Question about evolution and atheism BIG READ

im not really educated enough on the subject and after watching videos on youtube ive come back with lots of questions

First, people often toss the defense that evolution by way of no god is real because virus's in a lab were grown and shown to form traits generations later that were not present in the original batch. How can this at all be a valid excuse or defense? Those are lab conditions and are absolutely unnatural. They are presented with a fantastic and perfect environment to adapt. How can someone justify that? If I toss a group of humans into the ocean with no food, water or gear to keep them floating, they are all going to die very very soon and never have the chance to have kids and hope that generations down the line the offspring will form adaptations suited for life on the water. They are all dead in that generation because there were no defenses or adaptations prior to the situation presenting itself that would force life to adapt to it.

Take a look at the first appearance of life, it was likely a single cell life form that sprouted from a vent of some type deep in the ocean. What I do not understand is that this thing perhaps billions of years ago was subjected immediately to a barrage of immensely harsh conditions that it had no defense for. Some people will defend this idea in that this life form was born out out a harsh condition, therefore it will have traits to help it. Well thats just not true at all in my view. If your mom gave birth to you in a pit of fire, you are going to die because you never had time to evolve traits to defend against it. The chemicals that created it have absolutely nothing to do with it being able to protect itself against so much right off the bat. But this absolute first formation of life on earth somehow had defenses against not only immense water pressure, immense heat, drowning in the water, immense radiation if it ever made it near the surface, acid rain, large comets and impacts, and a huge list of other crazy things. This first appearance of life was basically jesus in single cell form? How could it possibly have survived? More over, how could it have known how to split itself and make copies? That information was not encrypted at the very start. How could that even be remotely possible?

I don't understand the reason people are atheist. To me, atheists believe in magic just as those who are religious do. To an atheist who thinks there is no god, the universe magically sprouted into existence, that the singularity that housed all existence was eternal and then 14 or so billion years ago started to expand, forming amazingly complex structures, bonds and what looks just like building blocks logically thought out and put together. Im not denouncing their beliefs, I just dont see the proof that god doesnt exist, or a good excuse for the beliefs. I see much more evidence proving a god exists and denying it. I simply fail to get it, as no atheist ive ever spoken to will give me a straight answer. How can you believe the universe sprouted into existence and so many amazingly complex things exist, and so many elements are found right here as well as 14 billion light years away in the exact same quantity.

I've a lot of questions, I apologize if i come off throwing down to some peoples views, but every time I ask an atheist questions, I get the silent treatment or the reply "oh ya? well how did god come into existence, how did he do this or that." Once I sat in the theater and watched Superman. One guy in the theater yelled out WHAT!!! NOBODY CAN DO THAT! THATS IMPOSSIBLE" to which I replied " he is superman..." It's kind of how i view atheists now. You can believe in things sprouting into existence with absolutely no creator or reason for it, but I cant believe in a God that came into existence the same way and created everything else.

They can't explain how the Universe was Formed and they can't prove that there is no God. To compensate for this, scientists use "Coincidence".

You compared a virus mutating over many generations to throwing people in the ocean and not instantly growing gills...That's as bad as saying god doesn't exist because I prayed for a chocolate cake and one didn't materialize on my lap.

I really agree, especially with your third paragraph and I've mentioned it in many religious threads. Believing existence just happened is the same as believing there is a god. None has any more evidence than the other but atheist don't seem to think so. The way I see it science will only get so far in this question of existence, if we trace the origin of every chemical/substance that made us we will eventually reach a point where something just appeared out of nothing like magic...

I've just gotta ask: what is this? Maybe I misread it, but it seems to me like you're equating science to magic.scorch-62

He is saying that the universe just spouting out of the no where is the same as believing in magic or in god.

Why can't atheists assume that the universe has always been here? Scientists believe that time basically started at the big bang, because they believe nothing significant happened before it.

Theists believe that God has always been here, and that he created the universe, all atheists do is skip that step.

