Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

evolution leaves religion behind

yourgodisdead
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.

religion is doomed to fall behind us as we push forward into reality, science, and logic.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 9:52:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:
Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.

religion is doomed to fall behind us as we push forward into reality, science, and logic.

You're just as bad as the idiotic theists who deny the truth of things like evolution.

Your mindless dogma is in no way better than theirs.

A biological explanation for our existence does not eliminate the possible existence of a deity, who could have commandeered that biological process. How are they mutually exclusive?

That said, I agree that religion is often opposed to progress, and refuses to amend its views when presented with alternative evidence. The belief in a deity itself, though, is immune to the progress of science. Stop being just as dogmatic as them.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 11:37:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:52:22 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:
Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.

religion is doomed to fall behind us as we push forward into reality, science, and logic.

You're just as bad as the idiotic theists who deny the truth of things like evolution.

Your mindless dogma is in no way better than theirs.

A biological explanation for our existence does not eliminate the possible existence of a deity, who could have commandeered that biological process. How are they mutually exclusive?

That said, I agree that religion is often opposed to progress, and refuses to amend its views when presented with alternative evidence. The belief in a deity itself, though, is immune to the progress of science. Stop being just as dogmatic as them.

Touche'
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 12:22:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:
Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.

religion is doomed to fall behind us as we push forward into reality, science, and logic.

I concur unanimously regarding your statements that God is redundant. There are no reasons that are indicative that God is useful.

Religion may contribute a scant quantity of services, however in comparison to practical models of utility such as, but not limited to, biology and chemistry, religion offers an abysmal amount of utilities.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 1:10:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why do so many atheist assume that theism, the big bang, and evolution cannot be in the same world view? That puzzles me
Mineva
Posts: 336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 1:23:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 1:10:40 AM, stubs wrote:
Why do so many atheist assume that theism, the big bang, and evolution cannot be in the same world view? That puzzles me

Personally I think, because the goal of atheistm is based on the denial of theism, as their names suggest. This is what underlies consciousness. An atheists will try everthing to use against theism, Dawkins training. The primary purpose is to destroy theism, this is what inspires them. Scientific purpose comes much later than it.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 1:50:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 1:23:14 AM, Mineva wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:10:40 AM, stubs wrote:
Why do so many atheist assume that theism, the big bang, and evolution cannot be in the same world view? That puzzles me

Personally I think, because the goal of atheistm is based on the denial of theism, as their names suggest. This is what underlies consciousness. An atheists will try everthing to use against theism, Dawkins training. The primary purpose is to destroy theism, this is what inspires them. Scientific purpose comes much later than it.

What?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 1:51:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 1:23:14 AM, Mineva wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:10:40 AM, stubs wrote:
Why do so many atheist assume that theism, the big bang, and evolution cannot be in the same world view? That puzzles me

Personally I think, because the goal of atheistm is based on the denial of theism, as their names suggest. This is what underlies consciousness. An atheists will try everthing to use against theism, Dawkins training. The primary purpose is to destroy theism, this is what inspires them. Scientific purpose comes much later than it.

Atheism is a worldview that comports with reality and rejects claims asserted by many theists that a God is evidential but lacks verifying support. Atheists are not inspired to destroy theology, but atheists are compelled to demand evidence and reasons from theologists to support the claims that theologists assert.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 3:35:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:
Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.

religion is doomed to fall behind us as we push forward into reality, science, and logic.

I sincerely hope this is just a troll post...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 10:25:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 1:51:51 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:23:14 AM, Mineva wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:10:40 AM, stubs wrote:
Why do so many atheist assume that theism, the big bang, and evolution cannot be in the same world view? That puzzles me

Personally I think, because the goal of atheistm is based on the denial of theism, as their names suggest. This is what underlies consciousness. An atheists will try everthing to use against theism, Dawkins training. The primary purpose is to destroy theism, this is what inspires them. Scientific purpose comes much later than it.

Atheism is a worldview that comports with reality and rejects claims asserted by many theists that a God is evidential but lacks verifying support. Atheists are not inspired to destroy theology, but atheists are compelled to demand evidence and reasons from theologists to support the claims that theologists assert.

And I respect that about them. I'm still questioning why atheist believe that a theist cannot support the big bang, evolution, and things of that nature. I'm not trying to portray that view onto you if you do not hold it. I'm still simply asking in general.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 11:22:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:
Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.

religion is doomed to fall behind us as we push forward into reality, science, and logic.

