Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: KillerArgument 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.

Since when is belief faith? You really think they're the same? Cite a dictionary please.

Quote by: KillerArgument However, you did not PROVE that there was no elephant ever in your shower.

Right, what I said was this..

"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."

Quote by: KillerArgument 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?

I don't believe you can prove anything to the maximum extent, and I never hinted that. I said that a negative can have just as convincing evidence as a positive.

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.

No, you're distorting what I said.

It isn't as simple as saying there isn't a deer in the woods. An honest example of what I was saying is that there isn't a square circle in the woods. Same with God. Many or most Atheists believe the Christian God in the Bible is self-contradictory just as a square circle is square contradictory.

Quote by: KillerArgument "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.

They aren't arguments. The rest of my post is.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Zhavric KillerArg: Atheism is in no way a religion nor is it a "faith". KA "There is NO God" is an unprovable statement, made by faith. It is no different than the unprovable statement, made by faith, "There IS a God." Just as "healthy" is not a form of disease, KA So, "healthy" would be believing in God, and believing in groundless fantasies like, "There is no God" would be a form of disease...agreed, go on, please... not believing in god or supernatural events is not a type of belief in god or supernatural events. KA Right, but you believe that "no God exists," don't you? Please don't try to dodge the real issue here. There really was no substance to your argument KA Yes, I gathered that by your extended response... beyond claims without logical support or linked evidence so there's little need to go into great detail. KA Touche. What cannot be proven is evolutional origins. Correct. -KA god. It goes something like this: 1) Claims which contradict existing proven claims are "false until proven true". KA What fantasy-based "proven claims" did you have in mind here, sir? 2) Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is an existing proven claim. KA Right. Unless God, who created M & E, intervenes. 3) A being knonw as god MUST be able to create matter and energy. KA Now that seems reasonable! 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." KA You lost me in the garbled mess in the paragraph above. Would you restate that using clarity and reason this time? You're now going to have to eat the words I linked to or concede the claim "god exists" is false. KA I'm not hungry, sorry. And I have the killer argument, remember? Tough break. The burden of proof has always and will always lay squarely on the shoulders of theists to prove their folklore actually happened. KA The claim "There is no God" is a faith-based assertion that requires the atheist to shoulder the burden of proof for his assertion, withdraw his claim, or accept the fact that he is a man of faith. 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. KA And you know, I'm really terrified of being laughed at, aren't you? All them big kids at my high school... We know that complex structures and systems can arise naturally. KA Who is this "we"? I thought you and I were debating. Is there someone else in the room? Finally, you have no evidence that god created anything KA Look out your window, padawan. or that he even exists. KA Ditto. It's circular reasoning KA Well, stop using it, then, for goodness' sake. that lacks any causal link. It's not unlike declaring the increase in global warming is due to the decrease in pirates. KA I think that the pirates may have something to do with it--they started driving cars. But I digress... Now, why am I not surprised that you've decided to use the term "Macro-Evolution" in a discussion of this nature? KA: I don't know why you aren't surprised... Please, tell me. It tells me you've been discourteous and are trollish KA And, I thank God that you haven't treated me that way, I really do. ly arguing subjects you haven't taken the time to understand. KA Again, I feel so ashamed. That was really convincing what you just said. It would be like an atheist stating "We shouldn't worship Jesus because he told Jews to murder Romans in their sleep." KA What about when they are awake? Is that ok? 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. KA And I thank God that you don't have any of those born of those. Your assertions about so-called "Macro-Evolution" are no different. Allow me to set you straight with the help of the University of Berkley. KA How about "setting me straight" with the help of your own words instead? I rarely read extended quotes or visit links--do your own work instead of invoking your older brother, eh? 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. KA It certainly seems that "these considerations" are the main focus of the legal debates raging around the country, doesn't it? And if there is a God, you are in more than a little trouble, yes? Regardless of how life started, KA A minor side-point that happens to be the focal point of this thread. Get your own thread. Ma!!! afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes. KA Cross-species evolution has never been proven. Never been proven. Never been proven. This message will self-destruct in [transmission ends here] Finally, all you've offered us as an alternative is "we don't know what caused it so goddidit". KA Finally, all you've offered ME as an alternative is "we don't know what caused it so "primordialsoup&lightningdiditinsomewaywecannotfigureoutorexplainbutweofferittoyou,arrogantly,as"sci ence"." This is called god-of-the-gaps reasoning KA Well, at least you have a name for it. That's really cool-sounding. and is the same flawed logic that told early people that Zeus made thunder KA You're trying to tell me, seriously that you believe that Zeus DID NOT make the thunder? and Ra was actually the sun. KA You mean RA isn't the sun? Wow, these are really compelling and interesting arguments. You must have an advanced degree to know all this kinda stuff! Though we don't have all the answers, KA No, really? I didn't know humility was an atheist value. Hmmm... turning to pre-bronze-age logic that has NEVER been proven isn't the path to truth, my friend. KA Wow, I can call you "friend" now? I hate to see how you treat your enemies. It is, however, absolutely the way to cement ignorance.