I also think that you don't really grasp the amount of time that it took life to develop. It took us hundreds of millions of years to get extremely simple life.

Ehhh...I could explain my view, but George Carlin does it way better than me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

im not really educated enough on the subject and after watching videos on youtube ive come back with lots of questions

First, people often toss the defense that evolution by way of no god is real because virus's in a lab were grown and shown to form traits generations later that were not present in the original batch. How can this at all be a valid excuse or defense? Those are lab conditions and are absolutely unnatural. They are presented with a fantastic and perfect environment to adapt. How can someone justify that? If I toss a group of humans into the ocean with no food, water or gear to keep them floating, they are all going to die very very soon and never have the chance to have kids and hope that generations down the line the offspring will form adaptations suited for life on the water. They are all dead in that generation because there were no defenses or adaptations prior to the situation presenting itself that would force life to adapt to it.

Take a look at the first appearance of life, it was likely a single cell life form that sprouted from a vent of some type deep in the ocean. What I do not understand is that this thing perhaps billions of years ago was subjected immediately to a barrage of immensely harsh conditions that it had no defense for. Some people will defend this idea in that this life form was born out out a harsh condition, therefore it will have traits to help it. Well thats just not true at all in my view. If your mom gave birth to you in a pit of fire, you are going to die because you never had time to evolve traits to defend against it. The chemicals that created it have absolutely nothing to do with it being able to protect itself against so much right off the bat. But this absolute first formation of life on earth somehow had defenses against not only immense water pressure, immense heat, drowning in the water, immense radiation if it ever made it near the surface, acid rain, large comets and impacts, and a huge list of other crazy things. This first appearance of life was basically jesus in single cell form? How could it possibly have survived? More over, how could it have known how to split itself and make copies? That information was not encrypted at the very start. How could that even be remotely possible?

I don't understand the reason people are atheist. To me, atheists believe in magic just as those who are religious do. To an atheist who thinks there is no god, the universe magically sprouted into existence, that the singularity that housed all existence was eternal and then 14 or so billion years ago started to expand, forming amazingly complex structures, bonds and what looks just like building blocks logically thought out and put together. Im not denouncing their beliefs, I just dont see the proof that god doesnt exist, or a good excuse for the beliefs. I see much more evidence proving a god exists and denying it. I simply fail to get it, as no atheist ive ever spoken to will give me a straight answer. How can you believe the universe sprouted into existence and so many amazingly complex things exist, and so many elements are found right here as well as 14 billion light years away in the exact same quantity.

I've a lot of questions, I apologize if i come off throwing down to some peoples views, but every time I ask an atheist questions, I get the silent treatment or the reply "oh ya? well how did god come into existence, how did he do this or that." Once I sat in the theater and watched Superman. One guy in the theater yelled out WHAT!!! NOBODY CAN DO THAT! THATS IMPOSSIBLE" to which I replied " he is superman..." It's kind of how i view atheists now. You can believe in things sprouting into existence with absolutely no creator or reason for it, but I cant believe in a God that came into existence the same way and created everything else.

deadpool86x

we don't know how the first life came those are all theories not facts no one knows how those organisms survived

and don't tell me than its better than a lady eating an apple who has two boys who some how continue the human race

No offense, but your arguments seem to indicate a lack of understanding of the theorized origins of life and of evolution more than anything about those scientific hypotheses and theories themselves.

At any rate, if you're going to say that evolution as science understands it is false, then you're going to have to explain the following observations:

1. The fact that there are a huge number of fossils that have inspired impassioned debates over whether it is (for example) "a reptile-like mammal" or "a mammal-like reptile".

2. The fact that all such fossils are on the border between fish/amphibians, amphibians/reptiles, reptiles/birds, and reptiles/mammals; we have never found a "bird-like mammal" or a "fish-like mammal" (no, bats and dolphins don't count; they are clearly 100% mammalian).

3. The fact that fossils we have found are more complex and diverse the closer they are dated to the present day.

4. The fact that all life on Earth is interconnected through a series of increasingly many similar traits the closer taxonomically two organisms are.

