Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer It's not a faith. Atheists believe there is more evidence for the nonexistence of God than for the existence of God. That simple. Faith doesn't rely on the scale of evidence. A negative can be proven just as much as a positive can be proven. AKA, neither can be proven, but both can have convincing evidence. There is no evidence of an elephant ever being in my shower, so that is convincing evidence of a negative. Also, many Atheists disprove the Christian God because it is self-contradictory. Proving that there is no square circle would be proving a negative. We can prove this, because the terms contradict and the existence of such would be impossible. The rest of this is just sickening. I really hope someone else here, even another theist, can explain how silly you're sounding. I'm afraid I can't.. I get a horrible headache.

Chainer,

Your first four sentences are contradictory. First you say you believe because of the evidence. Then you say that faith doesn't rely on evidence.

~~~

However, you did not PROVE that there was no elephant ever in your shower. Maybe a robber with a pet elephant was at your house while you were out. He saw nothing he wanted to steal, and left the baby elephant in the shower while he was looking. He cleaned up really well, and washed the evidence of the elephant's presence down the drain.

Sure, it's unlikely and sounds preposterous, but how do you KNOW that this did not happen? How could you PROVE this did not happen?

~~~

A square circle is a contradiction of logic, inherent in the defined terms. That is not the same a saying, "I don't believe there is a deer in the woods." But other people have seen the deer. When you say "there is no God," you are attempting, fallaciously, to do the same thing.

By the way, I cannot PROVE there is no Bigfoot, either, although the concept, to me, looking at all the evidence, seems extremely unlikely. I BELIEVE there is no Bigfoot. :)

"Sickening" and "silly" are not valid arguments. I thought you were the one who said that we should DEBATE? Well, bring it, Lullaby, or say goodbye.

[Zinkovich]

Well, I wouldn't want you to believe in anything that opposes the laws of nature--like spontaneous generation--abiogenesis--life from non-life. All these are unscientifiic and unprovable, yet high-horse atheistic evolutionists swallow these without choking. Hmmm....

You do realise spontaneous generation and evolution are seperate theories, and thus are considered seperate in terms of validity? Spontaneous Generations' issues when squared with reality has no bearing on the theory of eovlution as it is applied today.

However, you did not PROVE that there was no elephant ever in your shower. Maybe a robber with a pet elephant was at your house while you were out. He saw nothing he wanted to steal, and left the baby elephant in the shower while he was looking. He cleaned up really well, and washed the evidence of the elephant's presence down the drain. Sure, it's unlikely and sounds preposterous, but how do you KNOW that this did not happen? How could you PROVE this did not happen?

Even though this is directed towards Lullaby, I feel something has to be made clear here: there is a difference between nonacceptance and rejection. I don't know aobut Lullaby, but I am not saying the equivalent "there is no elephant in my shower" in terms of my belief in God, but rather am saying "I do not currently accept, act, or think based upon the claim that there is an elephant in my shower because I have not seen any data supporting such a presupposition".

Nonacceptance!(does not)=rejection. I do not understand why the two are so often confused with each other in theological debates.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Zinkovich The issue with creationism is not that "it is stupid", the issue with creationism is that it is not scientifically testable, applicable, or explicitly supported by existing data.

And this is exactly my problem with the theory of God-less evolutionary origins: the hypothesis is not scientifically testable, applicable, or explicitly supported by existing data. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The theory of evolutionary origins is not science, but philosophy, surrounded by science.

This is why people debate: each BELIEVES something that cannot be PROVEN, yet some are foolish enough to believe that their position can be proven to the satisfaction of the other guy. Never gonna happen. The debate rages on.

Continue, please...

[Cadre]

double post--

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument Chainer, However, you did not PROVE that there was no elephant ever in your shower. Maybe a robber with a pet elephant was at your house while you were out. He saw nothing he wanted to steal, and left the baby elephant in the shower while he was looking. He cleaned up really well, and washed the evidence of the elephant's presence down the drain. Sure, it's unlikely and sounds preposterous, but how do you KNOW that this did not happen? How could you PROVE this did not happen?

CITE - The Design Inference; Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. William Dembski)

Improbability+Specification(patterns or customary behaviour) combined can proove the unlikely hood of the event.

