Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely

[Angrboda]

What's evolution got to do with why God is so unlikely? Doo dah, doo dah.

[LadyForCamus]

I have had many discussions with adherents of biological evolution, but whenever I challenge them to explain how, for example, abiogenesis occurred, or for biological evolution to happen thereafter, they typically resort to ad hominem. Why? Because they never have a valid response.

It's largely because... well, did you read your OP? All of the things you say can't be explained could have been explained to you within a single google search, and yet you came here to parade around your lack of research like it constitutes a real point. Why do no reading before deciding that no reading on these topics exist, for example?

I do know how evolution works, and no, I am not arguing that at all. I, as a theist, am not the one who is "ignorant of how some thing is caused", you are since you cling to a theory that is inadequate to explain how things are caused.

Evolution isn't meant to explain how things are caused. It's mean to explain the diversity of life via population genetics. Is the theory of gravity "inadequate" on the same grounds?

Neither is what you have described in your post. The beetles remain beetles. They do not evolve into any other kind of bug. That isn't evolution, but merely variation within a kind. So while you claim that "Evolution works because of natural selection", it does no more than what the Bible creation account in Genesis Chapter 1 allows for when it says, "According to their kind".

Okay, so, first of all: evolution, in all of its definitions, do not refer to kinds. "Kinds," in the theistic sense you're describing, is not a thing for evolution. Therefore, your assertion that something isn't evolution on account of kinds is largely irrelevant: evolution does not describe one kind changing into another, and it never has. Do you have a germane point to make?

Secondly though, what's a kind? It's a term that comes up a lot, but when I actually ask theists to define it, they don't. Instead, they'll answer the completely separate question, "what kinds are there?" They'll tell me that there's, for example, dog kind, cat kind, and so on... but that's not what I asked. What's a kind? What is the method by which you delineate one kind for another? We can't have a productive conversation on this without getting there first.

You are right, but what you have put forward here is a reason for why we should examine the evidence and make sure that we are worshipping the right God; it is not an argument for not picking one at all.

If evidence can count toward multiple, mutually exclusive propositions, I'd suggest that you also consider a kind of theistic pareidolia as a possible conclusion. Implicitly, this is the one atheists find most likely.

I did not conflate evolution with abiogenesis. I simply stated that the theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, which it doesn't.

However, I'm not sure why atheists try so desperately to distance evolution from abiogenesis. (Though I have a pretty good an idea why that might be).

Unless you concede the existence of God and subscribe to theistic evolution in order to explain the origin of life, abiogenesis must have originally occurred in order to commence the process of Darwinian evolution. In other words, abiogenesis is REQUIRED by evolution as the starting point.

Sure, but the point is that not knowing the answer to one does not invalidate the other. Even without an explanation of abiogenesis, evolution is still an observable biological fact. The aspersions you're attempting to cast are misplaced.

I have heard this said several times, but am so far underwhelmed by the "overwhelming evidence".  Please provide a specific example of where the Bible "gets it wrong".  As (according to you) there is overwhelming evidence, it should be easy enough to do so.

How about how the bible describes the origins of the universe completely wrong, to start with?

Yes, but are the eyes of those INDIVIDUAL living entities evolving?

Show me where they are doing so. You cannot.

Are you aware that evolution occurs over populations, and not individuals? This sort of thing is why people got irritated with you.

You are seeking to prove the biological evolution of the eye by looking across life forms that have no relationship to each other!

They do have a relationship, according to the phylogenetic observations that we have at our disposal.

Doing do is as irrelevant as your appeal to the fossil record as proof of evolution.

To make it seem viable you have to presume that things ARE evolving, yet instead what is in evidence is that like is begetting like, and their are proven limitations therein - for instance, a male donkey and female horse can produce the hybrid mule, but the mule is sterile. Same with the Liger [lion/tiger].

You're never going to get one individual giving birth to a completely different species. Whatever offspring results, if it is viable and not a hybrid, will be a member of the parent species. But it will contain small genetic differences that, over successive generations, can result in organisms further down the line of ancestry that are different enough to constitute a different species from the original parent organism.

Where are you doing your research on evolution, if you've done any?

