Atheism is unreasonable

[Jackalope]

The reason I'm asking is that according to scientific "fact" matter had to always exist and will always exist. It's really hard to fathom something that always was and always will be. Since matter always existed, it couldn't have come from nothing (the total absence of anything), but obviously some of you hold that one or the other of these assumptions is true.

Matter didn't always exist. you take a event like the big bang time and space expanded into nothing. from their you have the basic element helium. Helium cannot form bonds when hot so millions of years later it started bonds with other helium creating oxygen millions of years later stars start to form. basically that's it in a nut shell.

You might want to leave big bang physics up to people who won't get it horribly wrong.

[FatAndFaithless]

Please.

[dyresand]

Matter didn't always exist. you take a event like the big bang time and space expanded into nothing. from their you have the basic element helium. Helium cannot form bonds when hot so millions of years later it started bonds with other helium creating oxygen millions of years later stars start to form. basically that's it in a nut shell.

You might want to leave big bang physics up to people who won't get it horribly wrong.

okay

[Anomalocaris]

Matter didn't always exist. you take a event like the big bang time and space expanded into nothing. from their you have the basic element helium. Helium cannot form bonds when hot so millions of years later it started bonds with other helium creating oxygen millions of years later stars start to form. basically that's it in a nut shell.

You might want to leave big bang physics up to people who won't get it horribly wrong.

It's would be right if you just redefine "nothing", "helium" "oxygen" and maybe "nutshell".

[dyresand]

You might want to leave big bang physics up to people who won't get it horribly wrong.

It's would be right if you just redefine "nothing", "helium" "oxygen" and maybe "nutshell".

ill rephrase it.

The early Universe was not bound by the laws of physics as we know them today. Consequently, we cannot predict with great accuracy what the Universe looked like during the first minutes of creation. In spite of this, scientists have been able to construct an approximate representation of how the Universe evolved.

Scientists believe that the Universe was initially so hot and dense, that even elementary particles like protons and neutrons could not exist. Instead, different types of matter (called matter and anti-matter) collided together, creating pure energy. But as the Universe began to cool during the first few minutes, protons and neutrons began to form. Then slowly over time these protons, neutrons and electrons came together to form Hydrogen and small amounts of Helium. During the billions of years that followed, stars, planets and galaxies formed to create the Universe as we see it today.

[Jackalope]

It's would be right if you just redefine "nothing", "helium" "oxygen" and maybe "nutshell".

ill rephrase it.

there was a big bang well a expansion of time and space that created the first element helium, but because it was such a sudden event the universe is extremely hot and the newly formed helium could not create bonds. Given millions of years later when it was cool enough helium formed bonds with one another to get our elements that would soon create stars.

Still almost entirely wrong. Hint: your errors begin after the first 'that'. Everything that comes after is entirely wrong.

[His_Majesty]

Given that you've provided no basis for this, and are probably prevaricating, I'll just dismiss it out of hand. Insofar as you have any point at all, it's far more likely that Einstein's education and evaluation of the facts led him to believe that the universe was eternal, prior to perhaps finding otherwise. You know, the kind of rigorous testing and willingness to admit error that good science is based on.

I actually do have basis, and the fact that you even question this makes me draw the conclusion that you really don't know the history of 20th century cosmology, son.

Unless you can find an indication that Einstein, pre-education, decided to go into his chosen field specifically to defend his belief in an eternal universe, they aren't remotely comparable situations. Doesn't it worry you that every single thing you say is loaded with equivocations?

Man oh man. Just let me go, man. I would really hate to (actually, I would rather enjoy it) prove you wrong yet again. Do you think I just said it just to say it??? No. So please spare me of having to provide you evidence of my claim about Einstein originally believing the universe was static and eternal until his equations proved otherwise. If I do, this would be at least the 4th thing you've been proven wrong on.

Just do some research, educate yourself, and stop arguing with someone that is above your intellectual superior...

Oh, at least try to keep up with your own fucking conversation, will you?

I pointed out that all the people you've referenced in this thread have been dishonest basket cases. In response, you immediately brought up Michael Shermer. Why would you do that, if not in reference to certain allegations made about Shermer last year? What other reason could you possibly have had? If it's a reference to his work then clearly I've demonstrated that I'm no fan of the guy because I have no idea what it could be.

Well, all it was was just a question. All you had to do was simply say "no", instead of going on an unnecessary rant and rave over....nothing.

... So what the hell does that have to do with the post you quoted me on to ask that question? What a total non-sequitur, no wonder I got the wrong end of the stick.

