Right and Wrong Reasons for being (A)theist

[lewisnotmiller]

One could as well say it proves that the creator is the same and used same systems to create optimal things to this world.



Please explain why? Why it can be said that whale evolved like in these pictures:

https://www.google.fi/search?q=evolution+of+whale&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=byJ4YdMAPs_7jM%253A%252C80a4W5shegurNM%252C_&usg=__2oUAjXufAGRyrzw4Bgm2XTxUG2I%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd_LHG1c7aAhUBJpoKHTNJDUYQ9QEIPjAD#imgrc=byJ4YdMAPs_7jM:

But same couldn’t happen with modern species?

Wait...you think modern species aren't evolving? Why?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

One could as well say it proves that the creator is the same and used same systems to create optimal things to this world.

Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being with unlimited time and resources need to reuse a single design? Only limited beings like humans have to reuse designs because we lack the time and resources to start fresh with each design.

Please explain why?

The process of evolution is blind so it isn't able to change one existing genome into another. Evolution can only make genomes more different from one another over time, not more similar. It's a bit like stranding French speakers on an island and having them come up with Italian all on their own without any prior knowledge of italian. We would never expect this to happen because the development of Italian and French was unplanned. That doesn't change the fact that French and Italian share a common ancestral tongue which was Vulgar Latin.

The process of evolution can no more repeat itself than the evolution of French can repeat itself.

 

[1213]

Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being with unlimited time and resources need to reuse a single design?

God also used same atoms for things, perhaps because it was reasonable and no good reason to make different atoms for different animals.

The process of evolution is blind so it isn't able to change one existing genome into another. Evolution can only make genomes more different from one another over time, not more similar….

I think that is contradictory claim.

 

[1213]

Wait...you think modern species aren't evolving? Why?

This depends on what evolving means. If it means species develop to new species, like land animal to whale, as some claim has happened, I don’t see any reason to believe that. But if it means your children is slightly different looking than you, I think that is possible.

On basis of what can be seen, I would rather say, species are degenerating, not evolving.

 

[1213]

Tyre prophecy. Have you read it?

I have heard of it. And by what I know, it has not failed, unless one gives own non Biblical meanings for things.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

God also used same atoms for things, perhaps because it was reasonable and no good reason to make different atoms for different animals.

One can use the same atoms without using the same genetic systems. There is no physical law which requires the glycine transfer-RNA to have a CCC anti-codon. There is no physical reason why codons and amino acids could not be switched up in each species group if they were separately created.

I think that is contradictory claim.

Please explain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have heard of it. And by what I know, it has not failed, unless one gives own non Biblical meanings for things.

Of course it has failed. It was a very specific prophecy. To reinterpret it so that it has not failed lowers the validity of all biblical prophecy to zero. You can't have it both ways, either biblical prophesies are testable and of use or they are not testable and are worthless.

You will be the one that has to give your own "Biblical meaning" to it so that it has not failed.


In case you are not familiar with it the prophecy was aimed specifically at the king of Tyre at that time. It is worthless and unjust to expand it beyond that individual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This depends on what evolving means. If it means species develop to new species, like land animal to whale, as some claim has happened, I don’t see any reason to believe that. But if it means your children is slightly different looking than you, I think that is possible.

On basis of what can be seen, I would rather say, species are degenerating, not evolving.

So you don't understand the science that you oppose. Why don't you try to learn?

Why do you have a problem with the theory of evolution? Clearly the book of Genesis is not meant to be read literally. Not only would one have to believe in a lying God to believe the Adam and Eve myth, one would have to believe in a lying God to also believe the Noah's Ark myth.

Tell me, do you believe that God can lie?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe there are right and wrong reasons for being an atheist or a theist? If so, what are those reasons? Do those reasons apply just to you, or do you believe they apply to all humans?

IMO, "being a theist" just means being convinced that a god or gods exist, and "being an atheist" just means not being convinced (i.e. an atheist is anyone who isn't a theist).

From that point of view, being a theist or atheist for "wrong" reasons would mean that there are failures of critical thinking along the path to being convinced that a god or gods exist, or failures of critical thinking that lead someone to overlook something that ought to have convinced them that a god or gods exist.

And I think this applies to everyone.

