Topic: Can an atheist understand this logic or tell me if I am wrong?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #4,727
There is so much irrefutable evidence of design in molecular machinery of life that it's a mystery to me how so many biology professors can cling to the belief that it all just happened.
When I have asked them for evidence of certain aspects of evolutionary dogma, the best answer I've gotten is Well, we just have to assume that's the way it happened. Science isn't about assumptions; it's about empirical and experimental evidence. Over and over again, I was asked to believe things for which no evidence existed, and which no experiment ever backed up.
On the other hand, evidence of a creator many orders of magnitude more intelligent than the greatest human geniuses is everywhere you look in nature. The more we learn about the universe, the more we learn about its wondrous complexity, the more the idea that this could be nothing more than the outcome of a random process becomes more and more ridiculous. Physical systems don't grow in complexity, they don't accumulate information, they do the opposite.
It couldn't have happened as the atheists' theory would have it.
The far more plausible theory is that the information, the BLUEPRINT was present at the beginning.
If you walk into my kitchen and a pot of water is boiling, WHY is it boiling? Science answers partially, with water temperature, etc., but the more meaningful reason is I want a cup of tea, which science misses completely, So also, science misses God completely, and to often, intentionally.
Scientists have spent the past 30 or 40 years trying to induce evolution in fruit flies, whose life cycle is very short. 40 years later, and tens of thousands of generations later, scientists have produced fruit flies with slightly longer legs, or slightly darker color, but so far all that has been produced are FRUIT FLIES! Forget about turning a fruit fly into a giraffe, obviously that would take millions of generations. They haven't been able to turn a fruit fly into a mosquito!
When I have asked them for evidence of certain aspects of evolutionary dogma, the best answer I've gotten is Well, we just have to assume that's the way it happened. Science isn't about assumptions; it's about empirical and experimental evidence. Over and over again, I was asked to believe things for which no evidence existed, and which no experiment ever backed up.
On the other hand, evidence of a creator many orders of magnitude more intelligent than the greatest human geniuses is everywhere you look in nature. The more we learn about the universe, the more we learn about its wondrous complexity, the more the idea that this could be nothing more than the outcome of a random process becomes more and more ridiculous. Physical systems don't grow in complexity, they don't accumulate information, they do the opposite.
It couldn't have happened as the atheists' theory would have it.
The far more plausible theory is that the information, the BLUEPRINT was present at the beginning.
If you walk into my kitchen and a pot of water is boiling, WHY is it boiling? Science answers partially, with water temperature, etc., but the more meaningful reason is I want a cup of tea, which science misses completely, So also, science misses God completely, and to often, intentionally.
Scientists have spent the past 30 or 40 years trying to induce evolution in fruit flies, whose life cycle is very short. 40 years later, and tens of thousands of generations later, scientists have produced fruit flies with slightly longer legs, or slightly darker color, but so far all that has been produced are FRUIT FLIES! Forget about turning a fruit fly into a giraffe, obviously that would take millions of generations. They haven't been able to turn a fruit fly into a mosquito!
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #83,852
I'm an atheist, but I don't how life started. But, we also don't know that god started life either. Their is no proof, and most religious are blatantly crazy or dishonest, so why believe?
hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,855
Agnosticism is the most logical choice.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,856
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,857
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,859
The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,860
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,861
OP laughs about scientists with fruit flies but a few sentences prior was equating the creation of the universe to boiling water for tea. I would hope the mods would recognize the fact that OP is trolling and do their fuckig jobs and lock/delete this thread while ionizing OP. It is shit like this that will turn this place into a pile of pure shit.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,862
Is this Def?
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,863
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,864
hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,867
This thread lost its directionSQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,868
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,870
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,872
hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,873
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,875
drea mworks joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,880
i wanted to be the one to shit up this thread
drea mworks double-posted this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,882
i need new stuff to shit up threads
hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,886
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,903
> There is so much irrefutable evidence of design in molecular machinery of life that it's a mystery to me how so many biology professors can cling to the belief that it all just happened.
The thing is you are looking in hindsight. You look back, see how something happened (lets say 'humans have eyes') and decided that that was how it was supposed to happen. It's a little weird to me to think otherwise as well, but if we had been in another habitat (say, in a cave) then we wouldn't have eyes like we do today.
> When I have asked them for evidence of certain aspects of evolutionary dogma, the best answer I've gotten is Well, we just have to assume that's the way it happened. Science isn't about assumptions; it's about empirical and experimental evidence. Over and over again, I was asked to believe things for which no evidence existed, and which no experiment ever backed up.
