Atheism. Is there more to it than just mocking people?

[jonesthecurl]

I'd also recommend Stephen jay Gould, especially The Panda's Thumb.

Good call, I wanted to recommend him, as he has a slightly different take than Dawkins, but I haven't read much by him- Bully for Brontosaurus is the one that stands out, but it's an essay collection, ifirc.

Will check out Panda's Thumb though.

Most of his books are essay collections, reprinted from (mind goes blank, can't remember where).

[DoomYoshi]

What astounds me is the absolute paucity of Inukshuk porn on the web. Certainly somebody has created these sculptures in compromising positions.

[Dukasaur]

What astounds me is the absolute paucity of Inukshuk porn on the web. Certainly somebody has created these sculptures in compromising positions.

It's censorship. All the photos are delete hourly by the RCMP.

[Bigbullets]

Can anybody explain in detail how hard matter can become a living organism. Step by step please. Unfortunately schools teach evolution without being able to prove it. The same thing for religion. Atheism and religion are Faith. Not fact. And if you're in a public place people have the right to pray just as I have a right to take your picture. If you don't like praying or get your picture taken stay home.

I'd highly recommend Richard Dawkins for this- particularly The Selfish Gene. I know Dawkins has become atheist asshole in chief of late, but his earlier books on evolutionary biology are great popular science introductions to the subject. Climbing Mount Improbable and The Blind Watchmaker are also great.

Evolution is a simple idea at its heart, but massively complex in its implications and methods. Dawkins does some good work explaining how something complex can evolve out of something simple. If you're genuinely interested in getting the basic ideas, the books are well-read enough that they should be a cheap buy second hand.

The naturally occurring mutations required for evolution to occur, have never been observed. Not once.

Without those mutations, evolution is not only improbable, it's impossible.

Ok- so I just googled this "naturally occuring mutations observed"

And came up with these results:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=naturally+occuring+mutations+observed&oq=naturally+occuring+mutations+observed&aqs=chrome..69i57.16394j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

You've set a weird standard here, but you've also not really done even the most basic research. If I can disprove your standard with a google search and find scientific papers that show observable naturally occurring mutation, you're wrong, right?

Or are you going to move the goalposts?

The mutations have to be positive. Naturally occurring mutation are negative or neutral.

The ones you need to find are the ones that result in evolution taking place. Going from simple to complex. And, you're going to need millions of them.

As I said earlier, there is no other source for new genetic material.

[Bigbullets]

Can anybody explain in detail how hard matter can become a living organism. Step by step please. Unfortunately schools teach evolution without being able to prove it. The same thing for religion. Atheism and religion are Faith. Not fact. And if you're in a public place people have the right to pray just as I have a right to take your picture. If you don't like praying or get your picture taken stay home.

I'd highly recommend Richard Dawkins for this- particularly The Selfish Gene. I know Dawkins has become atheist asshole in chief of late, but his earlier books on evolutionary biology are great popular science introductions to the subject. Climbing Mount Improbable and The Blind Watchmaker are also great.

Evolution is a simple idea at its heart, but massively complex in its implications and methods. Dawkins does some good work explaining how something complex can evolve out of something simple. If you're genuinely interested in getting the basic ideas, the books are well-read enough that they should be a cheap buy second hand.

The naturally occurring mutations required for evolution to occur, have never been observed. Not once.

Without those mutations, evolution is not only improbable, it's impossible.

Ok- so I just googled this "naturally occuring mutations observed"

And came up with these results:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=naturally+occuring+mutations+observed&oq=naturally+occuring+mutations+observed&aqs=chrome..69i57.16394j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

You've set a weird standard here, but you've also not really done even the most basic research. If I can disprove your standard with a google search and find scientific papers that show observable naturally occurring mutation, you're wrong, right?

Or are you going to move the goalposts?

Bru, i know you've got like an obsessive personality where you can't let things go, but let it go.

He's either a troll, like i said before, or his mind blanks at the mention of anything remotely genetic. All those acids and stuff in a helix? A double one?

It's not worth the effort.

You sound just like every other evolution adherent. That people who don't believe in evolution just aren't smart enough to understand it.

There's a lot of uneducated people who believe in evolution. And there's a lot of smart folks who don't believe in evolution.

[Evil Semp]

Can anybody explain in detail how hard matter can become a living organism. Step by step please. Unfortunately schools teach evolution without being able to prove it. The same thing for religion. Atheism and religion are Faith. Not fact. And if you're in a public place people have the right to pray just as I have a right to take your picture. If you don't like praying or get your picture taken stay home.

