Why do Atheists Bother?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
May 4, 2014
288
2
0
#81
Well, perhaps you can enlighten us and to what Huxley (both of them), Hooke, Dobzhansky, Dewey and others have taught.
I can't possibly see what substantive relevance any of these men have to the contemporary theory of evolution, the contemporary scientific consensus concerning evolutionary synthesis, or the religiously-inspired objections to evolution that litter this thread. Dobzhansky's religious beliefs aren't well-expounded upon (although interestingly enough, he viewed evolution as God's way of creating or diversifying life), and Thomas Henry Huxley (what other "Huxley" are you referring to, exactly?) vigorously defended evolution and showed adamant public support for Darwin while alleging an agnostic view with respect to God's existence. Dewey and Hooke are irrelevant for various reasons.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,844
13,558
113
#82
there are something like an hundred known species of doves on the planet now -- did Noah have 100 different pairs of doves on the ark?
He made doves after their kind.

from my point of view, the innate chameleonic ability of His created animals to speciate into so many wonderful types magnifies His greatness. look at how it's mirrored in the church body too - we all have one Father, but all have the Spirit in different measure and displaying different gifts - hands, feet, eyes, toes, prophets, preachers, tongue-speakers, encouragers, laborers, thinkers, poets, psalmists -- see how out of one, and within one, life flourishes and diversifies?

but this is not the same as a toad turning into a horse or a monkey into a man.
there's a distinction
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#83
Nuts and bolts what am I missing with evolution. Something becomes something else.A monkey evolves over time into a human.Is this not so?
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,389
193
63
#84
Here is a little problem (very minor indeed)...

"The new lava dome (dacite) from the at Mount St. Helens was formed in 1986. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock." - Unreliability of Radiometric Dating and Old Age of the Earth

Hmmm, that one doesn't get a lot of press from evolutionary proponents, does it?

From UNC...

"For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.

2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.

3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.

4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known."

Now if there were a flood...

The University of North Carolina is not as sure as Jack and Absurd are about radiometric dating. More from this erudite institution...

The requirements for radiometric dating are stated in another way, at the web site http://hubcap.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter7.html:
"But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially)."

Here are more quotes about radiometric dating from http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm:

"All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events' or `second' or `third events.' "

And again,

"It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past."

It is known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry. Some more quotes from the same source:

a. In the lead-uranium systems both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks, and lead volatilizes and escapes as a vapor at relatively low temperatures. It has been suggested that free neutrons could transform Pb-206 first to Pb-207 and then to Pb-208, thus tending to reset the clocks and throw thorium-lead and uranium-lead clocks completely off, even to the point of wiping out geological time. Furthermore, there is still disagreement of 15 percent between the two preferred values for the U-238 decay constant.
b. In the potassium/argon system argon is a gas which can escape from or migrate through the rocks. Potassium volatilizes easily, is easily leached by water, and can migrate through the rocks under certain conditions. Furthermore, the value of the decay constant is still disputed, although the scientific community seems to be approaching agreement. Historically, the decay constants used for the various radiometric dating systems have been adjusted to obtain agreement between the results obtained. In the potassium/argon system another adjustable "constant" called the branching ratio is also not accurately known and is adjusted to give acceptable results.

Argon-40, the daughter substance, makes up about one percent of the atmosphere, which is therefore a possible source of contamination. This is corrected for by comparing the ratio argon-40/argon-36 in the rock with that in the atmosphere. However, since it is possible for argon-36 to be formed in the rocks by cosmic radiation, the correction may also be in error. Argon from the environment may be trapped in magma by pressure and rapid cooling to give very high erroneous age results. In view of these and other problems it is hardly surprising that the potassium/argon method can yield highly variable results, even among different minerals in the same rock.

c. In the strontium/rubidium system the strontium-87 daughter atoms are very plentiful in the earth's crust. Rubidium-87 parent atoms can be leached out of the rock by water or volatilized by heat.

All of these special problems as well as others can produce contradictory and erroneous results for the various radiometric dating systems. " - The Radiometric Dating Game

But don't worry, just swallow the theory without question, it has to be right because these learned individuals tell us so. Funny, the learned individuals also used to prescribe blood letting, thought disease was caused by "bad humors" and prescribed concoctions such as Radithor.
 
Last edited:
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#85
P.S. the OP was about the picture against Christmas not about evolution. Off the path a bit.
 
May 4, 2014
288
2
0
#86
Goodness.
Not a tad elitist, smug, or condescending are we?
: )


Hmmm... lets see...

Most atheists, who believe in evolution, ALSO could not explain "gene flow" or "genetic drift".

I guess that makes them all ignorant by YOUR definition?

I guess that makes most atheists simply ignorant and opinionated, by YOUR definition?

And by implication, the point you're obviously trying to make, people who are merely ignorant and opinionated simple aren't informed enough to DISCUSS ANY BELIEF SYSTEM... maybe they aren't even informed enough to deserve to HAVE a belief system.

I guess by your definitions, and your clear implications, MOST ATHEISTS, because of their ignorance, have no right to go around arguing with Christians about ANYTHING! And just maybe, since they're so ignorant, MOST ATHEISTS don't have a right to any belief system at all.


Seriously, the logic you pretend to convey isn't so brilliant OR so logical.
Seriously, your smug, arrogant elitism is tiresome.