Modern crime scene investigation teams would also be able to determine if there was once an elephant or robber in your home. Technology has come along way since this kind of logical debate.

Quote by: KillerArgument A square circle is a contradiction of logic, inherent in the defined terms. That is not the same a saying, "I don't believe there is a deer in the woods." But other people have seen the deer. When you say "there is no God," you are attempting, fallaciously, to do the same thing.

But I can explore the forest and find the deer, and track it. Again your analogy is non-sequitir.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: KillerArgument And this is exactly my problem with the theory of God-less evolutionary origins: the hypothesis is not scientifically testable, applicable, or explicitly supported by existing data. Couldn't have said it better myself. The theory of evolutionary origins is not science, but philosophy, surrounded by science.

Evolution and the origin of life are seperate issues. The current reason for the overwhelming support for evolution is due to its application in the present(i.e., prediction based on the knowledge that evolution occurs at this very moment, as well as the predictions made by the currently realised genetic relationships between seperate species), not due to what it says of our beginnings.

This is why people debate: each BELIEVES something that cannot be PROVEN, yet some are foolish enough to believe that their position can be proven to the satisfaction of the other guy. Never gonna happen. The debate rages on. Continue, please...

Evolution in its current applications seems to work on many levels. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is a fruitless research path to follow because it is currently not probable nor applicable in any circumstance by biologists.

If I was a scientist, I would continue to research the theory that has given results, rather then a nonpragmatic hypothesis born of religious motivation. What about you?

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument This is why people debate: each BELIEVES something that cannot be PROVEN, yet some are foolish enough to believe that their position can be proven to the satisfaction of the other guy. Never gonna happen. The debate rages on.

I can partially agree here. We are asking the wrong questions, and exhausting resource in the wrong areas trying to answer ancient concepts that no longer apply to our modern world.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Cadre I'm glad to see you responded, this discussion is less sought after! Life is not that simple, don't reduce it to those terms or imply that I did. I never said create life, I said create amino acid structures that bond to protein molecules (building blocks of life). And yes this is quite easy to do. However the probability of it naturally occuring is highly unlikely. If I were to run this experiment, it would take millions of years and millions of attempts before you would see life evolve. So maybe I'll get back to you in one million years and say "HEY I TOLD YOU SO!". What I'm saying is that, it is scientifically provable when analyzing the atmoic structures of our history and theoretically possible that a primordial ooze could have given rise to our origins. (CITE IMAX - Physics, Information. Truth or evolution? BIOCHEMICAL PREDESTINATION - Gary Steinman Dean Kenyan) --POSTED IN OTHER THREAD BUT RELEVANT-- I mean it really is a big IF when contemplating non-theistic life origins. The idea of chemical evolution is so highly impropable, that at first it is daunting and overwhelming and almost impossible to believe. It's like, if I were to program a computer to randomly generate 1,000,000 pixels of different colours on a screen, eventually it would recreate the Mona Lisa in it's EXACT form. The amount of time this would take however, is vastly mind boggling. This is similar to biochemical predestination in the sense that, how many primordial cess pools had to form on ancient earth before the right conditions environmentally and combinations of DNA programming within amino acids could give rise to protein combinations and cell structure that results in self-replecating life (evolving through natural selection and genetic variations). On the other side though, If I'm to believe that DNA is the programming of god, did he leave our evolution to chance? What kind of god what want that, and what purpose would it serve? Either way, most theistic followers can't accept that we arose from basic cell structures on early earth, and that we were created in our current form. There is an intellectual breaking point for everyone, it just depends on how far you are willing to look within the history of our own atomic sub-structures. I never called you stupid! I commend you for bringing this discussion to the surface, and continuing to respond. I'm merely opposing your viewpoint as I often do to all people, in an attempt to push your logic to it's limits in the hopes that I might discover something in your way of thinking that can change my own :) I never said I don't believe a god or greater being was or wasn't involved. Simply that it is "it is not scientifically testable, applicable, or explicitly supported by existing data".

Cadre,

Didn't mean to oversimplify or imply--sorry.

