coffee".

Bingo - not!

Thats an interesting, umm, thingie, sorry Im tired also. If my child asks me questions I give answers as similar to your first answer as I can muster. I wouldnt dream of answering my childs questions in the manner of your second answer.

The second answer is not an answer at all. Its avoiding the question.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

No evolution is a fact, take 1000 fruit flys and expose them all to subzero tempretures for 20 minutes killing off 90% of them, and then take the surviving fruit flys and breed them then put this new population in sub zero tempretures for 20 minutes; the tollerance for these conditions will be greater in this new generation than the original because the particular differences that enabled the parents to survive have been passed down genetically to the offspring. That is evolution in action, the taking up of minor mutations into a population due to pressures on reproductive sucess.

Evolution is a fact - why it occurs and the mechanisms are the theory.

That may explain natural selection, but it still doesn't prove evolution- how do you get a whole new species? You could do that experiment on fruit flys for millions of years and I bet you'd still have fruit flys. Maybe fruit flys that are damn good at getting fruit out of freezers - but fruit flys none the less

In response to your other post- I see miracles all the time- like the birth of my children, like the sun rising each day, like my next breathe! I guess it depends whose eyes your looking through.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

Bingo - not!

Thats an interesting, umm, thingie, sorry Im tired also. If my child asks me questions I give answers as similar to your first answer as I can muster. I wouldnt dream of answering my childs questions in the manner of your second answer.

The second answer is not an answer at all. Its avoiding the question.

The second answer was exactly what the boy was wanting to know- that's the point! I do hope you don't really confuse your child like that!

 

[beli]

The second answer was exactly what the boy was wanting to know- that's the point! I do hope you don't really confuse your child like that!

I disagree. If I asked a question like that I would want the first answer. And I treat my daughter the same way.

What I meant was this little story is a perfect example of the differences between some atheists and some Christians.

One answer is the facts and the other is story avoiding the issue. Sorry if that sounds offensive. Im not very articulate at the best of times, even less so today.

 

[Angela Harlem]

NO~!

The reason the kettle is boiling is for coffee, the cause of it boiling is hypothermics or whatever its called.

What exactly is this kid asking, and why isnt he in his room doing homework?

Kids these days....

 

[beli]

NO~!

The reason the kettle is boiling is for coffee, the cause of it boiling is hypothermics or whatever its called.

Agreed. But if the child asks "why is the kettle boiling" and not "what is the reason" nor "what is the cause" then the first answer is the appropriate answer, for me anyway.

And yes, the child should be more specific with his line of questioning.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Sunrises, children and breathing are not miracles - they are all natural processes.

Now natural selection is the engine of evolution - you conceed that there can be minor changes within a single species, fluke mutations that give rise to differences. Now consider if you will that of those slight variations some can be beneficial, some can be neutral and some can be a disadvantage to reproductive sucess (no reproduction = genetic dead end). Now if a single variation is a disadvantage to the reproductive sucess of a creature then that particular trait will be diminished among the population, put simply it will be bred out of the population, those that posess it will always be at a disadvantage of spreading this particular trait. Now consider the neutral trait, it may be a slight variation that offers no particular advantage or disadvantage, this will not alter the reproductive sucess of the oganism and so this trait may exist among the population at a relatively stable ratio. Now consider the beneficial trait. This trait may increase the relative reproductive sucess, the organism could have more offspring and these offspring may carry the genes for this trait and should it be expressed then the offspring will have greater reproductive sucess than those without the trait, the ultimate path of this is that the entire population will consist of individuals with the beneficial trait.

Now add the element of time, human beings are a very short sighted species, we last 80 years if we are lucky and that is absolutely nothing in terms of geological time. The process of evolution stretches out over vast stretches of time, it can occur at different speeds depending on the particular environmental pressures on the population (a harsher environment will make the difference between a beneficial trait and a negative one the difference between life, reproductive sucess and death) but over time minor changes accumulate, given accumulation of changes over vast stretches of time, the seperation of populations through migration speciation occurs and new forms arise. The fossil record is filled with ancient life, our picture of life on the planet is far from complete however there are striking patterns in the fossil record that go up the strata and can lead all the way up from millions of years ago to this day.

From primitive fish to lobe finned fish, from lobe finned fish to lung fish, from lung fish to amphibian, from amphibian to mammal like reptile, from mammal like reptile to omniverous shrew, from omniverous shrew to primate, from primate to homonid, from homonid to human being - we are one part of a tree of life that stretches back billions of years.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

I disagree. If I asked a question like that I would want the first answer. And I treat my daughter the same way.

