ask the athiest

[Rascal]

i try to stay out of these debates because i don't know much about religion and i don't know enough about evolutionary theory to debate it intelligently and i think that insane_clown has been doing a very good job voicing my concerns. however, i need to say something about this.

it is only logical to believe in god. what than something supernatural could have put anything into existence. nothing . really think about it. nothing. there had to be something in the beginning.

it is only logical to believe in god? i don't see how you can say that. i think it takes a HUGE leap of faith to believe in something where there is no definitive proof of it's existence. a god COULD exist, there is nothing out there that PROVES that a god DOES exist.

the very beginning, the first particle of whatever that came about, who knows where that came from? nobody. there is no proof anywhere. believing that some mystical being created it takes just as much a leap of faith as any other theory that might describe it. i know i'm not answering your question yet again, but i don't know of anything that does answer your question. but i would put my faith in science describing what happened before i would trust that a supernatural being created it. it seems too easy to just say "oh yeah, god created it", nothing is that simple.

and just as an aside, where the first particle of existance came from is irrelevant in a discussion of evolution is it not? does it matter where the first particle came from? the fact is that things DO evolve and i think that has been proven by several people here already. an elephant wasn't created, it evolved from wooly mammoths, which evolved from something else, which evolved from something else. maybe i'm just not understanding what you are meaning by wanting to debate evolution tho'...

 

[Klashbash]

Responding to Nightwolf04…

Insane you really need to cool down, this is only a site for some bashing not bashing at everyone on the site.... I mean come on let's not get too serious....

I’m glad to know you’re an authority on what can and what can not be done at this site. Lets take a little look see at the site title okay? It first starts with “bashâ€, alright we got that down and since there is another word after it means we’re going to bash a certain thing or it’s going to be a word that gives one a choice of what to bash. The second word is “anythingâ€, oh well what do you know I can bash ANYTHING I want!

I find it interesting though that when I am on the side of the majority here, nobody complains about my need to “cool down†even though I argue in the exact same fashion. However when I become the minority then people start harping about how I am just so pissed off or something (I’m not), so what’s the problem? I’m not bashing “everyoneâ€, it just so happens most people here are Conservative (As am I) but also must Conservatives are Christians (I am not) and thus when we go on a topic such as Evolution I am going to have most people on the other side.


Responding to rickey…

all right this is it all of you dance around this question without ever answering it. you do a good job of bashing my errors but and poor debate skills but you cant answer my question. it is only logical to believe in god. what than something supernatural could have put anything into existence. nothing . really think about it. nothing. there had to be something in the beginning.

Actually, I’m quite the bad dancer =P. Really though, you’re so desperate at trying to get me to answer a question directly about something that is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. I don’t know what created the universe but I also don’t care and I dismiss the notion of god because there is no proof of him. Oh and also who created god?

 

[ski2bfree]

Oh and also who created god?

Good point. It's strange really, God's a convenient explanation yet requires more faith than anything to believe in. It could be that people created God in their minds, but then I'm not really an authority on that. I have enough delusions as is without talking about making stuff up in my head:eusa_ange

 

[Sicander]

Cyborg all we are saying is keep the bashes directed at the topic and not the people. This is not a site to bash eachother. You have been better than most sites Ive been to but there were a couple times that you got got a little personal thats all. You are free to your opinions and beliefes and I am happy to hear them but don't take this to a personal level. I have nothing against you personaly, I don't even know you so I try not to make assertions and point fingers, If I have offended you in any way I appologize.

 

[GoingNova]

Nicely said Sicander. There is no flaming here at BashAnything.com. If you are not sure what a flame is, please read the posting guidelines. :eusa_ange

If you are mean and nasty, people are just going to read the post until they see it is from a person who is usually mean and nasty, and then stop reading. No one is going to enter into a debate with someone who is going to try and belittle them personally. It just dosen't make sense. Being passionate about your topic is fine, and actually encouraged, but don't disrespect someone just because you do not agree with them. :eusa_ange

 

[rickey]

it is only logical to believe in god? i don't see how you can say that. i think it takes a HUGE leap of faith to believe in something where there is no definitive proof of it's existence.