#1 - God has never 'commanded' our destiny.

#2 - Religion conveys an evolutionary advantage.

http://www.npr.org...

#3 - Evolution itself rests upon the process of abiogenesis. That requires CHEMICAL processes that combine elements, themselves created in supermassive black stars that explode - just happening to seed the correct amounts of elements - that were them selves created in a single explosive event that just happened to create JUST the right amount of gravity to set all this in motion. And these bits of materials had to go through four distinct and separate events to create the four precursors to DNA, and then combine perfectly to form DNA, which then BEGAN the evolutionary process.

On the contrary, rather than eliminating God, the statistical improbability of such a thing makes design seem readily apparent.

You are free to test the hypothesis. Take a blow torch and use the flame, and nothing but the flame ... to create life. Simple. Natural. You see?
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 2:17:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 1:23:14 AM, Mineva wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:10:40 AM, stubs wrote:
Why do so many atheist assume that theism, the big bang, and evolution cannot be in the same world view? That puzzles me

Personally I think, because the goal of atheistm is based on the denial of theism, as their names suggest. This is what underlies consciousness. An atheists will try everthing to use against theism, Dawkins training. The primary purpose is to destroy theism, this is what inspires them. Scientific purpose comes much later than it.

Oh, you're one of those.

Atheism is distinct from anti-theism. Stop conflating them.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 2:21:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 10:25:23 AM, stubs wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:51:51 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:23:14 AM, Mineva wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:10:40 AM, stubs wrote:
Why do so many atheist assume that theism, the big bang, and evolution cannot be in the same world view? That puzzles me

Personally I think, because the goal of atheistm is based on the denial of theism, as their names suggest. This is what underlies consciousness. An atheists will try everthing to use against theism, Dawkins training. The primary purpose is to destroy theism, this is what inspires them. Scientific purpose comes much later than it.

Atheism is a worldview that comports with reality and rejects claims asserted by many theists that a God is evidential but lacks verifying support. Atheists are not inspired to destroy theology, but atheists are compelled to demand evidence and reasons from theologists to support the claims that theologists assert.

And I respect that about them. I'm still questioning why atheist believe that a theist cannot support the big bang, evolution, and things of that nature. I'm not trying to portray that view onto you if you do not hold it. I'm still simply asking in general.

Only derpy atheists (like the one who created this topic) think that the belief in a god in vacuo is antithetical to science.

The problem with (a lot of) religion is that it often posits absolutely ridiculous things such as that the earth is only 6000 years old, despite all of the evidence being contrary. See Ken Ham and his cult of followers.

But again, I guarantee you that not derpy atheists do not think that theism is antithetical to science by its very essence.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 3:08:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:

Your denial in God is dead weight.

Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.


Evolution is what happens after life occurs. It does not describe how life emerged. But let's assume it does for the following example:

Great you just explained how God made an apple pie. You did not do away with the need for someone to make the apple pie.

By apple pie I mean life.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.


That's so awesome you can not answer what happened for space and time to come into existence so you make the question semantically impossible. Nice way to avoid answering.

But There was a beginning wasn't there? I mean rewind the clock back eventually you have a point that can not be rewound any further. So there was a beginning.

And again you think evolution is a theory that describes how life emerged, which it is not.

religion is doomed to fall behind us as we push forward into reality, science, and logic.

How do we move forward into reality? This right now is reality. You must mean our perceptions will more keenly describe this reality. Which my God commands I try to do.

Science is apparently your God. I imagine you have no clue what science is. Here is a debate I did: http://www.debate.org...

I suggest you research inductive reasoning (what science is) deductive, and abductive reasoning. All of which are logically valid reasoning.

By only accepting arguments from scientific reviewed papers you are:

1) not thinking for yourself
2) not searching for truth yourself
3) confirmation bias
4) ignoring the vast majority of reality

Making your thinking a dead end to progress.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 3:44:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 1:10:40 AM, stubs wrote:
Why do so many atheist assume that theism, the big bang, and evolution cannot be in the same world view? That puzzles me

I would say it's because a lot of atheists are simply reacting against vocal religious fundamentalism and extremism and its ties to American conservatism. New atheism's aggressive non-tolerant stance against religion makes sense as an opposition to religious stances against science (evolution, the big bang) and other beliefs tied in with that; that same aggressive stance that religion shouldn't be tolerated doesn't make as much sense considering more moderate theists so they're ignored. But I'm probably wrong on that, so don't mind me.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 4:34:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:
Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.


