I've only read bits of the thread so I don't know if what I'm about to type has already been covered.


Yes humans are relatively closely related to cats in the animal kingdom.
What do we have the same as cats?
Similar digestive system, respiratory system, sex organs, urinary tract kidneys and so on.
We even have pretty much the same facial expressions, you don't have to be a cat expert to know a cat's moods, they scowl when angry, look sad, look content.
We are great apes and other apes in the animal family are going to be even more similar to us than cats, which they are.

Another thing is that evolution has nothing to do with how life started.

We have had Muslims come on this forum and tell us that the quran is amazing because a scientific miracle of the quran is describing evolution in it's verses, and I've heard this on a Muslim forum before also.

The bottom line is
Not being able to explain the beginning of life doesn't by default mean god exists.
Evolution is the theory of how life evolved after the beginning of life, that's why it's called evolution.

Don't try and arrogantly say you stunned people into silence by asking the question "Where did life begin". It just sounds patronizing.

The fact is that you don't know and most likely no one knows, but you believe a 1400 year old myth that god said the word "Be" to some dust, and there's other people believe there's probably a more logical solution than this.

(July 28, 2014 at 6:55 am)Harris Wrote: Mutations rarely occur natural world and when they occur, 100% of them are injurious.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? I believe it is false.

(July 28, 2014 at 6:55 am)Harris Wrote: Neutral mutations only give variations in the same specie if not the same property.

Just a moment ago you said that 100% of mutations were injurious. You can't even keep your own lies straight. This, too, is false.

(July 28, 2014 at 6:55 am)Harris Wrote:

(July 27, 2014 at 6:45 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Fossil record: We can track the evolution of species through fossils. A snapshot in time, these fossils show us how many species evolved to be how they are today. Like the horse and the even toad undulates. We know that they have evolved to be marine, then terrestrial, then marine, then back to terrestrial. We can accurately predict what fossils we are going to find at different depths.

Fossil record is incomplete not because Palaeontologists have not collected sufficient amount of fossil but because fossil record lacks fossils of transitional animals. Out of millions of records, not a single fossil has been declared to be a transitional animal.

This, too, is false and a lie. Do you do anything but spout lies and falsehoods?

(July 26, 2014 at 10:15 am)Harris Wrote:

(July 6, 2014 at 10:07 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Let's begin at the beginning shall we? Atheism is a lack of faith in god. Evolution is not necessary to my lack of belief in god. There is no proof or even suggestive evidence for the existence of god. Period. Full stop. No big bang, evolution, or abiogenesis required.

It is exactly my point as well. If you do not want to believe in the existence of God then it’s your choice but do not try to justify your belief by means of Evolution because Theory of Evolution has flaws that will only degrade the quality of your choice.

No one here justifies their lack of belief in God with evolution, so what are you even on about?

(July 26, 2014 at 10:15 am)Harris Wrote: On the contrary, Theory of Evolution seriously lacks evidence. On the other side the belief that God does not exist is self-contradictory due to the existence intelligible universe and human conscious.

Not believing God exists contains no contradictions. Wow, that was easy and required no thought at all! I'm beginning to see why you love making unsupported assertions so much!

(July 26, 2014 at 10:15 am)Harris Wrote: As a replacement for “BE,” can you offer any scientific explanation how life began?

Several, but if there were no plausible scientifica explanations for how life might have begun, it doesn't add even a fraction of a percent to the probability that YOUR explanation is correct. Using an argument from ignorance (you don't know, therefore I'm right) means you're failing before you even get started.

(July 26, 2014 at 10:15 am)Harris Wrote: Unfortunately, there is no moral code in Atheism, which can provide moral code of conduct to the followers of Atheism.

There's no moral code in theism, either, genius.

(July 26, 2014 at 10:15 am)Harris Wrote: Without having a moral code, people have little or no knowledge about ethics, about right and wrong, good and bad, virtue and vice, etc. if they are good then it is for the fear of punishment.

Just because atheism and theism doesn't have a moral code doesn't mean atheists and theists don't have moral codes.

(July 26, 2014 at 10:15 am)Harris Wrote: One essential condition for being a moral person is that the agent must have the relevant understanding (or capacity for understanding) of what the external requirements of morality are. Exactly how much understanding is required is not easy to specify if you do not have a moral code.

We have moral codes, just as much as theists have, and we're often better at following them.

(July 26, 2014 at 10:15 am)Harris Wrote: Exactly, Science has limitations and it cannot address to the phenomenon, which transcend the material world.

True. Of course, NO method of obtaining knowledge can address phenomena that transcend the material world. If there were, people who use the same method would reach the same conclusions about them.

