Why the religion of Atheizum?
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.
@Sushisnake: "our First People's culture manages to be 45,000 years old in a 6,000 year old earth?"
Years have a different value in god's time zone. I can't recall the exact exchange rate. It varies according to whatever product of evolution the creationists are trying to explain away.
Damn! I'd forgotten that. It's something like the dog years/human years thing, isn’t it?
Chuck "I'm not questioning the existence of God! The Atheist's are making that claim."
>>By definition it's not a claim if it's a question.
"My question is if there is no God, how did we get here?"
>>That's a common logical fallacy, called argumentum ad ignorantiam. God did it has no more explanatory powers than claiming pixies did it.
" If there is no God then evolution is the only other explanation for the universe, and life."
>>Sigh, where to start with such woefully muddled thinking. Ok, firstly you keep insisting your belief in a deity is justified if evolution is false, this simply isn't true. either you can evidence your deity's existence or you can't, and that is true independently of all other facts and claims.
Secondly the scientific theory of evolution explains the origins of species, it makes no claims, and does not try to explain the origins of life or the universe. Now like your god claim, evolution either can be evidenced or it can't, and all the scientific evidence gathered in over 150 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny from multiple fields of science supports species evolution through natural selection, it's as well evidenced a scientific fact as any other we have. This evidence is entirely independent of the origins of the universe and the origins of life, it is a simple fact that the universe exists and life exists, and it is a scientific fact that the diversity of life we now see has evolved slowly over billions of years, how it started does not change this, Most Christians have long since accepted the fact of species evolution, as does the Catholic church. With their resources they'd have falsified it if it were remotely possible to do so, as of course would creationists, instead they deal in duplicitous propaganda, their latest dishonesty involves using their massive wealth to create their own journals because they can't produce any evidence that is remotely scientific and so no worthy scientific journals will peer review their hokum. The simple fact is that at it's core creationism makes claims for supernatural causation, and by definition this is unscientific.
Lastly it's nonsense to keep insisting we are limited to only two explanations for the origins of life and the universe, and insisting one is your deity and creationism which you can't evidence at all, and then setting up a straw man argument as the second.
"The problem for the Atheist is there is no evidence for evolution in nature."
>>Nothing in that sentence is true, firstly evolution could be falsified tomorrow and I'd still be an atheist because humans create fictitious deities and always have, and there is no evidence for them. The second claim is simply risible, as there is nothing but evidence for species evolution.
"There is only thoughts about it. They don't get that there is no order in an explosion as in a big bang theory. Explosions do not cause order. And it can't create life!!!!"
>>Sigh, firstly the big bang theory has nothing whatever to do with the theory of evolution, which is a well established and well evidenced scientific explanation of the scientific fact of species evolution, and this is a fact independent of the origins of the universe. Secondly the origin of the big bang wasn't an explosion, and your ignorance of such a simple fact suggests that you are either trolling, or are being duplicitous as anyone could check facts like these. Lastly nothing in the big bang theory makes any claims about the origins of life, so this is yet another straw man argument you have created, you seem to like these even more than the average religious apologist, that's not good if you have any interest in whether what you believe is true or not.
Your post is wrong on every single claim it makes, and it is hard to credit that anyone with access to the internet and who can read could be this woefully ill-informed by accident. Do you enjoy believing things that are palpably false? You might also like to research how volcanic explosions produce islands that millions of years later are teeming with life and order, so yes explosions can create order and are a catalyst for life, so yet another fact you have got completely wrong. You're consistent I'll give that...
So Sheldon show me the line of evolution of a bird. Can you? Show me the evidence of how one creature changed over time to become a bird. When I was in school we were taught that single celled organisms were the first life forms that began the evolution of life on this planet. Is this your understanding as well or is there some other evidence that evolutionists now claim?
"So Sheldon show me the line of evolution of a bird. Can you?"
The present scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era. A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany.
You know you can Google these things right?
" When I was in school we were taught that single celled organisms were the first life forms that began the evolution of life on this planet. Is this your understanding as well or is there some other evidence that evolutionists now claim?"
