atheists

[AvalonXQ]

lol when i hear billion years ago i tend to laugh, it's common sense.. if it was " billions of years ago" the world would've been extremely populated, think about it.

Overpopulation is not a problem as long as people die as fast as they are born. All known species reach such a saturation point with their environment pretty quickly.

Historically, the human population has only significantly increased when a significant technological or organizational advance allowed for sudden growth or for the spread to a new location. Our current, rapid, monotonic growth is a new phenomenon due to modern technology and medicine, not a historical trend.

 

[TheKringledOne]

Well, I don't believe God tricked everyone into believing the earth was young until the 1800s.

Many people believed it was very old before that.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Well, I don't believe God tricked everyone into believing the earth was young until the 1800s.

By this logic, if something was generally believed before 1800, it can't possibly be wrong because God wouldn't have "tricked everyone into believing it."

Considering that most medical and technological advancements have been made in the last two centuries, that's a pretty sad way to see the world.

 

[Ichabod]

Ooo, let me answer this one.

Because millions of years.

Apparently, megaman125 doesn't understand that the theory of evolution predicts
that in order for large changes to occur it does take millions of years. If a monkey
gave birth to a man that wouldn't be evolution. It would be something entirely
different and not known to science.

Not so fast: Lasting evolutionary change takes about one million years, researchers find
Structural evolution takes place at the million years timescale | Bits of Science

Basic timeline

In its 4.6 billion years circling the sun, the Earth has harbored an increasing diversity of life forms:

• for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
• for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
• for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
• for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
• for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
• for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
• for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
• for the last 475 million years, land plants;
• for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
• for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
• for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
• for the last 200 million years, mammals;
• for the last 150 million years, birds;
• for the last 130 million years, flowers;
• for the last 60 million years, the primates,
• for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes);
• for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors);
• for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beliefs about what happened billions of years ago does nothing for the fields of biology other than create a dogmatic religous system that isn't allowed to be questioned.

Science is questioned all the time. What do you think scientists are paid to do?
They want to disprove each other and get recognized.

Do you consider the germ theory of disease a religion?
Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you consider the theory of gravity a religion?
Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about the theory that matter is composed of atoms?
Atomic theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[video=youtube;VxnvmmhxPUo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxnvmmhxPUo[/video]

 

[Cycel]

Why would any of that matter to you, huh? After all, you're not here to change our beliefs, right? So why do you care so much about what we do or don't believe?

It matters to me what you believe about evolution. I don't care what your position on God is. You don't see me going after Avlon. I don't attack the beliefs of Francis Collins. They are both Christians. I only wanted to clarify your position; and now I know.

 

[Angela53510]

So which of you atheists would like to rationally explain the mechanism for speciation to me. I am hearing lots about evolution, and how it is a "proven" theory, not a paradigm (which is what it really is!), but nothing about the mechanism.

Start with the human eye. Or a woodpecker's head. Yes, that would be better! Just how exactly would it evolve, how would the structure have arisen through mutations without damaging the brain while it was still in the mutation process? You do know all about the structure of the brain of a woodpecker, right? The 3 factors working together?

BBC News - How woodpeckers avoid head injury

Not sure if the male peacock thing got solved here. I can only read so much diatribe by people pushing an untenable paradigm. I did look it up, and apparently it has something to do with a chemical produced by a male gene. Or something. Just wondering why you think God couldn't have thought that up?

And which model of evolution are we talking about in this ridiculously long thread that seems to attract more atheists every day? There are so many of alternate models, and most have been debunked or disagree with each other. Or does it come down to faith that there is no God, so there evolution has to work or else??

Just curious!

 

[Starcrash]

lol when i hear billion years ago i tend to laugh, it's common sense.. if it was " billions of years ago" the world would've been extremely populated, think about it.

Nobody's claiming that the human population has been around for billions of years... but cellular life has. And I think it's fair to see that the world is "extremely populated" by cells.

But AvalonHQ is right, in that the population growth has stagnated due to factors like disease and war that aren't killing off the population in such large numbers anymore. You may think that our current rate of growth has been continuous, but even if it wasn't for disease and war it would still be slow to grow for a long, long time because the rate is exponential, not linear. But at some point we'll still run out of resources and hit our plateau, running out of food or water or some such limiting factor, and so we'll never be "extremely populated" no matter how much time we have to fill the planet.

 

[Starcrash]

And which model of evolution are we talking about in this ridiculously long thread that seems to attract more atheists every day? There are so many of alternate models, and most have been debunked or disagree with each other. Or does it come down to faith that there is no God, so there evolution has to work or else??