I dismiss the notion of god because there is no proof of him. Oh and also who created god?

we are proof of his existance. somthing from nothing? that goes aganst everything science is about. god is a conveniont explanation, hes the only one. somehow i think god making everything sounds better than nothing making everything. am i crazy? to me beliving that takes a huge leap of faith. what else could have created matter? i am guessing that every one here believes humans are the moast advanced creatures. can you create matter?

believing that some mystical being created it takes just as much a leap of faith as any other theory that might describe it

other theorys? i only know of one big bang? i think every one here thinks that is a big load of crap. what else is there?

i

would put my faith in science describing what happened before i would trust that a supernatural being created it. it seems too easy to just say "oh yeah, god created it", nothing is that simple.

again, science what science?

and just as an aside, where the first particle of existance came from is irrelevant in a discussion of evolution is it not? does it matter where the first particle came from?

you’re so desperate at trying to get me to answer a question directly about something that is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand

irrelivant? soposidly EVERYTHING evolved from this spec am i right? so it is totaly rellivant

that things DO evolve and i think that has been proven by several people here already. an elephant wasn't created, it evolved from wooly mammoths, which evolved from something else,

something else? what? wheres the missing link? scientists have found countless mammoths but whats between a mammoth and whatever it came from? by the way mammoths and elephants fit perfectly into creation. evolution within a species is accepted by most Christan's

 

[rickey]

Quote:


it is only logical to believe in god? i don't see how you can say that. i think it takes a HUGE leap of faith to believe in something where there is no definitive proof of it's existence.




Quote:

I dismiss the notion of god because there is no proof of him. Oh and also who created god?


we are proof of his existance. somthing from nothing? that goes aganst everything science is about. god is a conveniont explanation, hes the only one. somehow i think god making everything sounds better than nothing making everything. am i crazy? to me beliving that takes a huge leap of faith. what else could have created matter? i am guessing that every one here believes humans are the moast advanced creatures. can you create matter?

Quote:

believing that some mystical being created it takes just as much a leap of faith as any other theory that might describe it


other theorys? i only know of one big bang? i think every one here thinks that is a big load of crap. what else is there?

i Quote:
would put my faith in science describing what happened before i would trust that a supernatural being created it. it seems too easy to just say "oh yeah, god created it", nothing is that simple.


again, science what science?

Quote:

and just as an aside, where the first particle of existance came from is irrelevant in a discussion of evolution is it not? does it matter where the first particle came from?



Quote:

you’re so desperate at trying to get me to answer a question directly about something that is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand



irrelivant? soposidly EVERYTHING evolved from this spec am i right? so it is totaly rellivant

Quote:

that things DO evolve and i think that has been proven by several people here already. an elephant wasn't created, it evolved from wooly mammoths, which evolved from something else,


something else? what? wheres the missing link? scientists have found countless mammoths but whats between a mammoth and whatever it came from? by the way mammoths and elephants fit perfectly into creation. evolution within a species is accepted by most Christan's

 

[rickey]

why won’t you believe in the whole thing? Tell me, what evidence would falsify your chosen brand of creationism and what evidence would you accept as provisional proof of Evolution?

because evolution within a species is the only kind that is science, the rest cant be prooven. also brand? it is pretty widely accepted among Christan's, what i am arguing is what most Christan's believe.

 

[smo1704]

all right this is it all of you dance around this question without ever answering it. you do a good job of bashing my errors but and poor debate skills but you cant answer my question. it is only logical to believe in god. what than something supernatural could have put anything into existence. nothing . really think about it. nothing. there had to be something in the beginning.

What if there is no beginning? I was just sort of wondering, if time is considered to be another dimension of space, what if time is circular, and the beginning of this universe is also its end? What if when this universe ends (in the "big crunch") it creates the very state from which it came (a single infinitely dense point of matter), and the big bang follows immediately after? Time would thus have a finite length, even though you could travel "forward" forever, just as the earth has a finite circumference even though you could travel around it forever. Our impression that the universe must have a beginning and end would be very similar to the assumption that since the earth seems flat (when close up), that it is completely flat and must therefore have edges (since we cannot fathom an infinite plane). Just thinking aloud; I'm probably way off.

