A question for theists...
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.
You said: Indeed, in that post, I've exposed both the vacuity and the hypocrisy inherent in "design" apologetics on a grand scale.
Please give the link to that post or present a summary of your arguments so I can be enlightened.
You said:  understands the gigantic internal contradiction inherent in "design" apologetics. I don't expect you to be in a position to understand this either, though you could always provide evidence to the contrary if you think you're up to the challenge.
Please do furnish that gigantic contradictions.
You said: “Moreover, the reason that organic chemistry is the discipline responsible for origin of life theories, is quite simple - life is chemistry writ large.”
Yes, life is chemistry. But the puzzle regarding life has more to do with ‘information’ than chemistry. To be more clear, it’s not so much the chemicals that’s hard to fathom, rather it’s their arrangement. Studying about ink will not tell you how a poem was written… for that you need to understand the process that led to the arrangement of the words in the poem.
You said: I have a nice paper in my collection, documenting the application of evolutionary algorithms to spacecraft antenna design….”
Evolutionary algorithms differ from the Darwinian model in some very fundamental ways. One of them is that these models work towards an end goal set by the programmer. Whereas, to give that attribute to nature is too great a foresight you are placing on a blind undirected process.
You said: As for your assertion that the emergence of the first living cell is "an unfathomable conundrum", well this is bullshit too, and I've provided a fairly comprehensive overview of much of the recent work in the field here.
The Miller-Urey experiment makes some assumptions meant to facilitate the emergence of life’s building blocks. Hydrogen was included and oxygen was taken out of the mixture just to attain this end. While the early earth’s gravity would have been too weak to hold on to hydrogen, and oxygen must have been present, especially since water vapor was there. So with hiccups in the very first step, the rest of the processes are called into question as well. Even if you make that leap of faith, the rest of the hypothesis still leaves much to desire. The RNA world hypothesis, while it’s the best naturalistic explanation available, is still far from perfect.
You said: “For example, from the world of entomology, which I've spent some time studying, there exist species of Carabid beetles whose wings are fully functional, but which will never use them for flight.”
Let me make my argument clear to you. What I am saying is that we find specified complexity or information (arrangement of primitive parts in a specified order) in nature. This is an observable fact. From there I deduce, that we only know of one source of information and that is intelligence. Now, if I were to accept the Carabid beetle example as proof for a flawed design, it would only show that the intelligence that gave rise to it was perhaps not so intelligent. If the Challenger Spacecraft crashed into the earth due to a design flaw, it does not mean that the spacecraft was not designed at all. It only means that the designer made some mistake. However, if that intelligence is God, then I agree, it’s supposed to be perfect. But then what is perfect depends on the overall scheme of things. You don’t have to go all the way to beetles and other cretins to show this. Every mutation is an example of design flaw, one can argue. Because mutations are copying errors – and if god had designed the copying mechanism, it’s not supposed to go wrong. Therefore, every cancer patient is a walking testimony of a poor designer. But what if the designer had meant it to be that way, because in his scheme of things life is not supposed to be perfect – suffering has a moral ontological purpose perhaps! Secondly, as in the case of appendix and the ass-back wiring of the eye, probably there is a function behind apparent design flaws that we are yet to uncover.
You said: specified complexity…Which has been demonstrated time and again in the scientific literature, to arise via testable natural processes, without any magic intervention.
Yes, provided you make all these sweeping assumptions.
You said: “I destroyed creationist canards about "information" comprehensively in this previous post.”
I appreciate your putting out links. They are indeed useful. But can I ask you a favor? Would it be possible for you to summarize the argument and put it in let’s say a few condensed bullet points, so it’s easier to comprehend the points without trawling through a lot of literature. Just a suggestion. Anyways, I will go through the papers and make up my mind.
You said: The results of that test, as I cover in detail in this exposition of that paper, demonstrate that UCA is the best fit to the observational data by a massive margin
Again some literature to trawl through. Will have a read and respond.
You said: “Convergence is an observed fact. Or have you not noticed how different vertebrate groups that acquired wings, had a habit of acquiring similar structures? The data says it happened.”
What is observed is the existence of similar features in two distantly related species – like camera eyes in humans and octopus! I don’t dispute that. But what is not observed is their chance emergence through a series of similar accidents through two evolutionary pathways that are totally unrelated. According to the theory, convergence is not the result of common descent,, right? So, here you see how one assumption (common descent) gets modified with another assumption (convergence) in order to save the theory. But the observed existence of similar traits in unrelated species should have actually falsified the hypothesis of common descent.
