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.
Michal Syvanen among others.
There are plenty and many papers and studies. I remember one study that involved 400 scientists ... let us just say that the conclusions at the end of that study were disappointing from a classical evolutionary stand point.
Yeah that's the problem the data isn't matching the current theory that is pretty much dogma at this point and so there will have to be adjustments or it will be a big rip.
Former atheist "There are only two possibilities"
Correct
1) Evolution has been falsified.
2) Evolution has not been falsified.
1) Just an unevidenced post making a claim by a creationist favouring his superstitious beliefs.
2) The entire scientific world.
Who to believe....Nothing on any news channels? I'm going to go with the entire scientific world then.
FA, do you have a source showing where Michal Syvanen said those words?
Fake quote is fake.
I suspect you’re correct, Nyar. Now it’s up to FA to either produce evidence of it or admit he lied. You ‘spose either will happen?
Just for fun.
LOL
I really don't get your link Nyar please explain.
The Google-bot crawls the web, non-stop, archiving the text that it finds so you can search it. The only reference it has to the quote "The tree of life is ripped to shreds" is from this very thread (a post from FormerAtheist). A very strong indicator that the quote is a fake, created by FormerAtheist.
Is there a more woefully idiotic argument than complexity requiring a deity to create it. Then insisting the vastly more complex deity does not.
Do you even know what the term special pleading means? Look it up ffs, your posts are nothing more than the parroting of ill-informed juvenile cliches.
Why are creationists not embarrassed by the bilge they espouse?
@FormerAtheist
I am sorry to tell you that you are not clear about mutations and their role in evolution. Mutation starts even before the embrionic stage, right at the reproductive cells. The ova and sperm carry the mutations and, for your information, the DNA copying is never 100% perfect so EVERY organism carries mutations. We humans usually carry about 60 mutations each. Mutations which are too severe impede the embryo to be born or the newborn to survive, some are damaging to the survival and others are beneficial but most of the mutaions are neither and allow the carrier to live like nothing under the given environmental situation (Or we all will be dead) , these are called neutral mutations and are only revealed useful or inconvenient when there is a change in the environment.
You should study before making assertions about a field you do not know about.
I am not even going to go into the complexity issue which is a clear argument from ignorance. (If I do not know how it came about then it has to be magic)
FormerAtheist,
I take it that you don't read scientific magazines or watch scientific programs of a general nature. If you did you would know that the basic idea of biological evolution is a fact of life, as much a fact as the sun rising tomorrow. On the subject of evolution your ignorance is really glaring! Where did you get the idea that scientists still use the 1859 model that Darwin developed? His central idea of natural selection is more solid than ever and is the core of modern-day biological evolution. Many of his observations are still sound and even ingenious, but there has been vast progress in the ensuing 159 years! The concept of Darwin's biological evolution underlies a great deal of scientific research around the world today. The latest developments of the "evolutionary bush" (often referred to as a "tree") may be found on various university websites and other places. Once again you demonstrate a glaring ignorance of the subject in saying that "The tree of life is ripped to shreds..." DNA is one of the best modern-day supports for "the tree of life" which I call "the evolutionary bush." You don't have a clue as to what the general picture is, and it seems you are either lost in one of those fake science sites or else have confused changes in the evolutionary bush with its destruction.
"Outside intelligence"? You're talking gibberish! You envision some model of the universe that exists only in your fantasies. There might be an "outside" but it will hardly match your simplistic idea. You actually have to know something about physics and the universe to speak intelligently on the subject. And, we still have the problem of God's origin. Who made God? If some things don't need an origin then we will bet our chips on spacetime and energy. At least we can measure space, matter, and energy. They are real enough. That makes it a better answer than "God" which is unverifiable.
"The tree of life is ripped to shreds..." DNA is one of the best modern-day supports for "the tree of life" which I call "the evolutionary bush."
Interesting quote ... actually fascinating. Because the beginning of that quote is not my words but the words of scientists that used genetic testing to try and do constructive work on the tree of life but were left with the reality that the "DNA" evidence actually rips it to shreds.
Your right I do not spend nearly as much time watching the scientific programs or magazines they will mostly just gloss over things and over simplify things. They will also have to conform to the way of thinking of ... well society. I would rather read the actual science papers and read books that's where the dirt is. While there has been an evolution of evolutionary theory its not nearly enough. It now holds to strongly for example to the idea of universal descent. This is a problem we are finding when the evidence isn't lining up right. One scientist even admitted we my have to back off of universal descent. But then that would lead to other problems.
If your closed to outside intelligence and firmly sweep it off the table then you could put yourself into a trap. Its a problem that science has faced before and will again.