Things such as? We can only work with what we have observed. If we have evidence X at one time, then evidence Z much later, it is reasonable to hypothesise that evidence Y existed between the two.
> On the other hand, evidence of a creator many orders of magnitude more intelligent than the greatest human geniuses is everywhere you look in nature. The more we learn about the universe, the more we learn about its wondrous complexity, the more the idea that this could be nothing more than the outcome of a random process becomes more and more ridiculous.
Well, you see, this is merely your opinion. No doubt many considered the idea that human flight was posssible ridiculous before they proved it was possible by doing it.
> Physical systems don't grow in complexity, they don't accumulate information, they do the opposite.
What is your source for this statement? Are you referring to entropy? Because entropy is increasing and will continue to do so because this Universe is a closed system.
> It couldn't have happened as the atheists' theory would have it.
The scientific theory. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity. Many religious people are atheist. Consider Buddism; The Buddha explicitly said he was not a god and that the existence or otherwise of god is not necessary to the practise of Buddhism.
> The far more plausible theory is that the information, the BLUEPRINT was present at the beginning.
There was no blueprint. You are jaundiced by the hindsight view that I mentioned above. You are comparing the Universe to somebody building a house. You say that without a blueprint a man cannot build a house - but that is simply not comparible to the Universe.
> If you walk into my kitchen and a pot of water is boiling, WHY is it boiling? Science answers partially, with water temperature, etc., but the more meaningful reason is I want a cup of tea, which science misses completely
You boiled the water because you wanted a cup of tea. You didn't ask 'why did I boil the water', you asked 'why is the water boiling'. Whether you want a cup of tea or not is irrelivent to the water boiling. 'The water is boiling because I want a cup of tea' is an attempt by you to connect your emotions with what happens around you. If you put water in a kettle and did nothing but want a cup of tea, the water would not boil, no matter how much you wanted that tea. You would have to increase the temperature of the water to boil it, and so the 'scientific explanation' you mentioned is more correct than your answer.
> Scientists have spent the past 30 or 40 years trying to induce evolution in fruit flies, whose life cycle is very short. 40 years later, and tens of thousands of generations later, scientists have produced fruit flies with slightly longer legs, or slightly darker color, but so far all that has been produced are FRUIT FLIES!
If you are interested in artificial evolution, look at how farmers use artificial selection. Today's pink pigs are nothing like how they used to be before farmers decided who breeds. They have evolved them to fit our agricultural needs. The same happened with dogs. The same happened with cows. Evolution works via survival of the fittest in the wild, and it functions perfectly fine when a person decides who survives. Scientists use fruit flies because it is "easy to grow, has various visible congenital traits and has a polytene (giant) chromosome in its salivary glands that can be examined under a light microscope." and because about 75% of known human disease genes have a recognisable match in the genome of fruit flies.
> They haven't been able to turn a fruit fly into a mosquito!
This isn't how evolution works. Well goddman, I may have just typed all this out to a troll.
The thing is you are looking in hindsight. You look back, see how something happened (lets say 'humans have eyes') and decided that that was how it was supposed to happen. It's a little weird to me to think otherwise as well, but if we had been in another habitat (say, in a cave) then we wouldn't have eyes like we do today.
> When I have asked them for evidence of certain aspects of evolutionary dogma, the best answer I've gotten is Well, we just have to assume that's the way it happened. Science isn't about assumptions; it's about empirical and experimental evidence. Over and over again, I was asked to believe things for which no evidence existed, and which no experiment ever backed up.
Things such as? We can only work with what we have observed. If we have evidence X at one time, then evidence Z much later, it is reasonable to hypothesise that evidence Y existed between the two.
> On the other hand, evidence of a creator many orders of magnitude more intelligent than the greatest human geniuses is everywhere you look in nature. The more we learn about the universe, the more we learn about its wondrous complexity, the more the idea that this could be nothing more than the outcome of a random process becomes more and more ridiculous.
Well, you see, this is merely your opinion. No doubt many considered the idea that human flight was posssible ridiculous before they proved it was possible by doing it.
> Physical systems don't grow in complexity, they don't accumulate information, they do the opposite.
What is your source for this statement? Are you referring to entropy? Because entropy is increasing and will continue to do so because this Universe is a closed system.
> It couldn't have happened as the atheists' theory would have it.
The scientific theory. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity. Many religious people are atheist. Consider Buddism; The Buddha explicitly said he was not a god and that the existence or otherwise of god is not necessary to the practise of Buddhism.
> The far more plausible theory is that the information, the BLUEPRINT was present at the beginning.