5. The fact that many animals bear vestegial remnants of past ancestors, such as the tailbone in humans or hollow bones in flightless birds.

The fact of the matter is that one's incredulity does not bear any impact on whether or not something in science is true.

They can't explain how the Universe was Formed and they can't prove that there is no God.

Snipes_2

Also, evolution is not atheistic in any way. Science has absolutely nothing to say at all about the theoretical existence of a supreme being. Evolution does say that all life on Earth was not created as is a short time ago, and therefore it rules out a supreme being that would have created life in that way, but every scientific theory in existence rules out models of the world that include a god that is contradictory, so there's nothing special about it in that respect.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

They can't explain how the Universe was Formed and they can't prove that there is no God.

Ninja-Hippo

I find that to be a scapegoat more than anything else. You have to prove cause you said it is pretty silly, if you can disprove it then do so, however if you can't then why question its validity?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

They can't explain how the Universe was Formed and they can't prove that there is no God.

Ninja-Hippo

I find that to be a scapegoat more than anything else. You have to prove cause you said it is pretty silly, if you can disprove it then do so, however if you can't then why question it's validity?

Espada12

If I said that there was an undetectable China teapot floating in space between the orbits of Earth and Mars, would the onus not be on me to prove that that statement is true?

You can't just say any old thing and then have it be assumed to be true just because no one can prove it false.

Also, evolution is not atheistic in any way. Science has absolutely nothing to say at all about the theoretical existence of a supreme being. Evolution does say that all life on Earth was not created as is a short time ago, and therefore it rules out a supreme being that would have created life in that way, but every scientific theory in existence rules out models of the world that include a god that is contradictory, so there's nothing special about it in that respect.

GabuEx

I agree, however I don't think he was saying that, he's saying believing something came out of nothing is the same as believing in a God. As for me, I've stated my opinion on the matter.. something came out of nothing because there can be other explanation.

How is that so? If you don't believe in something you've got to have a reason why you don't. He just "Can't Exist" because you don't find it comprehensible that such a being exists. Snipes_2

I have never met an atheist who, when pressed, will stick by the statement that God can't exist and that he definitely doesn't. Atheism is the stance that there is no evidence that ought to lead one to believe in God, not that God definitely does not exist.

How is that so? If you don't believe in something you've got to have a reason why you don't. He just "Can't Exist" because you don't find it comprehensible that such a being exists. Snipes_2

You do realize that it's pretty much impossible to prove something doesn't exist, right?

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I find that to be a scapegoat more than anything else. You have to prove cause you said it is pretty silly, if you can disprove it then do so, however if you can't then why question it's validity?

GabuEx

If I said that there was an undetectable China teapot floating in space between the orbits of Earth and Mars, would the onus not be on me to prove that that statement is true?

You can't just say any old thing and then have it be assumed to be true just because no one can prove it false.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I find that to be a scapegoat more than anything else. You have to prove cause you said it is pretty silly, if you can disprove it then do so, however if you can't then why question it's validity?

GabuEx

If I said that there was an undetectable China teapot floating in space between the orbits of Earth and Mars, would the onus not be on me to prove that that statement is true?

You can't just say any old thing and then have it be assumed to be true just because no one can prove it false.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have to prove your statement, what I'm saying is that the other party not attempting to disprove your statement because it was you who made it is not a good excuse for not doing so. If christopher columbus waited on that we would still probably think the world was flat.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]How is that so? If you don't believe in something you've got to have a reason why you don't. He just "Can't Exist" because you don't find it comprehensible that such a being exists. cain006

You do realize that it's pretty much impossible to prove something doesn't exist, right?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Also, evolution is not atheistic in any way. Science has absolutely nothing to say at all about the theoretical existence of a supreme being. Evolution does say that all life on Earth was not created as is a short time ago, and therefore it rules out a supreme being that would have created life in that way, but every scientific theory in existence rules out models of the world that include a god that is contradictory, so there's nothing special about it in that respect.