KA well, at least now I know the way. That's a really nice high-horse you have there, by the way. What's his name?

KA This has been very enlightening and convincing. It makes me feel so darn stupid that I didn't see all the wisdom in this science stuff of yours before. Thank you so much for opening my eyes in such an intelligent and courteous way. Sinerely, sincerely, sincerely.

[Cadre]

You need to read some texts on Biochemical Predestination, and Chemical Evolution.

You continue to argue moot points KA, by oversimplifying and making suppositions, to benefit your argument, even after it has been negated. You also seem to be relying on wit, more than reasonable argument in your last few posts to degrade the other person (perhaps stemming from frustation)?

I'm obviously not referring to everything you're saying though, don't get pissy with me

This thread went from fantastic to crap attitudinally in like a matter of two posts... :(

Oh well, Happy Holidays everyone!

[Jack]

This thread went from fantastic to crap attitudinally in like a matter of two posts...

I have to agree. The sniping and personal back-and-forth isn't contributing to the debate in any constructive way. Please stick to the topic and drop the attitude. It's not doing your positions any good.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[KillerArgument]

So you believe the following: "God and/or gods do not exist--I see no evidence for them." Is this a correct statement of what you believe? If not, please revise it to make it correct.

~~~

Natural processes are scientifically verifiable. Godless evolutional origins of life, are not.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Zhavric 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.

If life is nonlife, does that mean that I am undead? Or that I will never die because I never was alive?

Fascinating or stupid? We report, you decide.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Cadre 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

No problem, Cadre.

But the *components* of a living organism are not the same as the life itself.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Zinkovich Great! You and I, then, are going to get along just fine. 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? 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. 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?

Zinc,

The evolutionary guess at origins is not scientific fact or proven theory.

It is not a part of "science" any more than faith in a creator God is a part of science.

Science is hypotheses, experiments, observations and data. Anything more is not science.





.

[Jack]

The evolutionary guess at origins is not scientific fact or proven theory.

You're arguing that evolution doesn't explain to your satisfaction that which it doesn't address. Evolution concerns the adaptations of species. It doesn't address the origin of life.

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument No problem, Cadre. But the *components* of a living organism are not the same as the life itself.

Well then are you saying that the concious mind is a blessing from God that allows us to give resources to the assemblage of components in a living organism?

Cause that's pretty out there bud...

[RickSp]

This attempt to link atheism and evolution is rather silly. They are entirely seperate issues. Using the red-herring about the "origin of life" is even more foolish. There are many questions to which science has no answer. That is the nature of science. That doesn't invalidate science nor reduce it to a matter of "faith".

What is so funny about the fringe attack on evolution is that, whether the fundamentalists like it or not, evolution is central to much of modern science. All of which has effectively nothing to do with whether or not one thinks there is any reason to believe in God.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Cadre Well then are you saying that the concious mind is a blessing from God that allows us to give resources to the assemblage of components in a living organism? Cause that's pretty out there bud...

This is very simple: what is the difference between a live person and a body that died 5 minutes ago?

Life.

Are any of the chemicals any different?

No.

Simple.

Life is not the body.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: RickSp This attempt to link atheism and evolution is rather silly. They are entirely seperate issues. Using the red-herring about the "origin of life" is even more foolish. There are many questions to which science has no answer. That is the nature of science. That doesn't invalidate science nor reduce it to a matter of "faith". What is so funny about the fringe attack on evolution is that, whether the fundamentalists like it or not, evolution is central to much of modern science. All of which has effectively nothing to do with whether or not one thinks there is any reason to believe in God.

Evolution itself is not scientific. It only appears that way to ignorant people because it is surrounded by scientific data that does nothing to prove the theory it surrounds.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Isherwood You're arguing that evolution doesn't explain to your satisfaction that which it doesn't address. Evolution concerns the adaptations of species. It doesn't address the origin of life.

Cool. So you agree that God created the first species, just like God said He did?

This post was really poor. Evolution has to begin somewhere. Where does it begin?

Big Bang> Primordial soup + Electricity>
Protein chains> Amoebas> Fish with legs> Chimpanzees> Man.

Who are you trying to kid?

[Jack]

