atheists

[TheAristocat]

I've never understood attributing our morals to a God. Does that mean if evidence arose tomorrow that god didn't exist then you would all go around raping and killing everyone? No you wouldn't! Give yourself some credit!

You can find common moral ground in many secular societies. I feel that there is one exception though, and that is Luke 6:31 or its Old Testament counterpart - Leviticus 19:18. The usual logic is: if you hurt me then I hurt you back; in this way you'll understand how I feel. But I think that logic is somewhat flawed, especially in cases of misunderstanding (in which humans abound). So the more progressive philosophy, whose logic is not always apparent, has its roots in Judeo-Christianity. And this philosophy isn't eye-for-an-eye as some mistake it to be. It's what you want for yourself but as applied to others. And it can be practiced passively or actively.

 

[Ichabod]

Kerry, those are some of the worst arguments I've
ever read. It's people like you that cause more
and more people to lose faith.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So what changed, the times or the ideologies of man. why did the economics change. did we get stupider. or did we take our eyes off the cross. Was it changing from the Gold standard or changing from the God standard. The evidence is all around you will you choose to see it.

Wait, you're really make the argument that in the 1970's people were more in tune with God than today?

An era where drug use was rampant, far worse than today?

An era where irresponsible sex was the norm, far worse than today?

An era when violent crime was at far higher levels than it is today?

Take off your rose-colored glasses, man -- things have been getting better, not worse.

 

[Angela53510]

I would just like to say that I am sorry to those who were offended by my last posts and for being "snarky". It was very inappropriate of me, and I was very convicted of it last night while praying.

Please accept my apologies! It will not happen again!

 

[Grey]

So is kerry serious?

 

[Cycel]

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.

Hi Angela, when I saw you'd apologized for the content of your last post I thought I would take another look at it when I had the time. I'll make a few comments as I go and perhaps I will figure out what you felt the need to be pardoned for.

While sedimentary rocks can be dated by the presence of certain index fossils it is not by the fossils that the rocks were originally dated; for that radiometric dating methods are used. Once the age of the rock is established then the presence of index fossils, which are only found in rocks of a certain age, can be use to provide the relative age of the sedimentary rock.

You do know that fossils are not found in igneous and metamorphic rock? Those two rock types cannot be dated using index fossils.

I began to realize that the earth must have had a creator if evolution didn't stand up to scrutiny.

I do find that creationists very often have a poor understanding of evolution and very often their heads are stuffed full of misinformation. I think if you were to use non-creationist sources you would learn quickly that evolution is well supported indeed. The other point I wish to raise is that it is not evolution alone that throws a wrench into the Genesis creation story, but geology and astronomy as well. How many other sciences are also wrong? Is Genesis the only marcher in the band who is in step?

 

[Angela53510]

Yes, Cycel, I took enough geology to know this, and lived in an area of igneous and metamorphic rocks for many years. In fact, I owned a silver mine which was a vein off a limestone replacement ore body with a huge lead zinc mine. And I never saw a fossil in those rocks. But strangely, that is what I was taught in college, along with carbon dating. As far as carbon dating, well, there is a lot of variation in the results with that.

I guess it depends upon whether you believe the earth was totally bare in the beginning, or that God created it to look old too. Not saying that is true, just another alternate explanation.

Really, the answer would be to invent a time machine and go back in time, but no one seems to be exploring that option to my knowledge. All we would need to do would be to sling our spaceship around the sun and gain enough momentum to turn back the hands of time, right?

My big question still remains, how do you account for differentiation not just between species but in the development of special organs and the like. To say nothing about how the Galapagos finches are now converging.

http://www.markert.fastmail.fm/MarkertPDFs/Grant2004.pdf

Seems like Darwin's big break through in postulating evolution is slowly disappearing. Or not!

