The Theory of Evolution

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
Spewer's picture
"But, abiogenesis, being the

"But, abiogenesis, being the exact opposite of biogenesis, cannot be true at the same time biogenesis is true."

True. Who said they could be true at the same time? I didn't.

"You mean to tell me that you believe it all happened by random chance?"

Not at all. I never said it all happened by random chance. Natural selection and chemistry are not random.

Shock of God's picture
So, you assume they didn't

So, you assume they didn't happen by random chance, what, then, drove these processes?

Spewer's picture
Natural selection and

Natural selection and chemistry, as I stated above.

Shock of God's picture
Then you believe these

Then you believe these processes happened by random chance, that is, they happened with no divine intervention. But, the idea of probability would argue against that.

Spewer's picture
No. Natural selection and

No. Natural selection and chemistry are not random.

Shock of God's picture
So, natural selection and

So, natural selection and chemistry can consciously choose which molecules and proteins to use without surfing through millions, if not billions, of different combinations (as the theory of evolution says) to find the right one? No. They are random processes. They randomly sorted through billions of different combinations to find which traits are good and bad, and which ones should survive and which ones should be discarded. Chemistry and natural selection had no way of knowing which constituents to use to create life, therefore these processes *randomly* sorted through, as I stated above, billions of combinations to find the correct one, and once the correct one was found, why was it kept? What told these processes that it should be kept, that this trait would survive billions of years down the road? How did these processes know? The didn't, but God did.

SammyShazaam's picture
I think you're forgetting how

I think you're forgetting how many planets and solar systems and galaxies exist.

Eventually, given probability and chance alone, there would be at least one that would allow for an environment that would foster life. I'm fairly sure than not all that could do, and I'm fairly sure that most of the possible outcomes wouldn't resemble this one at all.

Given what we know about the multiverse, and the rate of expansion of our knowledge of the multiverse (which can only begin to point out how big it must be) there are more than enough variables out there for what we see on Earth to pretty much have been pure chance.

Of course, in the arbitrary details and minutiae concerning our thoughts, feelings, digestive patterns, whatever, that's all chemistry - and it's *ridiculously* inconsequential when compared to the major phenomena like the birth and death of a sun, who's radiation we essentially rely on to spark life inside the tiny terrarium of atmosphere, even more so compared to the architecture and collapse of galaxies which tether the movement of millions of those suns. As a matter of fact, that's the running joke in the physics department - they handle the big bang, and throw the boring details of what happens on any random planet at the chem geeks.

Shock of God's picture
The majority of extra-solar

The majority of extra-solar system planets are gas giants that orbit extremely close to their stars. These are called "hot jupiters".
Secondly, there are literally one quadrillion factors that need to be taken into account when referring to life having evolved on earth. Also, many atheists claim that the Universe is actually hostile toward life. Well, if this were true, then how could life form so easily on other planets? Also, why have we not detected other life forms out there? It would seem to me that if they were there, we'd see them or hear from them. Note, I do believe in extra-terrestrials, but why did they only come to our ancestors and not us?

Shock of God's picture
I might also add that we ask

I might also add that we ask "what created the Universe" because the Universe had a beginning and this assumes that the Universe was created. God is not finite; He had no beginning and therefore requires no creation. He transcends creation.

samking009's picture
If for one reason I'll accept

If for one reason I'll accept the evolution theory, it will not be that its will be my stubborn attitude to avoid change. There is nothing like the world been created through an evolution. God Created the Universe.

Tman127182's picture
you keep saying "God created

you keep saying "God created the universe", do you have evidence for that claim, or are you just claiming it because you actually don't know and you think the best answer for everything unknown is "God did it", which is by the way, an argument from ignorance. Also it seems you don't understand the difference between the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution.

Shock of God's picture
If you would like to see me

If you would like to see me discuss the creation of the Universe, please refer to the following article:

Samson's picture
This Samking009 looks like a

This Samking009 looks like a troll.But you just can't tell anymore. If He's for real- sound like english is not his first language. Then He doesn;t know what evolution or Big Bang means & mix them. And ofcourse- believes fairy tales are real. Oh...and god did it.Everything.

Trevor's picture
People are always asking,

People are always asking, what was there when there was no universe. But we are simply too primitive as creatures to even understand how the universe was made. But it doesnt mean that the force that created it, is some sort of ego boosted monster that wants all it creates to spend their existence in worship.

131's picture
My limited understanding of

My limited understanding of current big bang theory is that the event created spacetime, so asking what was before is irrelevant as neither time not space existed.

Shawn Giraud's picture
Personaly i feel that theists

Personaly i feel that theists are afraid to admit it. If something that goes against everything they have been taught and believe in is real and their bible is wrong/lying then what esle of that bible is wrong/lying to them about.

Will Rose's picture
When I discuss this topic

When I discuss this topic with my theist (usually christian) friends, the most common attack I recieve is that missing links in human evolution aren't legitimate. For instance, the bones of Lucy (an early example of Australopithecus afarensis), as my friend likes to tell me, could easily be a hoax. This is a response I recieve nearly without fail whenever I discuss this topic. What is there to say to this?

Tman127182's picture
Indeed theists like to argue

Indeed theists like to argue about how whether Lucy and other findings was a transitional form or not. Interesting though, not all creationists can agree one whether the ape bones we found are either human or non-human. Ultimately, the one thing that they will have problems attacking is the genetic evidence for evolution, the genome sequencing. There is more you can see when you go on youtube and search "How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists"

damanar's picture
The main point I try to drive

The main point I try to drive home is that evolution provides testable assertions and gives us predictable results. Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne, is one of the better books on the subject, from a biologist, and there is a youtube video out there where he explains it in a nice hour long lecture. The only problem with the video is that he ridicules religon quite a bit, which would put any theist watching it on the defensive.

