Evolution & Atheism... Is it really more plausible?

[haruvister]

When it comes to this argument, I find it best to refer to a man of greater distinction than I:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7853325.stm

 

[grimsprice]

... Well, that's like going to Vegas and winning a billion dollars with a single dice roll.

Actually its not like winning a billion dollars in a single dice roll. Its like spending your whole life in vegas, as a proffessional gambler, and winning a few hundred here and few thousand here your whole life, and ending up with a billion. Which is totally believable if you are that good at poker. Evolution has had a loooooong time to build complexity out of simplicity.

 

[Notsomuch]

Evolution has basis in fact. There are numerous fossils that show similarities to humans over the years, the fossils becoming more and more human-like as time came closer to the dawn of man. Plus our DNA is shared with several of our ancestors, AKA Monkeys.

Atheism is plausible because, if there's no evidence for God Existing/Not-Existing, I'll just take it that he doesn't exist.

Just wanted to mention that scientists don't really understand how DNA works all that much. And even a 2% difference or whatever in DNA is HUGE from a scientific perspective, given the complexity of even a single DNA strand.

Besides that, probability math might tend to disprove the long sequence of coincidences/lucky breaks we refer to as the Evolutionary process. Just think of all that can go wrong with no kind of design or plan (because if there WERE a design, that would tend to imply a designer).

Similarities in DNA could be evidence of a creator using similar materials to build his stuff as much as it could be evidence of Evolution. I mean, if you have a perfectly good method for making a hand, why change it any more than you have to?

Just throwing some ideas out there. Feel free to believe whatever you want, I'm just trying to steer this topic away from the obvious flamebait perspectives on the subject.

When we speak over such a long period of time, the conditions on Earth mean that life at least as complex as fish was more likely than not

I'll give you that, maybe (although there's so much that could have gone wrong with the initial formation of life), but mankind is a long way from a sea bass. Well, most of them. The evolution of something so highly tuned and obscenely complex as the human brain (which has a near-infinite capacity for storage and is or was more powerful than a supercomputer)... Well, that's like going to Vegas and winning a billion dollars with a single dice roll.

Now, if we have a designer of some kind, it makes sense why we have all this really intricate stuff everywhere and our world works so perfectly (or did, before we started messing it up).

It does not. Evolution is not a random process it is a calculating process. You are operating on a misconception. To have the human brain form whole by chance is unlikely however if it were to evolve and increase in intricacy over time then that would make sense. Evolution isn't a random dice role attempting all sixes in one go it is a process that removes the sixes after each roll and decreases the odds of achieving the desired result. That is not to mention that there are examples of brains that ours would have evolved from and that we can accurately trace back the evolution of our brain to lower life forms.

 

[AngloDoom]

*snip*

You do know you wasted an entire essay on a complete and utter tool who's only here for the fight and doesn't give a damn what anyone else says, right?

Part of me thought so, but I just fancied writing anyway. I like writing similar essays, oddly.

Still, thanks for the warning there.

 

[Shapsters]

OKAY PLEASE PEOPLE. GIVE ME A BREAK ABOUT MY AGE. I'M 17, OKAY? I ask for a few intelligent responses and about 75% of them simply call me a 12-year-old moron.

I can stand moron, but the age thing is getting kind of annoying. As soon as you say I must be 12, I can automatically assume (since you can't come up with a more unique or complex insult) that your age (or IQ) must be about half that.

As for the word "noob"... Whatever, I'll stop. It was stupid of me to begin.

People are saying you are 12 becuase your use of words like noob, lolz and your obsession for the caps lock and exclamation mark. You act like a 12 year old people are going to assume you are twelve.

Now as for the matter at hand, evolution is, and will always be a theory because despite how much evidence there may be supporting it(and there is a lot) no one was there to witness it and it is all based upon findings and theories the about these findings.

Now, if we look at many, many species of animals we see proof of evolution, take the Pelican for example, as opposed to the seagull who enjoys scraps, the pelican like nice fresh fish. This particular bird, as you may have noticed has a mouth/beak very much unlike other birds, this is becuase the species has adapted over thousands of years to better its fish catching ability.

 

[grimsprice]

*snip*

You do know you wasted an entire essay on a complete and utter tool who's only here for the fight and doesn't give a damn what anyone else says, right?

Part of me thought so, but I just fancied writing anyway. I like writing similar essays, oddly.

Still, thanks for the warning there.

Yeah, i go back and forth between moods. Tonight i'm ready for an intelligence vs. stupidity fight like this. Most of the time, i'd just agree with captain blackout, feckim and his flaming.

