Atheism is unreasonable

[Jenny A]

Evolution has been observed in nature and in the lab.

Really? When has the reptile-bird transformation ever been observed?

Look, it's a crockoduck, or a reptobird, or perhaps a beaverbat? No it's a platypus:

The platypus represents the earliest offshoot of the mammalian lineage some 166 million years ago from primitive ancestors that had features of both mammals and reptiles. "What is unique about the platypus is that it has retained a large overlap between two very different classifications, while later mammals lost the features of reptiles," says Wes Warren, Ph.D., an assistant professor of genetics, who led the project.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...131453.htm

It's all there in the DNA:

As part of their analysis, the researchers compared the platypus genome with genomes of the human, mouse, dog, opossum and chicken. They found that the platypus shares 82 percent of its genes with these animals. . . .
The researchers also found genes that support egg laying - a feature of reptiles - as well as lactation - a characteristic of all mammals. Interestingly, the platypus lack nipples, so its young nurse through the abdominal skin.

. . . When they analyzed the genetic sequences responsible for venom production in the male platypus, they found it arose from duplications in a group of genes that evolved from ancestral reptile genomes. Amazingly, duplications in the same genes appear to have evolved independently in venomous reptiles.

Notice however, that the platypus is not an example of a reptile becoming a bird, that didn't happen (dinosaurs are not reptiles). It is, however an early mammal very closely related to birds and reptiles and sharing a number a characteristics with them including egg laying.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is just a suggestion, but perhaps a better way to serve the kingdom of god is by showing how eagerly you've learned about his creation (that was, after all, for your benefit). By sharing factual knowledge with other people that enhances their enjoyment of life and appreciation of the same? By, and this is key, -not- disseminating ignorant and dismissive propaganda regarding all the bounty and wonder that you believe god has arranged, somehow, for your benefit?

[GrandizerII]

Life from non-life pretty much means movement and activity becoming more complex and coordinated over time. Not sure where the problem here is that would warrant the necessity of God's existence for life to occur.

Consciousness: still trying to figure out what it is exactly, but studies continue to show that it is nothing more than a product/function of the brain in coordination with the body.

Infinity is not a problem at all. Some entities are without end. Your God is supposedly without end, why can't other entities be that way?

And I have seen no argument on your side debunking evolution. So, again, no problem.

[orogenicman]

Lets take away all of the fluff and feathers for a minute. Let's take away all of the technical babble, all of the rhetoric for just a second.

<snip>

Translation: If you ignore all the facts, you can believe whatever the fuck you want to believe.

And that is religion in a nutshell.

[His_Majesty]

Unlike God or an intelligent designer of life, time can be demonstrated, and it can be shown that life forms do change over time. You don't doubt that time exists, do you? You shouldn't imitate phrases you don't fully understand.

It is the same thing, though. The "millions of years" crap is just another way of plugging in igorance with a "time" filler.

Since you clearly don't mean 'based on evidence, mathematics, and logical reasoning', I'm at a loss to imagine what portal of religion 'it took millions of generations' involves.

Thats it. That is the religion. You are relying on the unseen...and actually, now that I think about it..more people have claimed to have seen God in history than macroevolution.

I find that kind of..odd.

Time can't be seen, but it's effects can be directly observed; as we do with the effects of the wind, which we also can't see. You don't understand what the term 'scientific validation' means if you think we have to see something directly in order to draw scientific conclusions about it.

I am saying we've never observed any of the macro level changes that you believe had to have occurred. Since we haven't seen it, you have to rely on other "things" which you believe is evidence of the phenomena that you've never seen..and I am saying that since you can't rule out other possibilities, then you cannot definitively state that evolution is a brute fact.

In historical sciences, predictions are made about what will be discovered, based on what we should find if the theory is true. Evolution delivers on this over and over. We find fossils in the strata and on the landform they should be in if evolution is true.

Finding a fossil is only proof that you've found the remains of something that once lived and has since passed on. Nothing more. You can look at the fossil and make any kind of voodoo interpretations you want, but that is letting your presuppositions make the interpretation for you, which is fallacious.

We predict species diversity on unexplored islands based on distance from other land masses and time separated from them, because the longer the island has been separated from other landmasses, the more novel species it will have. And we have observed speciation on a human timescale. There's a point where it comes perverse to see something happening, find evidence it's been happening for a long time, and keep crying we can't know it if we weren't there. By that standard, we have to throw out geology along with paleontology, and frankly, most of history as well. The same bullet that you think shoots evolution in the foot would blow a big hole through the heart of historical claims derived from ancient scriptures.

Every single claim that has been made, whether it be from science, religion, or whatever...the question is ultimately "What reasons do we have to believe X, Y,Z"...so when you tell me that we all share a common ancestor, I will ask "What reasons do we have to believe that?". What will you say? "Because all living things share the basic fundemental building blocks of life?"...then I will say "But that could mean we all share a common designer".

