Evolution? Impossible!

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by JBnTX, Dec 30, 2012.


Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    Nice.

    Although I think there are people who will be prone to miss the point completely and object on the grounds that cars are made, even though that doesn't have anything to do with the point being demonstrated. At least when the point is being made within the context of the current discussion.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
    #481 void *, Feb 9, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
  2. Earth is a statistical feat in the same sense. How many planets have we observed that have the needed environment to support life? The statistics say Earth is a rare gem. The idea is that a planet that is able to support life will grow life. Seems like a very natural concept to me.

    I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps Earth's environment has changed to where that is no longer possible. Perhaps there is already life in any environment in which that reaction could take place and that life interferes with the formation of new life. In other words there may be sinple single celled organisms consuming materials that might otherwise be needed for the process. And because I don't know for sure doesn't mean smarter people than I haven't already found the answer to your question. But that still doesn't give it equal credence to Creationism. There is still so much more evidence supporting abiogenesis.

    We know all life evolved from the simplest organisms. You agree with that right? I've seen you say you think Evolution is the correct description of how life progressed on this planet. Well... we also know that under the right conditions (the conditions of a pre-life Earth) RNA could form via the proper chemical reaction.

    I agree there are a few pieces of the puzzle missing to connect the two. No one is saying it's a done deal yet.

    But what dots has creationism connected? Any?

    You're still not justifying how you can give equal credence to two concepts that have such grossly differing levels of evidence to support them.


    But without logical justification. Abiogenesis doesn't answer all questions. But creationism answers none. There is no real supporting evidence for creationism.

    That statement is dishonest. There is real proof for abiogenesis and there is none for creationsism. One is actual science and the other is an attempt to twist science to support religion.
     

  3. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    0
    0
    So says you. I'm not convinced.
     
  4. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    0
    0
    And of course we just know exactly what temperature, moisture content, humidity, and barometric pressure were then.

    http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2012/12/prehistoric-organisms-may-have-been-terrestrial/

    http://www.livescience.com/241-early-earth-hellish-study-suggests.html


    No guess work at all there huh? I'm trying to think of the nicest way to ask this, but how reasonable do you really think it is to believe you have it all figured out?
     
  5. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    0
    0
    It is what it is. It got this way precisely how it got this way. We are pretty good at describing what is, not so good at describing the moment it all started, or even if there was a start.

    Describing with any detail, events that occurred hundreds of millions or billions of years ago is not an precise exersize.


    .

    I see two problems with that. First, it may have been a rather normal appearing intelligence, after all, we are getting close to doing it, and we aren't all that super.

    Second, if it were created, even using abilities we haven't even considered, that would be the nature of things, and not supernatural. Even the math behind BBT suggests a time when the normal laws of physics we observe today may not have applied.




    It's not more logical. We all have opinions on what is MORE logical. I personally think firm belief in either of two poorly supported beliefs, even though one is likely correct is illogical. That's why I don't have a firm belief that life just happened or that it was made. I'll wait until something convincing comes along then decide. Until then I don't worry to much about what happened billions of years ago (other than on GTRI), as I have plenty to learn about and do in the present.
     
  6. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    0
    0
    Just for a second, pretend you are conversing with a true middle of the road undecided agnostic on the creation vs. natural phenomena issue.

    With atheists on one side of me, and theists on the other, either side trying to claim absolute knowledge and suppress the other is agenda driven.

    It's possible it was made, it's possible it just happened under the right conditions. No reason not to admit that and just move on to spending more time learning about the present, that we are more sure about. Sure, we should keep looking, and when/if all the pieces fit and it's really proven, go with it then.

    Besides, you've sorta already told me your hobby with other religious beliefs other than your own.
     
  7. No. So says the evidence. There is evidence that under given natural conditions organic compounds can be synthesized from inorganic compounds, for example. There is no equivalent level of evidence for deities.

    I doubt there's any evidence would convince you, given your other positions.
     
  8. Probably at least as reasonable as it is for you to keep telling atheists they either believe or claim to have it all figured out.
     
  9. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    0
    0
    Over a 99/1 surety rating would seem to indicate that.

    No, I cannot read your mind over the Internet, I'm making my own subjective evaluation of the arguments and statements provided. If it wasn't clear before that it is only my opinion that is true, that some act awfully sure about what happened on a single day hundreds of millions of years ago.

    I'm ok with not being certain of how that day went, and will probably spending more time deciding things about today.
     