Well I'm not a scientist, though this seems like a claim about the origin of life again to me. I am dubious that a scientists in the field of evolution with proper credentials would make such a claim about what was the first life form, but there are certainly scientific models that support the claim we evolved from single celled organisms, though I'd imagine there must have been precursors to even these, but again I'm not an expert on evolution. This is not a topic I am an expert on, try researching these online, the http://www.talkorigins.org/ site is pretty good.
So in other words Sheldon, you don't know what your talking about. You simply rely on the words (not real hard evidence you can see) of others to make your claim of evolution right?
If it pleases you to believe such an absurdly stupid claim as scientific facts are only facts to those who are experts on them, then crack on. I'm not sure where you think making the moronic claim on here is going though? Do you think I'll start denying or abandoning scientific facts because they inconveniently refute aspects of your delusional bronze age superstition? If so then I'm happy to disavow you, you asked I answered.
Now are you going to keep dodging my question, and continue trying (but failing) to provoke me with trolling? Or can you tell us how old you believe the universe is?
@Chuck: "You simply rely on the words (not real hard evidence you can see) of others"
Did you write the Bible, Chuck? Were you there as an eyewitness to all the amazing magical events recorded? Did you watch god create whales, people, monkeys, dung beetles and all the millions of other species?
Or are you simply relying on the words of others, with no real hard evidence?
I went to the website you suggested and basically it's just another debate website with no evidence for evolution.
The only things I found so far was some kind of experiments having to do with some creatures mating to produce offspring that they claim is proof of evolution. Funny they took two creatures of the same kind and produced the same kind without the ability to reproduce.
Sounds like a donkey and a horse mating and producing a mule. Wow that's big news. What they and you don't understand is that there are limits within a kind. A horse and a donkey are related so they can produce offspring yet that is the end of the line. That is the same with any kind. Yet no matter how many times a kind reproduces you will never get anything more than that same kind.
In other words 2 dogs will never produce anything other than a dog. The same with cats, mice, monkeys, turtles, and anything else you can think of. Bottom line is that website has no more evidence than you have.
"In other words 2 dogs will never produce anything other than a dog."
Not 100% accurate. Yes, two dogs will produce another dog, but it may have a mutation that leads that species in another direction. Newsflash, evolution usually takes hundreds, if not millions of generations for change. One can never define evolution by just one generation.
If that were true there would be more missing links to day than ever before. Though they wouldn't be missing would they? If evolution were true then it would continue.
I know that as I was growing up I was taught that we came form some primate. And there were pictures of so called missing links in the text books from an ape to man. Though today it seems evolutionists try to bounce around that subject as if they are not sure of exactly what primate. Though whatever so called kind it was supposed to be, there just so happens that a primate changing into man kind just can't be seen anymore because it takes to long.
So if I'm not mistaken nature simply produces new creatures while we aren't looking.
So you accept that from the first picture of a modern looking cat which was a very long time ago, they haven't changed in the least bit outside of maybe their hair color or length of there hair. Oh and neither has any other creature since man has been trying to prove evolution.
There is much more I can go into but I need to go cut up a few trees to burn in my fire place. I'll have to talk to y'all latter.
Firstly today is a single word, secondly you really have absolutely no idea about evolution, not even the basics. The bilge you're trotting out is creationist propaganda cliches, and there is a long list of these on the talk origins website, where they are each debunked in turn with proper scientific evidence.
Here's a link to the page debunking the most commonly used creationist propaganda arguments.
"So if I'm not mistaken nature simply produces new creatures while we aren't looking."
Christ almighty, please tell that is a windup?
"So you accept that from the first picture of a modern looking cat which was a very long time ago, they haven't changed in the least bit outside of maybe their hair color or length of there hair. Oh and neither has any other creature since man has been trying to prove evolution."