 

[AhumbleKnight]

well if the universe has existed FOREVER!!! then eventually something like this could happen as if you think of the earth's weather patterns, lightning strikes aren't uncommon and it is known that heat is a valuable catalyst for chemical reactions to occur, and also with trillions and trillions of possible lightning strike and stuff BEFORE FIRST LIFE!!! it is entirely possible that it could have occured.And final note, don't call me a noob seeing as all science is just speculation weighed against evidence and the fact that you think that everything was just created out of nothing begs how much you really think about these things. The most likely occurence of energy and mass and stuff is that it was changed from something else, and that doesn't mean it was created from nothing and everything began, it means that there was always energy and possibly matter.

Actually, the whole lightning strike theory has been proven wrong and is now considered false. There are other theories for Abiogenesis that exist. At least one theory has been proven by recreation in a lab. ie. the forming of stable single celled organisms from fatty acids in right pH condidtions.

A common problem with anti-evolution arugments is that people try and lump other forms of science into the mix of evolution. By saying that ID or Creationism or the Bible or any other religious belief is correct and evolution is wrong, you are actually also denying many other forms of science. Other forms of science that have far more going for them in the way of evidence and recreatable experiments.

 

[bjj hero]

Evolution has basis in fact. There are numerous fossils that show similarities to humans over the years, the fossils becoming more and more human-like as time came closer to the dawn of man. Plus our DNA is shared with several of our ancestors, AKA Monkeys.

Atheism is plausible because, if there's no evidence for God Existing/Not-Existing, I'll just take it that he doesn't exist.

Just wanted to mention that scientists don't really understand how DNA works all that much. And even a 2% difference or whatever in DNA is HUGE from a scientific perspective, given the complexity of even a single DNA strand.

Besides that, probability math might tend to disprove the long sequence of coincidences/lucky breaks we refer to as the Evolutionary process. Just think of all that can go wrong with no kind of design or plan (because if there WERE a design, that would tend to imply a designer).

Similarities in DNA could be evidence of a creator using similar materials to build his stuff as much as it could be evidence of Evolution. I mean, if you have a perfectly good method for making a hand, why change it any more than you have to?

Just throwing some ideas out there. Feel free to believe whatever you want, I'm just trying to steer this topic away from the obvious flamebait perspectives on the subject.

When we speak over such a long period of time, the conditions on Earth mean that life at least as complex as fish was more likely than not

I'll give you that, maybe (although there's so much that could have gone wrong with the initial formation of life), but mankind is a long way from a sea bass. Well, most of them. The evolution of something so highly tuned and obscenely complex as the human brain (which has a near-infinite capacity for storage and is or was more powerful than a supercomputer)... Well, that's like going to Vegas and winning a billion dollars with a single dice roll.

Now, if we have a designer of some kind, it makes sense why we have all this really intricate stuff everywhere and our world works so perfectly (or did, before we started messing it up).

You're saying the speed of evolution is improbable (although you can follow most of it if you check fossil records over millions of years), but an all powerful god who has existed forever and is intelligent enough to create all of life seems more probable to you? Who "designed" him then? It makes far less sense.

I'd like to add he's a shitty designer. As we have evolved from quadropeds to bipedal it has left us with issues ranging from back ache to piles... A designer might have taken more care.

 

[HK_01]

the "Atheists, It's time to turn the spotlight on you" topic has me ranting. Such quotes as:

xXGeckoXx: "I will raise the child as a scientist. I will not teach him that there is a god. If he tells me that he has heard of religions and wants to know what they are all about i will tell him but I will tell him why it is scientiffically7 implausible. then once he has been told he can choose."

MalthusX: "I will teach them how some people thought the world was made, but I will point out that evolution makes more sense."

Does it really make more sense? Can people really argue this logically for me? Yes, I realize you can't completely disprove or even offer significant evidence against the fuzzy, biased view of the earth's creation by a Christian, but try and offer some real evidence FOR evolution.

aruki: "A fair judge [God] wouldn't tarnish everyone from a family, street, town or country or race for the acts of two individuals from centuries ago. Assuming the bible to be correct that is."

Okay, I know this post wasn't typical post, normally people replied a bit more intelligently than that in the thread. But posts that showed little to no knowledge of the Christian side of the picture were fairly common.

Okay guys... post. Please do so in an intelligent manner (I reserve the right to make fun of every grammatical error found), and, if you directly mention elements of Christianity... make sure you have some idea what you are talking about.

PS: Don't hate me for making a religious thread.