You should take your nonsense back to some atheist forum and play with people who lap it all up and tell you how brilliant you are.
I won't dispute the fact that most people of any religious preference don't have a firm grasp of evolution's basic principles. I never implied the contrary. I'm merely pointing out that the vocal criticisms voiced in this thread, which carry the pretense of a scientific understanding of evolution and its alleged flaws, are arguably unfounded. If I'm coming across as "elitist" or "smug," I apologize. As far as I'm concerned, I'm simply being candid. On the other hand, you've decided to take my post out of its proper context.

As far as the knowledge of religious beliefs goes (and whether opinions and criticisms of such beliefs are justified -- note that I'm not attempting to assert that nobody is entitled to an opinion, regardless of how well-informed or ill-informed they may be), atheists and agnostics statistically perform consistently and significantly higher than Christians. Of course, that's neither here nor there, however. Should Christians exercise an adamant belief in their religion without a rudimentary knowledge of their holy book's religious teachings? Perhaps not -- and nor should an ill-informed atheist assert positive criticisms toward what they don't understand, as an extension. Nobody is trying to suppress the right to hold an opinion, including myself.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,389
193
63
#87
I won't dispute the fact that most people of any religious preference don't have a firm grasp of evolution's basic principles. I never implied the contrary. I'm merely pointing out that the vocal criticisms voiced in this thread, which carry the pretense of a scientific understanding of evolution and its alleged flaws, are arguably unfounded. If I'm coming across as "elitist" or "smug," I apologize. As far as I'm concerned, I'm simply being candid. On the other hand, you've decided to take my post out of its proper context.

As far as the knowledge of religious beliefs goes (and whether opinions and criticisms of such beliefs are justified -- note that I'm not attempting to assert that nobody is entitled to an opinion, regardless of how well-informed or ill-informed they may be), atheists and agnostics statistically perform consistently and significantly higher than Christians. Of course, that's neither here nor there, however. Should Christians exercise an adamant belief in their religion without a rudimentary knowledge of their holy book's religious teachings? Perhaps not -- and nor should an ill-informed atheist assert positive criticisms toward what they don't understand, as an extension. Nobody is trying to suppress the right to hold an opinion, including myself.
Ah, someone has attended a few college classes and has become a part of the educated elite. Interesting, I studied engineering and computer science, what is your major?
 
Sep 14, 2014
966
2
0
#88
P.S. the OP was about the picture against Christmas not about evolution. Off the path a bit.
Whenever a discussion involves atheists then a theist can't resist posting incorrect and sometimes nonsense statements about us and then it spirals out of control from there.

Happens every single time.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,389
193
63
#89
I can't possibly see what substantive relevance any of these men have to the contemporary theory of evolution, the contemporary scientific consensus concerning evolutionary synthesis, or the religiously-inspired objections to evolution that litter this thread. Dobzhansky's religious beliefs aren't well-expounded upon (although interestingly enough, he viewed evolution as God's way of creating or diversifying life), and Thomas Henry Huxley (what other "Huxley" are you referring to, exactly?) vigorously defended evolution and showed adamant public support for Darwin while alleging an agnostic view with respect to God's existence. Dewey and Hooke are irrelevant for various reasons.
Why the foundation the theory is built upon comes from these extinguished (distinguished) gents.

They are irrelevant because their thoughts have fallen into such disrepute, current evolutionist don't wish to be associated with their lunacy.
 
May 4, 2014
288
2
0
#90
Ah, someone has attended a few college classes and has become a part of the educated elite. Interesting, I studied engineering and computer science, what is your major?
Personally-directed sarcasm isn't worth entertaining.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#91
Whenever a discussion involves atheists then a theist can't resist posting incorrect and sometimes nonsense statements about us and then it spirals out of control from there.

Happens every single time.

It appears so....
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#92
Personally-directed sarcasm isn't worth entertaining.

I dont see why someone who isnt a Christian would be in this forum in the first place.I doubt you'll convert anyone.What is it about evolution that we are all missing?
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,389
193
63
#93
Back to the OP, most people today do not attach an religious significance to xmas, even nominal Christians.
 
May 4, 2014
288
2
0
#95
Why the foundation the theory is built upon comes from these extinguished (distinguished) gents.

They are irrelevant because their thoughts have fallen into such disrepute, current evolutionist don't wish to be associated with their lunacy.
That's a gross oversimplification. Dewey and Hooke are, to reiterate, irrelevant -- their respective fields and opinions, and especially what they're generally remembered for today, hardly touched on the theory of evolution in any meaningful fashion. Thomas Huxley's views aren't "lunacy" -- in fact, a good deal of material he discussed is still widely-supported today, including the assertion that birds evolved from small, carnivorous dinosaurs and the relationship of humans to apes.

While some early aspects of evolution have been discarded and revised, that's merely the nature of science -- and we certainly can't fault a fledgling theory in the 19th century for being erroneous on a few accounts, although the general picture illustrated in Darwin's work is still remarkably accurate by modern standards.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#96
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Now answer the question of the man himself "“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.” Darwin


If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection. Darwin

What about the Cambrian Explosion?


 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,844
13,558
113
#97
P.S. the OP was about the picture against Christmas not about evolution. Off the path a bit.

i thought there is a 'common law' that it's OK to derail atheism threads. . ?

:D
 

blue_ladybug

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2014
70,920
9,669
113
#99
Nuts and bolts what am I missing with evolution. Something becomes something else.A monkey evolves over time into a human.Is this not so?

Girl, I KNOW you're smarter than this..lol.. :) We are not descended from monkeys!! We did not evolve from monkeys into humans.. though alotta ppl here act like monkeys..hmmmm :eek:
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,389
193
63
The real problem with the theory of evolution is the lack of evidence.