 

[ski2bfree]

we are proof of his existance. somthing from nothing? that goes aganst everything science is about. god is a conveniont explanation, hes the only one. somehow i think god making everything sounds better than nothing making everything. am i crazy? to me beliving that takes a huge leap of faith. what else could have created matter? i am guessing that every one here believes humans are the moast advanced creatures. can you create matter?

something else? what? wheres the missing link? scientists have found countless mammoths but whats between a mammoth and whatever it came from? by the way mammoths and elephants fit perfectly into creation. evolution within a species is accepted by most Christan's

Thinking about it that way is kind of a cop out. I mean, I don't know how to explain it, so I'm going to use the most convenient thing available? I don't know how the internet works, so I'm going to say it's all magic. I don't know how my garage door opener works, so I'm going to say there's a tiny elf in that little box connected to the ceiling and he pulls the door up. The big bang theory isn't that everything came from nothing, it's that all of the matter in the universe was condensed into a very small area and it compacted so tightly that it eventually released in a "big bang." That, whether anyone finds it possible or not, is an alternative theory that doesn't involve god. So god is not the only explanation, it's just the only explanation that you believe in. I don't have a problem with that, religion is alright by me. I'm just saying that a closed mind doesn't make everything outside of it untrue.

Gonna have to disagree with you on that "humans are the most advanced creatures" part as well. Neurologically, probably. But there are so many other more complex organisms that are so much better adapted to their environments. The difference is that humans have the ability to adapt their environment to themselves.

As for the missing link part, have you ever really looked into Darwin's theory? It's actually pretty sound. He went around the world making observations about different organisms and fossil remains. He saw similarities in skeletal structures and survival techniques. He saw such similarities between certain species, but differences based largely on the environment. Alfred Russel Wallace came to the same conclusions that Darwin did and at around the same time, only Darwin published his theory sooner. Two colleagues working independently on opposite sides of the globe came to the same conclusions. That's a coincidence? Even the founders of biology, several years earlier, promoted the idea of the inheritance of acquired traits. If you're going to argue that there's no proof, well you're right. But there is also no proof of your theory. Is there ever really any solid proof of anything? No. There's evidence, never proof.

 

[Nightwolf04]

Ok Insane I was just saying there is nothing wrong with proving a point but next time don't sound like your talking down on me. It's not exactly the nicest way to treat someone.

 

[smo1704]

something else? what? wheres the missing link? scientists have found countless mammoths but whats between a mammoth and whatever it came from? by the way mammoths and elephants fit perfectly into creation. evolution within a species is accepted by most Christan's

[/font]

[/font][/color][/size][/font][/color]

The reason that there are so few "missing link" species is actually explained quite well by the theory of punctuated equilibrium. According to this theory, evolutionary change is most rapid when a new selective pressure is applied, but slows down as the creature becomes better adapted to its new circumstances. Once a creature is well adapted change is very slow, and until the next selective pressure is applied the organism remains more or less the same. Thus "missing link" species are only present for a very short time (relative to the more stable species they evolve from and evolve into), and do not have as much of a chance to leave fossil records. However, some fossils of missing link species have been found. Here's an article posted in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/05/science/05dino.html) about a recently discovered dinosaur species that was half way along its evolution from carnivore to herbivore.[/size][/font][/color]

 

[rickey]

Scientists think they have found rare evidence of a dinosaur species undergoing a dietary transition into vegetarianism 125 million years ago.

think? hmmm sounds fishy.

i eat meat and veggies am i a missing link? so what if its teeth change? this is evolution within a spices not full scale evolution. i wanna see a fish with legs or something. this is nothing.

 

[smo1704]

They actually do know of a "fish with legs." Its called a mudskipper, and it is capable of leaving the water for extended periods and moving on land. See this website for more details:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~thebobo/mud.htm

However, the true precursor to land vertebrates is the coelacanth, which was believed to be extinct until 1938. You can read about it here:
http://www.dinofish.com/

Both of these species are still alive and well today.

The fact that you eat both meat and plant matter does not mean that you are a missing link, as mammals use a mixture of different kinds of teeth for eating, and can therefore process a variety of different types of food. An individual reptile species, on the other hand, uses only a single kind of teeth. While it is possible for reptiles to eat both meat and plant matter they will always be better designed for eating one or the other, and thus tend to become either full herbivores or full carnivores.