As Mykiel already pointed out, evolution presumes "one or several original forms". But evolution is not "proven scientifically". The word "evolution" has so many definitions as to be almost a useless term, but if we take it to mean that all extant life descended from one or several common ancestors, such evolution remains a guess and not science. Nobody has even demonstrated that it's possible for mutation to produce anything significant, much less that it's the one and only explanation for all the features of life.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 4:38:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:
...

religion is doomed to fall behind us as we push forward into reality, science, and logic.

And btw, if evolution is correct, it's far more likely that atheism will be selected out, or remain a minority variant. Truth or falsehood is quite irrelevant to evolution - the only thing that counts is survival and reproduction, and religion is pretty good at that.
This space for rent.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 4:38:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 3:44:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:10:40 AM, stubs wrote:
Why do so many atheist assume that theism, the big bang, and evolution cannot be in the same world view? That puzzles me

I would say it's because a lot of atheists are simply reacting against vocal religious fundamentalism and extremism and its ties to American conservatism. New atheism's aggressive non-tolerant stance against religion makes sense as an opposition to religious stances against science (evolution, the big bang) and other beliefs tied in with that; that same aggressive stance that religion shouldn't be tolerated doesn't make as much sense considering more moderate theists so they're ignored. But I'm probably wrong on that, so don't mind me.

So how doe s extremism beget extremism?

How does reaction against religion ... which contains many elements that are opposed to extremes in religion ... equate to a helpful position?

Seriously, if there any scientist who thinks that Evolution and biology are about to disappear?

The Big Bang forms the basis of the major Apologetic position on design. Is it about to disappear if religion embraces it?

How exactly do you advocate tolerance for your position by advocated intolerance for others? Makes little sense.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 5:30:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 4:34:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:
Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.


As Mykiel already pointed out, evolution presumes "one or several original forms". But evolution is not "proven scientifically". The word "evolution" has so many definitions as to be almost a useless term, but if we take it to mean that all extant life descended from one or several common ancestors, such evolution remains a guess and not science. Nobody has even demonstrated that it's possible for mutation to produce anything significant, much less that it's the one and only explanation for all the features of life.

I think adaptation has been replaced with the word evolution.

A population adapting to an environment is well established.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 5:42:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:
Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.


It just pushed people out of one fantasy and into another. At least they now have a choice as to which fantasy they wish to believe.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.


What existed before the big bang and how long did it exist? What started the big bang?
Evolution certainly does take "the spark of intelligence" out of human creation. Since that is the case, where do you suggest intelligence came from?
Intelligence does not evolve from non-intelligent matter.

religion is doomed to fall behind us as we push forward into reality, science, and logic.

All fantasies will always exist in fantasy land. Whether one becomes more popular than another depends on media advertisement. That which is advertised the most usually becomes the most popular.
Humans are like Lemmings which follow each other to their own destruction.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 5:58:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 3:08:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

But There was a beginning wasn't there? I mean rewind the clock back eventually you have a point that can not be rewound any further. So there was a beginning.

When I get a clock and wind the hands backwards, I can keep winding them backwards for all eternity. There is no point where they stop winding backwards and cannot be wound back any further. The time we call the past has always existed before the time we call the present. If you find a beginning pint and place yourself there and call that the present, what happened before that to create a beginning point?

How do we move forward into reality? This right now is reality. You must mean our perceptions will more keenly describe this reality. Which my God commands I try to do.


People need to accept the reality of life reproducing life and stop believing the fantasy that life once did not exist to reproduce life. Life can arise from nothing but life in the first place.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 6:05:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 5:30:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/10/2014 4:34:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:
Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.


As Mykiel already pointed out, evolution presumes "one or several original forms". But evolution is not "proven scientifically". The word "evolution" has so many definitions as to be almost a useless term, but if we take it to mean that all extant life descended from one or several common ancestors, such evolution remains a guess and not science. Nobody has even demonstrated that it's possible for mutation to produce anything significant, much less that it's the one and only explanation for all the features of life.

I think adaptation has been replaced with the word evolution.

