-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
“Why are atheists so interested in God?”
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
syo
Well-Known Member
that's bad.
I guess this is what galls me more than anything. There is nothing but supposition to back up that belief. When you read articles supposedly promoting this idea that "micro" just became "macro" by adding lots of zeros to time, you see the words "might have"....or "could have"....or "this leads us to conclude"....this is not the language of science, but the language of suggestion. Any "might have" also suggests a "might not have" so this is where suggestion masquerades as fact. And science gets away with it because of people like Dawkins and Coyne.
I understand that the dumb questions about science might well have intelectuals tearing their hair out....we field questions that are just as dumb when people ask those kinds of questions about the Bible. Ignorance on that scale is frustrating. But arrogance should not "sell" ideas or ideals to people. If you have to shame people into a belief, by ridiculing the opposition, playing on self esteem issues, then something is wrong. Faith is involved on both sides of this issue....one side admits it...the other side denies it.
Facts are established by proof. Scientists cannot prove that macro-evolution ever happened.....they can suggest it and use bits of established science to infer a belief that it did, but if you have no facts, all you are left with is a belief. Both sides have faith in their beliefs. That is how I see it.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"We persuade other people with words so I come here test test out my powers of persuasion." Unquote.
One is welcome to do it. Please never feel short of reason, if one is reason oriented. But please don't resort to ridicule and derision as that is a obvious sign of being short of reason.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
It is OK, let them do it without ridicule and derision, if they can do it.
Regards
I ask again. What specifically separates micro and macro? What is the definitive line?
I have never once seen the language you suggest. Though perhaps that is because I don't really read Science Journals or studies or whatever. I liked Chemistry, learned basic evolutionary biology in like grade 10 and largely remain indifferent to it.
Insofar as I tend to stay away from evolutionary debates, because I realise I certainly don't have the background to properly debate it.
Though I sometimes watch biologists tear apart creationist memes because it teaches me something. But I'm far more into the artsy crowd, to be honest.
(Please note, what I'm about to say is not about you specifically. Just wanted to be clear in case there were thoughts I was attacking anyone here.)
The way I personally see the debate, people without an academic background try to challenge people who study this for a living, get grilled over it and throw around accusations of faith and superiority complexes. The "pro" crowd might come across as hubristic, but more often than not, the "anti" side come across as largely uneducated whiny crybabies throwing temper tantrums when corrected. And I stress that certainly has nothing to do with their religious beliefs. I know plenty of God fearing, Bible believing Christians who would similarly wipe the floor with those people.
Besides one can only gently correct someone for so long. If you ask a well respected scientist questions you could have learned the answers to by paying attention in grade 4, you practically invite ridicule.
Dawkins is still fun to watch though.
Last edited:
Jim
Nets of Wonder
It’s been 5 1/2 hours since anyone talked to me. I’m lonely and bored now. Tell me some more about what’s wrong with me.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Does it create a helthy environment when people of various religious backgrounds (or lack of) proselytize? Should it be encouraged?
Personally, from my experience, that creates discord and is one of the main root causes of all religious intolerance (aside from fundamentalism).
Last edited by a moderator:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
One should give one's reasons and listen to others' reasons tolerantly that creates understanding not discord or hatred.
Regards
Thief
Rogue Theologian
the universe
the creation cannot be.....without the Creator
cause and effect
substance is dead
does not self motivate
therefore.....
Spirit first
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You need to learn what is and what is not evidence.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I did quite well in science.....all of my school life
and a gov survey test at my school ranked me as superior......when I was 13
I've gotten a lot better since then
how are you doing?
I like the Berkley's Evolution 101 site because it keeps things relatively simple for those of us without science degrees and who get lost in the jargon. Strip the subject matter of its jargon and you have the bare bones of the issues. The simplicity reveals things that hide in the jargon.
This is a bit long so I'll break it up....
For example....
"Using shared derived characters:
Our goal is to find evidence that will help us group organisms into less and less inclusive clades. Specifically, we are interested in shared derived characters. A shared character is one that two lineages have in common, and a derived character is one that evolved in the lineage leading up to a clade and that sets members of that clade apart from other individuals.
Shared derived characters can be used to group organisms into clades. For example, amphibians, turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodiles, birds and mammals all have, or historically had, four limbs. If you look at a modern snake you might not see obvious limbs, but fossils show that ancient snakes did have limbs, and some modern snakes actually do retain rudimentary limbs. Four limbs is a shared derived character inherited from a common ancestor that helps set apart this particular clade of vertebrates.
However, the presence of four limbs is not useful for determining relationships within the clade in green above, since all lineages in the clade have that character. To determine the relationships in that clade, we would need to examine other characters that vary across the lineages in the clade."
Now, does the fact that many living things on this planet have four limbs automatically mean relationship? Obviously it does...but then it doesn't. Or is this something science grasps to assume that this must be true? Do you see the diagram? This is all based on assumption, not real testable evidence.
It also states....
"If you wanted to squeeze the 3.5 billion years of the history of life on Earth into a single minute, you would have to wait about 50 seconds for multicellular life to evolve, another four seconds for vertebrates to invade the land, and another four seconds for flowers to evolve — and only in the last 0.002 seconds would "modern" humans arise."
