Correlation between AS and religion/atheism or no?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't mind that at all. Better than believing in dogma.

You said it. Deep space. A lot of things can happen over an extremely long period of time. And eventually something really interesting happens. The formation of Earth ... and then eventually after another long period of time ... the "ooze" that you speak of.



Because that's not how evolution works. Evolution is not instant magic. It's gradual and the changes are only outstanding by observing generations of organisms ... not by spotting them all in one individual organism. Where are you getting your information about evolution from?



They don't decide. It's all done naturally and gradually. Something had to happen, one way or another. And it just so happened that units started to divide ... and evolve gradually over time through successive generations into larger and more complex organisms. Nothing magical about it at all. It's how nature works.



There's no such thing as "perfectly functioning". And these life forms don't decide to be this or that in order to survive. Mutation is something that naturally and "randomly" happens, and if it just so happens to be a favorable mutation within the region of nature the organism is in, it will spread via successive generations and eventually lead to a significant number of organisms having this particular mutation.

There are several ways to spread your genes around by the way. Alliance with other species is just one way.



Again, the male and female thing did not happen as a matter of decision. It just happened, and when it did happen, it just happened to be useful enough to become prominent. It's all chance really.



When there's no competition, that's all the more reason to survive longer and spread more of your genes around.

My advice to you is to read up on evolution. Because you show a lot of ignorance concerning the subject. At least know the subject before debating.

Depends what is meant by "creationism". If you mean "we were created 6000 years ago and have not evolved much since", then I'd start with Darwin, and move onto... every biologist, chemist or physicist since.

Elements come from stars.

Because that isn't how it works. It takes hundreds of thousands of mutations to get from one species to another, gradual changes, usually over millions of years. A mutation will often change nothing, at most it will change the structure of one protein. Speciesation happens when alleles are so different that two "groups" can no longer successfully interbreed.

They didn't decide, they have no consciousness.

The process is called evolution.
Not necessarily in all environments.

Multi-celled organisms could photosynthesise. Wham bam thank you mam, energy source that isn't "a vent on the sea floor".

Didn't quite work like that. For one thing, plants have both sexes.

Sexual reproduction allows for greater variation due to random assortment of alleles. This makes organisms more likely to be able to survive if the environment changes. We can see this today with species that reproduce both sexually and asexually, such as strawberries.

Initially, conjugation evolved. We then got the sexual reproduction found in plants, where all plants (or at least most) have male and female sex cells. I would guess that something similar happened with animals.

Plants compete for resources, such as nitrogen compounds, water, light, and carbon dioxide. They also compete for "not being eaten", and successfully reproducing.

I heard all the creationist stuff thirty years ago when I was researching both evolution and creation. I studied both deeply. I also studied evolution as part of my science degree and evolution was the clear (landslide) winner of the evolution vs creation debate. Since then, over the last thirty years the breadth and depth of knowledge about evolution has increased enormously too and it continues to increase. It is a fascinating field. I have little interest in hearing the tired old fallacious arguments of creationists yet again.

I've reached the conclusion that creationists are too wrapped up in their own little world of self-delusion to actually investigate the facts for themselves, so they keep spouting the same old tired and inaccurate rhetoric, like your creationist friend's list which simply shows he's clueless about evolution. I see that others have bothered to reply to his post, which is more than I can muster the motivation to do nowadays. I'm sick of creationists trying to insist that 2 + 2 = 5. If you want to believe that, it is your choice. I spent a lot of time and effort studying these things myself; if you are truly interested in knowing about reality I suggest you do some study of your own - go to university for a few years and study physics, biology and biochemistry and don't just swallow the garbage spouted by clueless creationist websites.

So frankly, I don't give a damn about your naive "opposing views". You can argue/debate that the Earth is flat as much as you like. I don't have the patience to respond to that level of ignorance any more.

People who rail against and deny established facts are delusional and ignorant. What would you think of a person who maintans that the Earth is flat in the face of all the evidence that shows it is an oblate spheroid (approximately)?

ruveyn

And the truth floweth forth...

And neither do I if you are going to respond like that. Don't complain when someone disagrees with you and your views.
You never really wanted to hear what I had to say in the beginning anyway.

I'm all for hearing from different perspectives, I may not agree with it personally but I am fair enough as a person to hear it and accept it.
Your not even willing to do that for me. I can only imagine how you feel when someone really trips you off.