You said: Oh wait, Douglas Theobald provided a 100,000 word dissertation containing explicit statements of what it would take to falsify evolutionary theory. Go and fucking read it.
That’s more literature .Will try to find the time to go through it. But thanks for all the links anyways. I am sure I will have much to learn from them. Similarly with the link regarding Behe’s irreducible complexity.
The point creationists always seem to miss is that even if evolution were entirely falsified tomorrow, creationism remains unevidenced woo woo, complete hokum, superstitious myth, nothing more. So these asinine denials of scientific facts are doubly idiotic as this line of argument is the very definition of a false dichotomy fallacy, as it's not a choice limited to either evolution or creationism.
One is a scientific theory evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, the other has no evidence at all to support it. Just the usual cliched appeal to ignorance fallacies.
You do understand what objective evidence is right? It's evidence that is outside of the mind, that can be tested and get the same results. Do you understand what subjective evidence is? It's evidence that exist only in the mind. All you faithfools have is subjective evidence that a god exist. None of you have ever given any objective evidence that a god is real.
"You do understand what objective evidence is right? It's evidence that is outside of the mind, that can be tested and get the same results"
Umm, I've not seen any evidence of that.
Do you think it might be because English is a second language for what's his name? I really do want to be fair, but that howler about genetics and apparent total ignorance of evolution has made that a lot harder.
" None of you have ever given any objective evidence that a god is real."
Of course not. That's because there is none. To date, the question of the existence of god remains unfalsifiable.
Nope, he does not.
The presence of water molecules does not in any way infer the presence of oxygen molecules. Another high-school chemistry fail from a creationist. Anyone surprised by that?
Oh look. Time to raid the ordnance bunker again ...
Already dealt with creationist canards about "information" here. Did you read that?
Oh, you think magic is needed for this? Hmm, tell that to the world's organic chemists.
Bad analogy time.Yawn.
Already covered that in detail here.
Oh really? Hmm, this is going to be good ...
Actually, what happens is that the fitness criteria are selected artificially instead of naturally. At any time, those fitness criteria can be changed, and indeed, one of the more interesting aspects of evolutionary algorithm theory, is what happens when such changes are implemented.
And here we go with the apologetics again.
Fitness criteria exist whenever  replicating entities exist, and  the success of those replicating entities at producing copies, is subject to definable factors present in the environment. The sum total of those definable factors is the fitness landscape. The fun part being, of course, that said success of those replicating entities can act to modify the fitness landscape. Ecologists have been aware of this for decades.
Wrong. What actually happened, if you read the actual paper, is that the chemical composition of the gases in the experiment was formulated to replicate what was then known about the composition of the atmosphere of the early Earth. This wasn't an "assumption", it was a decision based on data. Indeed, the original paper opens with these words:
Indeed, one of the reasons that the early Earth was regarded as having an atmosphere devoid of molecular oxygen gas, was because the earliest dateable strata contain banded iron formations, which can only form as sedimentary strata in the absence of molecular oxygen. The differential solubility of iron compounds in water, according to whether or not molecular oxygen is present, has been known by inorganic chemists for some time.
Wrong. The decision to formulate the chemical composition of the gases in the apparatus, was taken so as to replicate what was considered at that time to be the atmospheric composition of the early Earth, based upon data available then. Your insinuation that the composition was manipulated to achieve a desired end result a priori is duplicitous. Not least because the experimenters did not know in advance if the experiment would be successful, even with the gas composition chosen. However, it transpired, when Miller's samples were analysed after his death, using modern GS-MS tools, that Miller's original claim to have found just five amino acids in the samples was an underestimate. Modern analysis revealed that 22 amino acids were found. But, of course, back in 1952, Miller didn't have access to 21st centry GC-MS analysis.
You do realise there's a considerable chemical difference between water and molecular oxygen? Oh, and by the way, water is present in a ubiquitous fashion in the universe. Its presence in interstellar gas clouds has been detected spectroscopically, and in quantity. Molecular oxygen, on the other hand, is a considerably rarer species, not least because it is reactive, and forms compounds with a wide range of other chemical species readily, the moment it comes into contact with those species.