Here is an excerpt taken from: (http://www.biology.eku.edu/RITCHISO/342notes7.html)
BIO 342
Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy
Lecture Notes 7 - Digestive System

Morphological variation in teeth:

vertebrates other than mammals - all teeth are shaped alike (homodont dentition)
mammals - teeth exhibit morphological variation: incisors, canines, premolars, & molars (heterodont dentition)
incisors = cutting
canines = piercing & tearing
premolars & molars = macerating

 

[rickey]

These fish, the coelacanth why havent any evolved any farther in 400000000 yrs? The mud skipper also? These are just another one of god’ awesome creations. Where are the animals that evolved in like 8 stages? The ones I am always seeing in textbooks. There is no fossil evidence of anything like that. Only drawings. Plus if the coelacanth and mudskipper are missing links where are the rest for all of the other species. There are tons of other species uncounted for

 

[ski2bfree]

These fish, the coelacanth why havent any evolved any farther in 400000000 yrs? The mud skipper also? These are just another one of god’ awesome creations. Where are the animals that evolved in like 8 stages? The ones I am always seeing in textbooks. There is no fossil evidence of anything like that. Only drawings. Plus if the coelacanth and mudskipper are missing links where are the rest for all of the other species. There are tons of other species uncounted for

You say "there is no fossil evidence" because you don't believe in fossil evidence. I say "there is no devine evidence" because I don't believe in devine evidence. Any evidence I show you for evolutionary theory you are going to dismiss as "just another one of god's creatures." Like I said earlier, a closed mind doesn't constitute universal truth. For how long did western cultures believe that the world was flat? For how long did they believe that the Earth was the center of the universe? The fact that they believed it, obviously, didn't make it true.

Also, your definition of species is pretty vague. There are several definitions for a species. There's morphological species, mate-recognition species, phylogenetic species, biological species, and micro-species, to name a few. I have to wonder though, what about natural selection is such a leap of faith for people? Isn't it pretty obvious that some things are better suited for survival than other things? Wouldn't it make sense that those things less suited for survival will die off while those better for survival will live on? And within that group, when another environmental pressure is induced, the better-suited of them will live as well? Say, for example, that the climate were to suddenly become much colder. Those animals with lots of fur and fat would probably be better suited to survive. After awhile, food becomes scarce. Those animals with a better sense of smell will be able to detect food easier.

 

[smo1704]

By saying one organism is more evolved than another does not mean that it is more advanced, it means it is “better adapted to its environment.†Things don't just evolve "for the heck of it," they evolve to become better adapted to their environments. For certain organisms, major changes are not necessary, as the organisms are already well adapted ("if it ain’t broke, don't fix it"). Sharks and crocodiles are examples of this. These species are already well adapted to their environments; all that really remains is "fine tuning." Thus there haven't really been any major changes since they first evolved. And if you want an example of an evolution via 8+ stages, here's one:
Pan troglodytes->Kenyapithecus wickeri (this is the best guess at the moment, as there is a gap in the fossil record from 14 to 4.2 mya)->Ardipithecus ramidus->Australopithecus anamensis->Australopithecus afarensis->Homo habilis->Homo Sapiens (archaic)->Homo Sapiens (modern) (technically Homo sapiens sapiens)

In addition, since mammals are an offshoot of reptiles, which are an offshoot of amphibians, which are an offshoot of lobe-finned bony fish, etc, etc, every mammal is the product of hundreds of stages of evolution.

Considering how improbable it is that ANYTHING would be fossilized it isn't surprising that some species are not present in the fossil record. Some might have existed for only short periods of time, others might have existed in places where the conditions for fossilization were unlikely to occur, and some do not leave remains that can be fossilized (jellyfish for instance). Even when something is fossilized, it is occasionally unearthed naturally by, say, a glacier or a river and then destroyed by the forces of nature. We are also yet to unearth every single fossil specimen, so some of these gaps may be filled in over time.

 

[Sicander]

I'm just throwing this out there because I know it will get some fun responses so here it goes.

My personal belief about physics (note I said belief not theory as that word as caused to many arguments) Name one thing in the universe that is unaffected by anything else. There is nothing. All things in the universe be it energy or matter react to each other, they move each other, bounce off each other and pull toward each other. There is absolutely nothing exempt from the laws of physics and quatum physics. If they universe happend by random chance you have two options. One is that there was a beginning from witch all things started and time is liner OR that Time is eternal either looping or infinite. The problem with option A is that in physical law there cant be a point at which time does not flow, otherwise time will NEVER flow. Gravity might be able to affect time but for there to be gravity in the first place time already has to be flowing. (Chicken or the egg on a grander scale) OK option A fails.