(July 26, 2014 at 10:15 am)Harris Wrote: Following Quran is by no means a lazy act.

It's lazy to assume it contains all the answers rather than doing the work to determine what is really most likely to be the case. It's hard to follow, but at least it saves you the mental effort of trying to figure things out based on evidence and reason.

(July 26, 2014 at 10:15 am)Harris Wrote: How much I know Theory of Evolution and Natural selection do not have hard scientific facts. Richard Dawkins wrote:

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all.”
Page 5
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins.

I do not think above statement, by any means, a Scientific Fact.

So you think Natural Selection has a mind? Because Dawkins is saying it doesn't and you seem to be claiming that he's not justified in saying that.

(July 26, 2014 at 10:15 am)Harris Wrote: You should study some of the work of Thomas Nagel. Maybe he would take you out from your Evolutionary delusions.

The Nagel who is an atheist who believes in Intelligent Design rather than Creationism? Not very choosy about where you get your support are you? It's almost like you don't have to believe in evolution to be an atheist, like we keep telling you.

(July 26, 2014 at 10:15 am)Harris Wrote: If you have evolved a new type of virus from some existing virus then this is not even close to what theory of evolution is claiming.

That is all that evolution claims: that new species develop from previous species. Abiogenesis is a separate subject. Allah could have poofed the first bacteria into existence out of thin air and evolution would still be the explanation that best fits the evidence for why life is so diverse.

(July 28, 2014 at 12:10 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(July 28, 2014 at 6:55 am)Harris Wrote: Mutations rarely occur natural world and when they occur, 100% of them are injurious.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? I believe it is false.

Yup, it's false. In every embryo there are hundreds of mutations, most of which are neutral or have no effect. Some of these result in slight changes in morphology and can be passed down in later generations.

Quote:

(July 28, 2014 at 6:55 am)Harris Wrote: Neutral mutations only give variations in the same specie if not the same property.

Just a moment ago you said that 100% of mutations were injurious. You can't even keep your own lies straight. This, too, is false.

Indeed. In fact beneficial and deleterious mutations occur at about equal rates with deleterious being only slightly more common. But as stated above most mutations are neutral in effect and are not selected for or against.

(July 26, 2014 at 11:21 am)Harris Wrote: Yes! But no one is claiming that atomic theory in responsible for life on earth.

We're already aware that you don't like evolution because of the conclusions it reaches rather than the science it's based on; but the theory of evolution is separate from hypotheses of abiogenesis. It is not an explanation for why there's life on earth, it's an explanation for why we have such a diversity of species. You don't even know what it is that you're trying to argue against.

---

(July 26, 2014 at 11:35 am)Harris Wrote: I presume you have read 100s of hard books. However, for some unknown reason, it seems you are not willing to give few hard quotes from those hard books to support your case.

As a rule, we don't quote books to support our case. Quotations are usually (though not necessarily) a fallacioius appeal to authority and a demonstration that one doesn't understand what one is arguing well enough to be able to put it in one's own words.

---

(July 26, 2014 at 2:38 pm)Harris Wrote:

(July 26, 2014 at 12:07 pm)Tobie Wrote: This has been said countless times before on this forum, but Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of belief in a god. There are some atheists who, on top of not believing in a god, claim no gods exist, but the majority (at least here) do not claim that.

Also, science does not claim everything came from nothing - the Big Bang theory in it's current form says the universe started as a singularity, which is absolutely the opposite of nothing, because it is everything, but condensed infinitesimally.

Maybe this has been said countless times before. However, the thing which no one has thought about is that the new Atheist has redefined the faith. They say faith is purely religious concept that is to believe in something without any evidence for the existence of that thing. However, new atheists are completely blinded to the fact that their whole worldview is in fact a faith and indeed not only that but perhaps even more importantly that science depends on faith. Every scientist believe that the entire universe is intelligible that is we can in part understand it by using our minds that we have to believe before we do science.

Physics is powerless to establish its faith in the reliability of human mind simply because you have to have that faith that the universe is intelligible before you could do any physics at all. So here is the very odd thing the new atheist are railing against faith when they needed to believe their own worldview as well as to do science.

Don't know what an 'axiom' is, eh? Science doesn't depend on reality being 'really real'. If reality is illusory, science is the study of the illusion.

It may be worth mentioning that I though god was a silly concept way before I'd heard of evolution.

(July 27, 2014 at 7:09 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(July 27, 2014 at 7:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Polecat's beliefs guide his judgement. It's a problem with people like that.