Big fucking deal. This in itself doesn't point to an imaginary magic man poofing things into existence. You do realise that such assemblages can arise via testable natural processes, and demonstrably so?
You mean assert. There exist demonstrably beneficial mutations.
That's a fucking huge assumption straight out of the gate. And one that is in direct contravention to the assertions of creationists and the ID brigade. Indeed, several of them would regard you as a heretic for suggesting this.
On the other hand, the emergence of relevant structures from testable natural processes, far from requiring "sweeping assumptions" as you assert, has been demonstrated to take place time and time again. Appearance of novel features in living organisms is the subject of thousands of relevant papers documenting this - everything from de novo genes and their gene products, to the emergence of entire anatomical features, such as, for example, the emergence of quantifiable morphological changes in the digestive tracts of Croatian lizards transplanted to a new island. I have the relevant papers. There's also a nice paper in my collection demonstrating how evolution can reverse previously instantiated changes, when the requisite fitness criteria change.
If I can exert the effort required to peruse 4,000 scientific papers in detail over a decade, you can exert the effort to read a few posts.
You need to get out more. The actual scientific literature documents this occurring with respect to numerous features of interest. The eye evolution literature alone runs to about 20,000 papers.
Poppycock. What magic process exists to prevent two lineages from acquiring similar features?
@Calilasseia: Such Patients! And then you let lose! I love your posts regardless but when you begin to get raw, they are exceptionally entertaining. The contradiction of the eloquence and the fucking contradiction of language just makes me smile! As cool and calm as most of your posts appear to be, it just lets me know you are human and feeling the same level of frustration as the rest of us when dealing with the utterly and annoyingly obtuse.
@Cog and Cali Re: "The contradiction of the eloquence and the fucking contradiction of language just makes me smile!"
Gee, Cog, I hate to be the one to rain on your parade, but according to Royism and a couple of other notable theists who grace us with their presence from time to time, the use of expletives and vulgar language does nothing but detract from a person's argument and undermine the credibility and intellect of the writer.... *eyes fluttering rapidly*... *awaking as if from a trance*... *reading previous sentence*... What.... the... HELL??? Who wrote that shit?!? Who gives a flying FUCK what Royism and other theists of his ilk think???... *sudden look of worry*... Uh-oh! HELP!.... *panicking*... I think I've been possessed by a theist demon! Quick! Somebody call and exorcist!
@Tin: I will be the first to assert that an expletive or two do nothing at all lessen the veracity of anything Cali contends. Complaining about expletives is simply a theistic diversion as they have no legitimate confutation of anything Cali has to say. Using expletives is a reflection of how one says something and not of what they have to say.
Oh, sure! Naturally! Taking up for all the foul-mouthed atheists here, I see. NEVER in my life have I EVER seen such an uncouth group of primitive barbarians with the manners and social etiquette of wild boars in heat!... *fanning self dramatically*... Oh, dear, I feel flush.... *dabbing brow with hankie*.... You have the audacity to call yourselves INTELLIGENT??? When EVERY civilized and proper person KNOWS that using profanity is a CLEAR sign of an individual's mental deficiencies, along with an inadequate vocabulary and lack of moral upbringing.
So, Mr. Monkey Man, you just continue to defend your clan of illiterate imbeciles, because those of us in a civilized world simply do not give a damn abou-... *hand over mouth quickly*... *eyes wide with shock*... Oh-my-goodness-gracious! I mean, we do not give a shit ab-... *hand back over mouth*... *sweat forming on brow*... Dear-oh-dear... We don't give a FUCK a-... *mouth tightly closed*... *jaw clenched*... *eyes tightly shut*... *starting to hyperventilate*.... *hands waving frantically at shoulder level*... No-no-no-no-no-no-nooooo...!... *wailing voice*... This can't be happening! You've infected me with your evil heathen voo-doo curse-word black magic! You sorry fuckers! Woe is meeeee!
(Revised slightly for better effect.)
Please explain how complexity evidences design? Are simple things not designed then? Also assuming that ID were not unevidenced superstitious woo woo, how does it evidence any deity?
Evolution is established fact. No argument .
An observation about evolution. (not mine). Nature is a lousy engineer. In nature, 'good enough' tends to be good enough.
A couple of examples:
The dragonfly nymph breathes through its anus
"This tiny insect, barely larger than a grain of rice, is a baby mayfly (a mayfly nymph). It spends the first years of its life entirely submerged, then crawls up into the air, and flies off. We couldn’t help wonder, how does it breathe down there?