A population adapting to an environment is well established.

How does any adaption process result in non intelligent matter evolving into something that supposedly has intelligence?
How can a whole population of the same thing adapt to the same environment and end up diverting into totally different species?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 6:06:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 5:58:49 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/10/2014 3:08:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

But There was a beginning wasn't there? I mean rewind the clock back eventually you have a point that can not be rewound any further. So there was a beginning.

When I get a clock and wind the hands backwards, I can keep winding them backwards for all eternity. There is no point where they stop winding backwards and cannot be wound back any further. The time we call the past has always existed before the time we call the present. If you find a beginning pint and place yourself there and call that the present, what happened before that to create a beginning point?


Seriously. I have to specify clock and rewound as not really being a clock?

Pick a time, say right now. subtract a second and move not forward but in reverse to the natural flow of time. Continue to subtract minutes, years, eons..

Eventually you will get to a singularity that is first moment of the Big Bang. And there is no second before that.

If there is no time before that moment, then it is a "Beginning".

I don't care if you say the earliest moments available for thought is 2 seconds after the singularity began to expand. That is still a beginning.

Skyangel where ever you want to begin a narrative of the universe's history you will have a beginning.


How do we move forward into reality? This right now is reality. You must mean our perceptions will more keenly describe this reality. Which my God commands I try to do.


People need to accept the reality of life reproducing life and stop believing the fantasy that life once did not exist to reproduce life. Life can arise from nothing but life in the first place.

God is a living God and he made life on Earth thanks.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 6:18:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:52:22 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
A biological explanation for our existence does not eliminate the possible existence of a deity, who could have commandeered that biological process. How are they mutually exclusive?

That said, I agree that religion is often opposed to progress, and refuses to amend its views when presented with alternative evidence. The belief in a deity itself, though, is immune to the progress of science. Stop being just as dogmatic as them.

Trying to stack a supernatural cause on top of a self-explanatory natural process is rather an act of desperation. It was either done supernaturally or it was done naturally. And all of the evidence leads to a natural process, which operates independently from any need for an additional supernatural hand or cause. It's little different than trying to claim that evil spirits direct the microbes which cause disease, rather than admitting that the whole "evil spirits causing disease" idea was rather primitive, based on ignorance and a complete failure.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 6:18:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 6:05:22 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/10/2014 5:30:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/10/2014 4:34:02 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/9/2014 9:25:22 PM, yourgodisdead wrote:
Evolution has pushed us out of the darkness and into the light. We no longer need a "god" to command our destiny. We no longer need a "god" at all.

the big bang and inflation, combined with quantum entanglement now shows that there needs to be no "beginning" in the classic biblical tradition. Furthermore, evolution being proven scientifically takes the "spark of intelligence" out of human creation.


As Mykiel already pointed out, evolution presumes "one or several original forms". But evolution is not "proven scientifically". The word "evolution" has so many definitions as to be almost a useless term, but if we take it to mean that all extant life descended from one or several common ancestors, such evolution remains a guess and not science. Nobody has even demonstrated that it's possible for mutation to produce anything significant, much less that it's the one and only explanation for all the features of life.

I think adaptation has been replaced with the word evolution.

A population adapting to an environment is well established.

How does any adaption process result in non intelligent matter evolving into something that supposedly has intelligence?

That would be a theory of abiogenesis or a theory of God creating life. It is not at all present in the theory of evolution.

How can a whole population of the same thing adapt to the same environment and end up diverting into totally different species?

That's my point. Adaptation is a change inside a population of the same kind of animal or genus. Some refer to it as micro-evolution.

But now the term evolution is being used to apply to any and all changes in a population of organisms.

It has changed meanings.. evolution now means any change.

There is evidence organisms adapt to enviroments using the genetic information already present in the genome (1 type of change).

People argue over evolution of families (theropod dinosaurs) evolving into other families (birds).

We are saying the word evolution has changed meaning. And the word adaptation is now replaced by it.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 6:21:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 6:06:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is a living God and he made life on Earth thanks.

God can't be supernatural AND be alive. Life is defined as a set of chemical reactions within a physical biological body. If God isn't physical and biological, then he doesn't qualify. And simply claiming God made life on Earth is a rather weak claim in light of the fact there isn't ANY evidence to support that claim, and multiple lines of evidence which support abiogenesis.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 6:24:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 6:05:22 PM, Skyangel wrote:

How does any adaption process result in non intelligent matter evolving into something that supposedly has intelligence?
The same way it leads from apparent chaos to patterns and order without any indication of an intervening sentient hand. And we not only realize this happens, we can explain it and demonstrate it through chaos theory (from which snowflakes and sand dunes arise).

