Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[KillerArgument]

Atheism, defined as: "There is no God," is an (unprovable) faith.
A negative cannot be proven. Atheism is a negative. Therefore atheism, as defined above, is unprovable. Atheism, of itself, is not necessarily any more rational than any other faith,

Macro-Evolution: that life originated without God, life from non-life, is not science, but religion. Those who believe in evolution as their religion worship science and logic as their God, their supreme value, the determiner of all that is real, But the theory of God-less evolutionary *origins* is neither scientifically testable nor logical. It is not logical because every organism had a parent or parents--where did it all begin? Who (or what) put the first organism on earth?

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument Atheism, defined as: "There is no God," is an (unprovable) faith. A negative cannot be proven. Atheism is a negative. Therefore atheism, as defined above, is unprovable. Atheism, of itself, is not necessarily any more rational than any other faith, Macro-Evolution: that life originated without God, life from non-life, is not science, but religion. Those who believe in evolution as their religion worship science and logic as their God, their supreme value, the determiner of all that is real, But the theory of God-less evolutionary *origins* is neither scientifically testable nor logical. It is not logical because every organism had a parent or parents--where did it all begin? Who (or what) put the first organism on earth?

"Regarding the first production of a living organism, if we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of amonium and phosphoric salts, light heat and electricity present. That a protein compound wall could chemically form, ready to undergo still more complex changes. At the present such matter would have been certainly devoured, but this may not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
-Charles Darwin

This is the concept of chemical evolution/biochemical predestination(amino acid protein bonds in a self replecating cycle and through random genetic variations created life, which through natural selection progressed to a point in which now we inhabi the earth) through probability and chance. Many people reject this idea because they want to believe we have a purpose, and that our existence did not arise out of mere chance.

[Jack]

Atheism, defined as: "There is no God," is an (unprovable) faith.

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, of itself, is not necessarily any more rational than any other faith

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.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Cadre "Regarding the first production of a living organism, if we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of amonium and phosphoric salts, light heat and electricity present. That a protein compound wall could chemically form, ready to undergo still more complex changes. At the present such matter would have been certainly devoured, but this may not have been the case before living creatures were formed." -Charles Darwin This is the concept of chemical evolution/biochemical predestination(amino acid protein bonds in a self replecating cycle and through random genetic variations created life, which through natural selection progressed to a point in which now we inhabi the earth) through probability and chance. Many people reject this idea because they want to believe we have a purpose, and that our existence did not arise out of mere chance.

Sorry, that quote thing doesn't work every time for me.

If all this is so simple, go get amonia, phosphorus and an electrical source and create life in your basement. And please, call TIME magazine in a few hours or so when you do it. I'm sure it would be a rather big story.

But if you, and no scientist on earth can do this, then why not consider stopping calling creationists stupid for believing Someone more powerful and intelligent was involved?

[Jack]

But if you, and no scientist on earth can do this, then why not consider stopping calling creationists stupid for believing Someone more powerful and intelligent was involved?

It's more sensible to believe a concept that adheres to our knowledge of physics, biology and the other sciences than one that requires us to accept that in this one case the laws of nature were suspended. The natural solution makes more sense than the supernatural one, even if we admit we may never know the exact causation.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: KillerArgument Atheism, defined as: "There is no God," is an (unprovable) faith.

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.

Quote by: KillerArgument A negative cannot be proven. Atheism is a negative. Therefore atheism, as defined above, is unprovable. Atheism, of itself, is not necessarily any more rational than any other faith,

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.

Quote by: KillerArgument Macro-Evolution: that life originated without God, life from non-life, is not science, but religion. Those who believe in evolution as their religion worship science and logic as their God, their supreme value, the determiner of all that is real, But the theory of God-less evolutionary *origins* is neither scientifically testable nor logical. It is not logical because every organism had a parent or parents--where did it all begin? Who (or what) put the first organism on earth?

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.

[Zinkovich]

Besides which, summing up the complaints most scientifically minded atheists have about creationism as "creationists are stupid" is just laughably ignorant of the many aspects of the "debate" between intelligent design versus evolutionary theory.

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.

[Cadre]

I'm glad to see you responded, this discussion is less sought after!

Quote by: KillerArgument If all this is so simple, go get amonia, phosphorus and an electrical source and create life in your basement. And please, call TIME magazne in a few hours or so when you do it. I'm sure it would be a rather big story.

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.

Quote by: KillerArgument But if you, and no scientist on earth can do this, then why not consider stopping calling creationists stupid for believing Someone more powerful and intelligent was involved?

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]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer 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.

I got it covered, but relax with the insults. Perhaps no one has attempted to explain to him a different belief?

