Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
What's right and what's wrong is decided by the powers that be that are willing to kill you in order to make you conform to their standards.
Perhaps you should select the best of your arguments against evolution and, to show that you really understand it, summarize the argument for us.
Regarding you later comments on morality, you might read two posts of mine:
Thread "Differences in Approach" (12/15/2016 14:02).
Thread "Differences in Approach" (11/23/2016 01:02)
As you will see, this issue has been extensively discussed on this debate forum.
Yes it does have many holes (those are the "holes" that you don't seem to understand), but are you implying that believing in a supernatural vindictive Monster is a better resolution than actually believing in something that is a million times more close to facts than the previous choice?
There is every single evidence that proves God doesn't exist, yet you believe in him. Does that make you any more qualified to actually "debunk" Evolution?
Last of all, before you start spewing bullshit from that dangerously loose mouth of yours, did you even think that Civilization existed before the Bible? Did you even think that once ancient Roman Laws and Greek Laws were based on morality? Or maybe you forgot every Greek philosopher of the time before the Bible, aren't they clear proof that the Bible doesn't have shit to do with "right and wrong". I've always been an Atheist and I've been able to differ whether someone is a bad person or a good one.
I'm a little troubled by statements made by a few posters that there are "holes" in the theory of evolution. First off; I'm not 100% sure what it would even mean for a theory to have a hole. Additionally I wonder if gaps in the fossil record is what is meant by "holes"? I'd respond to that by saying gaps in the fossil record is not a valid criticism of the theory of evolution.
Imagine if other laws/theories were treated this way. Consider the following scenarios:
Nyarlathotep is correct. There are not "holes" in evolution. Gaps in our perfect understanding of every evolutionary event in history does not indict evolution in the slightest. Evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity and germ theory. Everything additional that we learn in time about the evolution of life will have to account for the hard, cold facts of the evolutionary process that humans have documented.
Ok. First apologies to nyarlathotep about the true origins thing I wasn't lieing I was just miss informed. Also nyarlathotep I will just call you jerome its easier for me to remember so jerome your an awesome guy and I love you and hope you're doing well but don't get cocky or be mean I never meant to offend you. Now we got that out of the way I will post a few arguments against abiogenesis and the big bang. Tell me what you think and please be kind.
Population III stars are a problem for the big bang theory
Instability of building blocks a problem for abiogenesis
Lastly I want to say that it is not a lie say that a protein is very unlikely to form. I mean think about it you need all the right things in the same place at once plus lightning PLUS thats just 1 protein how many proteins do you think you need for 1 cell? Stephen Meyer calculated the exact number so if you want to look him up go ahead.
OK, I'm impressed. And clearly I was wrong. On first appearance you sound like the standard misinformed creationist liar; clearly you are not; and I'm sorry. The standard creationist would have never admitted to being totally wrong about anything. I will address the concerns you raised in my next posts.
Jam jam, couple of questions for you that I'm really interested about...
What's your education level?
Your reason for posting here at AR?
Thank you for being kind and thanks for the reply. Im 16 and im in the UK so my education level would be I'd say avarage for a 16 year old im not clever or anything and the reason im posting on AR is that I want to test my evidence against evolution to see how vaild they are I don't mean to offend anyone in anyway and I try to be as kind as possible. Lastly my question to you is why are people so mean to me I never said anything bad to them I just want a debate and they insult me like I said im not a sponge for insults but its ok I guess I forgive all of them. Much love God bless:Jam
Well, further education is definitely important! Right now, you're basing your opinion on very questionable information. But you're young and just don't know the difference yet. There are folks here who, although they disagree with you, have learned and reviewed much more data than you have. You might want to rethink debating with folks who have so much more experience, information, education, knowledge than you do. I'd suggest you spend some time, sitting back, objectively reviewing as much information as possible and then start to form firmer opinions.
As for what you think is meanness from some folks, it may be that they are simply being blunt or that they have heard the naive arguments you pose so often that they are profoundly weary of them. Chillax, it really isn't personal. And, really, you are the one in charge of whether you let it get to you or not.
My advice to you, as someone old enough to be your grandmother, is get and keep on a journey of discovery. You can learn a lot here. Don't limit yourself by reading only what is on fundie websites. Also, listen to debates between religious folk and atheists...just do so with an open mind and with the purposeful intention of learning.
Learn, jam jam, learn everything you can!