  10. You continue to stick with what is possible. Any of the myths listed below are possible. That's why what is taught in a science class should be based on what the evidence supports.

    I'm not arguing that life was not designed, merely pointing out that an Intelligent Designer (in the Christian I.D. sense) can be pretty well ruled out. Like you, I accept that a pretty dumb designer could be responsible for the current state of things. If somebody would care to present the evidence to make that case, I'd be glad to review it.

    Yes, more than the (lack of) evidence warrants.
    • Judeo-Christian: man from dirt, woman from his rib
    • Scientology: involves Lord Xenu, DC8-like spaceships, frozen aliens, volcanoes and hydrogen bombs
    • Japanese: elements appear in the form of an egg, and Izanami gives birth to the gods
    • Greek: Nyx, the bird, lays an egg that hatches into Eros, then the shell becomes Gaia and Uranus
    • Iroquois: Sky Woman fell from a floating island (actually pregnant and pushed by her husband) and gave birth to the world
    • Hindu (one version): Brahma created primal waters which grew into a golden egg which was split into heaven and earth
    • Chinook: great egg laid by the Thunderbird
    • African Bushmen: people and animals lived in harmony, then Great Master and Lord of All Life, Kaang, planted a tree that spread over it and dug a hole to bring up the people and animals
    Keeping in mind that the Judeo-Christian explanation has no more evidence to support it than Scientology or any of the other stories, do all of these, and all other explanations, deserve mention in a science class?

    As said before, if somebody wants to teach them in their home, in a Bible study class, in a private school science class, or even a public school mythology class I have no problem with that. If they want something taught (or even mentioned as an alternative explanation) in a public school science class, then they should have the evidence to back up the claims.

    ETA: I'm not interested in proving there was no designer/creator, as I believe it would largely be a waste of time. As I've said numerous times, even if chemists could create life in the laboratory at will, that would not prove that there was not a designer/creator. At most it would demonstrate that one was not necessary.

    -ArtificialGrape
     
    #490 ArtificialGrape, Feb 9, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
  11. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    Please provide evidence that the self identified atheists involved in this conversation are attempting to claim absolute knowledge.

    If you can't - then why should we pretend that they are?
     
    #491 void *, Feb 9, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
  12. Atheist do not claim absolute knowledge. The very principle of atheism is, I Don't Know.

    posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
     
    #492 RC-RAMIE, Feb 9, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
  13. Gunhaver

    Gunhaver the wrong hands

    2,736
    0
    0
    That would suggest that you either disregard a whole poop load of evidence for evolution (or even for abiogenesis if that's your only hangup) you consider a whole bunch of stuff to be evidence of creation that scientists don't consider to be evidence of creation. Which is it?
     
  14. Gunhaver

    Gunhaver the wrong hands

    2,736
    0
    0
    That's the very principle of agnosticism. The very principle of atheism is I Don't Care. We can say there is no god because we don't really GAF about the minuscule chance that one of the numerous stories that appear to have been pulled from someone's butt is actually the correct answer to a question also pulled from possibly the same butt. It's not not really a big leap for most.
     
  15. Blast

    Blast 'nuff said

    Though your first sentence is correct, the principle of atheism is THERE IS NO GOD. An absolute concept.
    Theists are the other side of the coin... THERE IS A GOD. Again an absolute concept.
    But both sides can be driven by emotions. And judging by this forum, some of the atheists here are on the edge of hysteria.



    [​IMG]
     
  16. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    He has no evidence whatsoever. There is none. But he believes it, therefore it its solid enough to include in science class

    Randy

    posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
     
    #496 steveksux, Feb 10, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
  17. No your wrong. I care but as Atheist we don't know. If supporting evidence for a god ever came along I doubt there would be many Atheist left.


    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
     
  18. No it's not, it's I don't believe your unsupported assertion of a god.


    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
     
  19. It takes just as much faith to believe there is no God as it does to believe there is some kind of a God.

    If Creationists are correct then the platypus is proof that "God" is a committee.

    When its "opinion" vs. fact...fact is gonna win every time.
     
  20. Blast

    Blast 'nuff said

    Merriam-Webster
    Definition of ATHEISM
    1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
    2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity


    atheismnoun (Concise Encyclopedia)
    Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless


    Again, atheism's doctrine is absolute. Anything else put's one in the agnostic catagory.


    Take Al's advice.:wavey:
     

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page