Are you an atheist? (13 Viewers)

[Libre]

Doc Man
There are certainly unseen forces that exert huge influences in the physical world without being able to be described, observed, or understood.
If I asked you to produce a thing called gravity or magnetism you would have a difficult time of it. You can demonstrate the effect (weight, attraction of objects, etc) but you can't produce something called gravity, and hold it out in your hand, proving it does indeed exist.
God - if he does exist - would not be a guy you can just introduce someone to.

Not everything can be neatly sorted rolled into this category or that.
Especially when it comes to divine beings, the meaning of LIFE - that sort of stuff.
I re-state that the difficulty in proving/disproving the existence of God has more to do with the nature of God than the size of the domain. The domain could be reduced to the size of a thimble - as in - DOES GOD EXIST WITHIN THIS THIMBLE and you would still have a big job on your hands to answer that to anyone's satisfaction. Not all questions are factual YES or NO questions.

There are those who claim that whatever is described in the Bible actually happened just that way.
Others think of it more as a guiding book of parables - or maybe think it is nothing but fairytales - and might still have faith in a creator. So there has to be more than one way to address the questions that arise when discussing the legitimacy of the Bible and the thinking processes of its followers.

Furthermore it's not the lack of evidence that is at the root of the disagreement. To believers, the evidence is all around them. It's what you make of the evidence.

 

[Mike375]

Furthermore it's not the lack of evidence that is at the root of the disagreement. To believers, the evidence is all around them. It's what you make of the evidence.

That nails it more than any other post on the thread. However, it was better before you edited the post. A key point being evidence is not proof.

Someone who is a real guru with Excel will make a better data base or data management system than someone who is a battler with Access. Thus to an observer Excel is better than Access for making data bases and the observer has seen the "evidence" right in front of him.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

To believers, the evidence is all around them.

Ah, there's the center of the argument. What passes for evidence?

If I can explain planets via planetary accretion of dust and if I can accept abiogenesis as the source of life and if I can accept evolution as the way we got to where we are... then what I see is evidentiary "proof" that God is not required for understanding our world. To my viewpoint, science has demonstrated by observation and reasonable interpretation of existing evidence that planetary accretion is real, so the Earth was formed by gravity gathering dust motes. Evolution has been demonstrated in many cases using plants and animals having short-span generations so that we can watch them evolve. We have not demonstrated abiogenesis but we HAVE demonstrated spontaneous generation of pre-life chemicals in conditions that, if they lasted long enough, have a chance to lead to RNA, DNA, etc. I can accept these explanations.

If I cannot accept these explanations for how our world came into existence then that leaves us with speculation and conjecture that leads to a supernatural explanation. In that case, I have to MAKE UP something because the evidence around me doesn't meet my standards of proof. I have to interpret what I saw using primitive standards, and therein lies the big "gotcha."

What's worse is that peer pressure will lead to folks "following a leader" who has more convincing arguments - or personality - than his fellow primitive philosophers. And when I look at modern ministers, that's ALL that I see - persuasion without proof. Explanations that have no practical value ("God works in mysterious ways" ... a euphemism for "I have no idea why this happens this way, but GODDIDIT!")

Here more than for any other subject, the science-fiction authors have it right: Any event that requires sufficiently advanced science to explain it will look like magic to primitive beings. The God belief (to me) resembles something not much more advanced than the belief in animistic spirits that is prominent in Jeanne Auel's "Earth's Children" series. And THAT leads me to the question "Do I want to remain dependent on magic or would I like to learn more about how science explains things in a practical manner?" You know which choice I made.

 

[Mike375]

To my viewpoint, science has demonstrated by observation and reasonable interpretation of existing evidence that planetary accretion is real, so the Earth was formed by gravity gathering dust motes. Evolution has been demonstrated in many cases using plants and animals having short-span generations so that we can watch them evolve.

Doc,

While the "born again evolutionists" hate the term you will be describing micro evolution. The Peppered Moth is the classic example.

Micro evolution can be seen in the very short term. However, it is not a change of species but rather a genetic version becoming dominant.

While we are on evolution can you explain (use your own thoughts, not necessarily scientific approach) to me how the spawn of fish and amphibians evolved to the amniote egg, that is, the egg common to reptiles, birds and mammals.

Another one. The snake is supposed to have evolved from the lizard. I used to be a reptile keeper, including venomous snakes and I would just love to know how this could be done. Just describe how it could take place.

 

[Galaxiom]

While the "born again evolutionists" hate the term you will be describing micro evolution.

"Born again evolutionists" is a stupid term. Understanding Evolution isn't like the "born again Christian" who had a sudden "revelation". It comes form building up a body of knowledge and understanding.

Under your style of terminology you would be a "born again gravitationalist".

Micro evolution can be seen in the very short term. However, it is not a change of species but rather a genetic version becoming dominant.

