The main reason I'm an atheist

[robvalue]

Seriously, can someone explain to this evolutionary biologist... what the fuck is this "Darwin evolution" that Sick Rik keeps rambling on about?

Ah yes! That's where a frog gives birth to a badger. He was some crazy old guy who didn't believe in magic. Well, not the correct kind at least.

[Little Rik]

Pinky.  

The clown show is over so now stop pretending that you know the real meaning of theory.
Theory come from the Greek θεωρία, meaning ...... looking at, viewing, beholding .........blah blah blah....
Practice on the other hand means put the theory into practice.
If the practice works according to the theory then the theory is correct.
Unfortunately the real meaning has been vandalized so now it could means just everything other than the original meaning.
All those guys that came up with theories did not put theories into practice to see whether they were true or not so these theories stay unsolved and therefore we can say that they are all guessing.

You keep jumping right to the etymology of these words...etymology is not the only source of meaning in language. Yes, etymology is useful for seeing how words relate to each other and how they changed in meaning and pronunciation over time, but the actual definition of the word is what establishes its current meaning.

That is a total disaster Pinky.  

Let us take your sentence ........... the actual definition of the word is what establishes its current meaning.............
Unfortunately is true.
Let us take what Christ said and what Christians today say.
Christ never said that you go to hell if you sin but the followers that came later invented the hell.
By following your idea that unfortunately is true the original ideas were vandalized in such a manner that today they mean just the opposite.
This is wrong that is why i don't give a stuff about the established meaning of the words.
People like you are no different from religious people.
Both of you agree in vandalize ideas turning therefore good things into junk.

And that brings us back to "theory." A theory, to a layman like you, is just a hypothesis or guess. In science, the word "theory" is literally the highest form an explanation can take. Theories are not facts; they are made up of literally piles of facts, and the most reasonable available explanation for those facts.
I'm sure we've done this before, but somebody besides you might have a few brain cells, so for their benefit:
Using your "logic," gravity is also "just a theory." The body of knowledge pertaining to facts about gravity and the best explanation for those facts is referred to by scientists as the Theory of Gravity. In fact, we have a MUCH better understanding and larger body of information about what evolution is and how and why it works than we do about Gravity, and yet creationists accept gravity as if it's a fact, even though it's "just a theory."

A theory is literally the highest form of science. You don't prove theories; you prove things so that they can become theories.

You didn't read my previous posts with the due care.
I did say that when you put into practice a theory and that practice is successful (according to the theory) then the theory make sense and is correct.
In the theory you look at, you view and you plan something.
After that you put that idea into practice and if the practice produce results than the theory is correct.
This is my understanding of theory as the old Greeks that first came out with the word theory.    

Not at all Pinky.
Even a clown has got consciousness (hard to believe but that is true).
Humans got consciousness, animals too, plants too.
As far as matter is a bit difficult to see consciousness in them but that is something that you will learn at a later stage in your mental development.
Evidence doesn't come easy.
You got to expand your consciousness to see how everything works.
As you feed your body also the universal body need to be fed.
Most atheists have a lot of guessing regarding this issue.
They think that the universe can run itself so there is no need for God to run it.
I never seen so far anything that doesn't need to be fed.
That would lead to starvation.
But the universe doesn't starve.
After billion of years is still very healthy.

You do know the Universe will eventually die, right? Unless we learn something new, as far as we can tell the Universe will eventually expand until the particles lose all their energy and are too far apart to interact (or something like that), and when that happens there will be pretty much nothing going on.

That is your guessing Pinky.

There is no evidence that the Universe requires a god. "I don't see how it could exist without somebody feeding it" is an argument from ignorance...still...

More guessing Pinky.
It is easy to see humans, animals and plant that need feeding to survive.
To see inanimate things like matter, water, light, air and space that need feeding is a lot harder
but that will become more clear as you expand your consciousness.

You never thought about it Pinky, did you?  

I think everyone here can tell which one of us thinks about things and which one of us doesn't.

Consciousness is much much more powerful than intellect that is why using the intellect to think
is not as good as using the consciousness to see the truth.

Have a good day.

I wish i had the time to answer all other post but my boss can't wait.  

[Pat Mustard]

That is bizarre Roz.
In the past i did produce a number of studies only to be told that i really should take in serious consideration the biggest study ever carried out by the best expert in the field Dr. Parnia.
Guess what Roz.
I did read Dr. Parnia report and guess what?
He conclude that there is no evidence for or against NDEs and more study is needed to find out
the truth. <bolded by RozKek>
So if the so called expert say no or yes how the hell mr. Roz can pop up and say no?

Wrong Prikky, what Parnia was looking for was evidence for NDEs, not evidence against. When he failed to find evidence using the parametres he set out he inserted a cock and bull "recollection" of an "NDE" told to him a year after it supposedly happened and full of details yo'd get from watching an episode of ER. He failed in his attempt to find evidence for NDEs and then tried to pass off false testimony as evidence. If you have no wvidence for the existence of a phenomenon you don't have to provide evidence of its non-existence, you can assume safely that it doesn't exist.

[Redbeard The Pink]

That is a total disaster Pinky.  

Let us take your sentence ........... the actual definition of the word is what establishes its current meaning.............
Unfortunately is true.
Let us take what Christ said and what Christians today say.
Christ never said that you go to hell if you sin but the followers that came later invented the hell.
By following your idea that unfortunately is true the original ideas were vandalized in such a manner that today they mean just the opposite.
This is wrong that is why i don't give a stuff about the established meaning of the words.
People like you are no different from religious people.
Both of you agree in vandalize ideas turning therefore good things into junk.

Did you get lost somewhere in there?