 

[CoooCaw]

you talk as if the fossils are found in the order illustrated in the text book lol

any biologist who really knows his stuff knows the observable evidence does not prove an old earth; he assumes the geologists have the proof
any geologist who really knows his stuff knows the observable evidence does not prove an old earth; he assumes the biologists have the proof

the fact is that the Bible confirms the observable evidence; anyone who does not see that is looking at the evidence through evolutionism tinted glasses

Hi Angela, when I saw you'd apologized for the content of your last post I thought I would take another look at it when I had the time. I'll make a few comments as I go and perhaps I will figure out what you felt the need to be pardoned for.

While sedimentary rocks can be dated by the presence of certain index fossils it is not by the fossils that the rocks were originally dated; for that radiometric dating methods are used. Once the age of the rock is established then the presence of index fossils, which are only found in rocks of a certain age, can be use to provide the relative age of the sedimentary rock.

You do know that fossils are not found in igneous and metamorphic rock? Those two rock types cannot be dated using index fossils.


I do find that creationists very often have a poor understanding of evolution and very often their heads are stuffed full of misinformation. I think if you were to use non-creationist sources you would learn quickly that evolution is well supported indeed. The other point I wish to raise is that it is not evolution alone that throws a wrench into the Genesis creation story, but geology and astronomy as well. How many other sciences are also wrong? Is Genesis the only marcher in the band who is in step?

 

[CoooCaw]

Yes, Cycel, I took enough geology to know this, and lived in an area of igneous and metamorphic rocks for many years. In fact, I owned a silver mine which was a vein off a limestone replacement ore body with a huge lead zinc mine. And I never saw a fossil in those rocks. But strangely, that is what I was taught in college, along with carbon dating. As far as carbon dating, well, there is a lot of variation in the results with that.

I guess it depends upon whether you believe the earth was totally bare in the beginning, or that God created it to look old too. Not saying that is true, just another alternate explanation.

Really, the answer would be to invent a time machine and go back in time, but no one seems to be exploring that option to my knowledge. All we would need to do would be to sling our spaceship around the sun and gain enough momentum to turn back the hands of time, right?

My big question still remains, how do you account for differentiation not just between species but in the development of special organs and the like. To say nothing about how the Galapagos finches are now converging.

http://www.markert.fastmail.fm/MarkertPDFs/Grant2004.pdf

Seems like Darwin's big break through in postulating evolution is slowly disappearing. Or not!

the galapagos finches were converging during darwins visit

it was only after the visit he started speculating about them to the extent that, HE HAD NOT BOTHERED to retain a specimen but had to call on his friend the captain of the ship to retrieve a specimen he had collected

This story of "Darwin's finches" is re-told in many biology textbooks, but it is largely fictional. In fact, the Galápagos finches had almost nothing to do with the process by which Darwin arrived at his theory. Much of his information about the birds was erroneous, and since he never visited South America north of Peru he was unaware of differences between the Galápagos birds and those on the mainland. Darwin did not even mention the finches in The Origin of Species.

It wasn't until a century after his voyage on the Beagle that variations in the birds' beaks were correlated with different food sources, and only then were they named "Darwin's finches" in his honor. Although other Galápagos animals impressed Darwin, the finches did not, and the account presented in this episode is more legendary than historical. This may seem like a minor point, but it is symptomatic of a tendency among Darwin's admirers to give the man credit for things he never did.See . According to historian of science Frank Sulloway, Darwin "possessed only a limited and largely erroneous conception of both the feeding habits and the geographical distribution of these birds." And as for the claim that the Galápagos finches impressed Darwin as evidence of evolution, Sulloway wrote, "nothing could be further from the truth." (Journal of the History of Biology 15 [1982], 1-53; Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 21 [1984], 29-59.)


A Critique of PBS's Evolution

 

[Cycel]

the galapagos finches were converging during darwins visit

I don't know anything about this. What's your source and what is its significance? Can you explain in your own words?

it was only after the visit he started speculating about them to the extent that, HE HAD NOT BOTHERED to retain a specimen but had to call on his friend the captain of the ship to retrieve a specimen he had collected

Not quite accurate. Darwin did have specimens, unless my memory is wrong he had lots of them. What he had failed to do was record which islands his specimens had come from. Later on as he developed his idea of natural selection he came to recognize the importance of knowing which islands the birds had lived on. This is what he had to track down at a later date. I have known this for a long time. For anyone who has read books on Darwin this is common knowledge.