I'd highly recommend Richard Dawkins for this- particularly The Selfish Gene. I know Dawkins has become atheist asshole in chief of late, but his earlier books on evolutionary biology are great popular science introductions to the subject. Climbing Mount Improbable and The Blind Watchmaker are also great.

Evolution is a simple idea at its heart, but massively complex in its implications and methods. Dawkins does some good work explaining how something complex can evolve out of something simple. If you're genuinely interested in getting the basic ideas, the books are well-read enough that they should be a cheap buy second hand.

The naturally occurring mutations required for evolution to occur, have never been observed. Not once.

Without those mutations, evolution is not only improbable, it's impossible.

Ok- so I just googled this "naturally occuring mutations observed"

And came up with these results:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=naturally+occuring+mutations+observed&oq=naturally+occuring+mutations+observed&aqs=chrome..69i57.16394j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

You've set a weird standard here, but you've also not really done even the most basic research. If I can disprove your standard with a google search and find scientific papers that show observable naturally occurring mutation, you're wrong, right?

Or are you going to move the goalposts?

Bru, i know you've got like an obsessive personality where you can't let things go, but let it go.

He's either a troll, like i said before, or his mind blanks at the mention of anything remotely genetic. All those acids and stuff in a helix? A double one?

It's not worth the effort.

You sound just like every other evolution adherent. That people who don't believe in evolution just aren't smart enough to understand it.

There's a lot of uneducated people who believe in evolution. And there's a lot of smart folks who don't believe in evolution.

I believe there are a lot smart people and uneducated people who believe in evolution. I also believe there are a lot of uneducated people and smart people who don't believe in evolution.

[Symmetry]

Can anybody explain in detail how hard matter can become a living organism. Step by step please. Unfortunately schools teach evolution without being able to prove it. The same thing for religion. Atheism and religion are Faith. Not fact. And if you're in a public place people have the right to pray just as I have a right to take your picture. If you don't like praying or get your picture taken stay home.

I'd highly recommend Richard Dawkins for this- particularly The Selfish Gene. I know Dawkins has become atheist asshole in chief of late, but his earlier books on evolutionary biology are great popular science introductions to the subject. Climbing Mount Improbable and The Blind Watchmaker are also great.

Evolution is a simple idea at its heart, but massively complex in its implications and methods. Dawkins does some good work explaining how something complex can evolve out of something simple. If you're genuinely interested in getting the basic ideas, the books are well-read enough that they should be a cheap buy second hand.

The naturally occurring mutations required for evolution to occur, have never been observed. Not once.

Without those mutations, evolution is not only improbable, it's impossible.

Ok- so I just googled this "naturally occuring mutations observed"

And came up with these results:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=naturally+occuring+mutations+observed&oq=naturally+occuring+mutations+observed&aqs=chrome..69i57.16394j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

You've set a weird standard here, but you've also not really done even the most basic research. If I can disprove your standard with a google search and find scientific papers that show observable naturally occurring mutation, you're wrong, right?

Or are you going to move the goalposts?

The mutations have to be positive. Naturally occurring mutation are negative or neutral.

The ones you need to find are the ones that result in evolution taking place. Going from simple to complex. And, you're going to need millions of them.

As I said earlier, there is no other source for new genetic material.

Not at all, Bib. Mutations are neither negative or positive in and of themselves. Some can turn out to be advantageous to an organism- pepper moths being the classic modern day observable example. Some can be a mix of a advantages and disadvantages- sickle cell anaemia comes to mind.

Mostly mutations are harmless or disadvantageous, but they are very common, so when one of them provides an advantage and thrives in offspring it works. Evolution is a long game of chance.

I think what you might be missing is the idea of adaptation in evolution. It's a confusing subject, but it's perhaps more commonly described as survival of the fittest. Those in a species that fit best into an environment survive to produce offspring.

I really do recommend Dawkins again to you though.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Can anybody explain in detail how hard matter can become a living organism. Step by step please. Unfortunately schools teach evolution without being able to prove it. The same thing for religion. Atheism and religion are Faith. Not fact. And if you're in a public place people have the right to pray just as I have a right to take your picture. If you don't like praying or get your picture taken stay home.

I'd highly recommend Richard Dawkins for this- particularly The Selfish Gene. I know Dawkins has become atheist asshole in chief of late, but his earlier books on evolutionary biology are great popular science introductions to the subject. Climbing Mount Improbable and The Blind Watchmaker are also great.

Evolution is a simple idea at its heart, but massively complex in its implications and methods. Dawkins does some good work explaining how something complex can evolve out of something simple. If you're genuinely interested in getting the basic ideas, the books are well-read enough that they should be a cheap buy second hand.

