Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Fiach · 03-15-2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Based on your ending statement, I'll assume you don't consider yourself one of those "many people," and so I'll ask you to use critical thinking and rational analysis (even though you can't justify them as a standard vis a vis an atheist worldview where beliefs (including the belief in critical thinking,etc. are merely electro-chemical reactions in the brain and, therefore, can have no objective validity).

WOW, I disagree with everything you said. I do use critical thinking and rational analysis in solving all questions. I don't need to justify them as a world view for Atheism. Atheism is obviously a "lack" of a belief in God. Any other explanation comes from ignorance. It says nothing about the world. My views of the World and universe are based on critical thinking and rational analysis. Critical thinking to anyone with common sense is not a physcial objective thing. It is a mental effort mediated by brain circuists as is love, hate, guilt, fear, and other emotions. Of course they are not objectively real but subjective except for the fact they are electrochemical reverberating signals in a complex brain circuitry. I am not sure what you are confused about.

"Evolution is essentially an observed phenomenon, a fact." This is an fantastic (extraordinary) statement. As such, according to the standard applied here for theistic proofs, requires extraordinary substantiation. You should be able to cite numerous instances where you have "observed" this phenomenon.

Evolution is indeed a fact. I have observed it in several ways, I have altered the DNA of some amphibians and observed the mutations. I saw the data on DNA alterations that produced pigs that would bear human compatible organs for transplant. We have all seen bacteria evolve to resistent species. HIV has evolved into several species. A Northwest Salmon, single species, was sparated by dams and the southern goup and northern group evolved enough to produce two separate species. I have also seen the fossils from Burgess Shale and in 12 natural history museums. I know about isotope dating of the fossils, correctly aging them. This isotope dating has been confirmed by sea-floor spreading rates and contiinental drift of 2 cm per year, which shows that Africa and Brazil have been drifting apart for 240 million years, exactly the same isotope age of coastal rocks from the original rift zone of separation. But most personal is genetic data some of which is my own work. But my colleagues have found relic DNA from our oldest common Cambrian ancestor before exoskeleton wearing arthropods separated from ancestors of vertebrates. We found Pikaia, a worm like segmented creature with a notochord that stands at the root of the family tree leading to amphioxus, agnathous fish, sharks, boney fish, lung fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals (us). Ane we have the nearly thousand transitional forms in that sequence. But we never discarded that old gene for a lobster exoskeleton. Occasionally it activates and a human baby dies because it replaces its skin with a hard chitonous shell. We have many relic genes. In fact we have in our cell nuclei, a history textbook of Evolution.

Now, before the moderator or anyone else gets all hot about this post not belonging here, this is about evidences and the standard of proofs. I didn't raise the issue, so you certainly can't deny me the opportunity to respond. If science is to be the standard of "proof" for god, then it's devotees should be able to defend it.

Mod, why not move these posts? And secondly science is not the standard of proof for god. God is your hypothesis, proving it is your problem not mine. I don't have to disprove it. I simply ignore it as irrelevent. I don't need to invent a God to explain anything to my satisfaction.

Now, I'm going to qualify my request. Evolution is touted as the mechanism which explains the development of life from simple to complex organisms, i.e., swamp scum to man. However, whenever I challenge this idea, the response is merely "change over time, i.e., a germ mutates over time so it can no longer breed with the original type. Well, this will simply not do because there is a giant difference between a germ/insect/flower becoming a disctinct variety of germ/insect/flower and changing into something completely different.

Flowers don't become turtles. But primitive classes found 550 million years ago branched out into millions of different limbs of the tree over time. Pikaea developed into Amphioxus which is still around to study. It has s primitive proto-eye or light sensitive spot. I has a notochord but no spine yet. It has two rows of neurons that cross the midling anteriorly, and rows of muscles. When stimulated it escapes by flexing and opening then flexing the opposite way like a wiggle. That altenating motion is the basis for all later vertebrates from fish to crocodiles to us. They make that body flexing motion. We do the same thing. We walk on our hind legs. When we extend our left leg, we extend our right arm, move foreward then reverse it right leg and left arm. Amphioxus and probably Pikaea are the reason why the right side of your brain works your left arm and leg, and vice versa.

Invertebrates took off on a separate line. That is a long story.
Flowers began with algae, fibrous algae, branching types, multilayered for stability, roots for anchorage, some developed male spores and female "eggs" and eventually some mutated to colourful flowers that attracted insects who carried the pollen from flower to flower inadvertently spreading the genes and the particular flowering plant. Goatsbeard, one species was introduced last century early, to the US midwest. Now there are three distinct species of US Goatsbeard that cannot interbreed, iel two new species in a century.