It is called "over-analyzing".

Actually, the origins of the scientific classification system can be traced back to Aristotle, more than predating the theory of evolution.

And "kind" can be traced all the way back to God.

Initially they were based on morphology, much like your "kinds," but over time the level of detail grew so that the conclusions drawn were much more nuanced and well founded than your simplistic determinations here, given that they came from people with a much better grasp on biology than you.

So basically when the theory of evolution was somehow/someway integrated with science, things started getting unjustifiably technical, when all you have to do is look at the wolf and husky and determine that they are clearly the same kind of animal.

When we discovered DNA and genetics we found that, generally speaking, morphology and phylogenetics correspond to each other; that is, the closer animals looked in appearance, the closer they would be in terms of DNA. This is a cornerstone of modern biological classification, and one that you don't actually disagree with either, since those exact classifications tell us that dogs and wolves are closely related, for example. Those observations agree with you in the short term- though there are some interesting misleading examples too, like Hyenas being feline, and Raccoons being closer related to bears than rodents- but the problem is that they don't just stop there, they show us a unified and interconnected web of relationships that pass back through time.

Bio-babble. I want observational evidence of any changes that is even remotely similar to the reptile-bird crap. All of that bio-babble means nothing unless you can give me an observation which will allow my sensical mind to conjure up the thought that an elephant and snake sharing a common ancestor.

It's another area where you're being a hypocrite, really. You'll happily accept the genetic evidence- which does not lie, as it cannot, unlike morphology- where it shows that, say, dogs and wolves are related, or you and your parents are related, but the moment it indicates that those same creatures are the eventual descendants of the Synapsids, you disagree. But you have no basis for discarding only the parts of phylogeny that you don't want to be true, making your position entirely inconsistent.

I accept genetic evidence and I interpret it as the designer using the same "stuff" to do his thang with. When you tie that in with all of the other stuff that science is having a difficult time explaining to me, I'd say I have damn good reasons to believe in the Creationism over atheist, naturalism, and any other "nism" you can throw at me.

Okay, so here we find a perfect example of just how poorly "kinds" serves you. Koalas are not bears. They're marsupials, more closely related to wombats, specifically, but also possums and the other marsupials, than they are to bears. In fact, Koalas are the only living species in their family (Phascolarctidae, for those interested) where bears are in the Ursidae family. Koalas are not bears.

I was on a roll and while i was on that roll I got through off with the whole koala "bear" thing and added it to the bears....no harm...just take it off the list and my point still remains

Now, you're probably itching to disagree with me, because thoughtless disagreement is what you do, but how can you possibly gainsay me? You say that kinds are based on looks, and yeah, I can see how you'd get "bear" from a Koala there, I guess. But an equally convincing argument could be made in favor of my position; Koalas are small, like the other marsupials are. They have grey fur exactly like a lot of marsupials do. They're tree dwellers, like a lot of marsupials. They have the same pouch for storing their young that all marsupials have. Aside from having four legs and claws, Koalas don't look like bears at all, so where are you getting that from? Are you just pulling it out of your ass?

As I said, take it off the list. It ain't no thang. What about the bears, though? A scientist may come and tell me that a grizzly bear and polar bear are different species (whatever the hell that means), fine...call it what you want, but they are the same kind of freakin' animal...they are both BEARS.

All of this is just detail for my main point, however, which is that you're using a double standard here. Kinds are based on morphology, you say, which lets you group animals together. But morphology is also a key determining factor in our understanding of the fossil record and how all those animals relate to each other. So how can you accept the efficacy of morphology wherever you want to, but dismiss it completely wherever you don't? How do you intend to resolve this blatant special pleading?

Thats the point, there is no fossil record. You don't know whether those fossils had any kids, and you certainly don't know if they had DIFFERENT kids. It is all based on speculation.

Oh, so you do have some other basis for determining what kind of pet you want other than kinds. So, despite what you've been saying, I'd have a perfectly viable reason to discard kinds and still get the dog I want, and not a hamster. Good to see you just spent days using that argument only to undercut it at the lightest of impetus.

Esquilax..I have a question for you bro...how the HELL did you draw that conclusion based on what I said? Man, you have some serious reading comprehension issues.

Genetics and morphology, plus observations of small evolutionary changes in nature.

We all have similar genetics because we are all made up of the same building blocks of life...that doesn't prove evolution at all.

There's really no reason to think that they aren't related

Ohhh, so you don't really know, do you? Well, there is really no reason to think that God doesn't exist, in my humble opinion. See? You've told me yours, now I've told you mines.

