Religion dooms you atheism saves you

Originally posted by JS357
This discussion of the evidence for evolution is taking place in the Spirituality forum, right? That should explain the sense in which "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" shows "no evidence" for macroevolution.

“...This discussion of the evidence for evolution is taking place in the Spirituality forum, right? That should explain the sense in which "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" shows "no evidence" for macroevolution. ...”

No. The reason why it is in the Spirituality forum is because a creationist disputed the scientific fact of evolution there.
I do not dispute the scientific fact of evolution.
How is the mere fact that somebody disputes a scientific fact in the Spirituality forum make it not a scientific fact?
If somebody disputed the scientific fact of the Earth is round and dispute it in the Spirituality forum, would that automatically imply that it wasn't a fact?

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about reading the article then break it down in simple terms
that we can all understand and point out the 29 evidence which he
did not number. Possibly it was all mixed together and I overlooked
them. But, honestly, I did not see them. Maybe you could number
them for me to point them out.

I just give you ONE arbitrary example of a page from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

here is a more direct link to it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

scroll about three-fiths down until you see in blue print:

"...Example 1: mammalian ear bones and reptile jaws
Example 2: pharyngeal pouches and branchial arches
Example 3: snake and whale embryos with legs
Example 4: embryonic human tail
Example 5: marsupial eggshell and caruncle ...”


then click each one of the examples in turn and read and then come back to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even if I did accept this as evidence, It could be evidence of a
common designer instead of common descent.

Firstly, why cannot that “common designer” be evolution but ( obviously ) with a non-standard meaning of the word “designer” that does not imply intent/intelligence?
(I could use this same non-standard meaning of “designer” that does not imply intent/ intelligence by saying “certain atmospheric variables and conditions are the designer of snowflakes” -and why not? Is there a law against using any non-standard meanings?)

Secondly, the evidence clearly proves a relatively gradual change over millions of years and that all life having a common ancestor and that clearly contradicts your religious belief of how the “common designer” did it! For example, you do not believe that we and modern apes share a common ape-like ancestor -right?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Firstly, why cannot that “common designer” be evolution but ( obviously ) with a non-standard meaning of the word “designer” that does not imply intent/intelligence?
(I could use this same non-standard meaning of “designer” that does not imply intent/ intelligence by saying “certain atmospheric variables and conditions are the designer of snowflak ...[text shortened]... For example, you do not believe that we and modern apes share a common ape-like ancestor -right?

It seems to me, just by common sense without any scientific
knowledge at all, that something without any intelligence
could design the universe and all that is in it should be considered
unreasonable, without absolute proof and an explaination of how
it happened. God is believed, by many, to be the highest
intelligence, so many believe that God should not be so easily
dismissed as a possible cause of it all. Basically, the idea that
evolution or nature or whatever you want to call it produced such
design and order throughout the universe and in all living things
without having even man's intelligence seems absurd.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It seems to me, just by common sense without any scientific
knowledge at all, that something without any intelligence
could design the universe and all that is in it should be considered
unreasonable, without absolute proof and an explaination of how
it happened. God is believed, by many, to be the highest
intelligence, so many believe that God should ...[text shortened]... out the universe and in all living things
without having even man's intelligence seems absurd.

Lets take two scenarios:
1. God creates the laws of physics. A beautiful snow flake forms via crystallization via the laws of physics (and chemistry).
2. God creates the laws of physics, but they are not in them selves sufficient to cause snowflakes to form, so God is required for each and every snowflake. Although we can predict when and how they will form via the laws of physics, the flake is so beautiful that it could not possibly form via physics alone so God must have his hand in every single time.

Are you arguing 2 is the case?

If you are content with 1. then you should have no problems with the Theory of Evolution. It does not rule out God as the creator of the universe or the laws of physics. It merely explains how, via the laws of physics, life forms change over time and how they have changed in the past. It doesn't even say what life existed in the past, but rather helps to explain the evidence we have from other sources (geology etc) about life in the past.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I just give you ONE arbitrary example of a page from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

here is a more direct link to it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

scroll about three-fiths down until you see in blue print:

"...Example 1: mammalian ear bones and reptile jaws
Example 2: pharyngeal pouches and branchi ...[text shortened]... uncle ...”


then click each one of the examples in turn and read and then come back to me.

I just don't feel like wasting anymore time on it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It seems to me, just by common sense without any scientific
knowledge at all, that something without any intelligence
could design the universe and all that is in it should be considered
unreasonable, without absolute proof and an explaination of how
it happened. God is believed, by many, to be the highest
intelligence, so many believe that God should ...[text shortened]... out the universe and in all living things
without having even man's intelligence seems absurd.