He said science doesn't come to a conclusion then try to change the facts, not that no scientists has ever done this. Science is a method for objectively examining the work of scientists. Good scientists have their work validated by peer review and stand the test of time, since scientists are human they are bound to be fallible. Science is not,, as all facts remain tentative and continue to be subjected to the scientific scrutiny, and unlike religions science is not doomed to cling to obviously erroneous dogma, like the superstition of creationism.
Lastly look at Grinseed's post bellow, as he is clearly well informed on the subject, whereas you haven't even a basic understanding of the scientific process. You seem unaware of the most basic scientific requirements like falsifiability and peer review.
Bullshit Former DNA and Gene data have confirmed the origin of species and evolution. You are nothing if not a bald-faced liar.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/19-dna-agrees-with-all-the-other-sc...
You see I can back up what I say. You never do.
The fact is that I SHREDDED your statement so you immediately change the subject to evolution. A subject that you don't understand so you fucking LIE about it.
You said, "Outside intelligence would be necessity be powerful to be considered a God by default so of course there is a God. As to Aliens you would still have the same problem of life arising on their planet."
The first part of your statement doesn't make sense and no by default there IS no god because if you can't prove a god there is no god! And sure there is the same problem that being if there is a god(and there isn't) where did this fucking god come from?
"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology." ....
"Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species"
Guru, "Bones, Molecules ... or Both?" 230
Halanych "The new view of animal phylogeny" 229
Davalos "Understanding Phylogenetic Incongruence: Lessons from Phyllostomid Bats" 993
One of the above references I think was actually in 2012
More recent studies are not helping the matter.
By the way I'm just going off of some of my memory and notes that I can quickly put together as I have other things I must attend to. But the data is there. As far as giving links I would have to look them up because I get more of my stuff from reading then websites and that is no disrespect to anyone at all. In fact it may be a bit of a weakness I my part as having the links handy would be of use.
If you could provide links then I would not assume you are just making it all up. There is this thing called "credibility".
Right now, personally, I believe you are pulling shit out of the air, and when challenged, are making up very flaccid excuses.
And please, please, please, read some science books, real science, not propaganda generated by those with an agenda. From my observations you have huge gaps in your knowledge. I am still shaking my head you did not know about the cosmic microwave background, it's discovery is considered a landmark discovery. Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for their work.
Just link the article showing the Nobel prize being awarded for falsifying the scientific theory of evolution. Oddly I can find nothing on any news channel or online??? Even the largest christian church on the planet seem unaware they are supporting a scientific theory that has been falsified, odd that.
FormerAtheist,
Your explanation is incoherent, in part because you assume a familiarity of the cosmos--a subject which is way over your head! Therefore, it would be pointless to reply to this post. (Read "The Big Picture" by Sean Carroll to get some grip on the nature of reality.)
FormerAtheist "Outside intelligence would be necessity be powerful to be considered a God by default so of course there is a God. As to Aliens you would still have the same problem of life arising on their planet."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Please give a detailed account of how you claim your deity created life, with proper evidence. You don't get to just claim it is necessary without offering any evidence or explanation. We know the material universe exists, and so do natural explanations for how and why it behaves as it does, no one has ever evidenced any non-material explanations for anything, and until they do materialism has the advantage of being evidenced to exist, unlike the superstitious claims religions make.
FormerAtheist " I think it is becoming obvious that we are seeing serious problems with the dated Darwinian model. "
No it isn't, and what you think is irrelevant anyway, scientific facts can only be overturned by scientific evidence, and no one has published anything to challenge species evolution in over 150 years of scientific scrutiny. religion has nothing to say on the matter as all they offer is dogma and superstition.
@Dejess
You haven't defined "god" yet (as mentioned in your OP). There is no point asking us to disprove something you haven't defined.
Sapporo says:
“@Dejess
You haven't defined "god" yet (as mentioned in your OP). There is no point asking us to disprove something you haven't defined.”
Let us work together to concur on the concept of God, that you an atheist deny to exist, [b]and I know from evidence to exist[/b].
Here is my first proposal, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
Now, dear Sapporo and Oh ye atheists in this republic, pray, tell me what is your information on the concept of God, Which you deny to exist?
And my argument for God existing is because the nose on our face exists – and it has a beginning, and also all things that exist with a beginning like the nose, for examples, babies, roses, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the evening sky, etc.
They make up evidence for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
So, dear atheists in this republic, when you care to argue with me, you have to know some information on the concept of God.
Then you also look for evidence to the effect that there is none at all: so no evidence for God existing – in your concept of God, wherefore no God exists(?).
An excellent example of begging the question.