Option B. Well physics works by action and reaction. Eternity does not work because there is not causal event, nothing to set physics in motion. Witout that causal even nothing would ever happen. Things ARE happening so eternity doesn't work. The next possibility was an attempt at reasoning a way around the eternity problem. The cyclical time idea is one that states time is eternal but it is moving in an infinity circut and its like a string tied together at its ends. The end of one time/dimension is the beginning of the whole thing again. Now we have limitation. There is a set amount of time in the universe. The universe creates itself. This theory works, sort of. You get rid of the messy eternity problem just to make it again in a different way. If there is a set amount of time and everything is just repeating then that begs the philosophical question "why" there is no why. Cyclical time doesn't work because if everything could be summed up into place and time then the universe has limits. It has an "edge" It in one dimensional! The problem is if there is a set amount of time what happens at that infinitely small point were time ends and then begins again? What force could possibly stop time and and matter and ALL physics and then start them again. This doesn't work, the computer explodes the mind boggles and there is no rounding off! Its a completely impossible and inconceivable concept. Basically for time to have limits there HAS to be a limiting factor. Some force more powerfull then all other forces.

Basically for us to be here for anything to exist under the laws of physics and quantum physics there has to be something that is not bound by those rules. Something that is above them and not effected by them.

What is that force? Draw your own conclusions.

 

[smo1704]

In option b, there is no need for time to stop, and there is no need for there to be a starting or ending point (unless we arbitrarily define one). If you were to define, say the instant the big bang occured as the start point, when you reached that point time would not need to briefly stop and then start back up, it would merely continue on as if nothing had happened. There is also the possibility that this universe was created in another universe by, for lack of a better word, imploding a black hole. Current scientific knowledge predicts that this would be possible, and would not require an all powerful diety, merely advanced technology.

 

[rickey]

For ski2bfree

You say, "There is no fossil evidence" because you don't believe in fossil evidence

I believe in fossil evidence just not carbon dating and some of the conclusion drawn by scientists

To clear up the whole species thing I am referring to the only kind of species I was taught about in school as in kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species

Isn't it pretty obvious that some things are better suited for survival than other things? Wouldn't it make sense that those things less suited for survival will die off while those better for survival will live on? And within that group, when another environmental pressure is induced, the better suited of them will live as well

It is but I already went over this it is obvious and I do believe in that but not in fish somehow turning into me or you

For smo

By saying one organism is more evolved than another does not mean that it is more advanced, it means it is “better adapted to its environment.†Things don't just evolve "for the heck of it," they evolve to become better adapted to their environments

The way I understood it was that animals are always mutating and the mutations that work stick the ones that don’t will become useless and sometimes harmful. Example, cancer

In addition, since mammals are an offshoot of reptiles, which are an offshoot of amphibians, which are an offshoot of lobe-finned bony fish, etc, etc, every mammal is the product of hundreds of stages of evolution.

So a lobe bony fish instantly turned into an amphibian witch turned into reptile. It don’t work so fix it

Considering how improbable it is that ANYTHING would be fossilized it isn't surprising that some species are not present in the fossil record. Some might have existed for only short periods of time, others might have existed in places where the conditions for fossilization were unlikely to occur, and some do not leave remains that can be fossilized (jellyfish for instance). Even when something is fossilized, it is occasionally unearthed naturally by, say, a glacier or a river and then destroyed by the forces of nature. We are also yet to unearth every single fossil specimen, so some of these gaps may be filled in over time.

So it’s just happened that we always find ones we already know about and that are alive today. Missing links are harder to fossilize right?

In option b, there is no need for time to stop, and there is no need for they’re to be a starting or ending point (unless we arbitrarily define one). If you were to define, say the instant the big bang occurred as the start point, when you reached that point time would not need to briefly stop and then start back up, it would merely continue on as if nothing had happened. There is also the possibility that this universe was created in another universe by, for lack of a better word, imploding a black hole. Current scientific knowledge predicts that this would be possible, and would not require an all powerful deity, merely advanced technology.

who created the alternate universe with all of the technology?