 

[Milton Platt]

Also, species by evolution is not a fact, it is a belief. (if evolution means that all species have evolved from single species by mechanisms of evolution). If it would be demonstrated fact, we could arrange an experiment where mouse evolves to fish. That obviously is ridiculous idea, and means it is not demonstrated fact. But obviously people are free to believe whatever fairytale they want.

Not sure why we are talking about evolution so much in this thread. It is about "right and wrong reasons for being an atheist"
.
There are several hundred years of accumulated evidence that supports the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, in turn explains the mechanism that causes the fact of evolution.
You either do not understand evolutionary theory, or you are being intellectually dishonest. Evolution is a long line of finely graded changes induced primarily by environmental conditions.
The process spans millions of years for the kind of extensive changes you are asking for, with changing, complex environmental inputs to pressure that change..


But, then if you feel that this is the only sort of evidence that can demonstrate that a belief is true, please apply that same logic to your god. What is the laboratory experiment that can demonstrate that your god exists, and that he can create universes? You are not allowed to have it both ways. You can use the hackneyed comeback that "you can't test for the supernatural" and maybe you are correct. But that destroys your argument that you can know that your god exists. You have set the evidence bar where is now is. I expect you to step up to the plate and provide the same level of evidence for your claim that you are demanding of mine. If you cannot provide it, then by your own rules, you have to abandon the claim of knowing there is a god.

Just to be clear, however, if evolution were proved completely false tomorrow, it would have no impact on atheism. Atheism isn't a belief in evolution, it is a disbelief in other's claims about a god.

If one wants, classifications can be made easily so that it looks like there is more species. If it would not be racist, black and white people would be also called different species.

Certainly, but they would not be scientifically sound classifications. They would be outside the guidelines of how species are scientifically designated. And therefore invalid. That is a ridiculous argument.

I was talking about any other explanation for life.



Nowhere. People who don’t like truth, can always make another explanation.

The question is, do we base truth upon what we reasonably can show to be correct, or do we base it merely on what we wish to believe? I grant that absolute certainty is generally not attainable.
We accept what is true in varying degrees based upon the quantity and quality of available evidence to support the proposition being examined. Both the quantity and quality of evidence is better for evolution than it is for your god, even if it weren't true. If you had proper quality evidence for your god, you would have already presented it and we would not even be having this discussion.
But instead of presenting such evidence, you want to make unsubstantiated claims about the lack of evidence for a theory you do not fully understand.

Please read up on the articles on this web site TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy They provide good information about the evidence for evolution, as well as responses to most of the common creationist retorts. It will save you a lot of time and embarrassment. You can prevent yourself from repeating those that have already been shot down.
It is the excuse for them to reject God.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This depends on what evolving means. If it means species develop to new species, like land animal to whale, as some claim has happened, I don’t see any reason to believe that. But if it means your children is slightly different looking than you, I think that is possible.

On basis of what can be seen, I would rather say, species are degenerating, not evolving.

1) 'macro-evolution' isn't a scientific term, but I guess it at least communicates a concept. How long do you think it takes, and what changes are you expecting to see in front of you. Or even in front of the last ten generations of humans?

2) Your last comment, about species degenerating rather than evolving, seems to mistake 'evolve' with 'improve'. Evolution doesn't demand improvement, per see, but rather adaptation to environment. Not that same thing at all.

 

[Milton Platt]

One could as well say it proves that the creator is the same and used same systems to create optimal things to this world.



Please explain why? Why it can be said that whale evolved like in these pictures:

https://www.google.fi/search?q=evolution+of+whale&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=byJ4YdMAPs_7jM%253A%252C80a4W5shegurNM%252C_&usg=__2oUAjXufAGRyrzw4Bgm2XTxUG2I%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd_LHG1c7aAhUBJpoKHTNJDUYQ9QEIPjAD#imgrc=byJ4YdMAPs_7jM:

But same couldn’t happen with modern species?

Sorry for jumping in here, but what makes you think that all forms of life are formed optimally in every way? Because that is demonstrably not true.....

 

[1213]

Sorry for jumping in here, but what makes you think that all forms of life are formed optimally in every way? Because that is demonstrably not true.....

I don’t claim optimal in all way, because that is quite subjective matter. I meant with optimal that they can live on earth relatively easily.

 

[1213]

1) 'macro-evolution' isn't a scientific term, but I guess it at least communicates a concept. How long do you think it takes, and what changes are you expecting to see in front of you. Or even in front of the last ten generations of humans?.

