Why do Atheists Debate Religion?

[Bunyip]

Now that you said it, to me debating with evolutionists is also completely illogical because they rant about creationists basing everything on belief but evolutionists also base themselves completely on a belief that they created for themselves. At the least the creationists have a scripture that they believe in.

'Evolutionists' are a figment of your imagination. I am not an 'evolutionist', evolution is a natural phenomenon - not an ideology. Aceepting evolution for the fact that it is requires no faith or belief whatsoever, it is observable.

No observable evidence. What you say about observable evidence dealt with in the 19th century is B.S. No observable evidence has ever been provided to show a change in kind. None. What ever claimed to have happened is supposed to have happened years and years ago and can never be observed.

Yet again, you prove my point. EVOLUTION is observable - you as a creationist are stuck on a simple misconception that is immune to evidence. No matter what evidence is presented you can not move beyond that misconception because of your faith. Your faith makes you immune to evidence, which was my original point. Changes in 'kind' have been observed many times - another simple, proveable fact that you as a creationist will simply refuse to accept for faith reasons.

So it is also faith, denied adamantly. What with speculative art. Where do they come from? It is a belief and you've drawn it with brushes and paper. Maybe now since it is not 1850 you've used the technology called the computer.

I understand the creationist mantra that evolution is not observable, and that macro evolution is not observable either. Of course both of those claims are false, and have been demonstrated to be false - my point is that the fact that those claims have been demonstrated to be false will never stop creationists from endlessly repeating them, and at no point will any creation/ evolution debate have any merit or value because it can never move past such false claims.

 

[firedragon]

'Evolutionists' are a figment of your imagination. I am not an 'evolutionist', evolution is a natural phenomenon - not an ideology. Aceepting evolution for the fact that it is requires no faith or belief whatsoever, it is observable.



Yet again, you prove my point. EVOLUTION is observable - you as a creationist are stuck on a simple misconception that is immune to evidence. No matter what evidence is presented you can not move beyond that misconception because of your faith. Your faith makes you immune to evidence, which was my original point. Changes in 'kind' have been observed many times - another simple, proveable fact that you as a creationist will simply refuse to accept for faith reasons.


I understand the creationist mantra that evolution is not observable, and that macro evolution is not observable either. Of course both of those claims are false, and have been demonstrated to be false - my point is that the fact that those claims have been demonstrated to be false will never stop creationists from endlessly repeating them, and at no point will any creation/ evolution debate have any merit or value because it can never move past such false claims.

I am not gonna respond to your assumptions about creationists and your tirade. You dont know what my believes are. And if you say evolutionist is a figment of my imagination, creationist is a figment of your imagination.

Give me one example of observable evidence for change of kind. Just one. When I say observable I hope you know what is meant.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I am not gonna respond to your assumptions about creationists and your tirade. You dont know what my believes are. And if you say evolutionist is a figment of my imagination, creationist is a figment of your imagination.

Give me one example of observable evidence for change of kind. Just one. When I say observable I hope you know what is meant.

This is why atheists debate religion.

Yes, I think I know what you mean. I guess you want us to show you a Chimpanzee giving birth to a dog; or a Crockaduck hatching from, a goose egg, or a horse growing a beak, or a pig growing wings and flying. We patiently explain, again and again, the fossile records, the geological layers reflecting different periods in time, taxonomy, morphology and genetics; all reflecting the observable evidence of evolution. We point out again and again the same stuff, but as stated earlier, your faith makes you immune to evidence.

[youtube]PtrZYecJ8QA[/youtube]
Confronting Ray Comfort: Debunking "Evolution VS God" - YouTube

 

[Bunyip]

I am not gonna respond to your assumptions about creationists and your tirade. You dont know what my believes are. And if you say evolutionist is a figment of my imagination, creationist is a figment of your imagination.

What tirade? Everything I said was fair and factual.

Give me one example of observable evidence for change of kind. Just one. When I say observable I hope you know what is meant.

What do you mean by a change of kind?


If you mean a species undergoing macro evolution, then I can give lots of examples. Not just at the species level, but all the way up to phyla. So if you are defining 'kind' as anything less than phla, there are good examples.

