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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Yes , John , I know the difference between Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution. You have my permission to assume that about me and then decipher my statements in that context. You will then see it is just lose phrasing. But I see that you have finally admitted that something evolved, whales in this case.
It's not loose phrasing. The word "evolved" should never be followed by the words "to" "so" or "because" in the same sentence.
But fine, if it is loose phrasing then rephrase it for me, kind sir. What did you mean to say?
In my book, "Chimp's World" , "to" is acceptable when referring to the results of the process of natural selection. When a whale is selected because it out competes other whales, and that ensuing line of selected traits creates whales that eat krill and other whales that kill and eat sharks, the process has tangible results. There is nothing in my statement that is Lamarckian or hinting that evolution has any intent.
If that's how you intended it then fine. But no more loose phrasing from now on.
You have no idea how loose I can get.
@John 61X Breezy: "The word "evolved" should never be followed by the words "to"...."
You're right about that. Evolution isn't a purposeful process leading to specific goals. It's a combination of chance events (mutations, environmental changes) and natural selection.
New Zealand was cut off from other land masses before the evolution of mammals, so there were no mammalian predators to hunt birds. Slow-moving birds with weak wings and a tendency to nest on the ground were not culled by foxes, etc., and were able to survive and prosper. Hence the kiwi, takahe, weka, pukeko, etc. Then human beings arrived. Some of them liked to wear kiwi feather cloaks. Others brought rats, dogs, cats, stoats, and foxes to New Zealand. The environment changed. Kiwis are now nearly extinct. Maybe mutant kiwis will emerge with characteristics that allow them to fight this predation. If so they'll survive and prosper as the new mainstream kiwi species. Otherwise they'll all die. That's evolution. Only humans care about it.
Back when I used to be atheist and had no idea how evolution worked.
---------------------------------------
On 09/10/2016 - 18:05, you were paying lip service to belief in god (and presumably were a Christian):
---------------------------------------
On 09/10/2016 - 22:37 you made the statement about evolution leading to the best and brightest (which you now claim you made while you were an atheist).
---------------------------------------
36 minutes later (09/10/2016 - 23:13) you were presumably a Christian (you told us you were a creationist).
---------------------------------------
So you want us to believe you were an atheist for what, 5 hours? Just long enough to make that statement? My bullshit meter is exploding.
As a rule of thumb. Whenever I say something retarded, its because I converted to atheism for that brief period of time.
Oh really? You must have been an atheist that day you told us all doesn't mean all.
@John: "As a rule of thumb. Whenever I say something retarded, its because I converted to atheism for that brief period of time."
LOL. You have atheist moments like some people have senior moments. Is that it?
If you didn't know how evolution worked then; why did you spend pages trying to tell us how it works? And what makes you think you know about it now; considering your constant appeal to cartoon versions of it?
You're Trump with Hillary's emails. Whenever you're losing an argument you bring up the same old messages, this is like the 20th time.
Maybe you're too old, but my generation calls this type of behavior being salty. Learn what it means, and start acting your age.
Call it what you want. But if you don't think your previous comments on subject A, should affect how people judge your current comments on subject A; you live in a fantasy world. Based on your past performance; anything you say about evolution should be considered suspicious.
You should consider what ppl say suspicious regardless of previous performance, that's just common sense.
However, I do expect ppl to address and refute my current arguments, and not revert back to a conversation I had a year ago as a scapegoat for their inability to do so. Again, more common sense.
I've stood by those comments, I've explain what I meant, I've clarified them ad nauseum. That battle is over, it's dead, we never agreed and never will. Move on with your life.
The whale has a large head so it can filter hundreds of gallons of water for it's food.
Hi John 6,
I think it is interesting that if nobody believes in a god, that god withers to irrelevance. In contrast, mutation, natural selection and evolution have been happening since the first group of cells held a convention and decided that this life thing had possibilities.
Hence I am not going to try to convince you that evolution is real; I will just say that it is ongoing and will carry on fine without any human mind wishing it into existence.
"evolution have been happening since the first group of cells... it is ongoing and will carry on fine without any human mind wishing it into existence.
Funny where have I heard this line of reasoning before? Hmm. Oh yeah: "Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain... they will pass away, but you are the same." -Ps.102:26
Stahp plagiarizing lol
Heh, speaking of a book that does some major plagiarizing...
Just about every major religion/holy book has plagiarized off each other and the religions before. All the way back to ancient Egyptians. (Some of the earliest found recordings of human created god ideas.)
Interesting, you take part of a sentence of mine out of context and generate a grammatical error.
"And the deniers shall pass away and knoweth not their error." Bs. 99:42
"out of context and generate a grammatical error"
Cry me a river
A nice reference there by John, But could someone tell me which of the following is the correct word of the invisible sky fairy?
http://biblehub.com/psalms/102-26.htm
Over 20 different interpretations, and theists wonder why atheist refer to anecdotal evidence as total bollocks...
Food for thought chaps!
Its pick-a-part religion. When you need version 1 for your argument, grab it and use it. When version 1 gets you into hot water in a different argument, put it back on the rack and pickup version 2, 3, or 4. Then for bonus points: claim the atheists aren't objective.
Well said sir, it's like one of those piss poor infomercials... "by the super mop that reaches every possible corner of your home... for those hard to reach spots you'll get the extendo-pole!!!! And if that is not cutting it, we will throw in the extendo-pole golden cock 2000!!! All yours for $69, plus your mental faculties and intellectual integrity!!!"
Than this big body whales must came from small size fish before it, no? Any reason why "that" particular small size fish increased itself in size and not the other / others?
And also, logically the evolution should also applies both ways, where the disadvantaged large size animals shrink their bodies for the survival. Does this make sense? It's been many news about stranded whales on the beach.
No because a whale isn't a bloody fish... jeez read a book chap!
.... no not that one!!!!
I am sorry for being un academic. In the street I live in we refer any animal living in the water as "fish" and animals which fly in the air as "bird". But alright I will not use the word fish.
So according to the evolution theory the whale was small creature in the past as the rest of the sea population. Growing into huge size must have reason. Since the Brazilian geckos is an example in this thread as how the evolution works, it does make sense to understand the reason for the whale size - considering the size of the food they are taking now it seems not the reason.
@Zwalja: "So according to the evolution theory the whale was small creature in the past as the rest of the sea population"
I think whales started out 50 million years ago as wolf-like land mammals that learned to swim and catch fish. The ones that were best at swimming and catching fish prospered and had more offspring. Eventually they adapted to the point where they didn't go back to land at all. But they still need to breathe air. As far as their size is concerned, I'm guessing that they bigger they are, the better they are able to handle deep-sea cold and pressure. So the bigger ones could dive deeper and get more food and were thus able to have more offspring.
There are also big animals that got much smaller, such as pygmy mammoths. This has happened to many species in island environments, so it's called "island dwarfism." It's another example of how animals are shaped by their environments over many generations.
"I think whales started out 50 million years ago as wolf-like..."
Hey! Its our job to believe in fairy-tales lol. Stop stealing our stereotypes.
Pages