Your commentary about the eye in life forms that have no relationship to one another proves my point. Your seeking to show that the eye has evolved across living entities that, in truth, have no relationship with one another shows that you are doing so on the premise that evolution exists.

Are you aware of our understanding of genetics and morphology, or do I need to explain this to you?

Your so theorizing puts the cart before the horse. All it proves is that that is how they are. From thousands of years ago, the strength and keen sightedness of the eagle was recorded in Scripture. What has changed? Nothing. Has the eagle been evolving into something else? No. Do we see any of the apes evolving into humans? No. Orangutans beget orangutans, gorillas, gorillas, chimpanzees...

Are you aware that what you're asking for is not, in any sense, what evolution describes?

Fossil evidence? A fossil is just that - a fossil. It does NOT evidence any evolving all. That is typical evolutionist dishonesty, contriving something and arriving at the conclusions they want in order to substantiate their preconceived notions.

Do you understand the relationship between morphology and genetics, and the further relationship between genetics and ancestry?

Like, I hope I don't have to tell you that genetic similarity indicates a familial relationship, right? That your genes can establish your parentage through comparison?

While you claim that "variation within a genus that is conserved by natural selection totally counts as evolution," it does no more than what the Bible creation account in Genesis Chapter 1 allows - "totally".

Have you ever seen an animal being created out of nothing?

They are not explained by what is currently known of physics and chemistry - at all.

The FACTS show that Miller-Urey and hundreds of similar experiments DO NOT show that concepts such as abiogenesis are feasible, but are so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

Would you like to do something more than baldly assert that?

Actually, it is YOU who does not have the least bit of understanding of what evolution is required to show in order for it to be considered a viable explanation for how life arose.

So where are you getting your understanding of evolution from?

These are the types of evolution that an individual with knowledge of science need not accept, since the evidence is lacking:

1) Macro-evolution. Seeing one type of animal evolve into an entirely different type of animal. For example, a dog-like animal evolving into a bear-like animal. This has never been observed and isn't supported by the fossil record, which shows stasis (giving rise to the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis).

Is this a suggestion that we should see, to take your example, a dog-like animal evolving into a bear-like animal within a single generation?

2) Chemical evolution. Otherwise known as abiogenesis. The hypothesis that life arose from natural chemical reactions. This is unobserved, non-repeatable. The mechanisms of how this was supposed to have happened are currently not established.

Do you really want to be talking about how non-observed phenomena need not be accepted, while also stumping for the genesis account?

This attitude of self-imposed ignorance was well expressed in the Bible:

"In his haughtiness, the wicked one makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God." - Psalm 10:4.

Of course, there is no benefit in self-delusion, particularly when one's life is at stake.

For all your remonstrations about how other people are being rude to you, you certainly don't seem to hesitate to be far more insulting to us in return. A theological sheen does not make this less of a baseless insult.

Not according to US National Academy of Sciences: “Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

Does your god interact with the physical world?

The question here is, how did the concept of God "appear" in the human mind in the first place?

Imagination.

The latter is more likely, given that such a complex, highly intelligent entity could not have been invented by the imagination of primitive, nomadic sheep-herders.

What in "guy that can do anything, yet shares all our views" is so difficult to imagine?

And for that matter... what is your basis for asserting that imagining it back then would be impossible? Do you have one, or did you just say it?

As our scientific understanding has increased, we see now more than ever how accurate the Bible is when it touches on scientific matters. This is far beyond the abilities of the men who wrote it all those years ago.

As an example, consider that the Bible demonstrated knowledge of microbiology thousands of years in advance of scientific discovery when it commanded the Israelites to bury their excrement in the ground. This was when when the most scientifically advanced civilization on earth at the time, the Egyptians, were rubbing faeces on open wounds to heal them.

Microbiology? The bible asserts that the cause of sickness is demons, not bacteria. There are simple observations of feces that one could make, even back then, that would suggest it's not a good idea to have it around you. You really are reaching here.

Eagles hunt prey two miles above the ground, humans do not. So, God created eagles with eyesight to see prey from two miles away. Pretty simple.

Any evidence for that, or did you just say it?

I have plenty - for anyone who is willing to consider the facts with an open mind.  It is the "evidence for Evolution" that I hear so much about that is sorely lacking. And the evidence that is presented simply does not hold up under scrutiny.