'It seems to me'
'Just by common sense'

Are you seriously suggesting that what seems correct should be the basis of how we understand the world?

Several hundred years ago, it 'seemed' that there were a hell of a lot of witches around. Were there?
Of course not. People were deluded and hysterical.

I'll give you a more recent example.
Many scientists and pundits talk about the likelihood of the existence of intelligent civilisations beyond the earth. A common refrain is something like - 'I can't imagine how there could be so much space and only one civilisation out there.' (Even scientists make your mistake so I guess everyone is fallible.)
What's the mistake here?
No logic. No basis for the reasoning.
There must be aliens because there's so much space.
Well, there might be aliens, but this argument isn't going to make them any more or less likely.

Likewise, your intelligent designer argument is a common one. How could something that is so obviously designed, not have a designer?
Well, is it obviously designed? Or, can you have something without design that looks like it was?
Evolution is simple a model for explaining that yes, actually, you can. If this model is true then you can get the appearance of design without having a designer. Is it true? I don't know - is any scientific explanation true? That's not what science creates - truth. All it does is generate models for explaining things. Come up with a better model and it will replace older ones - Einstein did this to Newton. Have you got a better model than Evolution for the variety of life on Earth?

Well, of course you'll go back to your 'god' mantra - but as I've already suggested, this isn't an explanation, just an exhortation to dogma. Believe it if you like, but I think you know somewhere deep down that it is slightly idiotic ...

Originally posted by amannion
'It seems to me'
'Just by common sense'

Are you seriously suggesting that what seems correct should be the basis of how we understand the world?

Several hundred years ago, it 'seemed' that there were a hell of a lot of witches around. Were there?
Of course not. People were deluded and hysterical.

I'll give you a more recent example.
Many scienti ...[text shortened]... ke, but I think you know somewhere deep down that it is slightly idiotic ...

As far as I am concerned the Holy Bible is the inspired
word of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As far as I am concerned the Holy Bible is the inspired
word of God.

Yeah, that's great for you, but a pretty large proportion of the rest of us on this planet don't think you're right, so ... convince us.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
"...I see you point, but think if you want to use examples of things getting simpler
or less complex as proof or evidence that things can get more complex, ..."


why would want to show that “ things can get more complex”? -I don't because that would not be directly relevant.

“...That happens all the time, what DOES NOT HAPPEN
except between ...[text shortened]... onary process? Isn't evolving to loose legs in a narrow sense be evolving to be “simpler”?

Losing information or a life form losing limbs would not at all show it evolving into
simpler life so that it could be thought of as proof/evidence for evolution the way
it is being portrayed by its true believers! If it is being suggested that life started
simply and over time became more complex as it evolved you'd have to have
evidence for that, not the opposite where it appears to be digressing into simpler
life forms. As a system breaks down things stop working, it loses function, at
some point stops all together. Since we see life as you suggest getting simpler
that does not mean it is getting more complex over time but quite the opposite and
that is evidence to the contrary as far as evolution is concern in my opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
"...I see you point, but think if you want to use examples of things getting simpler
or less complex as proof or evidence that things can get more complex, ..."


why would want to show that “ things can get more complex”? -I don't because that would not be directly relevant.

“...That happens all the time, what DOES NOT HAPPEN
except between ...[text shortened]... onary process? Isn't evolving to loose legs in a narrow sense be evolving to be “simpler”?

“But it HAS happened many millions of years ago. We have fossil evidence and other evidence for that."

You have to be a true believer to suggest this is so! You have fossils, and they are
of creatures that lived in the past, dates you place on them being correct does not
matter, it is enough to know they lived in the past. What you are suggesting is that
of these different creatures that we have fossils for are not just simply creatures that
lived in the past but they are what the life we see today evolved from! Just because
you see what you think was something less evolved that had some similar
characteristics than some life form today you may want to suggest that one came
from the other; however, to be completely honest they could just be two different
creatures all together! Your evidence with the fossils is nothing more than you
attempting to connect dots that may or may not true. If it is fits your theory you'll
accept it, but that does not mean it is true or not only that it fits your theory. Using
fossils as evidence suggest what you think may be true about them is, you do not
really know, but it does go to show you are a creature of faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your evidence with the fossils is nothing more than you
attempting to connect dots that may or may not true.