It is well known that Darwin did not develop his idea of natural selection until long after he stopped on the Galapagos. The creationist critique of the PBS documentary, Darwin's Dangerous Idea was based on the book by the same name written by Dan Dennett. Good book. It's 521 pages and includes the material the critique left out. You should read it to get a better idea of how the theory was developed.

I am curious. Why do you think this bit of common knowledge is important? Can you tell me in your own words without cutting and pasting? Perhaps, while you are at it you can explain why you think any of this information diminishes the theory. Our knowledge has come a long way since Darwin's time.

 

[danschance]

I do find that creationists very often have a poor understanding of evolution and very often their heads are stuffed full of misinformation.

Lets change the words above and see what we get?

I do find that atheists very often have a poor understanding of Christianity and very often their heads are stuffed full of misinformation.

Now which statement makes more sense to me? Hmm..

 

[Cycel]

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.

Yes, Cycel, I took enough geology to know this... But strangely, that is what I was taught in college....

And strangely you just said you took enough geology to know this was wrong. So you were taught it. You seem to contradict yourself. You knew it because you studied geology, yet you were never taught it??? I don’t understand.

The point, in any case, is that if you knew this reasoning is contrary to the science of geology they why did you say this was "A weird sort of circular logic" when you knew full well that the claim is based on misinformation? I knew it was wrong. You knew it was wrong, but some others here might have been led astray by your comment.

As far as carbon dating, well, there is a lot of variation in the results with that.

Angela, I don’t believe carbon dating is used for measuring anything older than about 60,000 years. I don't think it is used by geologists for dating geologic formations. And yes, those who do use it are aware of its limitations.

My big question still remains, how do you account for differentiation not just between species but in the development of special organs and the like.

I don’t understand why you see this as an issue, unless you think the earth is only a few thousand years old. Macro evolution requires many millions of years. Genetic variability occurs with every generation and given enough time members of the same species do diverge so that at opposite ends of their range they can come to look quite different. Humans are a good example of this. Creationists should try and explain the divergence that’s occurred among humans since the time of the Flood. They should send their paleontologists and geneticists out to locate the remains of that initial surviving group and track the changes, how quickly they occurred, and gather what other data they can find. I can think of a number of important questions to ask. Yet, no creationist group appears to be funding research of this type. Why not do research that backs the claims in Genesis?

Noah’s family members would have been one racial type. There were only nine of them? Yes? Why then did they not experience a genetic bottle neck like the cheetah? How quickly did today’s diversity arise and how did it arise when all human diversity had been wiped out by the Flood?

Evolution and natural selection must be a lot quicker than even evolutions suspect. The current evolutionary hypothesis holds that our present human diversity arose over a period of about 200,000 years. Creationists claim it happened in something less than 2000 years. Go figure.

To say nothing about how the Galapagos finches are now converging.

I looked into this quickly but I think it’s only two finches that are being discussed. In general I have read a fair bit about the Galapagos finches and beak shapes change frequently based on food availability. This has been known for some time. It’s predicted.

Seems like Darwin's big break through in postulating evolution is slowly disappearing. Or not!

Not.

 

[Cycel]

I do find that creationists very often have a poor understanding of evolution and very often their heads are stuffed full of misinformation.

Lets change the words above and see what we get:

I do find that atheists very often have a poor understanding of Christianity and very often their heads are stuffed full of misinformation.


Now which statement makes more sense...?

Have you read Dawkins' The God Delusion? Trust me, when it comes to Christianity he is not well informed. If you want to understand why Dawkins is an atheist read his book. He will tell you why he thinks everyone should be an atheist, but his understanding of Christianity is disappointing. I wouldn't trust what he has to say.

This is why I argue that if you want to learn about evolution you shouldn't go to those whose intent it is to undermine its validity. You see, they actually leave out all the reasons you should believe in evolution and their critiques are ill-informed. Go to to the scientists whose job it is to know something about the subject.