You want evidence for evolution? The genetic code of humans and apes is 90+ percent identical. Horses and donkeys can produce offspring with each other, suggesting that they had the same ancestors. How humans turned wolves into dogs is an example of evolution. Cows that produce 60 litres of milk a day are an example of evolution(controlled by humans, though, just like the dog example). The fact that we have different species living on the planet today that one million years ago should be proof to you that there is evolution(or do you think the new species that we see today just popped up?). There's LOTS more.


Edit: I think I found the perfect example: viruses. They evolve so fast that we can see it happening. They develop immunities, adapt to the environment, evolve in other words, right in front of our eyes.

Edit 2: Reading some of the previous posts, I have the feeling that I wasted my precious time responding to a troll, or at least someone who's not willing to even consider what the people not sharing his opinion are saying.

 

[Seanchaidh]

but try and offer some real evidence FOR evolution.

Over the years, people have taken pickaxes to the ground and found these wonderful bits of dead stuff we know as fossils. These fossils have different characteristics. Some of them have a ribcage. Others are bacteria or protists. Still others are plants. Many of them are dinosaurs. Did you know that dinosaurs have a ribcage and quite a few of the same organs that cows, manatees, etc. have? Well they do. A tyrannosaur? Ribcage. A Brontosaurus? Ribcage. Triceratops? Ribcage. And horns! These bunches of fossils were probably alive before coming fossils, as you might guess. And they do have very many common characteristics. But they are also quite different in important ways, and you'll especially see a trend that creatures that are alike in one way are very often alike in other ways. For instance: if something has a skull, it usually has a ribcage and four legs or two legs and two arms or wings-- or it's a fish. The four-appendage configuration is extremely popular, and as far as I know without exception the front legs are always distinguishable from the back legs by more than just placement; the hindquarters are usually bigger. You'll see this from rats to zebras to kittens and bunny rabbits. The most obvious exception is winged creatures: these have small legs and large wings rather than large legs and small arms. But you'll notice this pattern throughout every mammal that hasn't been somehow deformed: two pairs of appendages that look like mirror images. You'll also see a skeleton. And a stomach. And a heart. And a brain. These organs can come in wildly different shapes and sizes; but they share enough in common and tend to do the same things enough that we can easily categorize them as like things. But not every living thing does have a heart. And not every living thing does have a brain. And not every living thing does have a skeleton. But they all, without any exception, are comprised of cells which replicate and divide. Animals, plants, bacteria, all of them are made of cells.

One thing you'll notice about the fossil record is that when you date different fossils (using radiometric dating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating]) is that the first living things to become fossils were bacteria, or one-celled organisms. And those organisms share a characteristic with all living things: that they are made of cells. Then you'll later see larger organisms: the first fungi, the first plants, the first animals, the first lizards. And these too have some universal similarities with later sorts of their kind, but they also have very strong differences from the other types: no plant has a skeleton. No animal can photosynthesize or put roots into the ground and soak water. No insect has a ribcage and no animal has anything like a larva->cocoon->butterfly lifecycle. You won't see opposable thumbs in anything but primates. Paths appear to have diverged many different times, even though there is the primal, cellular similarity. You see specific mutations within groups of different living organisms and not ever replicated in other populations--at least not in the same way: the legs of a centipede or spider are vastly different from the legs of a kangaroo, which are much closer to the legs of other animals. Legs seem to be one of those things that is both so simple and so useful that it is manifested in various ways. The wing seems to be another of those.

Now we know from genetics that traits can be passed down with each generation, and that mutations can occur. We also know that there are limited resources for consumption and competition between organisms to consume those resources. It stands to reason that those organisms which most successfully reproduce themselves are the ones which the next generation will most resemble. So, when a mutation happens, if it sucks (like, say, dwarfism) it doesn't happen as much and the population is dominated by non-dwarfs. But if it rocks (like, let's say, having eyes) then the advantage causes the freakish mutation to get passed down more than average and come to dominate.

I'm going to stop because this is getting huge. On the whole, I find this request for "some real evidence" both amusing and frustrating. I'm no expert on this stuff, but it makes every bit of sense to me. I wrote this off the top of my head. Read a damned book if you really want more than 0.001% of the available evidence because FUCK is it everywhere.

 

[miccy2000]

The Christian (and all religions, actually) arguments are entirely based on ancient lore and faith. There is no scientific way to argue such beliefs except when they directly contradict what is observed. Much of the creation theories DO directly conflict with what is observed, so those theories are clearly false. However, this doesn't invalidate the religion in itself; religion is more of a philosophy, and it is only the stupid ones that take religious principles entirely literally. Religion is in a sense art; it is meant to be interpreted and spark thought. Too often though, it is used as a control system of the masses instead, which is a shame, frankly.