Understood. But I just want to say something you act as if evolution is a proven fact and it must be taught in school also your implying that just because I don't believe in evolution im not as clever as your are. Imagine if I said the same about my belief in God see its not fair please don't be bias just because I don't believe in evolution. Lastly I want to say my opinion. My opinion is I think evolution is not a proven fact I believe its not science lets look at the definition of science shall we: science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. You see those last three words observation and experiment. Do we observe evolution no we don't yes we see fossils in the ground but their fully formed we don't see how they evolved. You don't have enough evidence to say: yep we evolved from a cell in primordial soup 4.3 billion years ago. Also there is so many missing links in the fossil record that you can't say for example: there is no intermediates between ape and man so that must mean that at one point an ape pooped out a human. See doesn't make sense. Lastly the Cambrian explosion. Im going to quote a YouTube video called darwins downfall (you guys should watch it)Documentary: Darwinism's Downfall: http://youtu.be/7IHO-QkmomY
This is not copyrighted so please don't ban me
The Cambrian explosion is a good refutation of evolution aswell. the word Cambrian refers to early period of geological history. Scientist Stephen Meyer Notes: "during this geological period many new and anatomically sophisticated creatures appeared suddenly in the sedimentary layers of the geologic column without any evidence of simpler ancestral forms in the earlier layers below"
(Darwins doubt page 7) If evolution is true and these creatures in the Cambrian evolved from simpler forms the earlyer layers below should contain such forms but they do not this is a serious problem for evolution. Another aspect of the Cambrian explosion is brought up by John d moris "the Cambrian explosion constitutes a major episode in the history of life. If evolution were true, one would expect the record to start with one type of animal life then increase to two and so on. Yet fossil studies have shown that essentially all phyla were present at the start each distinct from the others and each fully equipped to function and survive." "Even vertebrate fish were present in the lower Cambrian......there is no evolutionary tree found in the fossils as Darwin and his disciples have claimed. Rather it is more like a lawn than a tree." (the real nature of the fossil record in creation page 228)
You're just flat incorrect on a couple of counts.
No one 'believes' in evolution. Folks accept it as fact based on the evidence. Saying you don't 'believe in evolution' is equally senseless as someone saying they don't believe in gravity.
Your assertion that there are too many missing links for evolution to be fact is simply a continued movement of the goal posts.
And, by the way, we observe evolution frequently. This is another area for you to study up on.
You also keep connecting abiogenesis with evolution. They are two completely different things. Study up on them.
One more point...an understanding that evolution is fact has exactly ZERO to do with a/theism.
@ Jam Jam
You should not take justified criticism as being insulted. Copying from others, plagiarism, is frowned upon and can even be an infringement for the website. You're obviously new at this, so instead of taking offense, I recommend that you honestly try to take the advise you are given. Formulate your own conclusions, in a much shorter text. Link to other texts if you want, but avoid replicating them, except in smaller quotes.
It's also far from the first time someone gives the arguments that are contained in your original post. Many are fed up with what seems like very uninformed arguments against the Theory of Evolution. It's not as bad as some other theist arguments, like stating "You can't prove that god doesn't exist!", but it's not that far from it either.
If you switch your stance from "attack mode" on the Theroy of Evolution, to asking honest questions (and write your own texts), you'll probably get a completely different reception.
Actually no he did not. As I said before it isn't possible to calculate this number. Consider the following simpler example which has the same difficulty:
Where I live there are strong winds that sometimes blow trash around. I have divided my backyard into 1 meter squares, and I want to know what is the probability that a Snicker's bar wrapper and a Milkyway wrapper will end up in the same square tomorrow. So let's figure that out:
s = the probability of finding a Snickers wrapper in a given 1 meter square.
m = the probability of finding a Milkyway wrapper in a given 1 meter square.
y = the number of square meters in my yard
So the probability of finding both in a given square is s*m
The probability of not finding both in a given square is 1 - s*m
However, that answer isn't the answer to the right question. The question is what is the probablity of finding it in my yard.
The probability of not finding both wrappers in any given square in the yard is [1 - s*m]^y
The probability of finding both wrapper in any given square in the yard is 1 - [1 - s*m)]^y
So Joe comes to you and tells you he calculated it and got the answer is 1% (or 0.01). You want to check Joe's math so you ask him: "what is the value of s, m, and y"? Joe tells you the value of s and m; but says he doesn't know the value of y. At this point you can be 100% confident that Joe is full of shit, because he can not have calculated the value of 1 - [1 - s*m)]^y if he doesn't know the value of y. Additionally, the answer is extremely sensitive to the value of y, change it a little bit and it will change the answer by a great deal.
To bring it back: Stephen Meyer doesn't know the size of the universe (no one does) and that is required to preform this calculation; so we can be 100% sure that Meyer is full of shit.