If you mean a critter magically turning into another kind of critter, that is Harry Potter and not evolution. I can not provide examples of one animal magically turning into another because that is not what evolution predicts - it is magic.

Sadly, as with the misconceptions that evolution is not observable ( which as I said was disproven generations ago) creationists demand observations ofinstances that evolution does not argue for - and which would in fact be evidence against evolution, not for it.

A debate in which you falsely imagine evolution to be unobserved, and in which you catastrophically misconceive evolution to be some magical process which argues that one animal should magically transform into a totally differen form right before your eyes is pointless waste of time.

 

[MD]

Shouldn't this thread be merged with the 'Why are there still monkeys' thread ?

 

[Bunyip]

Shouldn't this thread be merged with the 'Why are there still monkeys' thread ?

Is there a thread for the cheese or rock controversy about the moon? That would fit also.

 

[Cardboard]

If you mean a critter magically turning into another kind of critter, that is Harry Potter and not evolution.

LOL, I get a kick out of that every time !!!

Makes me think of that stupid Family Guy, i dream of jeanie cut scene.

 

[firedragon]

What tirade? Everything I said was fair and factual.




What do you mean by a change of kind?


If you mean a species undergoing macro evolution, then I can give lots of examples. Not just at the species level, but all the way up to phyla. So if you are defining 'kind' as anything less than phla, there are good examples.

If you mean a critter magically turning into another kind of critter, that is Harry Potter and not evolution. I can not provide examples of one animal magically turning into another because that is not what evolution predicts - it is magic.

Sadly, as with the misconceptions that evolution is not observable ( which as I said was disproven generations ago) creationists demand observations ofinstances that evolution does not argue for - and which would in fact be evidence against evolution, not for it.

A debate in which you falsely imagine evolution to be unobserved, and in which you catastrophically misconceive evolution to be some magical process which argues that one animal should magically transform into a totally differen form right before your eyes is pointless waste of time.

Evolution has not so far produced observable evidence for the theory and it is impossible. Micro evolution, pHLA examples have calculated zero chances of apes changing into humans. As a person of intelligence you have to agree that there are missing links. The four hominids do not have transitional examples from Lucy up to Cro-Magnon. They are genetically so far apart that you cannot prove they evolved from one species to another within a span of 3.5 Million years.

I am fully aware that no one can provide observable evidence. There aren't even fossils available to observe sound transitional evidence between kinds.

Saying that, I do not say that the theory of evolution can be just dumped in the garbage purely because there is a lot of missing links. As you claim that evolution does not have enough evidence, you also do not have enough evidence that evolution never occurred and it is a tug o war.

The issue is that Atheists take evolution as an Anti Theist tool and having that blindly defend it no matter what. Those who believe God created the universe goes against the evolution theory out of fear of their foundations crumpling.

No religion goes against evolution and evolution does not go against religion completely. This has gone off topic because you created a divide between creationists and evolutionists which in fact a complete bogus creation in itself.

As a reasonable person we must accept the fact religions are not only facts but faith too. But there are ways to prove that facts show that God exists.

Also the belief is evolution also should not blind you enough to vehemently believe that it is the absolute truth and religion is all false. So far, evolution is not about anti creation. So this great divide is false. And one must realise that evolution theory has too many missing links and lack of evidence to call the religious, creationists and dismiss it completely, or fall headfirst into believing evolution so much that we go deaf and blind.

Peace.

 

[Koldo]

U missed where I indirectly stated that strength is a reward. It's the only reward worth receiving. Its the only reward thats truly worth anything.

I know people who are "weaker" than me, and yet they have suffered far more than me. It doesn't seem suffering is a good way to attain strength. It may actually be the worst way.

It is also redundant to reward someone with strength through hardships if you are able to prevent those hardships in the first place, since the whole point of strength is to better cope with hardships.

On the other hand, Our minds begging for justification is natural and that doesn't mean nothing exists.

That's correct.

 

[Bunyip]

Evolution has not so far produced observable evidence for the theory and it is impossible.

This is why I said that debate was pointless - you are obliged to just ignore the evidence and repeat yourself. That is all creationists have been doing for more than a century.