Espada12

I agree, however I don't think he was saying that, he's saying believing something came out of nothing is the same as believing in a God. As for me, I've stated my opinion on the matter.. something came out of nothing because there can be other explanation.

No matter what explanation you arrive at - that things were created or that things were not created - you will inevitably arrive at an absurdity. If the universe has always existed, then why does it exist? And if the universe was created, then that explains nothing; it merely passes the buck to its creator. Was its creator created? If not, then why does it exist? And if it was created... well, then this just keeps going on and on.

Nonetheless, I have likewise never met an atheist who says that "something came out of nothing". Despite detractors' best efforts not to understand the big bang theory, that remains 100% not what it says. The big bang theory does not attempt to explain where the singularity came from.

"...people often toss the defense that evolution by way of no god is real because virus's in a lab were grown and shown to form traits generations later..."

I have never really seen an atheist, or scientist of any non-religious inclination use evolution, seriously, as a means of "disproving God."

"If I toss a group of humans into the ocean with no food..."

You don't understand how evolution works, it takes many hundreds of generations for any significant change to take hold within the community. And even then, adaptation to an environment is a gradual process... when you introduce something into a harsh environment when it has no ability to adapt (or time) it won't.

"If your mom gave birth to you in a pit of fire..."

Again, you misinterpret what evolution is about, you think it happens within the same generation, or the next, this is however not the case. One cannot evolve once they are born. And even then, adaptations that increase the likelihood of survival don't show up quickly. Mutations might, but adaptations are compounding of mutations.

"To me, atheists believe in magic just as those who are religious do. To an atheist who thinks there is no god, the universe magically sprouted into existence, that the singularity that housed all existence was eternal and then 14 or so billion years ago started to expand, forming amazingly complex structures, bonds and what looks just like building blocks logically thought out and put together."

You obviously haven't taken the time to actually ask an atheist to describe their beliefs. Both scientific/naturalistic atheists (there are religious atheists too) and scientists, don't think the universe came from "nothing" nor did it "sprout magically". It is called cause and effect. One event leads into the other. Creation/formation ex nihilo is impossible.

"Im not denouncing their beliefs, I just dont see the proof that god doesnt exist, or a good excuse for the beliefs."

Seems to me like you are. Most atheists (read: >95%) do not believe that no God exists, merely, they do not accept theists claims that one does because they lack sufficient evidence to believe as such.

"I see much more evidence proving a god exists and denying it."

Please, I'd very much like to see this evidence.

"How can you believe the universe sprouted into existence and so many amazingly complex things exist, and so many elements are found right here as well as 14 billion light years away in the exact same quantity."

Another gross misrepreentation of scientific thought. The universe, when it began forming was not complex at all... merely a large quantity of hydrogen (and probably dark matter) expanding out in all directions from a nondescript source at the speed of light, eventually, though processes like accretion forming stars, galaxies, planets, quasars, etc. Fusion within the core of a star is what creates the heavier than hydrogen elements, and this process is not "exactly the same" everywhere in the universe. it varies depending on the type and mass of the star.

I think you should start having conversations with real atheists, who understand why they believe what they do, and don't make gross assumptions about their beliefs, or the ideas they use to support them. I can give you many reason why I don't believe in God, gods or the supernatural... but the main reason behind it all is that I have yet to see, throughout my entire life, absolutely no single piece of evidence that even suggests to me that something of the sort could even possibly exist, let alone exist outright. I am an atheist, and going to be a professor in religious studies eventually. I love religion, but also see that its use as a science, or history, is severely lacking based on modern standards, and is far more reliable as a philosophy than anything else.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] How is that so? If you don't believe in something you've got to have a reason why you don't. He just "Can't Exist" because you don't find it comprehensible that such a being exists. Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]How is that so? If you don't believe in something you've got to have a reason why you don't. He just "Can't Exist" because you don't find it comprehensible that such a being exists. GabuEx

I have never met an atheist who, when pressed, will stick by the statement that God can't exist and that he definitely doesn't. Atheism is the stance that there is no evidence that ought to lead one to believe in God, not that God definitely does not exist.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Wrong. If you have an unanswered question - how did the universe come to be? And you chose to answer that question 'well the universe came to be because God made it' it is absolutely 100% YOUR duty to explain and prove that. The person making the assertion is burdened with proving it. That is the way life works. Teenaged

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I find that to be a scapegoat more than anything else. You have to prove cause you said it is pretty silly, if you can disprove it then do so, however if you can't then why question it's validity?