Until any of you can actually SHOW where a life form has turned into a different life form [as Evolutionists claimed happened from simple cell structures into all the life forms we see today], then your theorizing here is as unconvincing to me as my beliefs are to you.

I'll take you up on that, but we've gotta start with the basics, apparently. Your answers to my questions will show me exactly how simple I'll have to start, with you.

It's SO good to see you around again, Esq!!!  

[Angrboda]

Do you know of any thing in your world that is even remotely like a god? I thought not.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yada, if it helps you feel better, just resign yourself to evolution having been created by God.This will give you the best of both worlds – fact and fantasy.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

So the long-awaited second post arrived. It was a scattered wall of text that attempted to address a dozen different comments in one post (with the liberal sprinkling of insults while complaining of being insulted that I've come to expect from a certain kind of contributor), but at least the OP isn't a one-post wonder. I am disappointed though, that it amounted to 'show me the crocoducks!'.

[Cyberman]

OP, you're an idiot.

That's an insult and, by definition, a personal opinion.

You're an idiot who lets Hovind and Ham do all your thinking for you, so we needn't bother with you.

That may or may not be an ad hominem, depending on its accuracy.

So far, it's pretty accurate.

[Asmodee]

Scientists can, with enough experimentation, take DNA from a lizard, change it and, ignoring all economic, legal and ethical restraints, change that DNA to have as many dog properties as they like.  They won't know what every little change they make will do, but they very much can create a dog-like creature starting with lizard DNA.  They can even make "synthetic DNA", DNA whipped up in a lab to be anything they like, to replace any bits they want to, no dog to get DNA from necessary.

So there is no "breach".  There are no arbitrary limits to how much a thing can be changed.  That is a completely manufactured falsehood.

And evolution isn't the study of "the origins of life".  That's abiogenesis, a completely different study.  The Bible can't explain how tacos are made.  What's your point?

As for the eye, if memory serves, horses and squid have eyes like ours except with several parts missing.  Dogs are missing the part that lets them see color.  The eye is not "irreducibly complex".  And, in fact, if you remove so many parts so that all the eye can do is detect if there is light or not that eye can STILL tell me if it's night or day, making it very much NOT "useless".

The only "evidence" that suggests that the Bible is correct when it says "like begets like" is that, when you throw out all the evidence, it seems to be true.  Of course the answers are going to be the same when you're working off the same level of ignorance.  We have a lot more data now than watching kittens being born or chickens hatch, thus, a better understanding than primitives had when the Bible was written.  You might as well go find an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon and ask them to explain the universe to you.  If you're dumb enough to take the explanations given by primitives over those of trained scientists than you deserve the ignorance you are wallowing in.

[Mister Agenda]

What gets me is that the Bible and the ToE aren't even at odds on this. The species of your offspring is always the same species as you, barring hybridization or the like. It would upend the theory for animals to start generating new species in one generation. For all practical purposes, like begets like from a limited human perspective.

The Bible doesn't say that the remote descendants of a species can't be different, just that they're not going to pop out new species willy-nilly. There's not a conflict, even if you take it literally. It doesn't say 'like begets like and the remote descendants of a species will never be a different species (or genus or family or class). It's picking a fight where there doesn't have to be one.

If you want to believe the Bible is the word of God, but not a science book, making the first human out of dust is not a bad metaphor for evolving from single-celled organisms. We're often told that God runs on a different clock, but God taking hundreds of millions of years to get from 'dust' to humans seems like too much to believe God has the patience and time for, for literalists.

[Tonus]

If you want to believe the Bible is the word of God, but not a science book, making the first human out of dust is not a bad metaphor for evolving from single-celled organisms.

...making the second one out of a human rib, on the other hand, has some humorous metaphorical application but little else.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Hubble Space Telescope has peered to within nano-furlongs of the edge of the universe,

This is my new favourite unit of measurement.  I plan to use it more often, along with pico-yard, mega-inch, and kilo-ounce.  

Boru

For what it's worth, I've done the arithmetic and I'm 9,959,940 nano-furlongs tall and I currently weigh 3.44 kilo-ounces.

Just saying.

Boru