The naturally occurring mutations required for evolution to occur, have never been observed. Not once.

Without those mutations, evolution is not only improbable, it's impossible.

Ok- so I just googled this "naturally occuring mutations observed"

And came up with these results:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=naturally+occuring+mutations+observed&oq=naturally+occuring+mutations+observed&aqs=chrome..69i57.16394j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

You've set a weird standard here, but you've also not really done even the most basic research. If I can disprove your standard with a google search and find scientific papers that show observable naturally occurring mutation, you're wrong, right?

Or are you going to move the goalposts?

Bru, i know you've got like an obsessive personality where you can't let things go, but let it go.

He's either a troll, like i said before, or his mind blanks at the mention of anything remotely genetic. All those acids and stuff in a helix? A double one?

It's not worth the effort.

You sound just like every other evolution adherent. That people who don't believe in evolution just aren't smart enough to understand it.

There's a lot of uneducated people who believe in evolution. And there's a lot of smart folks who don't believe in evolution.

Oh no, you've caught me out.

I'll admit there're some intelligent and educated individuals who don't put stock in evolutionary theory. But Newton spent most of his life trying to turn lead into gold with alchemical solutions, so I'm not really concerned that an individual's opinion on a subject has any bearing on the theory's validity.

Just btw, most of the intelligent people who've I've ever read or talked to who don't agree with evolutionary theory (a small percentage) do so on the basis of chance. They tend to believe in some sort of guided process because they can't believe the (perceived) odds involved, which still legitimizes adaptation and mutation into speciation. It's the majority of morons incapable of thinking their way out of wet paper sack who cry about how speciation is impossible because "i didn't come from no monkey" or "cats don't randomly turn to dogs" or whatever the falae logistics du jour is.

[Symmetry]

Meh- for people who don't believe in evolution, the problem isn't a lack of intelligence, it's usually a lack of knowledge. That's why I and others recommended Dawkin's early books on the subject, and Stephen Gould is also excellent as a primer on evolutionary ideas.

Personally, I used to be quite an angry atheist, but then I read more by people of faith. I haven't changed my personal beliefs, sure, but I don't think that intelligent people are taking chances if they have faith. Some of the most inquiring minds I know really take time to figure out how people work and how to help them.

I don't want to posit a false equivalency here, as I really think everyone should at least understand the basics of evolution before they dismiss it (sorry, Bibs, you might have to read a book to get there). But, yeah, ignorance is not necessarily the same thing as a lack of intelligence.

[Bigbullets]

Not at all, Bib. Mutations are neither negative or positive in and of themselves. Some can turn out to be advantageous to an organism- pepper moths being the classic modern day observable example. Some can be a mix of a advantages and disadvantages- sickle cell anaemia comes to mind.

Mostly mutations are harmless or disadvantageous, but they are very common, so when one of them provides an advantage and thrives in offspring it works. Evolution is a long game of chance.

I think what you might be missing is the idea of adaptation in evolution. It's a confusing subject, but it's perhaps more commonly described as survival of the fittest. Those in a species that fit best into an environment survive to produce offspring.

I really do recommend Dawkins again to you though.

The pepper moth example has been debunked. As have a number of commonly held pro-evolutionary examples. Of all the naturally occurring mutations, what percentage are harmful or neutral? 95%? Mutations are essentially errors. Logically speaking, the effect of the negative mutations would greatly outweigh the positive mutations. Resulting in a downward evolution, not upward. (However one defines it.)

Survival of the fittest idea is textbook example of circular logic. It defines the fittest as the ones that survive. And says that the ones that survive are the fittest.

I've watched him debate, and find him to be quite vile. A man that lacks respect and decency, isn't worthy of my time.

[Bigbullets]

Oh no, you've caught me out.

I'll admit there're some intelligent and educated individuals who don't put stock in evolutionary theory. But Newton spent most of his life trying to turn lead into gold with alchemical solutions, so I'm not really concerned that an individual's opinion on a subject has any bearing on the theory's validity.

Just btw, most of the intelligent people who've I've ever read or talked to who don't agree with evolutionary theory (a small percentage) do so on the basis of chance. They tend to believe in some sort of guided process because they can't believe the (perceived) odds involved, which still legitimizes adaptation and mutation into speciation. It's the majority of morons incapable of thinking their way out of wet paper sack who cry about how speciation is impossible because "i didn't come from no monkey" or "cats don't randomly turn to dogs" or whatever the falae logistics du jour is.