What I meant was this little story is a perfect example of the differences between some atheists and some Christians.

One answer is the facts and the other is story avoiding the issue. Sorry if that sounds offensive. Im not very articulate at the best of times, even less so today.

No that's ok Beli, I understand your point, just that it wasn't the point for my little story. And I would agree with you to an extent. I think some christians do avoid looking at the facts.

But the Christian understanding of God is not an either/or thing when it comes to science. In reality a Christian should be perhaps even more interested in science as science is the study of the universe- the universe they believe created by God.

What I was meaning to do was show the difference between the questions being asked. One was how and one was why. The kid in my illustartion was wanting to know why the kettle was on, the father didn't answer this underlying question- he ignored it.

In the same way, some atheists seem to ignore the why question.

Make sense?

 

[beli]

deleted

 

[A_Wanderer]

The why is not an issue, the why is a question of motivation, by definition asking why is to project a God. There is no motivation or reason behind a random event therefore by presenting it as a question of why it creates a question that cannot be answered satisfactorally without a creator.

 

[beli]

Nupe. Angie made me thing for minute there LOL (always a good thing).

I still agree with my original post.

Also in your first question you stated:

"why is the kettle boiling?"

to which the answer is the first answer

in your last post you stated

why the kettle was on

to which the answer is closer to your second answer. Thats a different question entirely.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

Sunrises, children and breathing are not miracles - they are all natural processes.

Now add the element of time, human beings are a very short sighted species, we last 80 years if we are lucky and that is absolutely nothing in terms of geological time. The process of evolution stretches out over vast stretches of time, it can occur at different speeds depending on the particular environmental pressures on the population (a harsher environment will make the difference between a beneficial trait and a negative one the difference between life, reproductive sucess and death) but over time minor changes accumulate, given accumulation of changes over vast stretches of time, the seperation of populations through migration speciation occurs and new forms arise. The fossil record is filled with ancient life, our picture of life on the planet is far from complete however there are striking patterns in the fossil record that go up the strata and can lead all the way up from millions of years ago to this day.

From primitive fish to lobe finned fish, from lobe finned fish to lung fish, from lung fish to amphibian, from amphibian to mammal like reptile, from mammal like reptile to omniverous shrew, from omniverous shrew to primate, from primate to homonid, from homonid to human being - we are one part of a tree of life that stretches back billions of years.

Thanks for the summary A_W, I do understand it though- it just doesn't really (to me) make for a convincing arguement...obviously it does to you. Not to say that this can't be correct, just that it is a theory, and even Darwin was astonished to find that when he threw out guesses, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything that the ideas took off like wildfire- that people made a religion of them.

It still doesn't explain why all this happens the way it does (if it does). I don't care how many billions of years you have- I still find it a very long bow to draw that something as amazingly complex and well designed fot it's purpose as say an eye just came about through freak mutations. That my friend seems illogical.

And sorry, but my children are miracles- they bring me great joy (is that joy just the result of some series of mutations too?)

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

Nupe. Angie made me thing for minute there LOL (always a good thing).

I still agree with my original post.

Man have we got too much time on our hands or what? Seeings I wrote the original story can we agree that my intention was the kid was wanting to know the reason why the kettle was being boiled not how?

Agreed?

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

There is no motivation or reason behind a random event therefore by presenting it as a question of why it creates a question that cannot be answered satisfactorally without a creator.

Now you're getting it!

So how do you know it's a random event- isn't it fair enough for me to accept that this is only your assumption?

 

[beli]

Depends on the child, seriously. If my child asked "why is the kettle boiling" she is asking "why is the water bubbling?", "why is there steam?" etc. Trust me, the questions go on and one. Takes after her mother.

Other children may well be asking "why are you doing that? "

Its a completely different mind set.

Let me tell you a story. Growing up a few friends and myself where given a magna doodle. The other children immediately sat down and started scribbling on it.

I asked my father how it worked. My father and some of his mates, immediately began unscrewing it and inspecting the iron filings on the inside, and explained to me how magnets work. That is the kind of answer I wanted. But not the answer the children next to me wanted (nor received from their parents)

Its a different mind set.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is not an explanation it is a hypothesis, simply put we do not have a full and proper explaination of the universe, that requires investigation - only when the facts are on the table would I be willing to tell you that whatever the cause of the universe, it is a scientific fact.