While I don't necessarily agree with you entirely, this is one of the most intelligent threads so far, and also the only truly neutral sounding one.

I believe there is no God, and hate people lumping Atheism and Evolution together into the same category, since they don't necessarily go hand in hand.

The general assumption by theists seems to be that the universe couldn't have been around forever, so there had to be a 'god' who created it, however ask them how their god came into existence and they will explain that he has always existed, and always will.

I find no reason to believe that the idea of god being around forever is anymore legitimate than the idea that the universe has been.

Get over it.

 

[Abengoshis]

Evolution is a fact and a theory, and the theory has more evidence than the theory of gravity.
Theories explain facts, they are not and I repeat, NOT hypotheses. Those who reject evolution simply haven't seen any evidence, or ignore it at will because it conflicts with their beliefs.
There is no reason to ascribe a deity.

There is no need for this thread. There will be flaming. Can someone lock this topic before people are burned?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

so much for intelligent responses?

A shocking lack of grammatical errors, good show there. But seriously... read some of these:

Okay guys... post. Please do so in an intelligent manner (I reserve the right to make fun of every grammatical error found), and, if you directly mention elements of Christianity... make sure you have some idea what you are talking about.

Evolution has basis in fact. There are numerous fossils that show similarities to humans over the years, the fossils becoming more and more human-like as time came closer to the dawn of man. Plus our DNA is shared with several of our ancestors, AKA Monkeys.

Atheism is plausible because, if there's no evidence for God Existing/Not-Existing, I'll just take it that he doesn't exist.

Show me a REAL missing link, noob. Part of the point of this thread is to have people actually give real EXAMPLES. That seems to be the problem nowadays. You say, "this is supported by facts and statistics," and people believe you. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS POST. And fossils that show similarities... hmmm. Maybe because those bones work? Maybe they serve a freakin similar purpose??? Geez. Good job regarding grammar and spelling though.

STOP ASKING FOR THE MISSING LINK DAMMIT! Whats wrong with you people. For you there will always be a missing link.

"We found the missing link"
Some stupid christian: "whats between that and the next thing?"
"we havnt found it yet... this is the best we have got"
"ITS NOT ENOUGH >:C i want a million fossils linking this monkey with 4 fingers to this monkey with 5 il keep complaining that their isnt enough in between until someone shoots me"

Looking at how old these fossils are and how fast evolution can happen on a reltive scale of how they are preserved (Evolution takes a long time but once a good factor is added the ones that dont have it die out relatively fast compared to the time it took to mutate the new factor).

People saying this annoys me. There are infinite missing links, some only existed for a few thousand years which is nothing in fossil terms. We cant find fossilslike that and chaces are we never will. If we found every fossil ever except for 1 would you still disagree because theres a missing link?

The "missing freakin link" was an idea made before we found human fossilised remains. Your using an outdated arguement in the wrong way. We found many human remains now and the fossil record is quite full actualy.

What you want is a COMPLETELY absurd amount of evidence compared to the retarded statement of "God did it". Put me out of my misery now, how much factual scientfic evidence equates to some random quote from a book that says "God did it".

My arguement doesnt have to be 100% flawless, it just had to be better than yours... and it is.

Which missing link do you want btw? There are inifinate amounts of them, take your pick.

 

[bjj hero]

Evolution is a fact and a theory, and the theory has more evidence than the theory of gravity.
Theories explain facts, they are not and I repeat, NOT hypotheses. Those who reject evolution simply haven't seen any evidence, or ignore it at will because it conflicts with their beliefs.
There is no reason to ascribe a deity.

There is no need for this thread. There will be flaming. Can someone lock this topic before people are burned?

I feel there has been a lot less flaming than I've seen on previous threads. Most of it seems to come from the OP with his noob comments etc.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

Ah, another religion thread. I could of course once again say everyone can believe what they want and trying to bash other people's beliefs (or even a proven biological concept) is completely pointless. I'm pretty tired of that though, so instead I just respond with a picture of a kitten:

 

[Downfall89]

Oh shit! Ready your shield of +30 fire resistance! My flame senses are tingling, watch out my /b/rother its about to get HOT in here!

4chan references aren't very well accepted around here.

What about movie references?

What movie reference? You deliberately put two slashes before and after that "b".

Indeed I did, indeed I did.

4CHAN FTW.

 

[Zefar]

I can agree with some people here!

Intelligent design does fundamentally contradict evolution!!!