You cannot rule that out. My issue is not necessarily with evolution in general, but the fact that it is being presented as an absolute fact, and I maintain that it most certainly isn't.

Science isn't what you think it is, and whoever miseducated you so badly should apologize.

When you can show me a reptile-bird transformation, I will apologize...and I don't want to wait a few million years for it either.

But it's the 21st Century and it's easier to educate yourself than ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So science isn't based on observation and repeated experiment? Wow. That's a new one.

---

Life from non-life pretty much means movement and activity becoming more complex and coordinated over time. Not sure where the problem here is that would warrant the necessity of God's existence for life to occur.

if it was that simple, abiogenesis wouldn't be such a problem, now would it?

Consciousness: still trying to figure out what it is exactly, but studies continue to show that it is nothing more than a product/function of the brain in coordination with the body.

When living things become "aware", that is consciousness. And if it is "nothing more than a product/function of the brain in coordination with the body", then explain to me how, if you were able to take all of the cartilidge that the brain is made up of...if you were to shape and mode that cartilidge into a brain, how would you get consciousness in there?? You will have the brain, but where would you get the consciousness from?

Infinity is not a problem at all. Some entities are without end. Your God is supposedly without end, why can't other entities be that way?

God is also without beginning, too...and the same cannot be said for this universe.

And I have seen no argument on your side debunking evolution. So, again, no problem.

Someone is late to the party...I already did.

[Anomalocaris]

however an early mammal very closely related to birds and reptiles and sharing a number a characteristics with them including egg laying.

Minor quibble, Shared primitive trait, such as egg laying, does not denote close evolutionary relationship. Only shared derived trait can be an indication of closeness in relationships.

Birds and earliest mammals clearly share few true common derived traits, and those which they might superficially appear to share, like endothermy and insulating body coverings, are clearly derived separately through convergent evolution, and do not share the same derivation.

So early mammals are not closely related to birds at all. The earliest mammals are already separated from birds by 150-200 million years of independent evolution from carboniferous era (or earlier) onwards, along two widely separated evolutionary lineages. So Platypus, only ~150 million years separated from humans, is already as different from any birds as humans are from platypus.

[orogenicman]

Unlike God or an intelligent designer of life, time can be demonstrated, and it can be shown that life forms do change over time. You don't doubt that time exists, do you? You shouldn't imitate phrases you don't fully understand.

It is the same thing, though. The "millions of years" crap is just another way of plugging in igorance with a "time" filler.

What you are doing here is ignoring the years of training and experience it takes to do geology (which, as a geologist, I can tell you is a lot harder than you would have people believe). No one in the business says something is "millions of years" old without first dotting every i and crossing every t. In other words, we do the work needed to verify our results. You simply making a counter claim sans any evidence is simply the rantings of a scoundrel.

Since you clearly don't mean 'based on evidence, mathematics, and logical reasoning', I'm at a loss to imagine what portal of religion 'it took millions of generations' involves.

Thats it. That is the religion. You are relying on the unseen...and actually, now that I think about it..more people have claimed to have seen God in history than macroevolution.

I find that kind of..odd.

A lot of things in this universe are odd. That doesn't make them any less real. I can't see infrared light even though I know that it exists. More people claim to have seen God in History than macroevolution simply because macroevolution hasn't been around that long, there aren't that may people actually working in the field, and because there are a lot of pre-literate people in the world who have been brainwashed into believing in magic sky daddies and have had an inferior education to counter such nonsense.

Time can't be seen, but it's effects can be directly observed; as we do with the effects of the wind, which we also can't see. You don't understand what the term 'scientific validation' means if you think we have to see something directly in order to draw scientific conclusions about it.

I am saying we've never observed any of the macro level changes that you believe had to have occurred. Since we haven't seen it, you have to rely on other "things" which you believe is evidence of the phenomena that you've never seen..and I am saying that since you can't rule out other possibilities, then you cannot definitively state that evolution is a brute fact.

Yes I can. How? Because that entire paragraph of yours, above, is wrong. We have seen macroevolution in action. It is not "just a theory" as you people like to say.

In historical sciences, predictions are made about what will be discovered, based on what we should find if the theory is true. Evolution delivers on this over and over. We find fossils in the strata and on the landform they should be in if evolution is true.

Finding a fossil is only proof that you've found the remains of something that once lived and has since passed on. Nothing more. You can look at the fossil and make any kind of voodoo interpretations you want, but that is letting your presuppositions make the interpretation for you, which is fallacious.

There isn't a paleontologist on the planet who would agree with this lie. Paleontology is exactly like every other branch of science in that if you make any kind of "voodoo interpretations you want", all the other paleontologists out there are going to eat you alive, as I am with your rantings right now.