I am not excepting much. Humans will have same attributes, hands, feet, head… …obviously individuals are not exact copies, but the main attributes are the same, even if lengths or colors slightly change.

2) Your last comment, about species degenerating rather than evolving, seems to mistake 'evolve' with 'improve'. Evolution doesn't demand improvement, per see, but rather adaptation to environment. Not that same thing at all.

Evolution seems to have idea that being can gain some new attributes. While degeneration means species only lose things. And all the evidence indicates that species are only losing, which means, in the beginning all was good, until the degeneration begun. Signs of this are for example the mutations in DNA that are mistakes in the DNA copy process. In my opinion this all means Bible is correct and knows best.

 

[1213]

...
Why do you have a problem with the theory of evolution?

I think it is just modern-day mother earth cult that is loosely based on this reality, but I don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution.

Not only would one have to believe in a lying God to believe the Adam and Eve myth, one would have to believe in a lying God

Please explain why?

to also believe the Noah's Ark myth.

I don’t think Noah’s ark story is a myth. I believe things happened as the Bible tells. There is so much evidence for it.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Noahs_Ark.html

 

[1213]

...
Please explain.

You said earlier: “The process of evolution is blind so it isn't able to change one existing genome into another. Evolution can only make genomes more different from one another over time, not more similar….”. If it is blind, it could go to both directions, to more different, or back to similar, depending on what is the fittest form.

And because of the idea of “fittest”, it is not blind, it allegedly always leads to that direction. If it would be blind, it wouldn’t have that kind of direction.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You said earlier: “The process of evolution is blind so it isn't able to change one existing genome into another. Evolution can only make genomes more different from one another over time, not more similar….”. If it is blind, it could go to both directions, to more different, or back to similar, depending on what is the fittest form.

The problem is the number of nucleotides in a genome. There are 3 billion in the human genome which is kind of middle of the pack as far as mammalian genomes go. What are the chances that the same mutation would happen at the same base? That would be 1 in 3 billion. What are the chances that two mutations would happen at different bases? 2,999,999,999 in 3 billion. The probability of different mutations happening in isolated populations is much, much higher than the same mutations occurring.

And because of the idea of “fittest”, it is not blind, it allegedly always leads to that direction. If it would be blind, it wouldn’t have that kind of direction.

The process of selection can only select amongst the variation that exists, not some theoretical optimal adaptation that has yet to appear. There are also many, many possible routes towards higher fitness. Therefore, the chances of two isolated populations going down the same route is very low. This is why you see different solutions to the same problem, such as the bird wing and bat wing which serve the same purpose but are completely different from one another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it is just modern-day mother earth cult that is loosely based on this reality, but I don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution.

Why on Earth would you make that claim?

Please explain why?

Because the evidence for evolution is undeniable. It would require a lying god to create all of that evidence. In other words by denying evolution you are in effect claiming that God lied by making it look as if the diversity of life is from that process.

I don’t think Noah’s ark story is a myth. I believe things happened as the Bible tells. There is so much evidence for it.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Noahs_Ark.html

Joke sites? Are you serious?

Let's limit this to scientific evidence. We know how mountains were formed, it was not by a magical flood. We know how old he Earth is. And the Ark myth makes all sorts of tacit claims that refute it. But first which version of the myth do you believe? And you need to be clear since different Christians have different interpretations.

 

[Milton Platt]

I don’t claim optimal in all way, because that is quite subjective matter. I meant with optimal that they can live on earth relatively easily.

How does that demonstrate a god or intelligent designer, if things are sub-optimal? Something is either optimal or it is not optimal. And if how optimal something is for a given design or situation is subjective, as you stated, then your statement about optimization is also subjective and not objective, so boils down to an opinion and not evidence for anything.

But let's go with "not optimal in all ways" just for the sake of the discussion for a moment.
That means that on the whole, you are agreeing that the being or thing that designed life did not do so in a completely optimal way. What being are you referring to that designs life in this manner?
And why would it do so? It would be a being that either is incapable or unwilling to do so, because if it is both capable and willing, then there would be no sub-optimal features in life forms.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don’t claim optimal in all way, because that is quite subjective matter. I meant with optimal that they can live on earth relatively easily.

Apart from the ones that couldn't, and became extinct?