 

[danschance]

Have you read Dawkins' The God Delusion? Trust me, when it comes to Christianity he is not well informed. If you want to understand why Dawkins is an atheist read his book. He will tell you why he thinks everyone should be an atheist, but his understanding of Christianity is disappointing. I wouldn't trust what he has to say.

This is why I argue that if you want to learn about evolution you shouldn't go to those whose intent it is to undermine its validity. You see, they actually leave out all the reasons you should believe in evolution and their critiques are ill-informed. Go to to the scientists whose job it is to know something about the subject.

I hope you are not so narrow minded as to assume I am ignorant of science? At a west coast University, I studied electrical engineering. So I have a good knowledge of math, physics and chemistry. I also enjoyed reading good books before I was a Christian. Many of those books were science related but not specifically on evolution. So please do not assume I am as ignorant as a stone aged house wife.

I have not read the god delusion as it is trash, IMHO. I just don't wish to waste my time on atheist propaganda. There are some great books on science, the history of science and when I was an atheist, I read them. I mostly enjoyed nonfiction subjects which were interesting and educational.

I have come to experience God in ways you have not and can not understand. My faith in God is not based on superstition, a need for comfort, need for a crutch, intellectual snobbery, mental illness (as some atheists contend), inferior genes (as some atheists contend) or "misinformation".

 

[Cycel]

I hope you are not so narrow minded as to assume I am ignorant of science? At a west coast University, I studied electrical engineering. So I have a good knowledge of math, physics and chemistry. I also enjoyed reading good books before I was a Christian. Many of those books were science related but not specifically on evolution. So please do not assume I am as ignorant as a stone aged house wife.

Well, Dan, that one blew up in my face. My apologies. I was not meaning to come across as insulting.

This started with my phrase: I do find that creationists very often have a poor understanding of evolution and very often their heads are stuffed full of misinformation. You employed a technique I sometimes use myself and took the subject of the sentence and replaced it with another word: atheists. So far, so good. I replied:

“Have you read Dawkins' The God Delusion? Trust me, when it comes to Christianity he is not well informed. If you want to understand why Dawkins is an atheist read his book. He will tell you why he thinks everyone should be an atheist, but his understanding of Christianity is disappointing. I wouldn't trust what he has to say.”

In writing this I was meaning to show that I agreed with your altered statement. Atheists, in their books, often do misunderstand or are ignorant in their biblical comprehension. I was trying to say that The God Delusion is a poor source for anyone wanting to understand the Bible. God is not Great, by Christopher Hitchens, is another such book. While I read and enjoyed both their expertise is not the Bible. Dawkins, in particular, does not understand (or doesn’t seem to understand) that his arguments are meaningless to most Christians.

My intent then, was to turn your argument, which I agreed with, and show that similarly those who attack evolution in their books (or in their on-line web sites) were not good sources for learning about evolution. So I wrote:

“This is why I argue that if you want to learn about evolution you shouldn't go to those whose intent it is to undermine its validity. You see, they actually leave out all the reasons you should believe in evolution and their critiques are ill-informed. Go to the scientists whose job it is to know something about the subject.”

I was not meaning to insult. Though I wrote the word “you” I was really meaning anyone who wished to learn about evolution. I do recall that you had stated earlier you personally were not particularly interested in the evolution debate. It wasn’t really you that I had in mind. In fact it was mostly not you.

I have not read the god delusion as it is trash, IMHO. I just don't wish to waste my time on atheist propaganda.

Understood, and I hope you realize now I was not recommending the book.

I have come to experience God in ways you have not and can not understand.

I have made the point frequently that my own lack of experience in this realm may largely be the reason I have ended up intellectually where I am. Once again I agree with you.

My faith in God is not based on superstition, a need for comfort, need for a crutch, intellectual snobbery, mental illness (as some atheists contend), inferior genes (as some atheists contend) or "misinformation".