Espada12

If I said that there was an undetectable China teapot floating in space between the orbits of Earth and Mars, would the onus not be on me to prove that that statement is true?

You can't just say any old thing and then have it be assumed to be true just because no one can prove it false.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have to prove your statement, what I'm saying is that the other party not attempting to disprove your statement because it was you who made it is not a good excuse for not doing so. If christopher columbus waited on that we would still probably think the world was flat.

Well, first, the idea that people thought the world was flat in Columbus' time is false. Even the ancient Greeks figured out that it was round. The flat Earth theory is older and nowhere near as prominent as people claim.

Nonetheless, if we supposed that your implied statements were true, then we'd be in the same position: if Christopher Columbus stated in the face of common sense that the world was not flat, then the onus would be on him to prove it. You can't say "God exists" and then expect that statement to stand as a valid statement simply because no one can prove it wrong. Logical arguments don't work that way.

So basically, because we don't understand how the universe came into existence you think we explain with magic?

Bahahaha, don't be silly. We don't know and we acknowledge that and actively try to figure it out instead of being lazy and saying oh, that was "insert whatever got you chose here".

Also, comparing giving birth in lava to a single-celled organism being spouted from a vent is hilarious.

It's more like sperm trying to get to the egg. Millions die because of the very acidic, dangerous environment but one lives and passes on it's DNA.

If a cell was already under a vent, it already has defences against immense pressure and such and I'll sooner believe that it teleported than any of the flawed religious texts.

I did Respond. Snipes_2

This one:

If I said that there was an undetectable China teapot floating in space between the orbits of Earth and Mars, would the onus not be on me to prove that that statement is true?

You can't just say any old thing and then have it be assumed to be true just because no one can prove it false.

GabuEx

I'm not saying you shouldn't have to prove your statement, what I'm saying is that the other party not attempting to disprove your statement because it was you who made it is not a good excuse for not doing so.

Espada12

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]How is that so? If you don't believe in something you've got to have a reason why you don't. He just "Can't Exist" because you don't find it comprehensible that such a being exists. Snipes_2

I have never met an atheist who, when pressed, will stick by the statement that God can't exist and that he definitely doesn't. Atheism is the stance that there is no evidence that ought to lead one to believe in God, not that God definitely does not exist.

Point me to one atheist who, even after having been requested for clarification, continues to affirm that God cannot exist.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] And you're asserting that God didn't create it and doesn't Exist. Prove it. Snipes_2

The TC made the thread defending his belief in God and Ninja-Hippo responded to that.

How is that so? If you don't believe in something you've got to have a reason why you don't. He just "Can't Exist" because you don't find it comprehensible that such a being exists. Snipes_2

If you aren't asserting anything then why bother? You said you don't know, science doesn't know, how else would something come from nothing?Snipes_2

Your implication that the only two options are that something came from nothing and that an intelligent supreme being created it is false. Everything else in the world has been shown to in all likelihood have had a natural origin; why not the universe?

Evolution does not only occur in labs. We can see organisms that have adapted to their environment, we can observe speciation in the fossil record, and we can trace common ancestry back through DNA. Lab results are just often used because they're quicker to get results for what tends to be a very slow process.

The idea that life arose from chemicals in the environment is abiogenesis, not evolution. You also have to remember that what is livable today is not the same as what was ideal billions of years ago. For instance, the oxygen levels in our atmosphere changed drastically over time, and likely caused the extinction of many species to whom oxygen was toxic. Likewise for heat, even today some species of bacteria require scorching hot temperatures to survive. What's "normal" for one species is not necessarily the same for another.