Even if evolution weren't true, that wouldn't prove that there's a god. That's a false dichotomy. And even if we had to assume that life was created by a god, that wouldn't be evidence that it was created by your god. But not all Christians are fundamentalists (believing in the literal truth of the bible), and so you'll find that it's a false choice because a person can be both a Christian and a believer in evolution.

There's only one current model of evolution. There used to be different models, but that was a century ago before our understanding of genetics proved that Darwinian evolution was right. In this model, genes are passed on by parents that survive long enough to carry on their genes. In this way, organisms that aren't "fit to survive" don't procreate and thus don't carry on their genes. Changes in genes happen due to changes in environment, and so different species are created when a single species finds itself in two different environments for a long enough time without mixing up their gene pools.

If you really want to learn about evolution, we'd be happy to answer your questions (even your sarcastic or rhetorical questions), but I'd recommend that you keep as open a mind as you expect us to have. If you're not going to make a conclusion based on the evidence, then there's no point in providing evidence.

 

[Ichabod]

So which of you atheists would like to rationally explain the mechanism for speciation to me. I am hearing lots about evolution, and how it is a "proven" theory, not a paradigm (which is what it really is!), but nothing about the mechanism.

Start with the human eye. Or a woodpecker's head. Yes, that would be better! Just how exactly would it evolve, how would the structure have arisen through mutations without damaging the brain while it was still in the mutation process? You do know all about the structure of the brain of a woodpecker, right? The 3 factors working together?

BBC News - How woodpeckers avoid head injury

Not sure if the male peacock thing got solved here. I can only read so much diatribe by people pushing an untenable paradigm. I did look it up, and apparently it has something to do with a chemical produced by a male gene. Or something. Just wondering why you think God couldn't have thought that up?

And which model of evolution are we talking about in this ridiculously long thread that seems to attract more atheists every day? There are so many of alternate models, and most have been debunked or disagree with each other. Or does it come down to faith that there is no God, so there evolution has to work or else??

Just curious!

Why do you need an atheist to explain evolution or speciation? The evidence of evolution
exists regardless of one's religious beliefs. If you're atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu
it does not matter.

I will have to look up speciation and educate myself but even if speciation were shown
to be false there would still be a mountain of evidence left for evolution. Some people
tend to think that if they poke at what may be a weak point or misunderstood claim
of evolution, it somehow disproves the whole theory.

 

[Ichabod]

So which of you atheists would like to rationally explain the mechanism for speciation to me. I am hearing lots about evolution, and how it is a "proven" theory, not a paradigm (which is what it really is!), but nothing about the mechanism.

Start with the human eye. Or a woodpecker's head. Yes, that would be better! Just how exactly would it evolve, how would the structure have arisen through mutations without damaging the brain while it was still in the mutation process? You do know all about the structure of the brain of a woodpecker, right? The 3 factors working together?

BBC News - How woodpeckers avoid head injury

Not sure if the male peacock thing got solved here. I can only read so much diatribe by people pushing an untenable paradigm. I did look it up, and apparently it has something to do with a chemical produced by a male gene. Or something. Just wondering why you think God couldn't have thought that up?

And which model of evolution are we talking about in this ridiculously long thread that seems to attract more atheists every day? There are so many of alternate models, and most have been debunked or disagree with each other. Or does it come down to faith that there is no God, so there evolution has to work or else??

Just curious!

Since you "liked" this comment in another thread. You probably aren't interested in any
evolution explanations at all.

It doesn't, and Darwinian evolution was a planned and funded modern mythology designed to undermine Mosaic cosmology, the church and to help establish the secular humanist movement.

It's all myth, all pseudo-science and all garbage. From beginning to end. 100%.

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/74949-does-science-go-against-faith.html#post1209031

 

[TheKringledOne]

Start with the human eye. Or a woodpecker's head. Yes, that would be better! Just how exactly would it evolve, how would the structure have arisen through mutations without damaging the brain while it was still in the mutation process? You do know all about the structure of the brain of a woodpecker, right? The 3 factors working together?

The best way to understand woodpecker evolution is by looking at the many different types of woodpeckers around the world and look at the traits they have in common. Do all woodpeckers perform the wood hammer technique that the group is known for? The answer is no. Do the ones that do perform it all perform it equally well? No again. The length of the tongue, the extension of the hyoid bone, and various aspects for brain protection are variable throughout the many species of woodpeckers; there is large variation between the species and yet they strive. Each of these can help it perform the wood hammering task even with just slight incremental steps, they didn't all have to develop at the same time. Beyond that these traits have other uses beyond the wood hammering action, which you can see if various woodpecker species that do not do wood hammering; the two most notable uses are specialized gleaning and breaking away tree cork. An explanation for why these traits become so heavily amplified in some species is co-evolution with surrounding species; the woodpecker was actually one of the examples that Darwin used in origin of species. A more clear example of co-evolution is seen in toxic newts and toxin-resistant snake; video here.