So, what I'm expecting is an unambiguous example of "observed" (not infered) trans-species change.

The Northwestern Salmon that divided into two species during historical time in Washington State. The other is Goatsbeard (see above). Most time we simply cannot observe these in human life time because the changes occur over thousands and millions of years. Those we can see by the fossil record and by genetic markers, which is seeing. It is not inferring when you find genes for an exoskeleton in a primate human. If I knew the CGAT code sequence I would post it for you.

All your citations of DNA, etc.,

They are it icing on the cake, and the burial durge of Biblical superstition.

beg the question; since DNA and the other mechanisms you cited are tremendously complex, as you admit, the fundamental question is "where did they come from to begin with."

If you are asking how the first cell formed. I can answer you. I don't know. I only know where it went from there. I can take your from water, CO2, Nitrogen, concentrated with an energy source like a volcanic rift chimney, and give you simple amino acids. You can easily combine amino acids by their natural bonds into polypeptides. These have different properties, and when they connected into nucleotides, these have a natural tendency to link and to replicate. There you have viruses. 750 million years ago there are organelles (cell internal structures like mitochondra and golgi bodies, vacuoles) seemingly available when another mutation made a lipoprotein cell wall. But we haven't seen that yet. Have patience. We have come so far since Darwin was on the Beagle, finding 95% of the history. Give us some time to fill in the few remaining gaps.

You can hardly claim that they "evolved" since that would require them being in place already and you are left in a hopeless circular argument. And that would be bad "critical thinking," wouldn't it?

We did evolve. We can claim it if we have 95% of a jigsaw puzzle of London Bridge we will recognise the London Bridge. Overwhelming evidence is almost as good as 100%. We have only 95% of the evidence explaining gravity. But we know that Gravity is real, and can measure hundreds of its effects. Does not knowing if it is particles, waves, or warps in space fabric deny the fact of gravity?

Check out this large group of links so that you can fill in the massive gaps in your knowlege. I mean this kindly. I am speaking in my field of research. I naturally understand it. I realise that it is complicated. Humans prefer the simpler explanation rather than the complex one.

http://home.att.net/~dorak/linkevol.html

"To every complex question there is a simple answer, and it is usually wrong." anonymous.

Peace, and lets keep it as a discussion between friends. There is no need to hate over ideas.

Fiach

Sur-reality · 03-16-2003, 12:43 AM

You can't prove anything, I can't prove that, but you can't prove i'm wrong because you can't prove that logic is even applicable to all things. Also i have a list of things i want you to prove
- Your existence (I think therefore i am, how do you know you think.)
-the existence of anything
-that your world view is right
-Why you don't live in fear of the purple galactic polkadotted striped flying gooblejkgfdsgfdorfs from the planet of jkfdalhgfbashgf
-that the fossil record is not just aliens playing tricks on us
-That it is highly improbable that there are aliens
-that probability is valid
-That yellow is yellow(how do you know it's not green and i don't mean semantics)
-That the earth is spinning and it's not that everything else is moving just very complexly
-That the slicing dicing razor of ocham (or however you spell it) is valid
-That validity is valid
-That i'm not insane
-That sane people are

My worldview has no problems. Therefore it is superior to yours.
You see you people are caught up in the existenc eof god(s) well really does it mattertwo last question:
For the Atheist: Why do you bother argueing when in various places you admit that is futile for christians are narrow minded.
For the Christian: Why do you belive in God

And so you say whaty is your opinion well let me sum it up
Praestolatio Mortis
-Sur-reality

HRG · 03-16-2003, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
No, duh!

This is so full of ignorant comments (literally, not perjoratively) that I was tempted to say that your name is only half true, but I decided that that would be uncharitable.

Translation: "I have no convincing answer to your post"

Quote:

The God in whom I believe and whose revelation of himself in creation and scripture is the foundation of my knowledge does not lie, nor does he contradict himself.

And you made this statement based on which authority ?

Your own ? No, you keep telling us that humans are fallible.

The authority of your God ? It is logically impossible that an authority validates itself. You cannot distinguish the consummate liar from the honest man just on the basis of what they tell you.

So the only way you could maintain your statement - according to the high standards for knowledge that you demand for the rest of us - is to appeal to a higher authority than your God. And who will then validate that authority ?