Domesticated animals have been selectively bread by humans to create astonishing variants of the original, and also plants have been cultivated in the same way. Of course Speciation through natural selection isn't going to occur in just a couple of hundred thousand years, and that's how long homo-sapiens have been around. So this is another of your silly straw man arguments. However scientists, at the university of Arizona, have bread fruit flies in a laboratory using their vastly accelerated breeding cycle, and produced an entirely new species of fruit fly, so not only do we have evidence that speciation can occur, it's been documented and witnessed in real time, and here's a link...
Or this by a Russian evolutionary biologist
In accumulating genetic differences, Dobzhansky saw how two populations might also accumulate differences in body size, colour, genital architecture, behavioural idiosyncrasies, and a thousand other characteristics that could eventually make them reluctant or unable to mate with one another. In these distinct genetic profiles, Dobzhansky believed he was seeing the origin of species in its infancy.
Dobzhansky had shown what was possible when scientists were willing to abandon their prejudices and break with tradition. His experiments with the fly brought about a sea change in evolutionary attitudes. Fruit fly genetics made evolution and the origin of species more credible to a once sceptical scientific community. Genetics not only tightened up Darwin's theory, it also turned evolutionary biology into a rigorous experimental science. Darwin would have given anything for a share of Dobzhansky's experimental spoils. Serves him right for looking at finches rather than flies.
Fly: An Experimental Life, by Martin Brookes, is published by Weidenfeld & Nicholson, £16.99.
Now how old do you believe the universe is?
@Chuck: "the first picture of a modern looking cat which was a very long time ago"
Are you talking about cat pictures from ancient Egypt? That's just a few thousand years ago, which is a heartbeat in the evolutionary time scale for mammals. But even in that period, cats have actually undergone major changes, mainly because of human husbandry. There are cats with widely varying coat and eye colors, and facial shapes. Look at Persians and Siamese cats, for example. The Manx cat is especially interesting. It has a mutation that makes it tail-less with extra long hind legs. People apparently liked those characteristics and selectively bred them.
He doesn't have even a tenuous grasp of the subject, and he said picture, so unless there is a species other than humans who create pictures then clearly it would less than 200, 000 years, and again as you say this would be an infinitesimally small amount of time compared to the time speciation in evolution would take. Unfortunately facts and evidence just bead up and roll off faith based superstition like creationism. You'll note he's failed to address a single refutation of any of his claims, or answer the questions put to him with anything approaching candour. So far he's admitted being a YEC, as if we couldn't have worked that our for ourselves.
I have asked him at least half a dozen ties how old he believes the universe is, so far nada.
" just so happens that a primate changing into man kind just can't be seen anymore because it takes to long."
Too long, not to long, long is not a destination. You seriously don't know that humans are primates? Really? Human beings are primates, their taxonomy is that they are part of a family of great apes, these are our closest evolutionary relatives, and they share most of our DNA.
"I went to the website you suggested and basically it's just another debate website with no evidence for evolution."
That's a lie, it has vast resources of evidence and research all relating to evolution, it's well known for this as well, and it's called talkorigins. I posted it in response to your absurd claim that "there is no evidence for evolution".
Here's the link again so everyone can follow it and see that you have lied as well.
Now how old do you believe the universe is?
If you are going to keep dodging this question then from now it is the only response you will get from me. As I despise dishonesty, and you've being extremely dishonest throughout this discourse by making bald assertions all the time, but then ignoring the responses when your creationist bilge is dismantled.
It's your call, as I don't have to waste my time trying disavow bat shit crazy creationists who think the universe was created by magic roughly when feral dogs were being tamed by humans for the first time.
"Kinds" Six times. ( facepalms)
Chuck, you wrote, “In other words 2 dogs will never produce anything other than a dog.“
＠Chuck: "Explosions do not cause order."
If that were true, there wouldn't be any heavy elements They emerge from the explosive deaths of stars. We are star dust. Now that's order.
Closer to home, have you ever heard of explosive forming? You place sheet metal over a shaped cavity and set off an explosion that pushes the metal into the cavity. I've seen boat hulls formed that way. And of course, explosions are used all the time in civil engineering.
You need to open your mind a little.