There's just as many 'morons' that hold to evolutionary theory because someone told them to. In fact, you probably have more 'morons' who hold to your position. Proving what?

That the use of logical fallacy is alive and well.

[Bigbullets]

Meh- for people who don't believe in evolution, the problem isn't a lack of intelligence, it's usually a lack of knowledge. That's why I and others recommended Dawkin's early books on the subject, and Stephen Gould is also excellent as a primer on evolutionary ideas.

Personally, I used to be quite an angry atheist, but then I read more by people of faith. I haven't changed my personal beliefs, sure, but I don't think that intelligent people are taking chances if they have faith. Some of the most inquiring minds I know really take time to figure out how people work and how to help them.

I don't want to posit a false equivalency here, as I really think everyone should at least understand the basics of evolution before they dismiss it (sorry, Bibs, you might have to read a book to get there). But, yeah, ignorance is not necessarily the same thing as a lack of intelligence.

A lot of ignorance on both sides. I find that most people who believe in evolution, don't understand it.

My problem is that it's impossible. And you need a lot of study to come to that conclusion. There is a lot of dishonesty on the side of those who promote evolution as evidenced by the lingering errors found in textbooks and museums.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Oh no, you've caught me out.

I'll admit there're some intelligent and educated individuals who don't put stock in evolutionary theory. But Newton spent most of his life trying to turn lead into gold with alchemical solutions, so I'm not really concerned that an individual's opinion on a subject has any bearing on the theory's validity.

Just btw, most of the intelligent people who've I've ever read or talked to who don't agree with evolutionary theory (a small percentage) do so on the basis of chance. They tend to believe in some sort of guided process because they can't believe the (perceived) odds involved, which still legitimizes adaptation and mutation into speciation. It's the majority of morons incapable of thinking their way out of wet paper sack who cry about how speciation is impossible because "i didn't come from no monkey" or "cats don't randomly turn to dogs" or whatever the falae logistics du jour is.

There's just as many 'morons' that hold to evolutionary theory because someone told them to. In fact, you probably have more 'morons' who hold to your position. Proving what?

That the use of logical fallacy is alive and well.

If you say so. That wasn't my point, but if you want to misconstrue my arguments, you merely prove my original point.

Survival of the fittest idea is textbook example of circular logic. It defines the fittest as the ones that survive. And says that the ones that survive are the fittest.

Uh, that's kinda the point. One, you're forcing human logic into a system that doesn't necessarily follow human logic. Saying survival of the fittest is circular logic is irrelevant because it's a theorem used in aid of human comprehension of a natural phenomenon. It's like using probability in locating an electron in an orbita path- there's no such thing as probability in nature, electrons are either in a definite place or not, but the limitations of measuring objects' position necessitates a tool like probabilistic functions. Two, that's the definition of evolutionary fitness. You're falling for using fitness as a measure of relative health or strength. If an organism survives and propagates, it is by definition evolutionarily fit. If a squirrel is on the leeward side of a mountain during a deadly storm, it is more fit than the squirrel who stashed its cache on the other side.

Natural adaption is not guided nor does it have a goal.

[jonesthecurl]

genes can change in other ways than mutation.
Take a search for "horizontal gene transfer".

[2dimes]

Boring.

When are atheists going to show up and start mocking people?

[mookiemcgee]

Boring.

When are atheists going to show up and start mocking people?

ask and ye shall receive:

2dimes, what a name... is that your weekly salary or what your daddy paid your mommy to pump his goo in?

[2dimes]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz wai wa? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Bigbullets]

genes can change in other ways than mutation.
Take a search for "horizontal gene transfer".

The only way 'new' information arises is through mutations. You can't have evolution without mutations.

[Bigbullets]

Uh, that's kinda the point. One, you're forcing human logic into a system that doesn't necessarily follow human logic. Saying survival of the fittest is circular logic is irrelevant because it's a theorem used in aid of human comprehension of a natural phenomenon. It's like using probability in locating an electron in an orbita path- there's no such thing as probability in nature, electrons are either in a definite place or not, but the limitations of measuring objects' position necessitates a tool like probabilistic functions. Two, that's the definition of evolutionary fitness. You're falling for using fitness as a measure of relative health or strength. If an organism survives and propagates, it is by definition evolutionarily fit. If a squirrel is on the leeward side of a mountain during a deadly storm, it is more fit than the squirrel who stashed its cache on the other side.

Natural adaption is not guided nor does it have a goal.

It's a human construct. New species didn't arise through 'survival of the fittest'. So, the fact that it's a logical fallacy is important.