what is the difference between a live person and a body that died 5 minutes ago?

Physical and chemical interactions, especially those in the brain.

Evolution itself is not scientific.

There are several thousand reasons why I fail to agree with this. They're called scientists.

[Jack]

Who are you trying to kid?

I was trying to make a point. It's too easy to kid someone who believes "Big Bang> Primordial soup + Electricity>
Protein chains> Amoebas> Fish with legs> Chimpanzees> Man."
From now on I'll confine my comments to those who have actually learned what evolution is about.

[RickSp]

Quote by: KillerArgument Evolution itself is not scientific. It only appears that way to ignorant people because it is surrounded by scientific data that does nothing to prove the theory it surrounds.

LOL. As evolution is at the core of all modern biology and most other natural sciences you are calling virtually all living natural scientists "ignorant". Very amusing. Got any other wild and unsupported claims to keep us chuckling?

[Cadre]

Sorry I was out with relatives, didn't have the chance to respond to the more technically based science questions. I know some of you other atheists weren't gonna bother in here, but that's cause your pricks

Quote by: KillerArgument This is very simple: what is the difference between a live person and a body that died 5 minutes ago? Life. Are any of the chemicals any different?

No difference between living and dead matter?

Can we prevent ageing altogether and live indefinitely? No, therefore there is a difference. We don't die because the concious mind says I'm tired and want to visit heaven now. It's also a challenge because it means overcoming the harm constantly inflicted on the the multitude of tiny cells within us. Over their lifetimes, cells are subjected to a host of biological insults and injuries: infection, trauma, extremes of temperature, exposure to toxins in the environment, and damage from metabolic processes. When the damage gets to a certain point, cells self-destruct in a process known as apoptosis or cell death. Over a 12 to 24-hour period, the cell's energy powerhouses, the mitochondria, shrink. Its genetic material fragments into pieces, and eventually the cell corpse is eaten by scavengers called macrophages.

In some body tissues, these lost cells are replaced. But in other tissues, like muscle, they aren't and the muscle shrinks. In the brain, the dead cells are replaced by fibrous material. Even in tissues where cells are replaced, the replacement doesn't go on indefinitely. Cells stop dividing after a certain number of reproductions – about 50 – due to specialised stretches of DNA called telomeres, found at the end of every chromosome

Go back to science class before you make these broad sweeping claims that fit your argument only. At least I'm open minded enough to consider and read about opposing viewpoints.

Quote by: KillerArgument No. Simple. Life is not the body.

In other words, "Yes Cadre you were right in interpretating my definition of life."

By your definition however we are now back at square one because by confirming my definition, you insinuate that concious life arises out of chemical interactions in human beings because God will's it. This is not provable (and why disprove that which is not proven? The never ending argument). Either way thats a different topic. Ad hominem, this doesn't help your argument because you continue to neglect the Biochemical Evolutionary theories that I put forth and CITE.

I still think we are asking the wrong questions.

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument Cool. So you agree that God created the first species, just like God said He did? This post was really poor. Evolution has to begin somewhere. Where does it begin? Big Bang> Primordial soup + Electricity> Protein chains> Amoebas> Fish with legs> Chimpanzees> Man. Who are you trying to kid?

You are misinterpreting Evolution.

Evolution is any process of formation or growth; development - VIS A VIS - Natural Selection. Natural Selection is that process, I will explain it in more depth as you seem to have heard some twisted versions of it.

Natural Selection is the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.

Basically random genetic variations that suit certain environments are more successful at surviving and pass their genetics on to further generations, while others die off.

Evolution does not address the origins of life, it explains how we get from life to were we are now. It doesn't just merely say "AND MAN WAS CREATED". Biochemical Predestination and Chemical Evolution address the concept that you are discussing (life's origin) via the scientific scope.

I'm not going to explain those to you, because I already did and I keep referring you back to them. Once again however, if you want to say that God created space and time, reality and matter, then go ahead but as I said one post ago, this is back to square one.

Wrong questions AND off topic now.

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument If life is nonlife, does that mean that I am undead? Or that I will never die because I never was alive? Fascinating or stupid? We report, you decide.

Life is not nonlife. One does not equal the other as that is fallacious, as you said. However you are misinterpreting.

Let variable X represent life and be defined numerically as 10.
Let variable Y represent non-life materials (primordial pool, etc..) and be defined numerically as 5.
Let variable Z represent non-life materials (lightning, external stimuli, etc..) and be defined numerically as 5.

y + z = x
5 + 5 = 10

Basic arithmetic.

Life can arise from non-life. Five is not ten, but the product of two five's is.