Like all scientific theories the ToE is ENTIRELY drawn from observation. Theories are how the observed facts are explained. If you really believe that there is no evidence for evolution all that proves is that you refuse to accept what scientific theories are.

Micro evolution, pHLA examples have calculated zero chances of apes changing into humans.

Well of course not. The ToE does not suggest that apes turned into humans - so yes there is zero chance of something that did not happen. Apes did not change into humans, humans are apes. We will always remain apes, just as we remain primates, mammals and vertebrates.

As a person of intelligence you have to agree that there are missing links. The four hominids do not have transitional examples from Lucy up to Cro-Magnon.

There will always be missing links, every time a new species is found there is another gap. So we have four different species in the transition from Lucy to Cro Magnon - how many do you need?

Creationists make the same claim about missing links between the birds and the dinosaurs, and so far about 70 transitional species have been found. No matter how often the missing link is found, creationists will never accept it.

They are genetically so far apart that you cannot prove they evolved from one species to another within a span of 3.5 Million years.

That is just a lie, the genetic sequence for Lucy has not been found.

I am fully aware that no one can provide observable evidence. There aren't even fossils available to observe sound transitional evidence between kinds.

Another lie, as I said we have found thousands of such transitional forms - more than 70 between birds and dinosaurs, at least 20 between modern whales and their terrestrial ancestors.

No matter how many are found, creationists are immune to evidence and a century from now will be repeating the same misconceptions and falsehoods that they were making a century ago in an unmoving, unchanging endless cycle of denial.

Saying that, I do not say that the theory of evolution cannot be just dumped in the garbage purely because there is a lot of missing links.

The issue is that Atheists take evolution as an Anti Theist tool and having that blindly defend it no matter what. Those who believe God created the universe goes against the evolution theory out of fear of their foundations crumpling.

Nonsense, there are far more Christians who accept evolutiom to he a fact than there are atheists. There is no conflict between evolution and faith.

No religion goes against evolution and evolution does not go against religion completely. This has gone off topic because you created a divide between creationists and evolutionists which in fact a complete bogus creation in itself.

As a reasonable person we must accept the fact religions are not only facts but faith too. But there are ways to prove that facts show that God exists.

Also the belief is evolution also should not blind you enough to vehemently believe that it is the absolute truth and religion is all false. So far, evolution is not about anti creation. So this great divide is false. And one must realise that evolution theory has too many missing links and lack of evidence to call the religious, creationists and dismiss it completely, or fall headfirst into believing evolution so much that we go deaf and blind.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

This is why I said that debate was pointless - you are obliged to just ignore the evidence and repeat yourself. That is all creationists have been doing for more than a century.

Like all scientific theories the ToE is ENTIRELY drawn from observation. Theories are how the observed facts are explained. If you really believe that there is no evidence for evolution all that proves is that you refuse to accept what scientific theories are.



Well of course not. The ToE does not suggest that apes turned into humans - so yes there is zero chance of something that did not happen. Apes did not change into humans, humans are apes. We will always remain apes, just as we remain primates, mammals and vertebrates.



There will always be missing links, every time a new species is found there is another gap. So we have four different species in the transition from Lucy to Cro Magnon - how many do you need?

Creationists make the same claim about missing links between the birds and the dinosaurs, and so far about 70 transitional species have been found. No matter how often the missing link is found, creationists will never accept it.



That is just a lie, the genetic sequence for Lucy has not been found.


Another lie, as I said we have found thousands of such transitional forms - more than 70 between birds and dinosaurs, at least 20 between modern whales and their terrestrial ancestors.

No matter how many are found, creationists are immune to evidence and a century from now will be repeating the same misconceptions and falsehoods that they were making a century ago in an unmoving, unchanging endless cycle of denial.



Nonsense, there are far more Christians who accept evolutiom to he a fact than there are atheists. There is no conflict between evolution and faith.

I think you have a problem in understanding things because you await to defy.

You should calm down and read again.
I am not a disbeliever in the Theory of Evolution. Anyway keeping that aside.

For you to say that ToE is observable, it is a lie. ToE is not observable.

You cannot equate it to say the theory of relativity when you say it is like any other theory. Relativity is observable. And you said Lucys DNA strings were never found, then what is the evidence that she is an ancestor of Cro-Magnon. It is a speculation. If this is what you call observable evidence.