[Jack]

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.

I agree absolutely. All we ask is that, if one wishes to present an alternative to evolution, that it be subjected to the same testing and verification as evolution has gone through. The playing field should be even.

Our attitude toward those who hold such opinions has nothing to do with the validity of evolution or the lack of validity of ID.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Zinkovich Besides which, summing up the complaints most scientifically minded atheists have about creationism as "creationists are stupid" is just laughably ignorant of the many aspects of the "debate" between intelligent design versus evolutionary theory. 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.

Nor is it falsifiable..

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Cadre I got it covered, but relax with the insults. Perhaps no one has attempted to explain to him a different belief?

I know, I still get a horrible headache -.o

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Cadre "Regarding the first production of a living organism, if we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of amonium and phosphoric salts, light heat and electricity present. That a protein compound wall could chemically form, ready to undergo still more complex changes. At the present such matter would have been certainly devoured, but this may not have been the case before living creatures were formed." -Charles Darwin This is the concept of chemical evolution/biochemical predestination(amino acid protein bonds in a self replecating cycle and through random genetic variations created life, which through natural selection progressed to a point in which now we inhabi the earth) through probability and chance. Many people reject this idea because they want to believe we have a purpose, and that our existence did not arise out of mere chance.

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.

Dear Isherwood,

This is the first time I've seen you disingenuous... You reject belief in the existence of God or gods. Is this not the very same thing as saying that you do not believe God or gods to
exist?

The entire creation is evidence of God's existence. Why is this not valid for you?

I also, though I believe in Him, do not believe God can be proven with reason and logic.

Atheists seem exactly like this to me: we are both fish in water, and the atheist says to me, "Look, I don't believe in water, jack. There's no evidence of it. This slide-rule I have here cannot detect it. Until you can bring me some evidence of this mythical "water" stuff you keep talking about--that my slide-rule can detect--I feel no obligation to recognize that it exists. Buzz off, you delusional fish!."

[Cadre]

Side note, I haven't seen anyone here that is registered before me?!

[Jack]

You reject belief in the existence of God or gods. Is this not the very same thing as saying that you do not believe God or gods to exist?

No it's not. To say I don't believe in your god would infer that I accept the possibility of gods existing, I just reject yours. I'm saying I don't accept the entire notion of gods, your's, the Greek's, the Roman's, the Scientologist's, anyone's. The whole idea of gods is unsupportable and unbelievable, as well as unnecessary.

The entire creation is evidence of natural processes. Why is this not valid for you?

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Isherwood It's more sensible to believe a concept that adheres to our knowledge of physics, biology and the other sciences than one that requires us to accept that in this one case the laws of nature were suspended. The natural solution makes more sense than the supernatural one, even if we admit we may never know the exact causation.

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....

And I don't have an radical opposition to physics, biology or any other science that can prove it's hypotheses with experimentation.

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument Dear Isherwood, This is the first time I've seen you disingenuous... You reject belief in the existence of God or gods. Is this not the very same thing as saying that you do not believe God or gods to exist?

Ish, I'll let you defend yourself.

Quote by: KillerArgument The entire creation is evidence of God's existence. Why is this not valid for you?

No, god's existence is a convenience created by human beings to answer our fundamental questions regarding 'the entire creation'. Why is this not valid for you?

Quote by: KillerArgument I also, though I believe in Him, do not believe God can be proven with reason and logic.

So god is the unanswerable, unreasonable, and illogical?

Quote by: KillerArgument Atheists seem exactly like this to me: we are both fish in water, and the atheist says to me, "Look, I don't believe in water, jack. There's no evidence of it. This slide-rule I have here cannot detect it. Until you can bring me some evidence of this mythical "water" stuff you keep talking about--that my slide-rule can detect--I feel no obligation to recognize that it exists. Buzz off, you delusional fish!."

Water, is just a name for the surrounding molecules. Both fish would believe quantitatively and qualitatively that the water exists because when they move they create currents, that make it both visible, and can be sensed.

The analogy is non-sequitir, sorry :(

[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 of the existence of said undefined creature. When those of us who don't find this mytholgoy spinning to be convincing, refuse to accept elaborate dogmas based on these undefined and unproven beings, we are told that our unwillingness is exactly as irrational as the faith required for these sellers of soap. Not the first time I have faced this sophistry, yet I will admit, I always find it bizarre every time I hear it.

[Cadre]

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

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.

[Jack]

Every so often, someone comes up with the statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible". Often they cite an impressive looking calculation from the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, or trot out something called "Borel's Law" to prove that life is statistically impossible. These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors. Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations 1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all. 2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life. 3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. 4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. 5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences. I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.

The full article