I admit, I am young I'm only 20. I haven't completely figured it out. Hell, I am high school graduate. But that does not mean my "opposing views" are any less valid than yours. It's called a democratic discussion-both sides receive equal hearing. You say your into Zen-Buddhism, at least privately. I know Buddhism enough that it preaches upon equality and tolerance of those who disagree with you. You are the very one who is being intolerant upon me and you continue to show it.

I'm glad I said what I said to you. I may be completely wrong for all I know. Or I could be right. The outside objective source will ultimately discern who is ultimately correct. Does that mean that "Gods" couldn't exist? Could it mean "Gods" could exist? Could man invent a "God?" When we die, do we just stop existing and go into oblivion? Is there an end?

Best Regards,

Jake

People who choose not to hear and accept a side are just as equally ignorant. Let's be fair.

Best Regards,

Jake

No, no, no! That isn't how discussions work.

Evolution has a massive body of evidence behind it.

YE Creationism has... nothing.

Put it this way, if I started claiming that 2+2=7, would my view be "as valid" as yours? Would I deserve equal hearing to you?

So, the majority of people assume, because enough "evidence" provides it. That it must be correct? And ultimately attempts to strong-arm the opposing view off the field? I may be completely wrong for all I know. Does it mean that my views are not valid, no. It means I am participating in discussion.

Best Regards,

Jake

Jake, you can argue until you are blue in the face trying to say the Earth is flat; but don't expect people to debate you or take you seriously. Creationism is on a par with the flat earth. It is a dead concept that has been irrefutably shown to be false. If you also believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old I'm afraid you are really away in fantasy land.

If you are making a claim as to the validity to moral relativism, yes. If you firmly believe that no moral absolutes exist, there would be no objective way to verify 2+2=4 or 2+2=7. It doesn't prove anything Creationist will use that as a way to show relativist inconsistency. If no moral absolutes exist, you cannot make a moral reccommnedation, therefore, the only way truly consistent with moral relativism is complete silence.

As long as one knows what the symbols in the equation 2 + 2 = 4 represent--the numerals and the mathematical signs--a moment's reflection shows that the truth of the equation is self-evident. It's known by intuition. Basic math is another thing that can't be proven. It's obvious to our intuition. No scientific proof is necessary, nor is it possible.

Best Regards,

Jake

I'm not saying the Earth is flat. I'm saying there might be more than one way to verify the Earth is round
I know I will probably not convince you otherwise and what I say in this discussion (As well as the other person) is valid, you may not agree with it.
It's not a question of whether or not creationism is valid or if evolution is valid. My beef is with the bias in the discussion.

Best Regards,

Jake

Last edited by NAKnight on 28 Dec 2012, 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Talking with you is like talking to a mirror of myself. I know I cannot convince myself to do anything, I also know I'm incredibly stubborn. So, even though I talk to you. I'm learning more about myself. So, in the end, my discussion has meaning and purpose to better myself. I also enjoy standing up for those who can't do it. You steamrolled and plowed the dude who initially started the creationist discussion. Live and let live, I'll take what he says and he and I may be completely wrong. Does it hurt my feelings? No. He's participating in discussion and good for him.

Best Regards,

Jake

Good for you. Sounds like you are getting something out of these exchanges. I used to have similar debates with Jehovah's Witnesses thirty years ago - I think we all got something out of those debates. In the end we went our separate ways and agreed to disagree; but it is good to ask questions and seek answers.

If I may make one suggestion... if you plan to debate evolution you should learn more about it from reputable (scientific) sources. You know the saying... "Know your enemy"

I learned about both evolution and creation a long time ago and reached my own conclusions. Do your own research and make your own conclusions. Try to use reputable sources for both though.

Except that atheism as a FACT involves no "values"- it is a lack of belief in deities.



There is no unknown in my life which, unique among the other unknowns, makes it rational to insert a deity.

I "claim" I never made a choice, that is, a conscious selection among multiple options, because I DIDN'T.
I no more "choose" to not believe in deities than you "choose" to not believe eating frozen yogurt will make you invisible.



I have no idea which is more disturbing- your ignorance of the fact that atoms ARE observable,
or the implication that empirical data is synonymous with one human sensory perception.