A claim that extended microevolution over a substantial time period cannot lead to a new species is as nonsensical as claiming that a long journey cannot be completed by a large number of small steps.

Moreover, it is more than simply a change to a predominance of a preexisting genetic variant. Evolution also involves the accumulation of genetic changes which become more prevalent through natural selection.

Both genetic change and natural selection have been thoroughly observed and the processes understood. They are evidenced by direct observation and through comparative gene studies.

While we are on evolution can you explain (use your own thoughts, not necessarily scientific approach) to me how the spawn of fish and amphibians evolved to the amniote egg, that is, the egg common to reptiles, birds and mammals.

We have thoroughly covered this earlier in this thread. It is a process of increasing the number of layers in the egg such that it eventually becomes waterproof. There is no impossible leap as you have previously claimed,

The snake is supposed to have evolved from the lizard. I used to be a reptile keeper, including venomous snakes and I would just love to know how this could be done. Just describe how it could take place.

The lizard ancestors of snakes could move using their legs and body movements. Some had bigger legs than others. Those with smaller legs and better wiggling were better able to exploit a particular environmental niche. Over time the legs became vestigial and eventually were lost completely because they were an unnecessary burden on the individuals who retained them.

Clearly it didn't happen in the lifetime of one person but over millions of years.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Clearly it didn't happen in the lifetime of one person but over millions of years.

Cue claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Also, isn't it a little ridiculous that the guy who swears aliens are God also denies evolution?

 

[Mike375]

"Born again evolutionists" is a stupid term. Understanding Evolution isn't like the "born again Christian" who had a sudden "revelation". It comes form building up a body of knowledge and understanding.

I call them "born again" because their views are equally rigid.

The lizard ancestors of snakes could move using their legs and body movements. Some had bigger legs than others. Those with smaller legs and better wiggling were better able to exploit a particular environmental niche. Over time the legs became vestigial and eventually were lost completely because they were an unnecessary burden on the individuals who retained them.

Clearly it didn't happen in the lifetime of one person but over millions of years.

Your knowledge on the difference between snakes and lizards is very poor.

 

[Mike375]

Cue claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Also, isn't it a little ridiculous that the guy who swears aliens are God also denies evolution?

I don't deny evolution. However I think what is put forward is full of holes.

 

[Galaxiom]

I call them "born again" because their views are equally rigid.

You resort to name-calling because you are incapable of intelligent debate.

What kind of "born again" do you call yourself? You have demonstrated a rigid commitment to your aliens-as-gods hypothesis despite not offering a single piece of evidence. Your lizards on the lawn story is quaint but not actual evidence since it is nothing more than an analogy to your speculative view.

Evolutionists have far from rigid views. The details of the origins of whole groups of organisms has been under constant review and refinement ever since Darwin published Origins.

Your knowledge on the difference between snakes and lizards is very poor.

You make a big assumption on the basis of very little. I posted a vastly simplified version explaining one of the most obvious differences between lizards and snakes. Although the precise details of the evolution of snakes are still being debated, there is broad agreement that they ultimately evolved from terrestrial reptiles.

Why don't you tell us your version of the origins of snakes?

 

[Libre]

That nails it more than any other post on the thread. However, it was better before you edited the post. A key point being evidence is not proof.

Thanks.
But now I don't remember exactly what I had changed it to. I've changed it a few times. I know proof was in there someplace, and I do agree that evidence =/= proof.

I've gotten to the point - maybe during this thread - where I don't even believe that there is any "proof" about anything at all. Positives, negatives - nothing can be proved, outside of an artificially created system, such as formal logic or mathematics. There you can have proofs but they always refer back to themselves somehow - which is something that tormented mathematicians/logicians like Bertrand Russell if I remember my reading.
So you can have a proof in math but you need math to express the proof.

Out in the physical world, there is no proof.
There is only evidence - which actually is not evidence at all.
The mind imbues what we see with meaning, but that is our own interpretation of what we are seeing.

 

[Mike375]

Thanks.
But now I don't remember exactly what I had changed it to. I've changed it a few times. I know proof was in there someplace, and I do agree that evidence =/= proof.

Here is your original.......what comes in email after someone posts.

................................................................................................

Doc Man, not everything can be neatly sorted rolled into this category or that.
Especially when it comes to divine beings, the meaning of LIFE - that sort of stuff.
I re-state that the difficulty in proving/disproving the existence of God has more to do with the nature of God than the size of the domain. The domain could be reduced to the size of a thimble - as in - DOES GOD EXIST WITHIN THIS THIMBLE and you would still have a big job on your hands to answer that to anyone's satisfaction. Not all questions are factual YES or NO questions.
Furthermore (and by the way we really don't disagree - at least we're close to the same views it seems to me from your post) but it's not the lack of evidence that is at the root of the disagreement. To believers, the evidence is all around them. The non believers just don't accept it as evidence. And finally, evidence is not proof. It's only evidence.