Oh this one is easy:
No one has ever examined the light from the most distant galaxies. Why? Because the most distant galaxies are receding faster than the speed of light. Their light will never make it to us. Anyone who tells you that light has been measured is full of shit.
The trueorigins page is also misleading it that it implies that popIII stars won't contain metal, which is ludicrous. Of course they will contain metal, they are fusing light elements into heavy elements, so the first time it fuses helium with anything it will contain metal! The important point is they won't contain much metal compared to popII and popI stars. So when you look for a popIII star, you want to look for a star with very low metal content (not zero!).
Another thing that page forgot to mention, is that the further back we do look, less and less metal is seen. Recently an extremely remote galaxy was found that had almost no metallicity.
/e Even more recently a galaxy has been found that seems to contain Population III stars. You can read the technical paper here, or a Wikipedia article here.
What do you think the probability is that trueorigins will correct that page? My guess is 0%.
/e I know you're young, so maybe this argument from trueoriginns makes sense to you; but we've seen this same thing over and over again. The creations scream that the big bang theory predicts X and we haven't seen X yet, therefore the theory must be wrong! Then a few years later X is found. What do the creationists do then? Simple, they scream that the theory predicts Y and we haven't found Y yet, therefore the theory must be wrong! Rinse, repeat. Don't fall for this garbage.
I have more to say but I don't want to edit the post again:
Given how unreliable trueorigins appears to be (and the claims you cited from it), what you do next is very important. Three of the more obvious choices are:
I'll be slightly disappointed and feel slightly foolish for wasting my time on you if you pick B. I will feel like a total idiot if you pick A. I predict you will pick B; but I have hopes you will pick C, even though that will likely cause you some emotional pain. Good luck.
Jam jam, one quick comment regarding something you said above:
"you act as if evolution is a proven fact and it must be taught in school also your implying that just because I don't believe in evolution im not as clever as your are."
You would not accept your teachers telling you that the sun revolves around the earth or that a water molecule is made of gold and platinum atoms. You recognize those things are demonstrably incorrect. If someone doesn't realize that, your response will probably be that they are misinformed or otherwise mistaken, not that they aren't as clever as you. If you care about truth and about that person and you explain the facts you aren't saying the person isn't smart, you're just trying to correct the record.
Individuals who believe the Bible frequently reject all or part of evolution because of conflicts between the two, but that doesn't mean that they are not as intelligent. Many well-spoken smart people have been Christians. If and when they realize that evolution is entirely correct it is not because they become smarter. Instead they simply recognize that they were previously mistaken.
Don't interpret advocacy of teaching sound, provable science as an insult. It is people trying to make sure we teach only what is correct to our fellow humans.
If there's no process of evolution then all life forms pop into existence fully formed. So one day there weren't any blue whales and then there they were. One day there were no humans and zap! They were all over the place. And so on. Imagine walking down the street and a swarm of large bear-like creatures with wings like a huge vulture pops into existence right before your eyes.
Right! JamJam does not believe in evolution because there are "holes" in the theory. But...Before the sun there were plants, before woman there was one lonely man and god performed a surgical procedure removing the mans rib and ..poof a woman. There were talking snakes. Then all the dinosaurs got on a boat with 8 people and here we are!
Jam Jam - If you don't mind me asking.... do you know why the bibles tale of creationism and the theory of evolution by natural selection are incompatible?
From your posts I gather that we are not arguing from the same platform and maybe your understanding of the theory of evolution may be off.
@ Jam Jam
If you do actually want to learn, there is a lot of info available on the web.
This is an example of a series of videos that is not only regarding evolution, but everything regarding the discussion for and against the truth-claim regarding Christianity. It covers a lot of information.
This thread wouldn't exist if we'd stop calling evolution a Theory. The evidence for it piles to the sky and continues to grow. If religious people find it discomforting to hear that their stone age ancestors had simian features, then their perfect god should've made them without ears. I'm tired of this shit.
Great point, SecularSOB! I've wondered if the academic world and scientific community would be better off if it came up with a new term for what we now call proven scientific theories. Our common usage of the word theory rightly includes something as mundane as a guess, but that of course is not what a proven theory is in scientific lingo. By sticking with the word Theory, we allow the water to remain muddy between guesses and established facts. I'd like something that didn't lend itself to such distortion, both intentional and unintentional. The word 'theory' is hopelessly entangled with various meanings and isn't worth the effort to rescue.
@Secular: "This thread wouldn't exist if we'd stop calling evolution a Theory."
I see the word "theory" as a glorious symbol of science. It means that every piece of scientific knowledge is open to challenge based on new evidence. A physics undergraduate can challenge a Nobel laureate if the evidence is there.
What a contrast with the closed-door mentality of religious dogma.