Dan, you wrote that you studied electrical engineering and “have a good knowledge of math, physics and chemistry.” I don’t question you at all. A friend of mine from high-school who worked at NASA before going on to teach courses on mathematics at UWO (now called simply Western University) had always claimed to be an agnostic but has since embraced Judaism. Michael Shirmer, a science historian and editor of Skeptic magazine, reported one study showing that of all academics who believed in God mathematicians topped the list. Your training, I think, would place you into the same camp. This friend of mine is one of the smartest people I know. Nor would I say he believes in God for any of the reasons you list here. You are in good company.

My misinformation charge was not levelled at those who believe in God, but at those whose understanding, specifically of evolution, was misinformed.

 

[megaman125]

This is why I argue that if you want to learn about evolution you shouldn't go to those whose intent it is to undermine its validity. You see, they actually leave out all the reasons you should believe in evolution and their critiques are ill-informed. Go to to the scientists whose job it is to know something about the subject.

In other words, you can only trust the pro-evolution material, but don't question it. Meanwhile, automatically throw out anything and everything that isn't pro-evolution, because if it's not pro-evolution, then it must be false. Brilliant.

On a more serious note, anything can be convincing when you only choose to listen to one side and assume it's true and then proceed to reject anything that might oppose or question the side you believe is true.

But here's the kicker. Why would atheists such as yourself, who claim to be intellectually honest, tell us to only listen to one side of the evolution argument? That doesn't seem like intellectual honesty.

 

[cordiolus]

I think there's a difference between atheits. Some atheists might better be described as 'anti-theists'. Some might better be described as 'anti-dogmatics' etc etc.

A lot of atheists I know aren't without beliefs. Nobody is without beliefs. I have believed the night sky to be the colour black black, yet I've never been there, and what I once perceived as blackness like ink on a page is not blackness at all. It is the absence of light.

Beliefs change, with time. I think the questions you're asking are relevant to some 'atheists' but not to all atheists. Each individual will have a different view.

I wouldnt categorize myself into a group hastily because that's when stereotypes arise. And I am reluctant to accept most categorizations that other people might have too. I believe the individual to be apart from whatever label they might have, even if it is in some small way.

My point is, Ive met people whom I wouldn't consider 'religious' and yet known them to have more desire for the good of others than some 'religious' folks might have and so I try to view the individual rather than the images that come to mind when their label is put forward in front of their personality.

 

[cordiolus]

In short, christian is a broad collective term made up of millions of individuals eith marginally, or sometimes massively, varying beliefs and actions.

Same goes for 'atheists'. Sometimes it's better, in my experience, to see the person rather than the coat they wear.

 

[danschance]

In short, christian is a broad collective term made up of millions of individuals eith marginally, or sometimes massively, varying beliefs and actions.

Same goes for 'atheists'. Sometimes it's better, in my experience, to see the person rather than the coat they wear.

I judge people not by they labels they choose, but by the "Duck Principal". If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, lays eggs like a duck, swims like a duck--it is a duck! I don't care if that duck claims to be a lion or a chimpanzee, it is a duck.

I feel like AvalonXQ is back.

 

[cordiolus]

I judge people not by they labels they choose, but by the "Duck Principal". If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, lays eggs like a duck, swims like a duck--it is a duck! I don't care if that duck claims to be a lion or a chimpanzee, it is a duck.

I feel like AvalonXQ is back.

Again, you're an individual and that's your prerogative. Im just saying that there are lots of species of duck. Some eat different food. Some fly long distance and some don't. Some are brighter than others. Some quack loud. Some brawl and flap their wings at each other.

And then there's the rare duck lookalike that's actually a swan.

Atheists might collectively represent a vague meaning or image in someone's mind, perhaps of a godless person, but it often takes you to look further than that. It's not really fair to say 'he's an atheist and so this is what he does and this is where he fits'.

The reason Im saying that is because the OP posted those lines in his first post as if to say that all atheists behave the way he described. That's like saying all ducks are grey, sleep 8.5 hours a day and only live in Northern Canada

It's easy to look at somone on face value and make a split second decision about their character, particularly where a label, or social stereotype precedes it.