Presuppositionalism reminds me of an old Jewish joke:

"How can you quickly make a small fortune" ?
"By starting with a large one!"

Regards,
HRG.

Jobar · 03-16-2003, 06:39 AM

Fiach, sometimes we have topics which so closely tread the line between one forum and another the topic is appropriate in either. So I am not going to do anything about your most excellent post above (for which, :notworthy !) except urge you to copy it to the evolution of theophilus thread in E/C.

Sur-reality- I doubt anyone has said that *all* Christians are narrow-minded. Some are, some aren't. We come here and talk with the narrow-minded ones because there are others who read these threads without contributing; there are some professed Christians who speak far louder against their religion than we unbelievers ever could. All we need do is encourage them to talk!

candide · 03-16-2003, 07:59 AM

Greetings Everyone,

This is my first post ever to these boards.

I must say I truly have enjoyed this thread, there have been so many arguments and reasonings and ideas that I firmly agree and believe in.

Jobar you make so many great arguments against the idea of GOD.

It's so comforting to find so many like-minded people in one place.

Trying to convince those who believe in a GOD that they are just foolish is almost an impossible task. I have tried very long, and very hard to do this with many individuals. You can point out science, philosophy, logic, probability and the kitchen sink AND still you won't change their mind. For they have FAITH. And rarely can you take it from them. It is all they have. And trying to deprive them of it is like asking them for all their blood.

So I ask everyone here ONE question.

Have you ever TRULY converted a religious person, who claimed belief in some supernatural CREATOR to a belief in athiesm, or to have them renounce their faith?

I'd love to hear your "SUCCESS STORIES" and possibly the winning argument that made them give up their beliefs?

Thanks,
Candide

"Let's Get The REAL in REALIGION"

Oxymoron · 03-16-2003, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
We did evolve. We can claim it if we have 95% of a jigsaw puzzle of London Bridge we will recognise the London Bridge.

Not, by any chance, the London Bridge in Lake Havasu, Arizona? The one they mistakenly bought thinking it was Tower Bridge? And they didn't realise because (a la the jigsaw) it was moved from London in pieces?

Sorry for the off-topic humour, but the irony caught me.

Cozmodius · 03-16-2003, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by candide

Trying to convince those who believe in a GOD that they are just foolish is almost an impossible task. I have tried very long, and very hard to do this with many individuals. You can point out science, philosophy, logic, probability and the kitchen sink AND still you won't change their mind. For they have FAITH. And rarely can you take it from them. It is all they have. And trying to deprive them of it is like asking them for all their blood.

So I ask everyone here ONE question.

Have you ever TRULY converted a religious person, who claimed belief in some supernatural CREATOR to a belief in athiesm, or to have them renounce their faith?

I'd love to hear your "SUCCESS STORIES" and possibly the winning argument that made them give up their beliefs?

Why is "converting" someone or getting them to "renounce their faith" so important to you? Especially if you already consider their faith all that they have? Sounds to me as if you may be some sort of Atheism Evangelist or something.

While I admit that very few people frustrate me more than a closed-minded bible-thumper such as Theopolis, who's very existance is built around trying to get others to convert to their position and close their minds as well, I don't think that what you are trying to do is any better at all...especially since you DON'T have all the answers.

My whole reason for being here is to share ideas and perhaps learn some new things and come to a few realizations (as I already have!:notworthy ), and just maybe help open a few minds...of Theists as well as Atheists. Afterall, since knowledge is universal, NONE of us really know much of anything, nor will we, so what the hell are you converting someone to?

It's far better to get someone to open their mind and reject nothing but scrutinize everything...the truths may be elusive, but the lies are pretty damm obvious.

Shadowy Man · 03-16-2003, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by candide

Have you ever TRULY converted a religious person, who claimed belief in some supernatural CREATOR to a belief in athiesm, or to have them renounce their faith?

No. And I have absolutely no desire to do so. However, I do desire to stop people from spreading lies about science, which seems to happen very often around here.

Fiach · 03-16-2003, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
No. And I have absolutely no desire to do so. However, I do desire to stop people from spreading lies about science, which seems to happen very often around here.

I too have similar views. I have argued heatedly with Americans to convince them of scientific knowledge which is lacking in American education. I will try to convince people that Evolution is more rational and evidence based then Magical Creation (Creationism). I also try to show that consciousness and cognition are brain based entirely without evidence of any other acting agent.

But my arguments on the existence of God I debate reasons for believing to get people to think.