If we opened our air passages (our nose and mouth) in a tub of water we wouldn’t last a minute. We’d drown. In some (less friendly) circles, this is called ‘waterboarding’, but you can’t waterboard a mayfly nymph. Dunked, it breathes easily. It’s solved this problem. But how?
The solution is looking right at you. If we move in a little closer, notice what looks like a set of feathery objects, protruding out on this animal’s left and right, down toward its butt…"
There are was also a creature which lacked an anus.
" A huge mouth and no anus – this could be our earliest known ancestor
This article is more than 2 years old
Thought to have lived 540 million years ago, the discovery of Saccorhytus coronarious fossils sheds light on the early stages of evolution"
Those designs work, which is all that is required of evolution. The designs of many things in nature show no evidence of anything approaching an intelligent design. It's function over form
I have been asked "if there was a god and you stood in judgement, what would you say?"
God, why the fuck did you put Disneyland right next to a toxic dump?
If there ever was a reason for intelligent design, don't place the genitals next to the anus.
oh dear Jo, not a good fucking start is it.
Liar, I've never made either claim. Jesus Jo, do you think people won't check back. I've include time and date, and those posts are on page 1 and 2 of this thread for all to see. As is my original request for links to posts where atheists made those claims, and you have not provided a single one Jo.
It's also clear that you lied when you later claimed I had said science can answer every question, and then tried to weasel out of it by pretending my claim that science is demonstrable the best method we have for understanding reality is remotely the same claim.
Nor did you remotely answer my OP questions, just gave a list of things derived from your religious beliefs, and some that we can objectively evidence.
Rank dishonesty Jo.
You are confusing two statements.
When I said "I never said it was a direct quote form you."
I was referring to what you said about science and reality.
1 and 3 are quotes form you.
You routinely ask for objective evidence of God. Am I wrong about that?
I don't recall you ever answering the question.
Can objective evidence be provided to prove or disprove (demonstrate, validate, or whatever word you think is correct) God?
I asked you to explain what you mean by "science is demonstrable the best method we have for understanding reality."
I don't recall you ever answering that question. Isn't "reality" everything?
You seem to be more interested in trying to prove I am a liar than discussing the evidence and the arguments.
Is it just some sort of competition to you? If so, you won.
Now can we get back to the evidence and arguments?
What evidence have you given for a god existing?
I have posted on why I believe and what I think is compelling evidence on previous occasion.
I don't want to be redundant, but here is some of what I have given.
I will leave off person experience and other reasons that are more subjective.
The universe and life evidences to me a purpose.
Its existence, laws, beauty, grandeur, immeasurable size, its logic, and the ability to comprehend it, all cause me to conclude a creator, and something about this creator.
Life and the universe existing by some massively improbable happenstance, seems like a denial of the obvious to me.
The human condition of desiring to create.
Our desire for such things like mercy, love, justice, compassion, heaven, purpose, meaning, and truth, point me to something that embodies and fulfills those qualities.
When I see a new born baby, a sunset, a supernova or a spec of sand, I see evidence of God.
Because there is something rather than nothing.
The universe and life itself look like it was designed
This indicates to me a designer.
The universe looks rigged.
The universe being logical and rational.
This indicate purpose, meaning, and a logical mind behind it all.
It is the complete answer that encompasses everything and not just a narrow examination of some of the evidence.
The need for a cause, fine tuning, reasoning, nature and humans reflecting God.
The improbability of all the extremely unlikely events occurring that has led us to this point.
Because it answers the difficult questions in life in a way that makes sense out of life.
It is the best match for what I have observed, what I have learned, and what I have experienced.
It is where the evidence and reasoning has led me.
What makes you think your god created anything?
Do you mean why I think the God of the Bible created everything, as apposed to some other God?
I am not clear on what you are asking.
You don't know which god I'm asking about? Your god, the one you worship.
Oh dear. So many canards in one short block of text.
I'll deal with just one for now, as I have to retire to bed.
"Fine tuning" is a myth. We are here because the laws of physics permitted our existence, and the relevant physically permitted interactions took place in the past. To think otherwise is to commit the Douglas Adams' Puddle fallacy. In short, you have the whole process backwards.