That puts things into perspective now doesn't it? In a 60 second timeframe of earth's existence, no multicellular form of life was in evidence for the first 50 seconds! Another 4 seconds for vertebrates to appear and another 4 seconds for flowers to make their mark on the world.....the remaining time had to produce everything else including us. Now tell me if that sounds reasonable to you?
They also said....
"It is important to remember that:
- Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.
- Humans are not "higher" or "more evolved" than other living lineages. Since our lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to their own lineages."
Don't we need to have evidence for all the splitting and branching that isn't just on diagrams and illustrations?
Continued...
You see, under the heading of MACROEVOLUTION it says....
"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.
The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."
A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history."
Now do you see a discrepancy in what is stated in the latter part here, to what is said in the beginning and middle part of the quote?
First it was 3.5 billion years and now it's 3.8 billion years, but that was not anywhere close to the timeframe suggested for complex lifeforms to make their appearance. If out of 3.8 billion years we had to wait until the last few 'seconds' for multicellular life to evolve, do you see a problem? They already know that multicellular life didn't make an appearance for most of that time. So what are we to make of these things? It isn't exactly cohesive, is it?
They continue....
"Looking at complexity:
Life is full of grand complications, such as aerodynamic wings, multi-part organs like eyes, and intricate chemical pathways. When faced with such complexity, both opponents and proponents of evolution, Darwin included, have asked the question: how could it evolve?
Complex adaptions: bird wings, insect wings, vertebrate eyes, and insect eyes.
Science does not sweep such difficult questions under the rug, but takes them up as interesting areas for research. The difficulty is as follows.
Since many of these complex traits seem to be adaptive, they are likely to have evolved in small steps through natural selection. That is, intermediate forms of the adaptation must have evolved before evolution arrived at a fully-fledged wing, chemical pathway, or eye. But what good is half a wing or only a few of the elements of an eyeball? The intermediate forms of these adaptations may not seem adaptive — so how could they be produced by natural selection?"
Do you see the sneaky suggestion?...."seem to be"...."likely to"...."must have evolved"
How can these traits evolve gradually? How does a sightless creature develop eyes or even know that sight would be an advantage if it has never experienced that faculty? How can so many different eyes evolve in creatures that need various forms of vision? Same with hearing or taste or smell?
Does nature know about aerodynamics so as to design the various configurations of wings on so many different creatures? How did they get the idea that flying would be a good thing to evolve in the first place? My logic tells me that design...especially exquisite design, needs an intelligent designer. Science is not doing anything to dispel that obvious truth.
You see, under the heading of MACROEVOLUTION it says....
"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.
The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."
A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history."
Now do you see a discrepancy in what is stated in the latter part here, to what is said in the beginning and middle part of the quote?
First it was 3.5 billion years and now it's 3.8 billion years, but that was not anywhere close to the timeframe suggested for complex lifeforms to make their appearance. If out of 3.8 billion years we had to wait until the last few 'seconds' for multicellular life to evolve, do you see a problem? They already know that multicellular life didn't make an appearance for most of that time. So what are we to make of these things? It isn't exactly cohesive, is it?
They continue....
"Looking at complexity:
Life is full of grand complications, such as aerodynamic wings, multi-part organs like eyes, and intricate chemical pathways. When faced with such complexity, both opponents and proponents of evolution, Darwin included, have asked the question: how could it evolve?
Complex adaptions: bird wings, insect wings, vertebrate eyes, and insect eyes.
Science does not sweep such difficult questions under the rug, but takes them up as interesting areas for research. The difficulty is as follows.
Since many of these complex traits seem to be adaptive, they are likely to have evolved in small steps through natural selection. That is, intermediate forms of the adaptation must have evolved before evolution arrived at a fully-fledged wing, chemical pathway, or eye. But what good is half a wing or only a few of the elements of an eyeball? The intermediate forms of these adaptations may not seem adaptive — so how could they be produced by natural selection?"
Do you see the sneaky suggestion?...."seem to be"...."likely to"...."must have evolved"
How can these traits evolve gradually? How does a sightless creature develop eyes or even know that sight would be an advantage if it has never experienced that faculty? How can so many different eyes evolve in creatures that need various forms of vision? Same with hearing or taste or smell?
Does nature know about aerodynamics so as to design the various configurations of wings on so many different creatures? How did they get the idea that flying would be a good thing to evolve in the first place? My logic tells me that design...especially exquisite design, needs an intelligent designer. Science is not doing anything to dispel that obvious truth.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Probably much better than you are. Did you ever study anything past grade school? Your post tells us that the concept of evidence is foreign to you.
ObjectOfMercy
Member
God has given them enough knowledge to know He exists and that He is their Judge. They are without excuse. They know God is God and they hate Him.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my, another Christian that does not value the Ninth Commandment.
ObjectOfMercy
Member
Just speaking Biblical truth. But if I bear false witness, tell me wherein I err. I will be corrected, if indeed I have spoken falsely. Tell me what you find untrue
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is your problem. Biblical Truth is far from being the truth. You err in claiming that others know that your invisible friend exists. In fact if one reads the Bible literally it is very easy to demonstrate that he does not exist.