Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: More things against creationism
June 11, 2015 at 12:24 pm
(June 10, 2015 at 10:37 am)polar bear Wrote: OK disclaimer I am new to being an atheist and still learning a shit ton from you all. How in the fuck can theists get their arms around the age of these fossils. To be honest this question never crossed my mind, because one of my indoctrinators told me that the fossil record proved the case for creationism. I took it at face value and never asked questions.
If any christians read this post please have a discussion about how you can explain this one away.
Welcome to the party
Also pick or choose people are ignorant and want something in a book to be true. The fact being is the whole argument of god falls apart fast when history
is involved especially with older species of human and human ancestor start to pop up also dinosaurs.
Because this makes perfect "sense".
![[Image: omnipotent-beings-correcting-their-mistakes.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=files.explosm.net%2Fcomics%2FMatt%2Fomnipotent-beings-correcting-their-mistakes.png)
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 19788
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: More things against creationism
June 11, 2015 at 2:35 pm
(June 10, 2015 at 10:21 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Well..if they were different species they couldn't breed with each other.
Not true.
Members of different, but related species can and do often breed with each other. They often can even sometimes produce viable offsprings. But their offsprings are not fertile. When two individuals can breed and produce fertile offsprings, then they would be considered members of the same species.
But Even that is more clear cut in theory then in practice.
The degree to which two fertile individuals of different sex may successfully breed and produce fertile offsprings decreases as their genetic differences increases. But there is no abrupt cutoff. When two individuals are genetically very close, which all modern HSS are, then they can freely interbreed and produce fertile offsprings of both sexes. When they are more distant, often they can interbreed and produce offsprings, but either all offsprings from such a pairing is invariably of just one sex, or only offsprings of one sex is fertile.
There are hints from human genetics that any pairing between HSS and Neanderthals produced either only females offsprings, or only the female offsprings from such unions were fertile. Neanderthal genes that passed into the HSS gene pool seems to have passed only through female. If this was indeed the case, than it seems the interbreedability between HSS and Neanderthals were not complete. This argues against including Neanderthals in the homo sapient species.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: More things against creationism
June 11, 2015 at 2:44 pm
(This post was last modified: June 11, 2015 at 2:45 pm by robvalue.)
I'll tell you the biggest problem with any form of "creation theory". It doesn't explain anything. We have no more knowledge or understanding about anything after announcing it than we had before. It has no practical use whatsoever. It is simply replacing "don't know" with "God did it". Or even worse, replacing "do know" with "God did it".
Posts: 3931
Threads: 47
Joined: January 5, 2015
Reputation:
37
RE: More things against creationism
June 11, 2015 at 2:53 pm
(This post was last modified: June 11, 2015 at 2:53 pm by Regina.)
(June 11, 2015 at 2:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'll tell you the biggest problem with any form of "creation theory". It doesn't explain anything. We have no more knowledge or understanding about anything after announcing it than we had before. It has no practical use whatsoever. It is simply replacing "don't know" with "God did it". Or even worse, replacing "do know" with "God did it".
Exactly. If I remember correctly, The Bible doesn't even attempt come up with any explanation as to how God did it. It's just "God made x then God made y".
No substance, no evidence.
"Adulthood is like looking both ways before you cross the road, and then getting hit by an airplane" - sarcasm_only
"Ironically like the nativist far-Right, which despises multiculturalism, but benefits from its ideas of difference to scapegoat the other and to promote its own white identity politics; these postmodernists, leftists, feminists and liberals also use multiculturalism, to side with the oppressor, by demanding respect and tolerance for oppression characterised as 'difference', no matter how intolerable." - Maryam Namazie
Posts: 19788
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: More things against creationism
June 11, 2015 at 2:53 pm
(This post was last modified: June 11, 2015 at 2:58 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(June 11, 2015 at 2:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'll tell you the biggest problem with any form of "creation theory". It doesn't explain anything. We have no more knowledge or understanding about anything after announcing it than we had before. It has no practical use whatsoever. It is simply replacing "don't know" with "God did it". Or even worse, replacing "do know" with "God did it".
That in itself isn't a valid objection. Just because a theory can't yet be flushed out to explain many things doesn't make it untrue. What makes it much less likely to be true is other theories more uniquely predicts the evidences that hasn't been found yet at the time when those theories were propounded. This builds confidence that these other theories really contains more accurate analogues of how the world really works at a deep level than "creation theory"
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: More things against creationism
June 11, 2015 at 3:00 pm
(This post was last modified: June 11, 2015 at 3:10 pm by robvalue.)
Well sure, my objection doesn't make it untrue. But this theory doesn't make any predictions, except trying to claim retroactive credit. It offers no details, no method, no way the conclusion has been found, no way to test it... it's entirely empty. It would need to be replaced with an actual explanation before it could explain anything. It's just a bunch of vague magic words, it's no better than a horoscope. Worse, in fact.
It doesn't even say what the fuck God is, for starters, so it's not even coherent. "Something made everything". That's not a theory, I wouldn't even wipe my arse with it.
Or maybe: "The thing that made everything made everything." A tautology based on an unfounded assumption. Trific!
I suppose what I'm saying is it isn't even specific enough to be able to be "true". Even with the new "Science is true, but God did science!" approach.
Posts: 30595
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: More things against creationism
June 11, 2015 at 9:45 pm
(June 10, 2015 at 10:20 am)Yeauxleaux Wrote: I'm wondering if some of these different species of humans actually bred with eachother
Somewhere in this sentence is the basis for an Area 69 thread.
Just sayin'
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: More things against creationism
June 12, 2015 at 12:01 am
Rule 34 claims another victim.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
|