The problem is people such as yourself who take things at face value without actually doing the research. I have a stronger backing in evolution than any of you. Like I know the flaws of the Bible (of which none of you have actually been able to mention), I also know the flaws concerning the assertions made to support evolution.

I think you're lying (and stupid, there's no way you could possibly know that no one here has a stronger background in evolution than you, and only a fool would make a claim like that), but I'm willing to be schooled. How did the theory of evolution help us find the Tiktaalik fossil, and what is your explanation for why using the theory to guide us worked if evolution is false?

(July 28, 2014 at 1:09 am)Esquilax Wrote: How you have produced those axioms without having faith in the intelligibility of the universe?

That's what axioms are, Harris: basal assumptions made in order to actually function. I don't apologize for not having all the answers just yet, and I will point out that my axioms have a proven track record of actually providing decent results that are consistent with observed reality. In short, I don't need to know why the universe remains consistent, to observe that it does remain consistent. All of the evidence, for every day in all of recorded human history, shows that the universe will remain intelligible. No faith required: we've observed that happening. It would take more faith to consistently believe that the universe wouldn't be intelligible.

As far I know an axiom is a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. You are saying that these are basal assumption made in order to actually function. In other words axiom is an idea that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. The important point to which I am trying to draw your attention to is how that statement, proposition, or basal assumption first appeared in your mind. I think it is not comming in form of dream, hallucination, vision, revelation, etc. It is obviously initiated after you have observed something that clicks some idea in you. You can developed that idea only if you have faith in what you have observed. For example take the story of Newton and his apple. If Newton had no faith in what he had seen would he be able to develop new ideas? Of course not. Don’t get confused with the idea that people in todays world know much more than anyone had in the history. Just remember no one is a professor by birth. We are learning beings and everything we experience first time in our lives. Everybody (literate or illetrate) have different ideas through different observations they experienced but only few of them know how to express them effectively.

(July 28, 2014 at 1:09 am)Esquilax Wrote: Quote:Well, I am not trying to prove the existence of God using science, which is not capable of handling immaterial concepts and morals.

You can't prove, or even hint at, the existence of god at all.

I have already given many logical evidences for the existence of God. They are looking towards for your second glance.

(July 27, 2014 at 11:48 pm)Harris Wrote:

(July 26, 2014 at 12:33 pm)Stimbo Wrote: @Harris: What if I said that I do not believe in the existence of "God" (or any god)? What then?

My job is to give you convincing logic for the existence of God. Once I conveyed that message to you, my job is done. Further, you are free to choose whatever you like.

Then maybe you should have chosen a topic other than evolution to focus on, since even if you win that argument, it gets you no closer to convincing logic for the existence of God.

---

(July 27, 2014 at 11:56 pm)Harris Wrote:

(July 26, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Natachan Wrote: After reading more responses it is clear that:

You do not know what atheism is.
You do not know what science is.
You do not know what evolution is.

I read your quote, which shows a gross misunderstanding of abiogenesis and evolution, which btw are separate things.

If abiogenesis is not the base of evolution, then how you justify the evolution in the first place. In other words, how life originated in first place if it is not spontaneous. Theory of evolution only leads us to believe in the spontaneous emergence of life by not giving appropriate explanation about the birth of first cell of life.

Darwin started with the diversity of species and worked backwards. Evolution is not founded on abiogenesis in any way. It's what the evidence supports no matter what the evidence of life is.

Why do you think you understand the flaws of evolution so well when you demonstrably understand what evolution actually is so poorly?

---

(July 28, 2014 at 12:13 am)Harris Wrote:

(July 26, 2014 at 2:43 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Even discounting your ludicrous and pig-headed adamant insistence that atheism is a faith despite being informed repeatedly by those who identify as atheists that it's not - are you conceding that faith is a weak position to adopt?

If Atheism is not a FAITH at all or say LACK of FAITH in God then how your mind adopted the concept that God does not exist. Funny isn’t it?

I'll bet you Stimbo had not adopted the concept that God does not exist. I know I haven't. That's how badly you misunderstand atheism.

I'd advise you to ask what we think instead of telling us, but from your behavior so far, my mind has adopted the concept that you are incapable of understanding what other people actually say because you must make everything you hear fit into your preconceptions.

---

(July 28, 2014 at 12:30 am)Harris Wrote:

(July 26, 2014 at 2:45 pm)little_monkey Wrote: There's a difference between "having beliefs" and "having faith". If I believe that the universe can be comprehended it's because there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting that belief. OTOH, faith is belief in spite of no or insufficient evidence.

If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or goodness even without having any evidence. Belief is something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion. Belief may require, but not necessarily, the evidence.