So which of you atheists would like to rationally explain the mechanism for speciation to me. I am hearing lots about evolution, and how it is a "proven" theory, not a paradigm (which is what it really is!), but nothing about the mechanism.

Speciation just happens when two groups, sometimes separated by location and sometimes by distinct features and sexual selection, become too genetically distant from one another so they no longer produce viable offspring. It isn't that complex, and it can be shown to occur in labs and in the field with insects and other eukaryotes with short lifespans.

 

[Angela53510]

Even if evolution weren't true, that wouldn't prove that there's a god. That's a false dichotomy. And even if we had to assume that life was created by a god, that wouldn't be evidence that it was created by your god. But not all Christians are fundamentalists (believing in the literal truth of the bible), and so you'll find that it's a false choice because a person can be both a Christian and a believer in evolution.

I do happen to agree with you on this one, Starcrash. When I was taking biology and physical geography/geology at a secular university, I began to see many flaws with evolution. For instance, in biology, I was taught that the fossils were dated by the rocks. In geology, the rocks were dated by the fossils. A weird sort of circular logic.

I began to realize that the earth must have had a creator if evolution didn't stand up to scrutiny. But you are right! I did not believe in Jesus. I just began really looking around to see who the creator might be. For nearly a year, I was in that mixed state, being taught lies in university and not believing that Jesus Christ could be real.

Then, God met me in an amazing way, and saved me. THEN, I knew that the creator of the world was Jesus. So before you tar and feather me with a fundamentalist brush, realize that some of us creationists have explored the paradigms thoroughly and have come up with a Creator, and then realized who he is after our discovery that evolution is a sham!

As for the rest of the comments, I really don't want to keep answering and keep this atheist thread going. Unless I could persuade some of you to believe?? I don't think that is going to be happening in the near future.

And still waiting for the MECHANISM for speciation. Not the location. I always remember in biogeography 4th year, doing an extensive study of species of pine trees in the world. I mapped them, studied them, and got my A+ on the paper. However, one of the last thing I read in the Science journals was - oh yes - despite the overlaps, and not- overlaps geographically, and the different appearances of pine trees, really, there were only two varieties of pine trees. Those that could inter- pollinate with one species, and those that could pollinate with the other species. So even speciation is an issue that science can't seem to define very well. Or at least that constantly becomes the excuse when sterile species result from cross pollination or hybridization.

Of course, it could just as well be that when those supposed species got separated and differentiated, that really, they were just different species created by God in the first place. Lab results are always a good example to me of the fact that you need intelligence and power to create something which supposedly happens in nature - well, naturally.

 

[TheKringledOne]

And still waiting for the MECHANISM for speciation. Not the location. I always remember in biogeography 4th year, doing an extensive study of species of pine trees in the world. I mapped them, studied them, and got my A+ on the paper. However, one of the last thing I read in the Science journals was - oh yes - despite the overlaps, and not- overlaps geographically, and the different appearances of pine trees, really, there were only two varieties of pine trees. Those that could inter- pollinate with one species, and those that could pollinate with the other species. So even speciation is an issue that science can't seem to define very well. Or at least that constantly becomes the excuse when sterile species result from cross pollination or hybridization.

This is because the idea of "species" is a human construct that nature doesn't necessarily adhere to. Ring species are an excellent example of this, while following the predictions of evolution.

Of course, it could just as well be that when those supposed species got separated and differentiated, that really, they were just different species created by God in the first place. Lab results are always a good example to me of the fact that you need intelligence and power to create something which supposedly happens in nature - well, naturally.

"and in the field". Plus the example in labs is usually just done by splitting up a population and then putting them in different environments for a few generations and nothing else.

 

[Kerry]

I do happen to agree with you on this one, Starcrash. When I was taking biology and physical geography/geology at a secular university, I began to see many flaws with evolution. For instance, in biology, I was taught that the fossils were dated by the rocks. In geology, the rocks were dated by the fossils. A weird sort of circular logic.

I began to realize that the earth must have had a creator if evolution didn't stand up to scrutiny. But you are right! I did not believe in Jesus. I just began really looking around to see who the creator might be. For nearly a year, I was in that mixed state, being taught lies in university and not believing that Jesus Christ could be real.

Then, God met me in an amazing way, and saved me. THEN, I knew that the creator of the world was Jesus. So before you tar and feather me with a fundamentalist brush, realize that some of us creationists have explored the paradigms thoroughly and have come up with a Creator, and then realized who he is after our discovery that evolution is a sham!