If all this evolutional origin theory is "improbable" and "impossible to believe," tomorrow is Christmas, and Christian churches will be open to receive those who wish to praise God for His creation, and for His Son. : )

Hey, I know I'm jumpin' to conclusions, but you can't blame a guy for tryin,' right?

I never know how God might be working in your heart.

[KillerArgument]

I just want to take a time-out to say what a privilege it is to discuss and debate with all you people--sincere seekers of truth. It's so pleasant for me not to have to deal with the nastiness and insults that were thrown my way in other forums. It's great that you folks all want to stay focused on the ideas. Thank you.

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument Cadre, Didn't mean to oversimplify or imply--sorry. If all this evolutional origin theory is "improbable" and "impossible to believe," tomorrow is Christmas, and Christian churches will be open to receive those who wish to praise God for His creation, and for His Son. : ) Hey, I know I'm jumpin' to conclusions, but you can't blame a guy for tryin,' right? I never know how God might be working in your heart.

Hahah, at least you've got a sense of humour LOL!

But in all seriousness, nobody works through me - I think therefore I am. And improbability doesn't imply impossibility, just unlikelihood.

It's like, if I go gambling with $5 I could win the jackpot for each dollar I put in all in a row. This is known because all gambling machines are designed as fair games (equal likelihood of winning or not winning). However, the probability of this happening is unlikely because of the odds against, BUT it still could happen.

Either way Happy Holidays, I'm gonna go see if I can open a present early Volconvo is a wonderful place, and has been for the past 4 years !

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Zinkovich If I was a scientist, I would continue to research the theory that has given results, rather then a nonpragmatic hypothesis born of religious motivation. What about you?

I think science is science, and faith is faith.

There is no "Christian science," or "Hindu science" or "evolutionary science."

Science is provable, not debatable. That's why it's called science.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood Atheism does not suppose its own belief system. Atheism is the rejection of your belief system should you believe in gods. We don't intend to prove the non-existence of gods. We do say that the theists have failed to prove their notion of a god using reason and logic. We do not accept unsupported and fanciful notions regarding supreme deities. There is no evidence of them, so we feel no need to acknowledge other's belief in them. Atheism is the absence of a religious faith. If you wanted me to believe that aliens were responsible for life on Earth, I'd expect you to provide some sort of evidence of that. Otherwise I'm just going to dismiss that hypothesis as fiction...just as I do notions of gods. I'll let the real scientists around here address the evolutionary part of your post.

I do agree with you, but isn't one who takes no stance in the religious spectrum an agnostic?

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Cadre What, 'law of nature' does life from non-life oppose? And how is it unscientific or unprovable. Cite my second post and do some reading because you're beginning to sound ignorant.

It is scientifically impossible for life to come from non-life. If I am wrong, demonstrate it.

Cite this post and calm down because you'e beginning to sound afraid.

[Zhavric]

KillerArg: Atheism is in no way a religion nor is it a "faith". Just as "healthy" is not a form of disease, not believing in god or supernatural events is not a type of belief in god or supernatural events. There really was no substance to your argument beyond claims without logical support or linked evidence so there's little need to go into great detail.

What cannot be proven is god. It goes something like this:

1) Claims which contradict existing proven claims are "false until proven true".
2) Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is an existing proven claim.
3) A being knonw as god MUST be able to create matter and energy.

Thus, god contradicts existing proven claims and defaults to "false until proven true"... which you may have been able to argue against had you not shot yourself in the foot by stating "I ... do not believe God can be proven with reason and logic."

Tough break.

You're now going to have to eat the words I linked to or concede the claim "god exists" is false.

The burden of proof has always and will always lay squarely on the shoulders of theists to prove their folklore actually happened.

The observed universe does not evidence a god for a variety of reasons. It's taken apologists decades to rationalize the Genesis creation account into something that's not laughed at by only the most faithful individuals. We know that complex structures and systems can arise naturally. Finally, you have no evidence that god created anything or that he even exists. It's circular reasoning that lacks any causal link. It's not unlike declaring the increase in global warming is due to the decrease in pirates.