Faith means god never having to say he's sorry.
for not turning up. Again.
I have a question for you Chuck, are you a young earth creationist? If so how old do you believe the universe is?
This link is to evidence for common decent on the talkorigins site
So Chuck, are you actually going to respond to any of the points and refutations made, or will you continue to use evasions and deflection?
How old do you believe the universe is?
I believe God's word, and studying the years in the Bible along with the oldest tree in the world, and several other things, I agree with others on the approximate age of the earth is 6,000 years.
@Chuck: "along with the oldest tree in the world"
Have you heard of dendrochronology? You take a slice of a tree or a core sample and observe the tree rings. There'll be a pattern of thick and thin rings, depending on rainfall and other environmental factors in the year each ring was laid down. If you find older trees, say in peat bogs, you can overlap the tree-ring patterns by matching the center rings of one tree to the outer rings of another. I believe that the record has been extended back 12-14,000 years so far in the Northern Hemisphere.
And then there's ice core measurement. Like trees, glaciers form a new layer once a year. A few years ago a 3.2-kilometer ice core was taken from Antarctica. That takes us back about 800,000 years, and it's possible an even deeper one will go back to about 1.3 million years.
" I agree with others on the approximate age of the earth is 6,000 years."
And yet there's a man made rock shelter in Arnhem Land that's 65,000 years old.
And a man made fish trap on the Barwon River at Brewarinna that is 40,000 years old.
And Australia's First People's have song cycles telling stories of places and animals that disappeared tens of thousands of years that they sing, intact, this very day. The culture is that old, the race memory's that long.
How do you account for that in your narrow little world view, Chuck? Pretend Australia doesn't exist? Or do you tell yourself modern day Australian Aborigines just have a hate on Young Earth Creationists, so they jumped in a time machine, went back in time and planted evidence? Why do you think Ken Hamm is such a joke in his own country he left?
(Oops! " @Chuck" not "@Sheldon"! That was a very necessary edit. Apologies, Sheldon)
So did your deity magic the light from stars more than 6000 light years away en route?
"Six miles from Urfa, an ancient city in southeastern Turkey, Klaus Schmidt has made one of the most startling archaeological discoveries of our time: massive carved stones about ****11,000 years old,****crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery. The megaliths predate Stonehenge by some 6,000 years. The place is called Gobekli Tepe, and Schmidt, a German archaeologist who has been working here more than a decade, is convinced it’s the site of the world’s oldest temple."
"To start a civilisation you need to have a large food surplus, which frees up the majority of your people to specialise in doing things other than food production. To get this kind of food surplus by hunting and gathering you would need a kind of edenic environment that does not exist on planet earth. The only other know way of obtaining such food surpluses is by farming. But even with early farming you can only produce the needed levels of food surplus in a very narrow range of favourable environmental conditions.
You also need a certain minimum population density, or you simply do not have enough people on the ground to run a civilization.
When our species first appeared 200,000 years ago, the earth was in the middle of the last glaciation of the last ice age. As far as we know, there were very few places on the planet, if any at all, that could have supported civilization-supporting farming during that period. The harsh environmental conditions (even well away from the glaciers, the world was much drier than it is today, because so much fresh water is locked into the ice sheets) also meant that human populations remained very small, and grew only slowly, if at all, and the needed population densities that would support a civilization probably were not reached. Indeed, with low population densities, hunter gathering is likely a superior way of life on a per person basis than early farming-based civilization. Fossil evidence shows us that late neolithic hunter gatherers were on average taller, stronger, healthier and lived longer lives than the early farmers of the first known civilizations. What we know of the political systems employed in hunter gatherer societies suggests that individual hunter gatherers also on average had more freedom and autonomy, and greater overall equality between individuals, than the societies of the first civilizations. There would have been little incentive for individuals to choose to adopt civilization over hunter gathering, when population density is low.
There is also the great genetic bottleneck event about 70,000 years ago, possibly linked to the eruption of the Toba supervolcano, during which the human population dropped to maybe just a few thousand people worldwide. It would have taken some time for populations to recover from that event.