You could say that there is evidence to support the theory of evolution. Like the 20 transitional species you quoted between the whale and the ancestor (Which I dont know of really). But none of this is observable. It may be evidence but not observable. Im sure you will understand this and I say again, that is not to say evolution in its entirety is false.

But let me tell you frankly I have only studied up-to 14 so called transitional species in uni. One of my lecturers was prof. Barton but his specialisation is not of Catacea. If you dont mind sending me some info on the other six I would be grateful.

Even if you take the Cetotherium to Balaenoptra Musculus there are numerous possibilities and impossibilities that should be taken into account. Phylogenetic interpretation of the anatomy of cetaceans in comparison to that of other living mammals was ambiguous. Because of their perfected adaptation to a completely aquatic life, with all its attendant conditions of respiration, circulation, dentition, locomotion, etc., the cetaceans are on the whole the most peculiar and divergent of mammals. Their place in the sequence of orders of classification is open to question and is indeed quite impossible to determine in any purely objective way.

Tired.

 

[Bunyip]

I think you have a problem in understanding things because you await to defy.

You attack my character because you can not engage with the reality of what I am pointing out to you. As I said, evolution and the theory of evolution are accepted by a oarge proportion of believers - my atheism has absolutely no connection to my position on evolution.

You should calm down and read again.

I am perfectly calm, why not address the points in hand rather than pretending that I have misbehaved?

I am not a disbeliever in the Theory of Evolution. Anyway keeping that aside.

For you to say that ToE is observable, it is a lie. ToE is not observable.

EVOLUTION is observable, the theory of evolution explains the observations. I have not lied, and have no need to - the facts are on my side.

You cannot equate it to say the theory of relativity when you say it is like any other theory. Relativity is observable. And you said Lucys DNA strings were never found, then what is the evidence that she is an ancestor of Cro-Magnon. It is a speculation. If this is what you call observable evidence.

No, the ToE is a scientific theory that explains the observations, just like all other theories, relativity included. As to how we know that Lucy is an ancestor of Cro Magnon man, it is through morphology and taxonomy that we draw that connection - not genetics.

You could say that there is evidence to support the theory of evolution. Like the 20 transitional species you quoted between the whale and the ancestor (Which I dont know of really). But none of this is observable. It may be evidence but not observable. Im sure you will understand this and I say again, that is not to say evolution in its entirety is false.

I repeat: Scientific theories are entirely drawn from observation and evidence. Evolution is defined as changes in allele frequency over time, and thise changes can be and have been observed.

But let me tell you frankly I have only studied up-to 14 so called transitional species in uni. One of my lecturers was prof. Barton but his specialisation is not of Catacea. If you dont mind sending me some info on the other six I would be grateful.

Interesting how you said that there were none, and no admit to knowing of 6.

Let me make this clear - it is not possible to know what evolution means and at the same time ask that question. All species are transitional, that is how evolution works - to doubt that transitional forms exist is to fail to understand what evolution means.

Anyway, if you really were interested in transitional forms in the fossil record any museum, university or research institute on earth will have thkusands of them.

Even if you take the Cetotherium to Balaenoptra Musculus there are numerous possibilities and impossibilities that should be taken into account. Phylogenetic interpretation of the anatomy of cetaceans in comparison to that of other living mammals was ambiguous. Because of their perfected adaptation to a completely aquatic life, with all its attendant conditions of respiration, circulation, dentition, locomotion, etc., the cetaceans are on the whole the most peculiar and divergent of mammals. Their place in the sequence of orders of classification is open to question and is indeed quite impossible to determine in any purely objective way.

Tired.

Sure mate, you are tired and I am bored - this conversation would have made sense if it occured in 1850.

 

[firedragon]

No, the ToE is a scientific theory that explains the observations, just like all other theories, relativity included. As to how we know that Lucy is an ancestor of Cro Magnon man, it is through morphology and taxonomy that we draw that connection - not genetics.

Of course not genetics.