I have never converted a Chrsitian to Atheism as far as I know.

I don't wish to do that. It may indeed be harmful. It may remove their Myth view of the world, and their adaptation to problems. Some may not be prepared to look at problems from an entirely logical point of view, and need religion to give them a base. The Base doesn't have to be correct, it just has to work for the individual.

I think that people who have lost faith, have extreme psychological problems during the transition. It runs the risk of stimulating real mental illness. And I am not here to cause something like that to happen.

If a devout fundamentalists seems to be agreeing too much with me, I back off. I soften my posts to a more agnostic stance and stress that I "cannot disprove God" which is true if a bit misleading.

Fiach

Jack the Bodiless · 03-17-2003, 04:13 AM

Quote:

So I ask everyone here ONE question.

Have you ever TRULY converted a religious person, who claimed belief in some supernatural CREATOR to a belief in athiesm, or to have them renounce their faith?

I'd love to hear your "SUCCESS STORIES" and possibly the winning argument that made them give up their beliefs?

Thanks,
Candide

I have witnessed several deconversions.

It's very hard to pin down a "winning argument" that does it. Basically, it eventually dawns upon the theist that his arguments are becoming increasingly desperate, and there's no good reason to believe anymore that they are valid. The deconversions I've seen are usually quite rapid, like a dam breaking: but, like the breaking dam, they're the result of pressures that have been building up for some time.

Ultimately, WE don't deconvert them: theists deconvert themselves, after their quest for answers causes them to really THINK about the basis of their faith. That's why, when asked to suggest a good book for deconverting theists of the Christian variety, we usually suggest the Bible.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is a handy reference for finding the relevant parts.

03-16-2003, 07:59 AM	#215
candide New Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: New York City Posts: 2	Greetings, Welcome To My First Post Greetings Everyone, This is my first post ever to these boards. I must say I truly have enjoyed this thread, there have been so many arguments and reasonings and ideas that I firmly agree and believe in. Jobar you make so many great arguments against the idea of GOD. It's so comforting to find so many like-minded people in one place. Trying to convince those who believe in a GOD that they are just foolish is almost an impossible task. I have tried very long, and very hard to do this with many individuals. You can point out science, philosophy, logic, probability and the kitchen sink AND still you won't change their mind. For they have FAITH. And rarely can you take it from them. It is all they have. And trying to deprive them of it is like asking them for all their blood. So I ask everyone here ONE question. Have you ever TRULY converted a religious person, who claimed belief in some supernatural CREATOR to a belief in athiesm, or to have them renounce their faith? I'd love to hear your "SUCCESS STORIES" and possibly the winning argument that made them give up their beliefs? Thanks, Candide "Let's Get The REAL in REALIGION"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-16-2003, 12:43 AM	#212
Sur-reality Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: knowhere Posts: 20	You can't prove anything, I can't prove that, but you can't prove i'm wrong because you can't prove that logic is even applicable to all things. Also i have a list of things i want you to prove - Your existence (I think therefore i am, how do you know you think.) -the existence of anything -that your world view is right -Why you don't live in fear of the purple galactic polkadotted striped flying gooblejkgfdsgfdorfs from the planet of jkfdalhgfbashgf -that the fossil record is not just aliens playing tricks on us -That it is highly improbable that there are aliens -that probability is valid -That yellow is yellow(how do you know it's not green and i don't mean semantics) -That the earth is spinning and it's not that everything else is moving just very complexly -That the slicing dicing razor of ocham (or however you spell it) is valid -That validity is valid -That i'm not insane -That sane people are My worldview has no problems. Therefore it is superior to yours. You see you people are caught up in the existenc eof god(s) well really does it mattertwo last question: For the Atheist: Why do you bother argueing when in various places you admit that is futile for christians are narrow minded. For the Christian: Why do you belive in God And so you say whaty is your opinion well let me sum it up Praestolatio Mortis -Sur-reality

03-16-2003, 06:39 AM	#214
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Fiach, sometimes we have topics which so closely tread the line between one forum and another the topic is appropriate in either. So I am not going to do anything about your most excellent post above (for which, :notworthy !) except urge you to copy it to the evolution of theophilus thread in E/C. Sur-reality- I doubt anyone has said that all Christians are narrow-minded. Some are, some aren't. We come here and talk with the narrow-minded ones because there are others who read these threads without contributing; there are some professed Christians who speak far louder against their religion than we unbelievers ever could. All we need do is encourage them to talk!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.