Now, why am I not surprised that you've decided to use the term "Macro-Evolution" in a discussion of this nature? It tells me you've been discourteous and are trollishly arguing subjects you haven't taken the time to understand. It would be like an atheist stating "We shouldn't worship Jesus because he told Jews to murder Romans in their sleep." This isn't a position you should have to defend against because it's not something you've claimed. It's an allegation born of misunderstanding.

Your assertions about so-called "Macro-Evolution" are no different. Allow me to set you straight with the help of the University of Berkley.

Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”

Response: Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

Finally, all you've offered us as an alternative is "we don't know what caused it so goddidit". This is called god-of-the-gaps reasoning and is the same flawed logic that told early people that Zeus made thunder and Ra was actually the sun. Though we don't have all the answers, turning to pre-bronze-age logic that has NEVER been proven isn't the path to truth, my friend. It is, however, absolutely the way to cement ignorance.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: RickSp What compound absurdities. Theists claim that god exists, usually without defining what they mean by their particular diety, and then they offer no evidence .

Hi Rick,

How about some scientifically verifiable evidence from your camp that life arose from non-life? Otherwise, the game is over, is it not? You have your unprovable faith, and I have mine.

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument It is scientifically impossible for life to come from non-life. If I am wrong, demonstrate it. Cite this post and calm down because you'e beginning to sound afraid.

Sorry if that came off prickish.

Depends on your definition of life - define that and I'll proove it. Even though I already did in my second post. Once again, Biochemical Predestination, and Chemical evolution. Both of these theories proove what I have been stating (and outlined for you already in my 2nd post). Life from non-life, go do some reading, it's fascinating stuff mah friend

[Zhavric]

Quote by: KillerArgument It is scientifically impossible for life to come from non-life. If I am wrong, demonstrate it.

You're laboring from a romanticized viewpoint of what constitutes "life". Break down a living cell into it's most basic components and you won't find any magic there. No medichlorians. Nothing.

What you will find are amino acids and the molecules and atoms that form them. Life, by definition, comes from non-life because life IS non-life in specific amounts & sequences that occured naturally.

Also, we must remember that your alternative idea is untenable folklore; god-of-the-gaps reasoning that's every bit as invalid now as it was in our cave-man days.

[Jack]

isn't one who takes no stance in the religious spectrum an agnostic?

If one were to allow for the possibility that the christian god could exist, yes. My position is that the whole notion of gods is the result of human imagination and that the god of the bible is sufficiently nonsensical as to be impossible by its own standards. So I do not allow that gods are possible or necessary, and am an atheist. I wholly reject the god hypothesis as proposed by theists.

[Zinkovich]

I think science is science, and faith is faith.

Great! You and I, then, are going to get along just fine.

There is no "Christian science," or "Hindu science"

So do you agree that trying to render judgements against the current conclusions scientists are coming to based on what they currently possess and observe in terms of data from a religious perspective is missing the point of science?

or "evolutionary science."

See, now that is true only up to a point. Evolution is a discovery made and formed from the body of data being actively found and applied by scientists.

In this sense, evolution can be considered "science" in that it is being used to build predictive models with a great deal of success in both medical and biological fields.

Science is provable, not debatable. That's why it's called science.

Agreed, once again. So why are people debating with scientists over their current research of evolution, when it is what seems to be a field leading to genuine new discoveries and innovations in biology?

All I have against some creationists is that they will not leave science alone, and let it progress. The recent actions in court on the educational front, and the attempts to equate religious hypotheses to valid theoretical frameworks is a disgrace and is hindering progress. Do you see where I am coming from, then, in my support of evolution?

[RickSp]

Quote by: KillerArgument Hi Rick, How about some scientifically verifiable evidence from your camp that life arose from non-life? Otherwise, the game is over, is it not? You have your unprovable faith, and I have mine.

I was responding to initial statement that "Atheism, of itself, is not necessarily any more rational than any other faith". The double absurdity of this statement impressed me. First, atheism is not a faith, and second, "faith" itself, by definition, is not rational. Are your really claiming that faith is in any respects rational?

Regarding your second assertion, your statements regarding evolution are creationist distortions that have nothing to do with evolution or science. As others have pointed out, one should not confuse the origin of life with the "Origin of the Species." I am satisfied to say that I do not have all the answers. I need not conjure up an imaginary friend in the sky to provide them for me.