What about the weaknesses in Lucy. Brother, it is only an assumption that Lucy even walked upright. The arguments that portray that she is upright are the same with Orangutangs. There are so many forms in morphology and the arrangements. She maybe, and may not be a transitional form. Well.

Interesting how you said that there were none, and no admit to knowing of 6.

I never said none. And I didnt say of knowing 6 but 14. I would like to know the other six.

Let me make this clear - it is not possible to know what evolution means and at the same time ask that question. All species are transitional, that is how evolution works - to doubt that transitional forms exist is to fail to understand what evolution means.

I know what evolution means and through study I have come to understand that there are flaws. There are too many arguments that could mean these species could have been a species of its own, not evidence of change of kind. That leaves doubts bothways, scientifically.

Anyway, if you really were interested in transitional forms in the fossil record any museum, university or research institute on earth will have thkusands of them.

All the universities have fossils, they dont have transitional forms. Maybe someday but not yet.

Sure mate, you are tired and I am bored - this conversation would have made sense if it occured in 1850.

1850? This is not 1850 and there is no point saying it again. Charles Darwin wrote published his book Origin of Species in 1859, and you want to go back 9 years prior to that. Cmon mate.
Darwin himself said that he developed the theory of Evolution for Taxonomy and Morphology. Not vise versa. So the theory was first developed and then we have gone looking for ways to prove it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thats probably the most intellectual answer I have seen.

Peace bro.

Sorry for having been blunt, but it is just so tiresome to have to pretend that there is a controversy regard the Theory of Evolution when it has been just about as evidenced as any scientific finding could be.

Which reminds me, we have strayed considerably away from the thread's topic and even from that the specific forum. There is an Evolutionism vs Creationism forum elsewhere, and Rule 4 does frown upon off-topic posts.

Personally, I will attempt to avoid this thread except when trying to deal with the OP's subject matter.

 

[Bunyip]

Of course not genetics.

What about the weaknesses in Lucy. Brother, it is only an assumption that Lucy even walked upright. The arguments that portray that she is upright are the same with Orangutangs. There are so many forms in morphology and the arrangements. She maybe, and may not be a transitional form. Well.

Well what? If it turns lut that Lucy did not walk upright - that changes nothing about the ToE. The 'weaknesses' you imagine exist are all misconceptions.

I never said none. And I didnt say of knowing 6 but 14. I would like to know the other six.



I know what evolution means and through study I have come to understand that there are flaws. There are too many arguments that could mean these species could have been a species of its own, not evidence of change of kind. That leaves doubts bothways, scientifically.

If yo knew what evolution means, you would know that all species are transitional, and that millions of transitional fossils have been found, That is just the facts, deny them all you wish - but it changes nothing,

All the universities have fossils, they dont have transitional forms. Maybe someday but not yet.

You still don't get it, because your faith will not allow you to see the obvious - all fossils are transitional, and for just the evolution of humams we have thousands of specimens of transitional species.

The 'maybe someday' when they find one, happened in your grandfathers day.

1850? This is not 1850 and there is no point saying it again. Charles Darwin wrote published his book Origin of Species in 1859, and you want to go back 9 years prior to that. Cmon mate.
Darwin himself said that he developed the theory of Evolution for Taxonomy and Morphology. Not vise versa. So the theory was first developed and then we have gone looking for ways to prove it.

Darwin's book was published many years after the first evidence for evolution.

I said 1850, because that was when there was actually a controversy over the fact of evolution.

 

[firedragon]

Well what? If it turns lut that Lucy did not walk upright - that changes nothing about the ToE. The 'weaknesses' you imagine exist are all misconceptions.


If yo knew what evolution means, you would know that all species are transitional, and that millions of transitional fossils have been found, That is just the facts, deny them all you wish - but it changes nothing,



You still don't get it, because your faith will not allow you to see the obvious - all fossils are transitional, and for just the evolution of humams we have thousands of specimens of transitional species.

The 'maybe someday' when they find one, happened in your grandfathers day.




Darwin's book was published many years after the first evidence for evolution.

I said 1850, because that was when there was actually a controversy over the fact of evolution.

Please tell me a few things.

1. What are the 20 transitional species leading whales? This I do not know existed even in books. For my enlightenment.
2. Where can I find the thousands of specimens of transitional species leading to humans? Are they complete? I would like to know.