Only after the Ice Age ended and the current Interglacial began, about 20,000 to 12,000 years ago, the environmental conditions arose that would allow for the type of farming that can support civilisations. And only after the Interglacial began, with its milder conditions, could human populations grow to the point where hunter-gathering starts to become insufficient at providing enough food for the increased number of mouths, and the consequences of population pressure (famine, territorial conflict, etc) start making early farming and civilisation a more appealing option for some previously hunter-gathering societies to think about adopting."
6000 years, fnarrrr.....creatards make laugh.
Chuck "I believe God's word, and studying the years in the Bible along with the oldest tree in the world, and several other things, I agree with others on the approximate age of the earth is 6,000 years."
Genetic Diversity. Human children inherit 3 billion base pairs of DNA from each parent, but they are not an exact duplicate. The rate of change has been measured precisely to an average of 70 bases (out of our 6 billion total) per generation. So as we go back on the family tree, there are more and more genetic differences between us and our ancestors. For example, there would be about 140 differences between your DNA and that of your four grandparents, and 210 differences between you and your eight great-grandparents, and so on. That enables us to make a prediction from the amount of genetic diversity between two species about the time since their common ancestor population lived. Using non-genetic evidence, the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees was estimated to have lived about *****6 million years ago.***** The calculation from genetic differences gives a figure remarkably close to the estimated value.
Genetic “scars”. Just as scars stay on our bodies as reminders of past events, the DNA code contains “scars” and these are passed on from generation to generation. DNA scars result from the deletion or insertion of a block of bases (not just single base changes as in the previous section). Because we have a lot of these (hundreds of thousands) and they can be precisely located, they serve as a historical record of species. If we have the same scar as chimpanzees and orangutans, then the deletion or insertion must have occurred before these species diverged into separate populations. If we and chimpanzees have a certain scar but orangutans do not, we can conclude the deletion or insertion must have occurred after the common ancestor of chimps and humans separated from our common ancestor with orangutans. In this way we can create a detailed family tree of common ancestors.
Genetic synonyms. In a certain context, the words “round” and “circular” mean the same thing to an English speaker—they are synonyms. So too, there are “synonyms” in the genetic code—different sequences of DNA bases that mean the same thing to cells (that is, they cause the production of the same proteins). Mutations in the genetic code are often harmful, resulting in an organism not being able to successfully reproduce. But if the mutation results in a “synonym”, the organism would function the same and continue passing on its genes. Because of this we would expect the synonymous changes to be passed on much more effectively than non-synonymous changes. That is exactly what we find among the DNA of humans and chimpanzees: there are many more synonymous differences between the two species than non-synonymous ones. This is exactly what we would expect if the two species had a common ancestor, and so it provides further evidence that humans and chimpanzees were created through common descent from a single ancestral species.
The more research that is done on DNA, the more evidence we find that all life is related.
Chuck "I believe God's word, and studying the years in the Bible along with the oldest tree in the world, and several other things, I agree with others on the approximate age of the earth is 6,000 years."
The best available information indicates that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. Hubble has helped to measure the age of the universe using two different methods. The first method involves measuring the speeds and distances of galaxies. Because all of the galaxies in the universe are generally moving apart, we infer that they must all have been much closer together sometime in the past. Knowing the current speeds and distances to galaxies, coupled with the rate at which the universe is accelerating, allows us to calculate how long it took for them to reach their current locations. The answer is about 14 billion years. The second method involves measuring the ages of the oldest star clusters. Globular star clusters orbiting our Milky Way are the oldest objects we have found and a detailed analysis of the stars they contain tells us that they formed about 13 billion years ago. The good agreement between these two very different methods is an encouraging sign that we are honing in on the universe’s true age.
The universe is 13.8 million years old, and the earth is 4.54 billion years old. The oldest known fossils are approximately 3.5 billion years old, but some scientists have discovered chemical evidence suggesting that life may have begun even earlier, nearly 4 billion years ago.