We predict species diversity on unexplored islands based on distance from other land masses and time separated from them, because the longer the island has been separated from other landmasses, the more novel species it will have. And we have observed speciation on a human timescale. There's a point where it comes perverse to see something happening, find evidence it's been happening for a long time, and keep crying we can't know it if we weren't there. By that standard, we have to throw out geology along with paleontology, and frankly, most of history as well. The same bullet that you think shoots evolution in the foot would blow a big hole through the heart of historical claims derived from ancient scriptures.

Every single claim that has been made, whether it be from science, religion, or whatever...the question is ultimately "What reasons do we have to believe X, Y,Z"...so when you tell me that we all share a common ancestor, I will ask "What reasons do we have to believe that?". What will you say? "Because all living things share the basic fundemental building blocks of life?"...then I will say "But that could mean we all share a common designer".

You cannot rule that out.

Yes we can. In fact, we ruled it out over 80 years ago. You should read the memos when they are passed out.

My issue is not necessarily with evolution in general, but the fact that it is being presented as an absolute fact, and I maintain that it most certainly isn't.

Evolution is a fact. Life evolves. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Get over it already.

Science isn't what you think it is, and whoever miseducated you so badly should apologize.

When you can show me a reptile-bird transformation, I will apologize...and I don't want to wait a few million years for it either.

Apology accepted.

But it's the 21st Century and it's easier to educate yourself than ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So science isn't based on observation and repeated experiment? Wow. That's a new one.

Strawman.

[Chas]

Unlike God or an intelligent designer of life, time can be demonstrated, and it can be shown that life forms do change over time. You don't doubt that time exists, do you? You shouldn't imitate phrases you don't fully understand.

It is the same thing, though. The "millions of years" crap is just another way of plugging in igorance with a "time" filler.

What does that even mean? You have no concept of the difference between the span of a human lifetime and millions of years.

You have never been to a museum of natural history; have you ever read a book on evolution by an evolutionary biologist?

I will pay for your museum admission and the book.

[Esquilax]

And for me, I am working on behalf of the kingdom of the living God. But my thing is this; it isn't just one argument against evolution, it is the totality of many different arguments which makes the theory virtually impossible, in my opinion...of course, I am talking about evolution without intelligent design (God).

You will still have the abiogenesis problem, the consciousness problem, the infinity problem, and the arguments that I believe refute the "evidence" presented for the theory.

How many times do you need to be told that evolution is independent from all of those things?

Each one of these problems are INDEPEDENT of the other, and in order for the theory of evolution to be true, the evolutionists would have to tear down all four problems, since all four of these issues plays a great deal into the theory as a whole...and I don't think the evolutionist will ever be able to adquately respond to EITHER problem, let alone all four together.

None of those four things, even if we accept them as actual problems, play into evolution at all. How is it that you think they do?

Abiogenesis? Life is required for evolution to occur, therefore any subject which takes place before the advent of life is not connected to evolution. Plenty of theists believe god created through the mechanism of evolution, meaning abiogenesis is a non issue for the theory.

Consciousness? An evolved trait that grants an elevated threat response system, growing in complexity over time. Or, like certain theists here believe, god granted souls to a set of pre-human hominids, giving them their advanced minds. Still not a problem for evolution, which just describes gene modification over time.

Infinity? That's an issue for cosmology, not biology. Even if god were required to resolve this issue- you seem to think so, but you misunderstand a great many topics in order to argue from ignorance on that point- god and evolution aren't mutually exclusive topics, so again, this isn't an issue.

Your evidence? Well, you haven't provided any. All you've done is made up a classification system of convenience for yourself, argued from ignorance, and cherry picked when you want certain things to apply, and when you don't Not an issue for evolution in the slightest, whatever your delusions of your position may be. So what's the mechanism that prevents gene mutations from accumulating, already?

These are serious problems that cannot be just swept up under the rug. Now, if you are REALLY opened-minded and want to see good arguments against the theory of evolution, just check out Kent Hovind...you may already be familiar with him, but he has been the most prominent anti-evolutionist that the world has ever seen...he is the William Lane Craig of anti-evolution...and his seminar's, lectures, debates have all been on youtube, and you should check him out because he has debated some pretty prominent folks in the field of biology, like Massimo Pigliucci, Eugenie Scott, Kenneth Miller, Michael Shermer (not a biologist).

Good stuff.

Kent Hovind is an absolutely despicable liar, who makes up more shit about evolution than you do. None of it sticks, of course; the fabrications of an uneducated simpleton don't automatically apply to a field of science just because that simpleton thinks they ought to, after all.

[coldwx]

I seriously want to know what reasons you have to believe the creation account in Genesis. You have just rejected evidence given to you because a process was not observed or the experiments repeatable. You have also just said that the question that needs to be asked is "what reasons do we have to believe that". The creation process was never observed and it has never been repeated. It is also untestable. Why then do you believe it? Don't be a hypocrite and give us your reasoning. The onus is on you now.