 

[Mike375]

Why don't you tell us your version of the origins of snakes?

I wish I knew.

Transitioning over millions of years from lizards would make for a hopeless sort of animal for a long time. I can't see it being a mutation so its over and done quickly.

The legless lizard is interesting because that is exactly what it is, a lizard without legs. Not even close to a snake and I have owned both.

My basic view on macro evolution is I think there were a lot more starting points. For example I don't think it is fish, amphibian and then reptile. In other words the problem to get from spawn to the amniote egg might not have existed as the reptile might not be from the amphibian.

 

[Galaxiom]

Transitioning over millions of years from lizards would make for a hopeless sort of animal for a long time. I can't see it being a mutation so its over and done quickly.

Most mutations are disadvantageous. Only those which are not especially harmful persist unless they are tied to another mutation that affords such an advantage that the detrimental linked gene is less of a disadvantage than the beneficial one.

In many cases the first mutation on the road to change is nothing more than a duplication. This subsequently allows one version of the gene to continue with its normal job while the duplicate is free to change into another function

My basic view on macro evolution is I think there were a lot more starting points. For example I don't think it is fish, amphibian and then reptile. In other words the problem to get from spawn to the amniote egg might not have existed as the reptile might not be from the amphibian.

So despite the undeniable similarities in all life from microorganisms through to mammals, you are suggesting that life originated in multiple independent occasions to become separately, fish, amphibians, lizards and snakes?

 

[Rabbie]

Mike, A burrowing lizard could over many generations slowly loose its legs to become more and more snakelike. These changes would be advantageous so would lead the creature further down the evolutionary path. It is pretty clear that evolution is a series of very small steps and not a sudden macro leap forward.

In the case of snakes our knowledge of their exact evolutionary path is very limited due to the shortage of fossils and work is being done all the time in this field.

It does seem clear that there was a single source of life on this planet rather than your theory of multiple sources but I, like you, am an amateur in this field and must take my information from what experts have published and been peer reviewed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I don't deny evolution. However I think what is put forward is full of holes.

OK, that is your opinion, but let's please clarify. Do you find holes in the theory or in the supporting physical evidence? Let me see if I can put this in perspective. Here is an analogy that I will use to help show why your "hole" statement isn't quite valid.

Let us suppose for a brief moment that you are (were) a hard-working, honest police detective who worked in Nagasaki in early August of 1945 and were assigned a case regarding a murder in the city that had to be investigated. So there you are, a cop who is investigating a crime. But... you get called away for something in a nearby prefecture so you are out of town August 6th, 1945. (Lucky you...)

When the dust settles and the human tragedy of the A-bomb that leveled Nagasaki is finally resolved, you get back to your case - but now all of your evidence is either burned or eroded or buried. Your case is full of holes but does that mean the murder didn't occur? NO. It simply means that some of your proof has been eliminated and your theory of the crime has to now include multiple steps of logic to fill in some large gaps. Similarly, just because we have incomplete evidence with some gaps doesn't invalidate the events on the other side of those gaps. To say that macro evolution is invalidated because we don't have quite all of the fossil evidence is just being obtuse about alternative evidence.

In our case, we have DNA that gives us a guideline for the gaps because we can see the changes in genomes between two species and find how close they were. MANY times we have been able to find the change between two species to be just a few genes. We share 99% of our human genome with the genomes of the great apes.

The problem with the folks who can't make the mental leap from micro-evolution to macro-evolution is their inability to step outside of their limited viewpoints on time scales. They (apparently) believe that if it can't happen within the span of their own lifetimes, it must not be possible. And there is the fatal flaw in such thinking - the narrow viewpoint of time.

 

[Mike375]

Most mutations are disadvantageous. Only those which are not especially harmful persist unless they are tied to another mutation that affords such an advantage that the detrimental linked gene is less of a disadvantage than the beneficial one.

I agree with you that mutations are mostly bad news. However, many evolutions claim that mutations allow for evolution and it is the method which overcomes the transition period whereby an animal would be in a form that could not survive.

So despite the undeniable similarities in all life from microorganisms through to mammals, you are suggesting that life originated in multiple independent occasions to become separately, fish, amphibians, lizards and snakes?

Firstly, I think the branches of the tree started further down. In other words if we could travel back along the line from a reptile we would not see a frog and then a fish. If another person to also travel back and started with the frog then we would finally meet up with each other.

However, I don't think life started at a single point. I think it was starting all over the world. One would expect the different forms to have similarities simply because of the conditions.

 

[Mike375]

Mike, A burrowing lizard could over many generations slowly loose its legs to become more and more snakelike. These changes would be advantageous so would lead the creature further down the evolutionary path. It is pretty clear that evolution is a series of very small steps and not a sudden macro leap forward.

