• 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!

Atheism = Belief in Evolutionary Theory = Atheism

S-word

Well-Known Member
I understand that, but I still don't think it could happen so quickly. Not to mention that assuming a no-creator stance, the chemicals that made up the first prokaryote would have to be randomly thrown together. If I remember correctly, it takes something like 500 DNA molecules put in EXACTLY the right combination to make a tiny little single celled organism. Depending on how often these chemicals were thrown together, it may have taken a while. Then there's the occassional climate change. Poor single celled prokaryotes, it must have been incredibly frustrating... they had finally gotten the mutation for eukaryotic life (eukaryote = has a nucleus, prokaryote = no nucleus)... and then the asteroid (or whatever it was) that created the moon crashed into the earth and killed them all. That was a sad day, it's a surprise that it didn't make it as a national holiday D=.
(See, I have a sense of humor too! :D)

50 million? I figured that something so simple as a neck lengthening could happen in a few hundred years. Guess my estimates are a bit off XD.

Lamkarkianism? You mean like how the ancestors of birds flapped their arms and jumped off cliffs until they were finally able to fly? I thought that theory was discredited?

EVERYTHING is about sexual selection. If a trait isn't considered to be "sexy," those with that trait won't get mates, and therefore won't pass the gene, no matter how beneficial it is. Why do you think humans are so stupid? Stupidity is sexually attractive to most, thus it lives on :D.

Biology class taught me that mutations were very rare o_O. I liked my biology teacher too... are all the biology classes in Missouri crap?
Bleh, if a mutation is guaranteed to occur when a cell divides, then why is evolution so slow? If mutations can occur so rapidly, then would it theoretically be possible, if all the mutations hit just right, to evolve an entirely new species in one generation (perhaps this is where Asperger's Syndrome comes from?)?
Neutral mutations are the ones that don't do anything, right? So it's still unlikely that a change will take place... it would have taken a while. Especially with all the signifigant climate changes (most people seem to agree that earth was highly volcanic and was covered in a primordial soup. Obviously, something changed along the way, how did life adapt to this?), like the sun changing, the earth's magnetic field diminishing (or is it increasing? I forget...), the world constantly going through weird temperature changes, etc... if I'm not mistaken, prokaryotes (or any single celled creatures for that matter) are not very adaptable... D=

We live in a universe that constantly oscillates between a visible universal body and a infinitely dense and hot Infinitesimally small primordial Atom, surely you don't believe for one moment that this complex cosmos evolved in the 14 billion years that this universal body has experienced since it was blasted out of the Great and seemingly bottomless abyss? Believe you me, 14 billion years is but the blink of an eye relative to the eternity that the cosmos has been in existence.

When this universal body is once more condensed into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, Infinitesimally small primordial atom from which it originated, and the earth has again become formless and void, there it will remain, absorbing the expended energy of others cosmic cells until the day it will burst forth and be resurrected to continue in its eternal evolution or growth.


The nights and days of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity. ‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that precedes the next creative day. The 6 days of creation as revealed in Genesis, are the 6 generations of this universe which evolved from lesser heavenly bodies in which plants, fish, insects and birds etc evolved.


Origen, who was well versed in the writings of Enoch, was a Christian writer and teacher who lived between the years of 185 and 254 AD. Among his many works is the Hexapla, which is his interpretation of the Old Testament texts. Origen holds to a series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.


Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.
 
Last edited:

S-word

Well-Known Member
It is that intellegent design nonsense ' The Wedge' people came up with to make creationism seem like science, but rehashed by atheists and ufologists.

The space shuttle which is of intelligent design was the creation of mankind who first designed the wheel with absolutely no thought of the future shuttle, and all the billions of creations that came after the wheel, were simply reprensentative of the heights to which the mind of man had evolved at the time of each of those creations, which finally led to the creation of the space shuttle which is of intelligent design created through the process of the evolution of the mind of the creator from the wheel to the space shuttle.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
I understand that, but I still don't think it could happen so quickly. Not to mention that assuming a no-creator stance, the chemicals that made up the first prokaryote would have to be randomly thrown together. If I remember correctly, it takes something like 500 DNA molecules put in EXACTLY the right combination to make a tiny little single celled organism. Depending on how often these chemicals were thrown together, it may have taken a while. Then there's the occassional climate change. Poor single celled prokaryotes, it must have been incredibly frustrating... they had finally gotten the mutation for eukaryotic life (eukaryote = has a nucleus, prokaryote = no nucleus)... and then the asteroid (or whatever it was) that created the moon crashed into the earth and killed them all. That was a sad day, it's a surprise that it didn't make it as a national holiday D=.
(See, I have a sense of humor too! :D)
This is no different than saying that Neal Wanless did not win the lottery because the odds are so great against it.
 

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
This is no different than saying that Neal Wanless did not win the lottery because the odds are so great against it.
Actually it is different. In the case of the lottery, there's a documented record of the guy winning the lottery, as well as the guy himself still around to attest to the fact that he did indeed win the lottery. And the lottery is the only explanation of him getting all that money =).
In the case of evolution, however, you can't just walk up to a prokaryote and ask it if it remembers the good ol' days when the earth was covered in that primordial soup, and there wasn't anybody to record the events of the prehistoric age D=. And there's certainly a myriad of other explainations as to where we came from, unlike in the lottery story.
 