 

[beli]

It is not an explanation it is a hypothesis, simply put we do not have a full and proper explaination of the universe, that requires investigation - only when the facts are on the table would I be willing to tell you that whatever the cause of the universe, it is a scientific fact.

Agreed. I do think we will be long dead before all the facts are on the table though.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

Let me tell you a story. Growing up a few friends and myself where given a magna doodle. The other children immediately sat down and started scribbling on it.

I asked my father how it worked. My father and some of his mates, immediately began unscrewing it and inspecting the iron filings on the inside, and explained to me how magnets work. That is the kind of answer I wanted. But not the answer the children next to me wanted (nor received from their parents)

Its a different mind set.

You sound like a very special person Beli. Your poor parents though- lol!

However, if you are going to reinterpret my stories with you as the main character.......I better be even more careful what I write

 

[beli]

I dont think Im that special, LOL. Im guessing A Wanderer was probably a similar kind of child, inquisitive, questioning. Thats my point. Believing or not believing in gods is fundamentally a different chain of thoughts.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

It is not an explanation it is a hypothesis, simply put we do not have a full and proper explaination of the universe, that requires investigation - only when the facts are on the table would I be willing to tell you that whatever the cause of the universe, it is a scientific fact.

So you're not even curious to know the cause? Do you just decide it can't be known? I'm interested to know how you came to that conclusion?

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

I dont think Im that special, LOL. Im guessing A Wanderer was probably a similar kind of child, inquisitive, questioning. Thats my point. Believing or not believing in gods is fundamentally a different chain of thoughts.

So are you implying I am not inquisitive or questioning?

 

[A_Wanderer]

On the contrary I am curious to understand the universe, and I have an open mind to the universe and the possibilities of other universes; but to find the answers requires observation and inference, not blind faith. Explaining away the universe with a man made concept such as God is not the way to approach such a monumentous problem.

It may not happen in the next century, it may not happen in the next millenia but the search itself is sometimes more rewarding than the answer.

 

[beli]

Can I answer this too?

Mostly cause A Wanderer will give a well reasoned argument and I will speak off the top of my head

So you're not even curious to know the cause?

Very curious but if there are no facts / no evidence then there is no answer and I must wait.

Do you just decide it can't be known?

Not know at this point in time. Some things will not be known in my life time. Thems the breaks. Im not going to accept an implausible answer (to me) just to have an answer.

 

[beli]

So are you implying I am not inquisitive or questioning?

To a certain degree, in a different way. I really need to sleep before I answer this one.

errrm. A belief in a god requires faith, which by definition does not require evidence.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And evidence is what all this is about, I am not leaping to great conclusions about the history of life on this planet, we have evidence of what came before, a record of life within the fossil record and I am saying that man is a creature that fits just like everything else.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

but to find the answers requires observation and inference, not blind faith. Explaining away the universe with a man made concept such as God is not the way to approach such a monumentous problem.

It may not happen in the next century, it may not happen in the next millenia but the search itself is sometimes more rewarding than the answer.

Just to give you a bit of context for where I am coming from- my Great Uncle was professor Raymond Dart, neuroanatomist & anthropologist and discoverer of "Australopithecus". While he was chair of anatomy in the school of medicine for the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa, he battled orthodox anthropology to propose a whole new branch of evolutionary theory and that man's origin was in Africa and not Asia as was thought at the time.

My family has certainly not been one where critical evaluation of the universe was surpressed, and I grew up with a very enquiring mind. My position of belief in a creator was not arrived at through "blind faith" and in fact I find a very intellectually satisfying result to my searching for answers in life.

 

[beli]

Cool. I hope you got to meet and spend time with him. Explains why you are one of the few, if not the only Christian in this thread. (Apologies to Angie)

My family are all metallurgists / chemical engineers.

My second cousin is a professor of evolutionary developmental biology.

So its all science and maths in my family.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You must forgive me, I sometimes regress into my argumentative prose on issues of creationism - thankfully you are not a young earth creationist and so intelligent conversation on the topic can begin.

Now the question of God and a creator - I cannot arrive at such a conclusion for life. I think that the universe exists and is governed by laws, I think that life is a product of these conditions. The issue is where the universe comes from and why it is the way that it is. That is an incomprehensibly difficult question. The existence of a creator of the universe or the non-existence of a creator is the key to this debate. Now I would gladly accept that a creator exists if incontravertable evidence was presented in favour but this has not been presented. I refuse to assume that a creator exists when there is nil evidence for it.