All this reduces to the fact that without faith, belief has no meaning. If you do not have faith in science, you cannot do science no matter it puts mountain of evidence in front of you.

The fallacy of equivocation is using a word with multiple meaning misleadingly. Faith is a word that is easy to equivocate, implying that posessing it one sense (trust in something or someone) possesses it in the other sense as well (belief based on spiritual apprehension).

---

(July 28, 2014 at 1:53 am)Harris Wrote: So, you mean to say that atheist is living without having a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. Isn’t it a pitiful situation, if so?

You know, Harris, you're clearly smart enough that I can tell you don't HAVE to be a moron, it's a choice you're making.

No, it does not follow that since atheism is not a philosophy of life or conception of the world that atheists are living without having a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. It just means their philosophy and worldview isn't atheism. And guess what: your philosophy and world view aren't theism. Theism is the opinion that some sort of God or gods exist, and beyond that you could be a Muslim praying five times a day or an Aztec priest cutting out people's hearts to feed the gods on holidays. You KNOW that you have to know more about someone than that they are some kind of theist to guess at what else they believe, and you've been repeatedly informed that atheists are diverse (though maybe not as diverse as theists, of which there are easily 50,000 flavors), so only willful ignorance can explain your statement.

---

(July 28, 2014 at 2:40 am)Harris Wrote: Don't get upset. I love you all.

I think you're lying. Nothing you've said shows that you love us. You clearly hold us in contempt and havent' the slightest interest in understanding us better than you already think you do. If you think it's true that you love us, I pity you, for that would indicate you don't have a clue what love really is.

(July 28, 2014 at 2:11 am)Jenny A Wrote: Faith is simply believing without evidence.

correct

(July 28, 2014 at 2:11 am)Jenny A Wrote: Some faith is comfortable, some not.

There is nothing like comfortable Faith or discomfort faith. You are comfortable with some idea and that is why you have faith in that. Once you have faith in something then you willingly choose discomfort to comply the requirements of your faith. It is something like solder who exactly knows the consequences of war yet he willingly go to the war because he has faith in a higher purpose than his own life.

(July 28, 2014 at 2:11 am)Jenny A Wrote: Faith in hell is uncomfortable. Faith in heaven is comfortable.

I am a Muslim by my choice. I have reasons why I am Muslim. Based on those reasons I have faith in Islam. My faith demands certain obligations. If intentionally I would not fulfil my obligations without any justifiable reasons then for that I have to face a threat of punishment. No matter I am a believer in One true God if I do something wrong intentionally, I would be accountable for that. Islam does not give false hopes to its followers. I am agreed for not doing evil intentionally as this is also the requirement of my innate morals. For my good doings, I am hopeful for a reward. So the conclusion is that I have faith in hell and I have faith in paradise. I know what are my obligations therefore I try to be good and try to avoid evil so to keep myself away from hell. I have hope for justice for all of my good deeds.

(July 28, 2014 at 2:11 am)Jenny A Wrote: But there isn't any evidence of either.

As you correctly said above that faith is not based on scientific evidence. It is based on logic.

(July 28, 2014 at 2:11 am)Jenny A Wrote: Knowledge is belief based upon evidence. My lack of belief in god is based on a lack of evidence and an unwillingness (or really inability) to believe without evidence. Should evidence be provided, I'll believe in god, but it won't be faith, it will be knowledge.

If you love some person then do you think you have an evidence to that? You have only words and your emotions to exhibit but in case your counter partner do not have trust in your love then how can you prove that to him/her. You know your feelings because you are experiencing them but you are helpless to show them as evidence.

(July 28, 2014 at 2:11 am)Jenny A Wrote: My belief in scientifically demonstrated ideas and phenomena is based on evidence. Unlike faith it's subject to change in the face of contrary evidence.

Our lives are not based on scientific experiments in labs. Our lives are based on our innate senses, feelings, and emotions. Paradox is that we are experiencing all these feeling in our daily lives such as love but we are not capable to prove it scientifically. You have knowledge about your love yet if you do not trust your feelings simply because you do not have scientific evidence for them then you are surely a deluded person.

---

(July 28, 2014 at 3:51 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 28, 2014 at 2:40 am)Harris Wrote: Please give evidence instead of giving an abstract talk.

We tried that. You just dismissed it all out of hand because it proved actual evolution to be real, and didn't prove your fantasy version that isn't actually evolution to be real.

Sorry, we're only obligated to provide evidence for what the theory actually states, not to pretend your ridiculous strawmen have any merit.

Perhaps it is you who have closed eyes on obvious facts that I have presented in my post and in the responses.