In the case of snakes our knowledge of their exact evolutionary path is very limited due to the shortage of fossils and work is being done all the time in this field.

It does seem clear that there was a single source of life on this planet rather than your theory of multiple sources but I, like you, am an amateur in this field and must take my information from what experts have published and been peer reviewed.

Rabbie,

Loss of legs is a very small difference between snakes and lizards. We have today legless lizards and then lizards with very small legs (in relation to body size) and lizards with very large legs, especially the back legs.

But the difference to the snake is much bigger. For one thing a snake a snake only has one functioning lung. A snake is nearly all body, that is, the tail is very small. A legless lizard has the long tail. The scale structure is completely different, For example a legless lizard (there are several species) moves forward in a manner totally different to a snake.

Then we have the skull and jaw structure. Then we have the snake with 100s of vertebrae.

Another difference is size and appearance of males and females, that is,
sexual dimorphism. This is especially interesting. The lizard along with crocodiles, caimans and alligators have males which are bigger and very often more colourful, in some cases to the extent of the peacock and peahen. As you mammals also have the male as the large one and often the most colourful or most decorated. African lion being a good example.

However, snakes go the other way that is common to "the lower forms of life". A great example being the Green Anaconda. The female is many many times heavier than the male.

As I posted earlier a legless lizard is a lizard in all ways except for the "no legs". If I handed you a legless lizard and a snake of the same length and you were blind folded and so could not see the ear openings on the legless lizard or the vent being a long way from the tip of the tail, you could still instantly tell which was which by just the feel of them as well as how they would be moving in your hands.

 

[Libre]

If I handed you a legless lizard and a snake of the same length and you were blind folded and so could not see the ear openings on the legless lizard or the vent being a long way from the tip of the tail, you could still instantly tell which was which by just the feel of them as well as how they would be moving in your hands.

If you blindfolded me and then handed me a legless lizard and a snake of the same length, I would not be able to tell which was which on account of the fact that I'd be unconscious due to the shock of being blindfolded and having you hand me these things.
This would be you:
Here put this blindfold on. Yeah. A little tighter. That's right. Now just hold your hands out - that's right - a little farther. Don't worry - I'm just going to put two little soft and fuzzy, cuddly little darlings in your hand. There you are. HA HA HA HA HA HAH (you laugh as I scream uncontrollably).
OH MY GOD WHAT ARE THESE THINGS??? ONE JUST BIT MY FINGER OFF - AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!!

 

[Mike375]

OK, that is your opinion, but let's please clarify. Do you find holes in the theory or in the supporting physical evidence? Let me see if I can put this in perspective. Here is an analogy that I will use to help show why your "hole" statement isn't quite valid.

Let us suppose for a brief moment that you are (were) a hard-working, honest police detective who worked in Nagasaki in early August of 1945 and were assigned a case regarding a murder in the city that had to be investigated. So there you are, a cop who is investigating a crime. But... you get called away for something in a nearby prefecture so you are out of town August 6th, 1945. (Lucky you...)

When the dust settles and the human tragedy of the A-bomb that leveled Nagasaki is finally resolved, you get back to your case - but now all of your evidence is either burned or eroded or buried. Your case is full of holes but does that mean the murder didn't occur? NO. It simply means that some of your proof has been eliminated and your theory of the crime has to now include multiple steps of logic to fill in some large gaps. Similarly, just because we have incomplete evidence with some gaps doesn't invalidate the events on the other side of those gaps. To say that macro evolution is invalidated because we don't have quite all of the fossil evidence is just being obtuse about alternative evidence.

In our case, we have DNA that gives us a guideline for the gaps because we can see the changes in genomes between two species and find how close they were. MANY times we have been able to find the change between two species to be just a few genes. We share 99% of our human genome with the genomes of the great apes.

The problem with the folks who can't make the mental leap from micro-evolution to macro-evolution is their inability to step outside of their limited viewpoints on time scales. They (apparently) believe that if it can't happen within the span of their own lifetimes, it must not be possible. And there is the fatal flaw in such thinking - the narrow viewpoint of time.

Doc,

I don't deny macro evolution. However I can't see how it happens with a huge time in transition, at least not with a very large number of animals. On the other hand I don't believe God or gods looked at lizards and thought "I would like something different to look at and amuse me" and with a click of the fingers a snake arrived.

I have been a reptile keeper and also a keen follower of dinosaurs for most of my life. I could not manage to be a dinosaur keeper

Probably the stand out thing with dinosaurs is the constantly changing view points. For example, later thinking is no longer that birds descended from the smaller theropods but the theropods descended from flightless birds.

 

[Mike375]

This thread was started in 2008 and the thread stater's last posting was 03-01-2010

I wonder if anyone who has been on and off the thread over the last 7 years has had any change in their views?