The earliest form of evolution study I know of was called the Mohammedan theory of evolution. I know it existed before Darwin but you cant say that your argument was done and concluded with years before Darwin. The controversy is still going. There are enough and more scientists that question the theory and the validity of transitional and ancestral species while some even have new theories of evolution. So you cannot say that back in 1850 was when the actual controversy existed. What with Ruperts Alberts work? How about Albert SzentGyörgyi? No controversy? Sir Fred Hoyle? L.G Barnes? Kimamura? There are more disputes in Catacea taxons morphological charachterisation alone than disambiguation.

 

[ruffen]

For you to say that ToE is observable, it is a lie. ToE is not observable.

Not true.

Bacteria populations becoming resistent to antibiotics is an observable evidence for the theory of evolution.

And this:
Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are wrong.

 

[ruffen]

Also, fossils and DNA also provide observable evidence for evolution. Of course you cannot observe the evolution from one species of hominid to another directly, because it takes longer time than a human lifespan. But that doesn't mean we don't have evidence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Please tell me a few things.

1. What are the 20 transitional species leading whales? This I do not know existed even in books. For my enlightenment.
2. Where can I find the thousands of specimens of transitional species leading to humans? Are they complete? I would like to know.

The earliest form of evolution study I know of was called the Mohammedan theory of evolution. I know it existed before Darwin but you cant say that your argument was done and concluded with years before Darwin. The controversy is still going. There are enough and more scientists that question the theory and the validity of transitional and ancestral species while some even have new theories of evolution. So you cannot say that back in 1850 was when the actual controversy existed. What with Ruperts Alberts work? How about Albert SzentGyörgyi? No controversy? Sir Fred Hoyle? L.G Barnes? Kimamura? There are more disputes in Catacea taxons morphological charachterisation alone than disambiguation.

To the extent that there is even any controversy in the last few decades, it is due to a lack of access, understanding or desire to accept the available evidence.

Even the arguments presented in order to attempt to challenge the ToE betray a sore lack of knowledge of the evidence.

Take for instance your question above:

Where can I find the thousands of specimens of transitional species leading to humans? Are they complete?

What would you call a "complete" set of transitional species? Genetic transitions can be very gradual indeed. How would you even tell an incomplete set of thousands of transitional species from a complete one? Ultimately you would have to resort to an arbitrary call, because the boundaries are indeed arbitrary.

You can find a lot of information about Hominid Evolution here, and I will not pretend that it does not fly over my head. If anything, we have too much evidence already. Far too much for an average guy such as me to truly understand it, anyway.

Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

 

[firedragon]

To the extent that there is even any controversy in the last few decades, it is due to a lack of access, understanding or desire to accept the available evidence.

Even the arguments presented in order to attempt to challenge the ToE betray a sore lack of knowledge of the evidence.

Take for instance your question above:



What would you call a "complete" set of transitional species? Genetic transitions can be very gradual indeed. How would you even tell an incomplete set of thousands of transitional species from a complete one? Ultimately you would have to resort to an arbitrary call, because the boundaries are indeed arbitrary.

You can find a lot of information about Hominid Evolution here, and I will not pretend that it does not fly over my head. If anything, we have too much evidence already. Far too much for an average guy such as me to truly understand it, anyway.

Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

Lol. When I said complete I meant complete fossils. Not a set.

Alright alright mate.

Fossil record known did little to constrain either the timing of whale origins or the relationships of suborders. It is clear that the Cetacea are extremely ancient. They probably are very early and from a relatively undifferentiated eutherian ancestral. Throughout the order Cetacea there is a noteworthy absence of annectent types, and nothing approaching a unified structural phylogeny can be suggested at present. Successive grades of structure appear in waves without any known origin for each. This is strikingly true in many orders, not only of mammals but of all animals, but within the Mammalia it is perhaps most striking among the Cetacea. Thus the Archaeoceti are definitely the most primitive of cetaceans, but they can hardly have given rise to the other suborders.

When I was a bit younger I studied the fourteen. That's why I asked you what the twenty was. I am a Muslim and Islam does not negate ToE. But I have looked at it neutrally.

Peace bro.