You can also ask your friends, that do not accept evolution, if they trust in vaccinations, genetics and cloning. These all stemmed from evolutionary principles and give us applicable technology.

Tiktaalik Rosae, the first tetrapod, was also an interesting discovery. Scientists predicted, by tracing the fossil record, that the fish/amphibian transition would be around 375 million years ago and the fossils would be found in a certain location in northern Canada. The scientists took 6 expeditions in as many years to the location and eventually found it.

131's picture
"It's only a theory" is the

"It's only a theory" is the usual argument. But a theory that stands up to rigorous examination, has outcomes and predictions based on scientific fact. Despite many attempts to discredit it, no other arguments stand up.

mysticrose's picture
I'm a theist, but I believe

I'm a theist, but I believe in the theory of evolution and big bang. The god that I believe is not someone that came from the bible. It seems that this god worked his wonder in such a way that human/ intellectual beings can eventually discover the ways everything evolved. The question is, who allowed such non-coincidental events. It's the force that is beyond our mind can see, explain and apprehend. It's god.

SammyShazaam's picture
There was a rather nice play

There was a rather nice play written about the induction of the theory of evolution into the southern (US) school system, and the trial (separation of church and state, another huge lie, lol) included a good explanation of how the two theories could exist simultaneously. I wish I could remember it - if I do I'll come back and post. It's short - not that anyone who actually reads the Bible would be afraid of thick books, but a lot of theists are!

Anyway, in theory, God could very well have created man, and the entire universe, through creation. "7 Days" is a relative time period, being that it relies on the rotation of a sun, and since the sun wasn't created until the 4th day, those first 4 days could have been however millennia long it took for us to evolve. Furthermore, being the universe as it is, we have no idea who's sun God counted his days by. There's many different forms of star systems out there. Some result in endless day, others days that last for what would be years of ours, some planets rapidly spin with a speed that would destroy us and have days that would fit in our hour.

Of course, theists have historically not thought about that kind of thing at all. It takes an atheist with an impartial eye to properly argue God's case.

Shock of God's picture
I, as a Christian, do accept

I, as a Christian, do accept the theory of evolution. I accept it because it can be tested, has been tested, and has been shown to be true. However, that are many flaws and unanswered areas of the theory of evolution. In my opinion, this is where God steps in. There are some things that can be answered by divinity. I believe that life itself rose from divinity, that life is a form of divinity; God breathed the first breath of life onto the Universe. You see, evolution does not tell us how we get life, it merely explains what happens once you have life.

Spewer's picture
"There are some things that

"There are some things that can be answered by divinity."

Not just some things... ANYTHING can be answered by divinity. All you have to do is throw in omnipotence, and *poof* - nothing is impossible.

Of course, you then lose your ability to distinguish fantasy from reality.

Shock of God's picture
If anything can be answered

If anything can be answered by divinity, then why do we bother having the laws of physics and thermodynamics? Why don't we just throw up our hands and declare "God did it!"? Can *you* tell me how life formed via a process that is not abiogenesis? Probably not. Who can? The theist.

Spewer's picture
"If anything can be answered

"If anything can be answered by divinity, then why do we bother having the laws of physics and thermodynamics?"

Well, divinity is simply not enough for many of us. And we don't "bother having" them. They exist independently of us. We just put them into words to help explain our mental model of how the universe works.

Shock of God's picture
And God exists independently

And God exists independently of anything and everything. And the laws don't really exist independently of us, as there only a way for us to interpret the way our Universe acts, and they actually many change. We don't know yet; but God will never change. God is, was, and always will be.

PsychoSarah's picture
Just because we do not

Just because we do not understand everything doesn't mean god has to be what fits in the blanks. What would you do if, in the future, we could fully disprove god? You would still call it flawed, no matter what, because that isn't what you want to believe, and humans are resistant to changing their ideas. But, no matter what people believe, what happens after death, and what is within reality will not change, so why do you give a crap what we believe? If your god exists, our lack of belief isn't going to change that, nor is your belief going to have an impact if it turns out there is no god. So why don't you drop this already, because you aren't convincing anyone, and you will not be convinced.

Pathway Machine's picture
During the dark ages in order

During the dark ages in order to be taken seriously on an intellectual or academic scale you had to be a serious student of theology and astrology. Children were forced to learn the Biblical misinterpretation of the church state. Eventually, of course, the people rebelled and rejected such nonsense to learn for themselves. Now, it is the turn of the failed metaphysical experiment known as the theory of evolution. Each should have their turn.

When I look for the solution to a problem I often develop more than one hypothesis or possibility in order not to limit my thinking to one single possibility. There is the answer to your question. Evolution, to the unbeliever, supports their own world view where they are justified in their thinking. If it supported the creation account the atheists would reject it and the theists would embrace it.

Zaphod's picture
What I try to do is look at

What I try to do is look at things from two extremely opposite points of view, but with so many possibilities between there still remains many many way to look at things or any one thing at all. One could spend an eternity thinking of different ways to view, or interpret, explain, or feel about any one thing the possibilities are endless and even compoundable. The fact that you take time to look at things from more than one hypothesis or possibility when looking for the solution to a problem makes you better than many many people as many are one sided.

I was luck enough to have a father who taught me that extreme points of view were important in order to keep in check the opposing extreme point of view and that people don't get such extreme points of view from nowhere. He said try to understand all extreme points of view in any argument or problem because the solution that works best is likely to be a blend and filtration of all points of view. Keep in mind though that extreme points of view are not always loud and the quietest person around such arguments or problems is like to have an extreme point of view as well.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.