He's playing a game like Wheezy, where they reverse the burden of proof, and their beliefs are immune form scrutiny, and anyone who doesn't share them can't simply point out they can demonstrate no evidence, but themselves carry the entire burden of proof. They'd see this position for the nonsense it is for any claims other than their own religious claims, but insist their double standard here is valid.
Well lets play the game a little further and go a little deeper into the rabbit hole. Your claim is that life came from non-life with no intelligent agent involved. That seems to me to be an incredible claim. Almost super-natural. As we have never seen anything like that happen before even with all the millions of different ways this could happen and with all the testing and experience we can throw at it we can't seem to find a mechanism for that. Our best theory at the moment would be RNA but that has some serious problems. The odds of it happening at this moment by chance seem statistically impossible. I haven't done the calculations but based on my understanding of the problem with other macro molecules this would be greater then 1 in 10 to the 80th. And that is without serious problems that we would find such as cross interference. Bonding obstacles with the Ribose Sugar and so on.
So your claim to me seems to be the extraordinary one. It has no proof. Only belief. There is no science behind it and no mechanism to make it happen. And even if you could solve that first little step (its a huge step but small compared to the ones that follow) you would have other steps and problems.
Outside intelligent agent is required to get to where we are.
As a former Atheist I can tell you I really didn't like that idea at all. I struggled with it. I fought ... and I fought valiantly. But in the end the math and the science is ... well the math and the science. There are still parts I don't like. But at least the universe makes a lot more sense and so does the science. In the end the journey was worth it and the knowledge gained is helping me to further understand more complicated things.
No one has ever done that calculation, the result you posted is wild conjecture, at best.
@FormerAtheist
Having being demonstrated you do not know the Physics of the origin of the universe or anything serious about mutations and evolution now you go for abiogénesis. Here your position is, in a nutshell, "As science has not come yet with a satisfactory, complete and detailed explanation for the origin of life, then it as to be magic." That is a very retrograde position. Humans did not know the cause of lightning for quite a long time. if everybody had accepted they were the ire of Zeus, how would that have helped to understand what lightning was? A lot of research is going on into abiogenesis and the definition of life itself (which is not as clearcut as many people think) and more is learned every day. There are no reasons to add a totally gratuitous god to abiogenesis as it would not help to explain anything.
"Sun, 04/08/2018 - 19:32 (Reply to #185)Permalink
FormerAtheist "Well lets play the game a little further and go a little deeper into the rabbit hole. Your claim is that life came from non-life with no intelligent agent involved."
Nope, I never claimed this, and this is the standard bullshit lie creationist use when they are cornered to evidence their superstitious guff. They lie and pretend a rejection of their unevidenced claim is the same as making a contrary claim. You claimed life has been created by a deity
E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E that claim...
"The odds of it happening at this moment by chance "
Another dishonest straw man creationist cliche, I never claimed that either. You're the one making all the claims. I have made no claims about the origins of life. As for the odds of it happening if you take a peak around you can't help noticing life has happened, and a material universe exists, so the odds seem largely irrelevant. Except of course to your claim which in defiance of Occam's razor is adding an unevidenced supernatural claim about a deity using magic based on a bronze age superstition, I donlt see how that lessens the odds, but by all means evidence any of it if you can.
"Outside intelligent agent is required to get to where we are."
Any chance you're ever going to evidence this claim you keep repeating, or are you going to roll on with your smoke and mirrors act pretending demanding everyone who asks you to demonstrate evidence must provide evidence for straw man claims they never made.
Now is where you use argumentum ad ignorantiam by asking me "well what caused life to start then if it wasn't".....
I've heard it all before....it's nonsense.
@sheldon
"He's playing a game like Wheezy, where they reverse the burden of proof, and their beliefs are immune form scrutiny, and anyone who doesn't share them can't simply point out they can demonstrate no evidence, but themselves carry the entire burden of proof. They'd see this position for the nonsense it is for any claims other than their own religious claims, but insist their double standard here is valid."
He is a religious apologist wannabe. He just took a course, or found a new apologist website. Apologists, make assertions, suppositions, lie, refute truth or ignore it, ignore evidence to the contrary, partially agree while subverting responses to misrepresent that response. They are dishonest in debate and in life. There only goal is to put doubt in the minds of people that have not learned or have not honed critical thinking yet...thats it. I believe you would call him a troll. These are all tenants of religious reconstructionists/ apologists, taught at any one of a million online or church based institutions. He will not respond to questions that look for the jump from the claim to how it is associated to a god, all while asserting divine intervention and ignoring the lack of proof for his god. Point out the fallacy, then ignore him, seems to be the most productive way to approach this
dishonest bunch IMHO.
Pages