• 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

A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Guy Threepwood said:
Which is why it is so important to acknowledge our beliefs, our faith as such.
Click to expand...
http://www.ipatrix.com/2862/do-only-atheists-believe-in-evolution/
Where are you on this graph?

1105-1.png
 
Aset's Flames

Aset's Flames

Viperine Asetian
YaphaSheba said:

  1. "According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.7 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, it swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second."

    So, suddenly everything was there. Almost as if commanded to form.
    Does that not sound like Genesis 1:3 "And God said let there be light, and there was light." ?

    Someone once said,"such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
    Makes sense to me. Because the universe needed to be made, it made itself. Because I needed myself to be made, I made myself.

    Does this make sense in your eyes? That nobody made the universe on a simple command in a tiny fraction of a second, instead it 'made itself in a fraction of a second because it felt the need to' ?


    On to evolution.

    If we evolved from apes, why are there the beginning and end stages only? Where are all of the apes in between?
    In order for this to make sense, we had to have both been made at the same time and made two different animals:

    Genesis 1:21 “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”


    Mmm, evolution.
    If creatures evolved according to their surroundings, then how do they know how to evolve according to them? Are they smarter than us? We can't evolve ourselves. How come they can? Does nothingness use its nothingness and change animals because nothing told nothingness that it needed to?

    That makes no sense. Wouldn't it make sense for a God to be watching and fixing his creations according to their environment ?

    In Genesis 9:1-2 God is recorded changing the animals according to what has happened.

    "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."

    If that can happen, history can repeat itself. Just as He created the universe, He can create more things.
    Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

So it appears that you have not had the psudeo-science that Christians often exposuse in order to try to justify their claims debunked for you yet so I will do it for you......

The Big Bang happened billions of years ago. This contradicts your religion. Your religion says that the earth was made 6000 years ago.

No, the big band was not when everything began to exist, it is when the universe entered its current state.

Nothing can cause itself, but casualty dictates that there has to be at least one enteral thing, it could be a deity, the universe itself, or both.

We have several transitionary fossils between modern humans and our ape-like ancestor, in fact they are so easy to find I have no reason to beilive that you have ever done ANY amount of research in that area, know we do not have EVERY transition, and that is becuase not all bones become fossils, only in very specific cirumstances will they do so.

So you have the false impression that living things choose what to evolve into?

Do you even have the faintest inkling of what evolution is? Or how it works?

Okay here we go.

If you put a large amount of goldfish in a lightless cave pool with chemosynthetic bacteria and other organisms several things could happen.

The goldfish could all die out becuase not one of them had a useful mutation (which are rather rare) or one could have a useful mutation that could help it survive and pass on its genes through reproduction.

Is it hard to understand?


Oh but what makes more sense? Questioning things that have been found through empirical evidance or questioning a deity with no proof for it's existance?

Well that is one of the verses that shows what complete nonsense the bible is, becuase not all animals fear humans so is your god a liar?
 
lewisnotmiller

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
David M said:
Mine was, why does the OP have demonstrably no idea about what evolution actually entails but feels qualified to post a criticism?
Click to expand...

I criticize things I'm ignorant of, sometimes. Hopefully, then, I start to realise I'm ignorant, and make myself less ignorant moving forwards.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Guy Threepwood said:
Cars do reproduce just by a different means, they are duplicated according to specific plans (like dna) inferior designs are left behind, and superior ones survive to be copied
Click to expand...

Nope. Car do not reproduce but are manufactured by entities completely separate from the cars. You seems to have issues with basic English.

both sets of plans are altered during successive generations/ model years yes? We know for sure these alterations are ID in cars, for life- the jury is still out
Click to expand...

Irrelevant given your mistake above

We can certainly simulate random mutations by making random changes to specifications in the plans- what do you think the odds are of a random change accidentally producing a significantly superior vehicle?
Click to expand...

Irreverent since cars do not mutate nor have dna, that which is mutated. Watchmaker fallacy

it's not very high for life either. The overwhelming majority of changes are detrimental.
Click to expand...

Duh... Hence why most of the life forms are extinct if you look back few hundred million years.

Natural selection would still operate- people would still buy the best car. But the best car is now simply the least damaged version of it's predecessor- the car with the broken seat warmer is selected over the broken engine yes?
Click to expand...

Watchmaker fallacy again. Buying cars is not natural selection since someone is actually picking the car they buy... Animals are not selecting anything. They do not select between the type of respirotory system they use; gills, lungs, air bladders, etc.

i.e. one fallacy we discover on looking beneath the hood of evolution, is that 'survival of the fittest' necessarily equates to 'survival of the fitter' as we can see by this analogy it clearly does not.
Click to expand...

You whole argument is based on fallacious reasoning thus you conclusion is not supported by your argument. Try again son.
 
Last edited:
prometheus11

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Guy Threepwood said:
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.
Click to expand...

Atheism is a no belief, not a belief. Similar to not believing in hairbrush-juggling fairies that live in Saturn's core. It's a lack of belief, not a belief. You don't believe in hairbrush-juggling fairies in Saturn's core, and it's not a "belief" for you to not believe it.

Atheism is the default position, NOT belief because belief in invisible and undetectable beings must be taught before belief can begin.

Science has no business including any factors that are invisible and undetectable, so science should NEVER attempt to "leave room" for any gods until they/it are observed by reliable detection.

Why would you think otherwise?
 
Awkward Fingers

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
Yapha, if you don't mind, I'm curious where you've gotten... ANY of your information on evolution from?
School? Internet? Friends/family? I'd just like to know where your basis is coming from.
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
prometheus11 said:
Atheism is a no belief, not a belief. Similar to not believing in hairbrush-juggling fairies that live in Saturn's core. It's a lack of belief, not a belief. You don't believe in hairbrush-juggling fairies in Saturn's core, and it's not a "belief" for you to not believe it.

Atheism is the default position, NOT belief because belief in invisible and undetectable beings must be taught before belief can begin.

Science has no business including any factors that are invisible and undetectable, so science should NEVER attempt to "leave room" for any gods until they/it are observed by reliable detection.

Why would you think otherwise?
Click to expand...

unless of course you are talking about the flying spaghetti multiverse, or any other atheist creation myth, where waivers to that rule are handed out?

I have a non belief in such things, I am an a-naturalist, I make no positive assertion, I simply default to the obvious alternative until proven otherwise

see- works both ways doesn't it?

We all believe in something, blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.
 
prometheus11

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Nope. Lack of belief is not the same as belief. Not believing in something you've never heard of is not belief. Duh.
 
prometheus11

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
I don't know of any "atheist creation myths." I'm aware of certain possible states that may have precluded the Big Bang if you consider certain mathematical inferences. If anybody stupidly, wholeheartedly believes in one possibility as "truth," then they are ridiculously using faith in an anti science method.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Guy Threepwood said:
unless
Click to expand...

You refuse all credible knowledge, and use imaginative methodology to constantly fail to tear down facts people know little about.

Creationist are like cats trying to scratch down a Lincoln memorial, they make no headway what so ever, and every year we get to your children teaching then credible biology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top