Evolution was theorized in order to provide an origin basis for the RELIGION of atheism, and so, yes, intelligent design DOES contradict evolution.

Please stop arguing for it as a viable compromise.

I do, however, view intelligent design as somewhat feasible.

Atheism can't be a religion. It will NEVER be a religion.
To be a religion you need.
1: A holy book.
2: A god
3: Magical events in the lifetime.
4: Set of rules or way of life. (Atheist either stick to the law or just breaks them.)

Atheism have none of those. If you are 17 and still don't know this we could actually call you stupid because this is common knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Now Evolution is a Scientific Theory. This is a different version from the normal Theory.

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Oh and do you know Gravity is a theory? It's actually not that supported compared to Evolution. Yes, here's the funny thing. Evolution is THE MOST supported Scientific Theory in the world. It got the most evidence. Most backed up with information. We can also observe it. We have observed it. We have already found some animals that have adjusted already. One is a frog that grew longer back legs to jump higher.

Intelligent Design have NOTHING on Evolution. Absolutely nothing. It breaks down so quickly it's even silly to believe in it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzshC-rCXSE
They even presented a cheap way to try to support it. But so far nothing proves it.
It lost in Court too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
That one is rather interesting to listen too. You might actually learn something too.

Evolution have on the other hand millions of fossils. So many articles on the DNA that improved our understanding of Evolution. The missing links are no longer missing. Most things that where hoax where proven wrong by the scientific community.
Religious people usually take things way out of context. Like quoting Darwin when he had limited knowledge and it was over 150 years ago. Then they think they can claim the entire thing is wrong too.


Scientist have a good theory on how life could have started too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

His experiment was able to produce some pretty good results and there was now the life blocks that are needed for life.
You can try this too. You can create this experiment if you have the tools and you'll get the same results.

That's the good thing with science. If you don't believe in it you can always learn more about it and do the experiment for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcFLp1uVZ4
Watch some of his videos. It'll probably clear things up.
You can also watch http://www.youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks this guy.
Both of these know what they are talking about.

Now try to watch those videos of theirs. Pick anyone you like but you ain't gonna watch any of them. You might as well quit on Evolution all together because you obviously have no will to learn anything new.

Oh and here is a video showing how large universe is so far for us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgg2tpUVbXQ

So which ever God you have. Just happen to leave out the size of universe. Seems like a universal mistake.

 

[Glass_House]

The official stance is that God kickstarted Life and let it go nuts. When Humans came about, He showed up and said, "Hey, kids, check this out", then showed them how to murder'n'shit.

Well, probably not that, but the first part is true. God shows up, kickstarts a self-replicating chemical reaction and watches the results. Occasionally dropping a meteor or two, when He got bored.

This sure as shit makes the most scientific sense. I mean 'living organisms just randomly appeared' seems impossible and implausible. And if God didn't do it then what?

Ooooo I love this argument! "How could we have just appeared that makes no sense! Yet it makes sense that god just randomly appeared and created all of us? Logic defuses this argument before it has a chance.

 

[Skeleon]

There is a nice little example of how evolution works in the macrocosmos.
We know about it, because it happened just a few years ago.

Back in the day, shortly before the industrialization, there was a species of moth. Like it is with people's hair colours, there were differently coloured moths. Some were white, others brown, others something inbetween.

Now, in this area our little story is taking place, there were a lot of birch trees.
Moths are eaten by birds because they find them oh so yummy. If a white moth would land on a birch tree's trunk, it would be relatively well hidden. Brown moths, however, would be seen, caught and eaten. Thus, mostly white moths survived and got to produce new white offspring, the great majority of moths were therefore white in colour.

However, then industrialization hit. And since we didn't give a fuck about exhaust back then, the sky was blackened with ash. Said ash would also stick to the surrounding nature, such as the birch trees' trunks.

Well, I guess you can imagine what happened next, right?
Whenever a white moth would land on a now blackened trunk, it was easily spotted by those big, mean birds, then caught and killed.
However, all of a sudden, the brown moths had a far bigger chance of surviving! In fact, they survived so well that they quickly repopulated the gap left by the white moths. So now, we had mostly brown moths. A new trait has been established as the dominant one because the environmental conditions had changed.

And that, kids, is how evolution works on its most basic level.
Random mutations (differently coloured moths) lead to differences within a species. And the environmental conditions (white versus blackened tree trunks) decide who gets to live and reproduce.

 

[Disaster Button]

Shuddering Fuck. What is witht he recent upsurge in Religion Threads?

I Never really minded em before but Christ on a Stick, there's been like 9 kajillion in the last couple days alone