As for your evidence of God, perhaps you will be open enough to see that not all people view your evidence in the same way. Life may be complicated, but it is also somewhat of a mess. For instance, I do not see the purpose of the vertebrate eye having the photosensitive cells underneath another layer of non-light sensing cells when the invertebrate eye seems to have gotten the orientation correct. But perhaps I am just not as wise as an all powerful creator and am blind to the advantages our eyes have.

I have yet to see the preponderence of evidence for God akin to what is constantly arising and being studied in science, so I don't have a particular belief in a Deity. Others certainly see the lack of hard truths about God in the wake of all the knowledge we've gained over the years as a testament to His nonexistence, so that would be why they are atheists.

Well, first, the idea that people thought the world was flat in Columbus' time is false. Even the ancient Greeks figured out that it was round. The flat Earth theory is older and nowhere near as prominent as people claim.

Nonetheless, if we supposed that your implied statements were true, then we'd be in the same position: if Christopher Columbus stated in the face of common sense that the world was not flat, then the onus would be on him to prove it. You can't say "God exists" and then expect that statement to stand as a valid statement simply because no one can prove it wrong. Logical arguments don't work that way.

GabuEx

I don't disagree, all I'm saying is given the opportunity to prove someone wrong you should do it regardless of who made the first statement. Also I need to look into raging at my history teacher if what you say is true about the whole flat world idea.

I don't disagree, all I'm saying is given the opportunity to prove someone wrong you should do it regardless of who made the first statement.

Espada12

Well sure, but proving a universal negative is obviously impossible.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] And you're asserting that God didn't create it and doesn't Exist. Prove it. Snipes_2

I've just gotta ask: what is this? Maybe I misread it, but it seems to me like you're equating science to magic.scorch-62

I am doing just that in a sense. Science says that magically the universe always existed or came into existence suddenly and for no reason. Magically, the first appearance of life was immune to everything. Literally everything. It somehow dipped into a pool of knowledge that didnt exist and taught itself how to copy itself. This is identically the same as the ipod forming a playlist with no music inside of it. It magically formed the complex laws and musical notes the instant it came into existence, so that it could know how to replicate itself. The downside to that is that music and the formation of a playlist on an empty ipod is infinitely less complex than your pick of any coding in DNA that this life form was born with.

Before science existed, everything already existed? Where was the need to evolve? The universe and singularity DE-evolved in a sense and took steps backward. Evolution is a joke in the sense that books say it exists. If it really exists, it was set forth by GOD. The odds of an entire species not only adapting to something all at the same time, finding a mate who also has adapted suddenly to the very same condition and then somehow as if by sheer luck or magic being able to produce offspring with that ability, and then that kid having the ability to find yet another mate with the same adaptations and AGAIN producing offspring without ANY loss of that evolved trait is 0%.

Mutations are more than usually negative. You dont have the same traits as your great 100x grandpa did. The line gets deluded over time and that trait and information in the DNA will be lost. That is not debatable, thats science fact. If the entire species is not infected with the same evolved trait at the very same time, finding another mate capable of producing offspring of a mutated creature is immensely low. So low in fact, that the idea that it happens on a universal scale in a species is just SILLY and nonsense.

You can't say "God exists" and then expect that statement to stand as a valid statement simply because no one can prove it wrong. Logical arguments don't work that way.GabuEx

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] :lol: No i'm not. Bill O'Reily tried pulling that one and Richard Dawkins tore him to pieces. I am not making any assertion of any kind. 'How did the universe come to be?' My answer? 'I don't know'. I am not making any assertion of any king. I am not answering the question because i have no idea what it is. YOU are the one answering the question, and it is up to you to prove that your answer is correct, not everyone else who takes no part in answering the question. You are making a POSITIVE assertion that God made the universe. I am simply a bystander, making no assertion and answering no questions. clubsammich91