You've offered no objective evidence at all Jo. The sloppy cliches aside, you are using an irrational argument based an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and an argument from incredulity fallacy, also I'd say you've used a third common logical fallacy called begging the question.
If you find these arguments so compelling it's odd to me you need to ignore the fallacies each time I point them out. This infers a closed mind Jo, what is it you fear in learning about these fallacies, and what ot means for arguments using them?
Oh dear Jo, dear oh dear Jo...your posts offer nothing but personal subjective experience and opinion, not onexshred of objective evidence offered in support of your conclusions. Your arguments as well as being irrational, get you no closer to the christian deity than they do to the Aztec deity of gluttony. In fact your rationale might as easily infer a completely unknown agent, invisible pixies for example, that conclusion has as much evidence and explanatory powers as yours.
Can you prove invisible pixies didn't do it Jo?
See appeal to ignorance fallacies, and unfalsifiable ideas are easy to create Jo. That's why humans have created so many deities in their own image, to reflect their ideas and beliefs and plug the gaps in our knowledge.
"Because it answers the difficult questions in life in a way that makes sense out of life.
It is the best match for what I have observed, what I have learned, and what I have experienced.
It is where the evidence and reasoning has led me."
So your best reasoning, based on the study of the universe we live in, is to make a claim about the existence of a realm beyond our ability to study it and belief in a being that is beyond the structure of the universe and can't be limited by space or time?
Yep, makes perfect sense to me.
"So your best reasoning, based on the study of the universe we live in, is to make a claim about the existence of a realm beyond our ability to study it and belief in a being that is beyond the structure of the universe and can't be limited by space or time?"
I did not say it was beyond our ability to study it.
Do you mean to make scientific studies of God?
"I did not say it was beyond our ability to study it."
No, I inferred it from your post. If wrong, please advise on how we can study it. It would be really cool to win a Nobel.
"Do you mean to make scientific studies of God?"
Do you mean to just make claims that can't be falsified? Do you care at all if what you believe is true or even could be true?
Do you understand that if enough gas and dust gathered, and formed into a sun, if that cloud was large enough, it would (after living a short life) become the devourer of life and planets, a black hole? Do you understand the explanation that this universe will experience a heat death, that eventually all the lights would go out?
I have confused nothing, those are the three claims you duplicitously keep assigning to me. I have never made any such claims, and it is you who on your first post derailed my thread OP questions. So another lie from you, I'm not trying to prove you a liar Jo as that is manifest above, and sadly in many of your posts where dishonesty is a defining characteristic. If you desist from lying, I will desist from pointing it out.
Now please stop lying about what I have said, or link a post of mine where I have made those claims. Then link each of your 17 claims to posts of atheists making them Jo.
Then finally give a candid answer to my two thread OP questions for ten examples respectively, as the 6 you offered were all either part of your religious beliefs, or could be evidenced objectively as I have shown previously. Which I specifically said I did not want in the OP.
Jo omitted much of the OP question, so here it is verbatim...ten beliefs they hold without any objective evidence, and that are nothing to do with their religion.
Yes they can, how is this not objectively evidenced?
Religious dogma see OP question above
Religious dogma see OP question above
Sigh, more religious dogma see OP question above
Minds can be objectively evidenced free will is part of your religious dogma see OP question above
Religious (creationist) dogma again see OP question above
Fucking hilarious 6 examples not ten, and not one of them answering the thread OP question, again see omitted part of question above. Also Jo doesn't pretend to answer the second question?
Firstly you've not given one single example to satisfy either question, secondly the question clearly doesn't apply to atheism as it does to theism, as atheism is not a belief, but the lack or absence of one, however it gets worse from Jo as we'll see
So I get 6 failures from Jo out of twenty, and Jo then demands I answer 17 claims or beliefs I've never made and don't hold, and he then talks of fairness.
I suggest Jo, you go back and read the OP properly, stop this tedious and fallacious word game you keep playing to equate atheism as having a burden of proof, and either admit there are no beliefs outside of your religious beliefs you hold that you can demonstrate no objective evidence for, or list ten of them. Then list ten objectively moral actions, or admit there are no such things.
STOP MAKING UP LIES about atheism to obfuscate away from the thread OP questions you have failed to answer. Also recognise that what one atheist claims doesn't change what atheism means, it's the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
These faithfools can't provide objective evidence for their gods. These faithfools can never answer your questions.