There was no blueprint. You are jaundiced by the hindsight view that I mentioned above. You are comparing the Universe to somebody building a house. You say that without a blueprint a man cannot build a house - but that is simply not comparible to the Universe.
> If you walk into my kitchen and a pot of water is boiling, WHY is it boiling? Science answers partially, with water temperature, etc., but the more meaningful reason is I want a cup of tea, which science misses completely
You boiled the water because you wanted a cup of tea. You didn't ask 'why did I boil the water', you asked 'why is the water boiling'. Whether you want a cup of tea or not is irrelivent to the water boiling. 'The water is boiling because I want a cup of tea' is an attempt by you to connect your emotions with what happens around you. If you put water in a kettle and did nothing but want a cup of tea, the water would not boil, no matter how much you wanted that tea. You would have to increase the temperature of the water to boil it, and so the 'scientific explanation' you mentioned is more correct than your answer.
> Scientists have spent the past 30 or 40 years trying to induce evolution in fruit flies, whose life cycle is very short. 40 years later, and tens of thousands of generations later, scientists have produced fruit flies with slightly longer legs, or slightly darker color, but so far all that has been produced are FRUIT FLIES!
If you are interested in artificial evolution, look at how farmers use artificial selection. Today's pink pigs are nothing like how they used to be before farmers decided who breeds. They have evolved them to fit our agricultural needs. The same happened with dogs. The same happened with cows. Evolution works via survival of the fittest in the wild, and it functions perfectly fine when a person decides who survives. Scientists use fruit flies because it is "easy to grow, has various visible congenital traits and has a polytene (giant) chromosome in its salivary glands that can be examined under a light microscope." and because about 75% of known human disease genes have a recognisable match in the genome of fruit flies.
> They haven't been able to turn a fruit fly into a mosquito!
This isn't how evolution works. Well goddman, I may have just typed all this out to a troll.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,907
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,909
@OP
People get papercut by the Bible. You can't explain that.
People get papercut by the Bible. You can't explain that.
hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,916
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,921
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,925
@83,867 (hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI)
@83,916 (hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI)
@83,886 (hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI)
@83,873 (hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI)
What the fuck is this shit...?
@83,916 (hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI)
@83,886 (hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI)
@83,873 (hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI)
What the fuck is this shit...?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,927
hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #83,928
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #83,941
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #83,945
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #83,953
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,046
ITT: OP picks out the one argument that science still doesn't have an definite answer for yet science has proven that religion is wrong a hundred times over.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,055
@previous (J)
ITT: Anon J says something has been disproved a hundred times over times over and offers nothing to back up that claim.
ITT: Anon J says something has been disproved a hundred times over times over and offers nothing to back up that claim.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 38 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,075
Yikes just Yikes. Good topic but I not be the one to do it.
I look around and also ask can this all b by accident? I spend so much time in nature and for me a tide pool is a way of life because I use tide charts for surfing as well as to take time to study pools and enjoy all there is to enjoy. I go out of my way to enjoy the flowers and look up at Stars and be amazed.
Now on the other hand this one God Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!! There used to be 1000's of Gods and Many Goddesses.
So who the hell changed most of that to just One God? And for them who still believe that God listens???????????
Tell that to Japanese or how about when in New York city 9-11-2011 when the first plane dived on in to WTC and then the 2nd on the way. All on national TV which means a lot of one God types prayed to that God and maybe just maybe the WRONG God.
Did that one God listen to the millions that prayed for the Plane to not dive on in????????
I figure that maybe there are Gods, and not just one God cause I damn well know my praying to the wrong God is going to get me Zip Zilch buckus. I just need to figure out if its Zeus or Carpardus or Aphrodite.
I look around and also ask can this all b by accident? I spend so much time in nature and for me a tide pool is a way of life because I use tide charts for surfing as well as to take time to study pools and enjoy all there is to enjoy. I go out of my way to enjoy the flowers and look up at Stars and be amazed.
Now on the other hand this one God Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!! There used to be 1000's of Gods and Many Goddesses.
So who the hell changed most of that to just One God? And for them who still believe that God listens???????????
Tell that to Japanese or how about when in New York city 9-11-2011 when the first plane dived on in to WTC and then the 2nd on the way. All on national TV which means a lot of one God types prayed to that God and maybe just maybe the WRONG God.
Did that one God listen to the millions that prayed for the Plane to not dive on in????????
I figure that maybe there are Gods, and not just one God cause I damn well know my praying to the wrong God is going to get me Zip Zilch buckus. I just need to figure out if its Zeus or Carpardus or Aphrodite.