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Actually it is different. In the case of the lottery, there's a documented record of the guy winning the lottery, as well as the guy himself still around to attest to the fact that he did indeed win the lottery. And the lottery is the only explanation of him getting all that money =).
In the case of evolution, however, you can't just walk up to a prokaryote and ask it if it remembers the good ol' days when the earth was covered in that primordial soup, and there wasn't anybody to record the events of the prehistoric age D=. And there's certainly a myriad of other explainations as to where we came from, unlike in the lottery story.
[SIZE=+5]Nested Hierarchies[/SIZE]
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
... I haven't the slightest clue what you're trying to say to me or how it's relevant to the issue of a guy winning the lottery being similar to evolution :confused:. Elaborate please?
Themadhair is referring to your stating "In the case of evolution, however, you can't just walk up to a prokaryote and ask it if it remembers the good ol' days when the earth was covered in that primordial soup, and there wasn't anybody to record the events of the prehistoric age D=", when nested hierarchies are sufficient to show how living things are related to each other in a long succession of, well, nested hierarchies. If evolution is true, we should see groups of related organisms share similar characteristics; and these shared traits should become more prevalent the closer the populations are related. And this is exactly what we see.
Here's a nifty little phylogenic chart to show you the basics (click on it to go to the site for more info.):
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Actually it is different. In the case of the lottery, there's a documented record of the guy winning the lottery, as well as the guy himself still around to attest to the fact that he did indeed win the lottery. And the lottery is the only explanation of him getting all that money =).
In the case of evolution, however, you can't just walk up to a prokaryote and ask it if it remembers the good ol' days when the earth was covered in that primordial soup, and there wasn't anybody to record the events of the prehistoric age D=. And there's certainly a myriad of other explainations as to where we came from, unlike in the lottery story.
You have completely missed the point.
The point is that calculating the odds after the fact is useless.
 

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA).
I was also once told that humans share 98% (or maybe it was 92%) of their DNA with bananas. How do I know who to believe? o_O

The point is that calculating the odds after the fact is useless.
Why didn't you just say that in the first place? o_O
Besides, the odds do matter when you're trying to determine whether something actually happened or not XD.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Why didn't you just say that in the first place? o_O
Besides, the odds do matter when you're trying to determine whether something actually happened or not XD.
not really.
Odds are beaten all the time.

Just ask Neal...
Or any other contest winner for that matter.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
Hello there.

I don't think Evolution and Atheism are 'bound', rather, I actually think Agnosticism is more 'bound' to Atheism than Evolution. For example, I myself am technically an Agnostic, and practically all of the non-religious people in my life, even the one's who refer to themselves as 'Atheists' are infact Agnostics upon closer inspection. I don't know why, but it seems that most Agnostics simply refer to themselves as 'Atheists', and even I do at times - I guess it's just a term that is more recognised as someone who isn't religious, the difference with a "real" Atheist is that they would deny the existence of God. I personally do not believe in any of the God's put forward in religion so far, I also do not recognise any authority that religion claims for itself, and not only that but I doubt it's probable for an unlimited "perfect" being to exist. However, I do not deny the possibility of a God, but purely for technical reasons since I believe one cannot entirely prove or disprove anything. By definition that makes me an Agnostic, although I often casually refer to myself as an Atheist. The same goes for all the Agnostics that I know of, I wonder why though - perhaps it's just easier to say Atheist! ^^

Not that this is very relevant but it's my first ever post so I thought I'd speak my mind :)
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
I was also once told that humans share 98% (or maybe it was 92%) of their DNA with bananas. How do I know who to believe? o_O
It's roughly 95% 'tween humans and chimpanzees/gorillas and a bit closer with bonobos. And yes, it's also about 70% with mice. But the important issue is that the similarities are striking: I'll use the cytochrome C protein sequence as the most famous example, since humans and chimpanzees share the precise same sequence. The phylogenetic relationship is incontrovertible. More details here and a peer reviewed paper here. Also, check out this vid' that helps visualize the similarity between chimp/human DNA.

I think part of the problem is the mainstream media's inability to accurately convey scientific information without either ignoring important finds, or conversely sensationalizing findings.The Mitochondrial Eve fiasco and the recent "Hobbit" fossil are obvious examples of how pop science and the media are misinterpreting the relevance, or hyping the relevance, of scientific discoveries.
 

nonbeliever_92

Well-Known Member
Hello there.

I don't think Evolution and Atheism are 'bound', rather, I actually think Agnosticism is more 'bound' to Atheism than Evolution. For example, I myself am technically an Agnostic, and practically all of the non-religious people in my life, even the one's who refer to themselves as 'Atheists' are infact Agnostics upon closer inspection. I don't know why, but it seems that most Agnostics simply refer to themselves as 'Atheists', and even I do at times - I guess it's just a term that is more recognised as someone who isn't religious, the difference with a "real" Atheist is that they would deny the existence of God. I personally do not believe in any of the God's put forward in religion so far, I also do not recognise any authority that religion claims for itself, and not only that but I doubt it's probable for an unlimited "perfect" being to exist. However, I do not deny the possibility of a God, but purely for technical reasons since I believe one cannot entirely prove or disprove anything. By definition that makes me an Agnostic, although I often casually refer to myself as an Atheist. The same goes for all the Agnostics that I know of, I wonder why though - perhaps it's just easier to say Atheist! ^^

Not that this is very relevant but it's my first ever post so I thought I'd speak my mind :)


What I understand is that atheism deals with belief and agnosticsm deals with knowledge. Atheist claim not to believe that god exist and agnostics claim that they cannot know if god exists or not, based on current evidence that is. I am an atheist and I don't believe that there is a god; I, however, also don't rule out the possibility of god, he just seems really improbable to be existant.
 
Top