How can a whole population of the same thing adapt to the same environment and end up diverting into totally different species?
Through differing random mutations which provide different pathways to overcoming various environmental challenges.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 6:27:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 10:25:23 AM, stubs wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:51:51 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:23:14 AM, Mineva wrote:
At 6/10/2014 1:10:40 AM, stubs wrote:
Why do so many atheist assume that theism, the big bang, and evolution cannot be in the same world view? That puzzles me

Personally I think, because the goal of atheistm is based on the denial of theism, as their names suggest. This is what underlies consciousness. An atheists will try everthing to use against theism, Dawkins training. The primary purpose is to destroy theism, this is what inspires them. Scientific purpose comes much later than it.

Atheism is a worldview that comports with reality and rejects claims asserted by many theists that a God is evidential but lacks verifying support. Atheists are not inspired to destroy theology, but atheists are compelled to demand evidence and reasons from theologists to support the claims that theologists assert.

And I respect that about them. I'm still questioning why atheist believe that a theist cannot support the big bang, evolution, and things of that nature. I'm not trying to portray that view onto you if you do not hold it. I'm still simply asking in general.

I don't think that there need be a conflict between religion and these scientific theories, but there are many theists (especially here at DDO) which do not share your acceptance. So, this post may not be aimed at you, but at the very real and unreasonable denial of science by some theists.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 6:30:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 5:58:49 PM, Skyangel wrote:

People need to accept the reality of life reproducing life and stop believing the fantasy that life once did not exist to reproduce life. Life can arise from nothing but life in the first place.

People ignorant of science should familiarize themselves with the processes inherent to the discussion before telling others what they need to accept or discount. Note that while life does produce life, the term "life" is defined through various chemical processes. And none of those processes on it's own results in life. It's when multiple chemical processes of the specified mechanisms all take place within one physical being that it is then defined as "life". And chemical processes take place without any indication of an intervening sentient hand, and without any biological result on a continual basis, in thousands of different environments, around the planet, both night and day, every day.

Of course to result in life requires an atmosphere fairly devoid of oxygen which no longer exists on this planet, so we don't see new cellular species arising spontaneously anymore. But there is no explanation for the origin of life more fully evidence, more logical, or more supportable than abiogenesis which is defined as life emerging from non-life.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 6:39:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 6:21:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/10/2014 6:06:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is a living God and he made life on Earth thanks.

God can't be supernatural AND be alive. Life is defined as a set of chemical reactions within a physical biological body. If God isn't physical and biological, then he doesn't qualify. And simply claiming God made life on Earth is a rather weak claim in light of the fact there isn't ANY evidence to support that claim, and multiple lines of evidence which support abiogenesis.

Multiple lines of evidence which support abiogenesis? None of the experiments, or as a whole make, abiogenesis likely. Why don't you start a thread about it so I can tear your leaps of faith apart. You think because some scientist started with proteins he got from a living cell and because they catalyzed these proteins in a water mixture, that means life from inorganic matter is possible, but most likely??

I built a house one day. All by myself. I didn't need anyone in the world to help me. I order most of it prefabricated and all i really did was lay the seeds down in the lawn and water it. But I made a house with no one else helping me and no other human being involved. - that's what you sound like

Thank God, the majority of scientist in the field of molecular biology are much more realistic about their work.

are you going to answer my logical rebuttals to your absence of evidence is evidence claims? The car example you gave was real good. With your reasoning I only look left when turning on the road. Because if I don't see a car it is absence of evidence on is there.. which makes it obvious and evident there is no car coming. I never knew not having evidence, or not seeing something was like a game of peek-a-boo and the oncoming car doesn't exist. Not seeing it makes it true that it doesn't exist. Your logic is awesome.

Are you going to answer my reasonable, sourced and cited rebuttals to your default position claims?

That every explanation you have given and every cited source you used was describing either a legal precedence for BOP, or a scientific Null hypothesis weighed against an alternate. But you never answered my citations that explain the BOP for debates? or philosophical logical discussions?