, and plenty to think they are

Can you rule out intelligent design based on any evidence that you have??

, often drawing from exactly the same basis you use to come up with "kinds." The only difference is, I'm not cherry picking which of those determinations I want to be true, and which ones I don't. The only one with faith here is you.

I ain't cherry picking either. I just have no good reasons to believe in the theory...kind of the same reason you don't believe in God. And even if I did believe in evolution, I would believe that it would still require a divine hand...because we would be left with the whole abiogenesis thing, which is a separate and even more difficult problem. So either way you turn, intelligent design is standing right there.

Well, given that we know small changes occur, and those small changes contribute to new species emerging (all the dogs coming from wolves, for example) and we know of no mechanism by which those changes would be prevented from building up to the point of developing a very different sort of animal, we have no reason not to accept the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, when the genetic and morphological data support it.

Oh, so those small changes will eventually lead to big changes over time, right? So no one was around when the changes happened, and no one WILL be alive (no one that is alive today) to see it happen in the future.

You don't see the scam involved with that? How convenient. "No one has ever saw it happen...nor will they ever see it happens, but trust us...it happens!!!"

Consider this: we have a large hill, flat and sloping downward. At the top of the hill is a perfectly spherical ball. Based on everything we know about physics, if a gust of wind blew the ball it would roll all the way down the hill to the bottom. Your position on evolution would roughly translate as you asserting that the ball will not roll all the way down, that it'll be stopped halfway down the hill. But there's nothing on the hill that would stop the ball, and we understand how gravity and momentum work, so the ball should reach the bottom under normal physics. Despite this, you insist that no, we believe the ball will roll all the way down based on faith, and that it'll stop halfway down. When asked why you think that, you present no reason why the ball would stop, and point to no mechanism that would stop the ball. You merely say that we've never observed the ball rolling all the way down the hill, so therefore it is impossible that the ball ever could roll down the hill.

So basically, you are using an example of something that we can actually use science with...you know...observation and repeated experiment? You are taking something that can be observed, experimented, and validated...and comparing it to something that has never been observed, experimented, and validated?

Wow. Good job.

My question to you is this: is it reasonable to hold that objection? Is it reasonable to discard everything we know about the behavior of round objects on flat, sloping surfaces based on nothing more than the fact that we haven't seen this ball rolling down this hill?

Its funny that despite obviously comparing apples and oranges, you seemed quite convinced with your analogy.

Well, they're all canids, so in some sense they are the same type.

If canid is a bio-babble way of saying "dog", then no arguments here.

But Hyenas aren't, despite looking very similar. Please stop strawmanning me: my position isn't that we have no way of telling how animals are related, it's that your method is inaccurate and simplistic, in comparison to the accurate and nuanced version everyone else uses.

Unless you can prove how life can come from nonlife, no way you can be confident that the theory of evolution is true without intelligent design...and that is a fact.

[The Grand Nudger]

Evolution concerns itself with what life has demonstrably done -however- it arose. If intelligent design were required it would be a very poor theory, because none is present. Canid is the shorthand for a family that -includes- dogs. Canidae. There are a variety of animals that we call bears, none are "kinds" of bears, as you've demonstrated that "kind" is not synonymous with family or genus. Ursidae, in case you were wondering. Unless..of course, by "kind" you actually mean class (if a grizzly and a koala belong together - we don't have to take it off the list if you'd rather put them together)? We could go down this road again, but I don't think you'll find it to be very satisfying. Care to weigh in on some examples so we can determine whether or not "kind" and class are different ways of saying the same thing?

[Surgenator]

It's would be right if you just redefine "nothing", "helium" "oxygen" and maybe "nutshell".

ill rephrase it.

there was a big bang well a expansion of time and space that created the first element helium, but because it was such a sudden event the universe is extremely hot and the newly formed helium could not create bonds. Given millions of years later when it was cool enough helium formed bonds with one another to get our elements that would soon create stars.

Let me try

At the big band, the universe was very very very ... very hot and dense. The exact state of particles and physics involved is unknown. The universe quickly expanded and cooling off in the process. Hydrogen, Hellium and Lithium were the first elements to come out of the big bang about 700,000 years later.

No one knows what happened "before" the big bang. The question itself is non-sensical since time began at the big bang. To ask such a question, you have to pre-suppose an exterior universe that our universe is in.

[dyresand]

we are a carbon based life forms so what are you getting at of why we need a creator when we don't. Evolution working as the environment intended.