As for the rest of the comments, I really don't want to keep answering and keep this atheist thread going. Unless I could persuade some of you to believe?? I don't think that is going to be happening in the near future.

And still waiting for the MECHANISM for speciation. Not the location. I always remember in biogeography 4th year, doing an extensive study of species of pine trees in the world. I mapped them, studied them, and got my A+ on the paper. However, one of the last thing I read in the Science journals was - oh yes - despite the overlaps, and not- overlaps geographically, and the different appearances of pine trees, really, there were only two varieties of pine trees. Those that could inter- pollinate with one species, and those that could pollinate with the other species. So even speciation is an issue that science can't seem to define very well. Or at least that constantly becomes the excuse when sterile species result from cross pollination or hybridization.

Of course, it could just as well be that when those supposed species got separated and differentiated, that really, they were just different species created by God in the first place. Lab results are always a good example to me of the fact that you need intelligence and power to create something which supposedly happens in nature - well, naturally.

I disagree Angela, All religions, save bible based and focused relationships with God, are all based on works. Name one that isn't. True Christianity is based on ones faith in the work of the cross, a work done by God and not man. Evolution is a deceptive teaching that allures people of education, the reason why is, in education today people are drowned in this teaching and at fairly young ages. All atheist put there faith in evolution or thats is to science or that is to the intelligence of man. Solomon said that there is nothing knew under the sun. The Egyptians based their religion on the intelligence of man, Although Pharaoh was supposed to be the son of the sun and moon or rah or however you spell it. Paul faced the same thing in his day with Plato, Aristotle, Homer and so on. The devil always try's to use the intelligence of man against God, because God uses the simple things to confound man. Even Christians fight this flesh and the tempter. Evolution has become a such a strong delusion that I believe we can attest it to the one talked about in Revelations, although I believe that it will get stronger.

If an atheist is against evolution, then they point out all the other gods of religions across the world. First of all look at their countries, they are among the poorest of all or have no liberties. The bible says that where the Spirit of God is there is liberty.

Conclusion an atheist is an atheist because he or she wants to be and only the Holy Spirit can break that hard ground.

 

[TheKringledOne]

I disagree Angela, All religions, save bible based and focused relationships with God, are all based on works. Name one that isn't.

Some forms of Bhakti and Jnana Hinduism are not based on works, however they are also arguably not based on a relationship with a "god". Amida Buddhism is another notable example.

If an atheist is against evolution, then they point out all the other gods of religions across the world. First of all look at their countries, they are among the poorest of all or have no liberties. The bible says that where the Spirit of God is there is liberty.

Conclusion an atheist is an atheist because he or she wants to be and only the Holy Spirit can break that hard ground.

Or you know, evidence. I'd believe in any god if there was evidence. Whether or not I would worship to that/those god(s) is a different issue all together though.

 

[Kerry]

Some forms of Bhakti and Jnana Hinduism are not based on works, however they are also arguably not based on a relationship with a "god". Amida Buddhism is another notable example.

Or you know, evidence. I'd believe in any god if there was evidence. Whether or not I would worship to that/those god(s) is a different issue all together though.

well certainly there god has not blessed them as you copied me in your quote. They the poorest people and ruled by dictators who take all the wealth for themselves and a few people he likes. Now in a country that is mostly christian prosperity at hand and ruled by the people and even non believers who reside in that country also enjoy the benefits. Do you think that America has so much liberty and prosperity because we are smarter than everyone else. It is because of the church and nothing else. That is changing before our eyes, because the church is taking its eyes off of the cross and placing it on the intelligence of man, why do you think we are in the predicament we are and on Sept. 11 the first time we have been attacked on our own soil. Wake up church.

 

[TheKringledOne]

Do you think that America has so much liberty and prosperity because we are smarter than everyone else. It is because of the church and nothing else.

Pretty sure it had a lot to do with our vast access to resources and our focus on scientific advancements.

Christians have lived under the rule of dictators and monarchs as well.

 

[Kerry]

Did we get stupider, which ones were smarter, the fifties government or the 2013 government. The church of the thirties or the 2013 church? Well now that we a have Muslim President, whose roots are Islam and has relatives in the Muslim Brotherhood, I say stupider. That goes against evolution doesn't it? Yet most of the church loves him and his socialist and spend the country broke ideas. yeah we have gotten smarter.

 

[Kerry]

Pretty sure it had a lot to do with our vast access to resources and our focus on scientific advancements.

Christians have lived under the rule of dictators and monarchs as well.

Yes they did and God lead them to America by His hand, look at China, Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds, they now have a middle class, which they never had before. Where the Spirit of God is there is liberty.

 

[TheKringledOne]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.