Animals survive because of instinct. They adapt because they were create to be able to adapt. You think all the laws in the universe just happened? You think animal instinct (something science can't explain or understand) arose by chance?

How can you be certain that there is nothing guiding it? If there is nothing guiding it, why did it happen?

I think we can both agree that there are some things science can't answer.

[Symmetry]

Uh, that's kinda the point. One, you're forcing human logic into a system that doesn't necessarily follow human logic. Saying survival of the fittest is circular logic is irrelevant because it's a theorem used in aid of human comprehension of a natural phenomenon. It's like using probability in locating an electron in an orbita path- there's no such thing as probability in nature, electrons are either in a definite place or not, but the limitations of measuring objects' position necessitates a tool like probabilistic functions. Two, that's the definition of evolutionary fitness. You're falling for using fitness as a measure of relative health or strength. If an organism survives and propagates, it is by definition evolutionarily fit. If a squirrel is on the leeward side of a mountain during a deadly storm, it is more fit than the squirrel who stashed its cache on the other side.

Natural adaption is not guided nor does it have a goal.

It's a human construct. New species didn't arise through 'survival of the fittest'. So, the fact that it's a logical fallacy is important.

Animals survive because of instinct. They adapt because they were create to be able to adapt. You think all the laws in the universe just happened? You think animal instinct (something science can't explain or understand) arose by chance?

How can you be certain that there is nothing guiding it? If there is nothing guiding it, why did it happen?

I think we can both agree that there are some things science can't answer.

Animals' instincts are partly a product of evolution, but can also be partly learned. Survival of the fittest means that those who survive pass on their genes, and the next generation has similar behaviour patterns.

New species have certainly evolved through evolution, although, I would say that survival of the fittest is kind of a misused term nowadays.

Did you have any luck finding any of the books, btw?

[jonesthecurl]

genes can change in other ways than mutation.
Take a search for "horizontal gene transfer".

The only way 'new' information arises is through mutations. You can't have evolution without mutations.

Look it up. Cows have snake genes, humans have genes from othere species.
Again, take the time to look it up. Horizontal gene transfer.

[jonesthecurl]

Uh, that's kinda the point. One, you're forcing human logic into a system that doesn't necessarily follow human logic. Saying survival of the fittest is circular logic is irrelevant because it's a theorem used in aid of human comprehension of a natural phenomenon. It's like using probability in locating an electron in an orbita path- there's no such thing as probability in nature, electrons are either in a definite place or not, but the limitations of measuring objects' position necessitates a tool like probabilistic functions. Two, that's the definition of evolutionary fitness. You're falling for using fitness as a measure of relative health or strength. If an organism survives and propagates, it is by definition evolutionarily fit. If a squirrel is on the leeward side of a mountain during a deadly storm, it is more fit than the squirrel who stashed its cache on the other side.

Natural adaption is not guided nor does it have a goal.

It's a human construct. New species didn't arise through 'survival of the fittest'. So, the fact that it's a logical fallacy is important.

Animals survive because of instinct. They adapt because they were create to be able to adapt. You think all the laws in the universe just happened? You think animal instinct (something science can't explain or understand) arose by chance?

How can you be certain that there is nothing guiding it? If there is nothing guiding it, why did it happen?

I think we can both agree that there are some things science can't answer.

Science is about finding answers. Obviously, if they'd all be found all the scientists could all knock off and go down the pub. But "Looking for the answer" and "cannot answer" are two different things. Ask someone from the 12th century to explain black holes and, no matter how scientifically they were treating the question, they'd have no idea. Ask someone from the 18th to explain quantum mechanics, and they'd do no better. That's how science progresses, answering questions. Just not all at once.

[warmonger1981]

Can anybody explain this from an evolutionary perspective? Can science explaine or find God?








=[/quote]

[tzor]

So this is what happens when I stop reading the forums ... a discussion develops?

A lot of ignorance on both sides. I find that most people who believe in evolution, don't understand it.

My problem is that it's impossible. And you need a lot of study to come to that conclusion.

I'm going to throw a money wrench (or a wooden shoe depending on your favorite metaphor) into the discussion. I would insist that most people (on both sides) puts a lot of moral implications into their arguments which should simply not be in the discussion. There are a lot of reasons for this but the biggest assumption is that "changes" makes something better and that evolution means creatures today are "better" than there were in the past. They are not; just somewhat different. Change is certainly possible. Not better, not worse, just different. External forces generally drives the "evolution" of species or rather sub-species. Remember that the final question is not whether anything is "better" but whether it is sufficient to work at all. It's not about coming in first place; it's about managing to finish the race.