outhouse
Atheistically
Ah yes the ole proselytizing unsubstantiated rhetoric based on lack of education?
-
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 ... Heh
- Thread starter YaphaSheba
- Start date
Ah yes the ole proselytizing unsubstantiated rhetoric based on lack of education?
Shad
Veteran Member
Or thinly disguised rhetoric developed by intelligent people which the parrots fail to understand but repeat anyways.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
They don't know. Because poachers favor elephants with large tusks, evolution favors elephants with smaller tusks, or none at all. So an elephant without tusks is more fit for survival than an elephant with tusks.
They don't know they "need" to be tuskless. The tuskless are the ones who survive. http://www.awf.org/blog/going-tuskless
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
And, once again, an opponent of evolutionary theory shows that opposition to evolution is always based in a complete lack of understanding of it.
Well, we did not evolve from apes since we are still apes. We did not evolve from mammals either, since we are still mammals. The same with still being a primate.
My question to you is: what is so special about apes to make God use them as the basic model for the pinnacle of His creation?
More specifically: if you were all powerful and you created the Universe with the unique purpose of making a being in your image inhabiting it, would you make that being look like a hairless gorilla?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Of course, and the universe was even pure photons , this is why the theory was originally mocked as 'Big Bang' by atheists like Hoyle who called it 'religious psuedoscience'
The priest who originated it; George Lemaitre, called it the 'primeval atom' a much better name I think?
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
Max Planck
random mutations that just happen to spontaneously create significant design improvements apparently!
McBell
Unbound
Why would there need to be improvements in the first place?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
No, not at all. There was an almost unfathomable amount of time between the first instance of the Big Bang and the formation and accretion of stellar materials, which gave rise to heavier elements through a process known as Nucleosynthesis. The Universe has spent more time doing almost nothing at all then it has producing stars and planets and other space junk.
Nope. Your understanding of almost everything you've brought up is terribly flawed - that's why it seems like nonsense; you have no idea what you're talking about.
...We are apes. We are a branch of the ape family, most closely related to Chimpanzees (if you need a reference point to a non-extinct animal) There are hundreds of examples of "middle stage" species. If you'd bother to visit any Natural History museum in the country you can learn about them. It just so happens that the vast majority of them are extinct, just like every other thing that has ever lived on this planet. And for the record, though I think it shouldn't need to be said, we are not the end result. We are merely the current example of our evolutionary path. We are constantly changing.
Have you ever taken an elementary biology course? Individual organisms don't will themselves to adapt to their surroundings. A series of random variables plays into determining which traits of which individuals are most likely to succeed. Those generations and organisms that were successful will then go on to produce more offspring that are like them... more successful, etc. etc. Over time, one population will begin to develop characteristics different from its parent population, thus developing a new species and showing biological evolution in action. It's how humans got different skin colors, for example, and different skeletal structures and so on. It's why you don't look hardly anything like your great great grandparents.
So, the better explanation to biological factors affecting offspring is...magic?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Except for the ones that didn't work out, causing certain species to go extinct... yes.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
My question to the OP is, let's say "God did it."
That answer satisfies you?? Wouldn't you still want to know which God, how he did it, why he did it, what it looked like when it happened, what's going to happen next, will He ever do it again, etc. etc.?
You scoff at the big bang theory. Unless you say "God did" the big bang, then somehow that's intellectually satisfying? What if we said "Bill did it" or "a cosmic giraffe did it?"
Why is the scientific theory so laughable, and the same exact theory suddenly plausible when you say the word "God?" Don't you realize the word "God" is just a placeholder for all of the yet unknown aspects of it all?
That answer satisfies you?? Wouldn't you still want to know which God, how he did it, why he did it, what it looked like when it happened, what's going to happen next, will He ever do it again, etc. etc.?
You scoff at the big bang theory. Unless you say "God did" the big bang, then somehow that's intellectually satisfying? What if we said "Bill did it" or "a cosmic giraffe did it?"
Why is the scientific theory so laughable, and the same exact theory suddenly plausible when you say the word "God?" Don't you realize the word "God" is just a placeholder for all of the yet unknown aspects of it all?
What does anything you posted have to do with atheism?
This is a straw man. One of the biggest I've seen in a while, in fact. Evolution is not driven by what animals want to evolve into. You really need to take the time to learn how the process actually works.
Does he "assume" anything about the reason for the existence of this "conscious and intelligent mind" in the first place or does he just stop there? If so it's a pretty useless "assumption" and explains nothing...
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.
How does having "faith" advance science? How would it advance our scientific knowledge of say seismology if all seismologists got "faith" and started believing that Poseidon was responsible for earthquakes? What does Max Planck say about how science should proceed to find evidence of the existence of this "conscious and intelligent mind" of his? As a scientist surely he would have many suggestions?
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
One of the most important principles of science, critical thought, is recognizing and setting aside your own biases
To acknowledge faith is to acknowledge one's own belief,
If a person labels their belief as a disbelief (a-theism) how can they separate a belief they don't even acknowledge having?
i.e. we all believe in something, denying it hinders science
"How does having "faith" advance science? How would it advance our scientific knowledge of say seismology if all seismologists got "faith" and started believing that Poseidon was responsible for earthquakes?"
Tell us how you having "faith" has contributed to the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
As above, it identifies our beliefs.
But more specifically I can give you a couple of notable examples in two of the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time
Hoyle and many other atheists mocked and rejected Lemaitre's primeval atom as 'religious psuedoscience' and 'Big Bang' for the overt theistic implication of such a specific creation event.
They overwhelmingly preferred static/ eternal models for the opposite rationale 'no creation = no creator'
Lemaitre, a priest, went out of his way to disassociate his faith with his work, rejecting the connection atheists themselves made, because he could, he acknowledged his own faith. This is the more scientific approach
Hoyle never accepted the truth till his dying day, he never accepted that the atheism which led him astray was merely a belief - like many atheists he regarded it as a 'default truth'
Similarly with classical physics, many atheists explicitly embraced it as a complete explanation, leaving no room for 'God' in physical reality.
and similarly 'deeper, mysterious, unpredictable forces' were considered religious pseudoscience.
No coincidence that likewise Max Planck was a man of faith and skeptic of atheism.
LOL Since when did the Big Bang require the existence of a god/creator Guy? http://scitechdaily.com/universe-may-emerged-black-hole-higher-dimensional-universe/