All science is connecting the dots. The problem is that you seem to accept connecting the dots when it suits you, but reject it when it doesn't.
Finding a bone shaped stone and concluding that it was once a life form is 'connecting the dots' and you seem to take that to be indisputable fact, yet when it comes to finding a clear pattern in the types of life forms found at different dates, you imply that it is suddenly just guess work and subject to much higher margins of error.
But you have never satisfactorily explained to me why you make this differentiation.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Losing information or a life form losing limbs would not at all show it evolving into
simpler life so that it could be thought of as proof/evidence for evolution the way
it is being portrayed by its true believers! If it is being suggested that life started
simply and over time became more complex as it evolved you'd have to have
evidence for that, not ...[text shortened]... site and
that is evidence to the contrary as far as evolution is concern in my opinion.
Kelly

“....Losing information or a life form losing limbs would not at all show it evolving into
simpler life ...”

If loosing some limbs combined with other changes over time to a species makes it so different from its ancestor that it would be considered a different species and a species that is less “complex” in some sense (given whatever criteria you are using to define the magnitude of “complexity” ) then how would that NOT be evidence for macroevolution?
GIVEN that any good non-flawed definition of the word “evolution” should not contain the word “complex” in it (although it may mention the word in a side-note that is not part of the definition itself) , what is the LOGICAL contradiction (if any) of a species evolving into another species that is less 'complex'.

“...If it is being suggested that life started
simply and over time became more complex as it evolved you'd have to have
evidence for that, ...”

we have proof of that -a vast mountain of evidence.

“....not the opposite where it appears to be digressing into simpler
life forms. ...”

the only reason why life evolved to GENERALLY (not always) become ever more complex is because it must have started of about as simple as it could be and, therefore, LOGICALLY, it could only evolve to be more complex from that beginning because it couldn’t evolve to become even simpler than its simplest form at its beginning -it literally had only one route to take -more complex.
Therefore, if I showed evidence of something evolving to be 'simpler' in some sense sometime AFTER it evolved to be more complex then that would be no less valid piece of evidence of evolution than showing evidence of something evolving to be even MORE 'complex' in some sense sometime AFTER it evolved to be more complex.


“...As a system breaks down things stop working, it loses function, ...”

gradually loosing limbs that are no longer advantageous to have would mean that those limbs would loose function (and so “stop working&rdquo😉 but the rest of the living thing would remain functional and not “ break down” or “stop working”. A snake evolving from a lizard would be an example of this -a snake has no legs (just vestiges of some) and yet a snake gets around just fine and hasn't “ break down” or “stop working” as a result of losing its legs.

“...Since we see life as you suggest getting simpler
that does not mean it is getting more complex over time ...”

No, that is not what I said. I am NOT saying that examples of something evolving to be simpler in some sense means logically means it is “getting more complex over time”. The general trend of it “getting more complex over time” is because, as I have already stated, it started of as about as simple as it could be so it is bound to generally get more complex from that starting point because there is no other way for it to go. There is no contradiction in evolution 'simplifying' something in some sense AFTER it has evolved to be complex.

“....but quite the opposite ...”

as I said, that is not what I claimed.

Also, becoming more complex is not one of the things what DEFINES what evolution is; it is just a general trend of evolution for the reason I have already given above.

It is a myth propagated from some bad web links that evolution is just about making things “more complex”.

Originally posted by KellyJay
“But it HAS happened many millions of years ago. We have fossil evidence and other evidence for that."

You have to be a true believer to suggest this is so! You have fossils, and they are
of creatures that lived in the past, dates you place on them being correct does not
matter, it is enough to know they lived in the past. What you are suggesting is th t them is, you do not
really know, but it does go to show you are a creature of faith.
Kelly

“...Your evidence with the fossils is nothing more than you
attempting to connect dots ….

yes, that’s right. That is how science works. We go wherever the evidence points i.e. “connect the dots”.

Therefore, I am not making the evidence fit the theory but making the theory fit the evidence.
The evidence is what it is and we acknowledge it in its entirety before reaching any theory.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All science is connecting the dots. The problem is that you seem to accept connecting the dots when it suits you, but reject it when it doesn't.
Finding a bone shaped stone and concluding that it was once a life form is 'connecting the dots' and you seem to take that to be indisputable fact, yet when it comes to finding a clear pattern in the types of li ...[text shortened]... error.
But you have never satisfactorily explained to me why you make this differentiation.

There is a lot of dot connecting going on that suits people, you have a point?
Kelly