We're talking about how your digging into the Greek roots of the word "theory" has practically nothing to do with the use of the word "theory" in the scientific sense. Theories aren't something you "solve," they are solutions. They do not need to be demonstrated as factual because they consist of large bodies of demonstrated facts. Your language and use of the word "theory" demonstrates that you don't really know what the word means when we talk about the Theory of Evolution, and now you've blown past that and fixated on definitions because...I don't know, because that word was in my post?


Are you a bot, Rik?


I think somebody turned a convincing spam bot loose on our forum, guys.

You didn't read my previous posts with the due care.
I did say that when you put into practice a theory and that practice is successful (according to the theory) then the theory make sense and is correct.
In the theory you look at, you view and you plan something.
After that you put that idea into practice and if the practice produce results than the theory is correct.
This is my understanding of theory as the old Greeks that first came out with the word theory.    

And again, that has practically nothing to do with the scientific use of the word, which is as follows:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is only called such when it has been repeatedly tested and confirmed to be true, and that is why evolution is a fact. It is demonstrable through evidence that we can observe in geology, biology, and a few other fields of science. What isn't demonstrable is the idea that the process of evolution requires magic to start or to be maintained, and that's why there's no good reason to believe your assertions about universal consciousness.


Besides, even if you could prove that consciousness is required to start or maintain life, that doesn't mean that a consciousness would also be required to create the Universe, for instance. That would be a separate claim that you would need to demonstrate with separate evidence.

That is your guessing Pinky.

Heat Death of the Universe


No, it isn't. If you don't like Wikipedia, google the term and keep scrolling. At minimum, it's me and a whooole lot of veeery smart people guessing using everything they know about the cosmos, which to me is miles better than you guessing using stuff you made up while high.


Btw, happy holiday, everyone  

More guessing Pinky.
It is easy to see humans, animals and plant that need feeding to survive.
To see inanimate things like matter, water, light, air and space that need feeding is a lot harder
but that will become more clear as you expand your consciousness.

Will it eventually become clear why you're answering a charge of argument from ignorance with another argument from ignorance? Actually...the same argument from ignorance?


Shit, I've been staring at this stuff too long.

Consciousness is much much more powerful than intellect that is why using the intellect to think
is not as good as using the consciousness to see the truth.

Have a good day.

I wish i had the time to answer all other post but my boss can't wait.  

Yeah, I'm sure he gets cranky if there's not somebody there to push the buttons on the rides.

[Little Rik]

That is bizarre Roz.
In the past i did produce a number of studies only to be told that i really should take in serious consideration the biggest study ever carried out by the best expert in the field Dr. Parnia.
Guess what Roz.
I did read Dr. Parnia report and guess what?
He conclude that there is no evidence for or against NDEs and more study is needed to find out
the truth. <bolded by RozKek>
So if the so called expert say no or yes how the hell mr. Roz can pop up and say no?

Wrong Prikky, what Parnia was looking for was evidence for NDEs, not evidence against. When he failed to find evidence using the parametres he set out he inserted a cock and bull "recollection" of an "NDE" told to him a year after it supposedly happened and full of details yo'd get from watching an episode of ER. He failed in his attempt to find evidence for NDEs and then tried to pass off false testimony as evidence. If you have no wvidence for the existence of a phenomenon you don't have to provide evidence of its non-existence, you can assume safely that it doesn't exist.

Parnia report is quite clear.
He concluded that there is no evidence for or against and therefore he say that more study is needed.
What he did or did not in order to come to this conclusion is totally irrelevant.
Only when he will (if he ever will) come to some conclusions we will analyze the report.
For the time being it doesn't make any sense to speculate.  

[Little Rik]

That is a total disaster Pinky.  

Let us take your sentence ........... the actual definition of the word is what establishes its current meaning.............
Unfortunately is true.
Let us take what Christ said and what Christians today say.
Christ never said that you go to hell if you sin but the followers that came later invented the hell.
By following your idea that unfortunately is true the original ideas were vandalized in such a manner that today they mean just the opposite.
This is wrong that is why i don't give a stuff about the established meaning of the words.
People like you are no different from religious people.
Both of you agree in vandalize ideas turning therefore good things into junk.

Did you get lost somewhere in there?


We're talking about how your digging into the Greek roots of the word "theory" has practically nothing to do with the use of the word "theory" in the scientific sense. Theories aren't something you "solve," they are solutions. They do not need to be demonstrated as factual because they consist of large bodies of demonstrated facts. Your language and use of the word "theory" demonstrates that you don't really know what the word means when we talk about the Theory of Evolution, and now you've blown past that and fixated on definitions because...I don't know, because that word was in my post?

Are you a bot, Rik?


I think somebody turned a convincing spam bot loose on our forum, guys.

You didn't read my previous posts with the due care.
I did say that when you put into practice a theory and that practice is successful (according to the theory) then the theory make sense and is correct.
In the theory you look at, you view and you plan something.
After that you put that idea into practice and if the practice produce results than the theory is correct.
This is my understanding of theory as the old Greeks that first came out with the word theory.    

And again, that has practically nothing to do with the scientific use of the word, which is as follows:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is only called such when it has been repeatedly tested and confirmed to be true, and that is why evolution is a fact. It is demonstrable through evidence that we can observe in geology, biology, and a few other fields of science. What isn't demonstrable is the idea that the process of evolution requires magic to start or to be maintained, and that's why there's no good reason to believe your assertions about universal consciousness.


Besides, even if you could prove that consciousness is required to start or maintain life, that doesn't mean that a consciousness would also be required to create the Universe, for instance. That would be a separate claim that you would need to demonstrate with separate evidence.

That is your guessing Pinky.

Heat Death of the Universe


No, it isn't. If you don't like Wikipedia, google the term and keep scrolling. At minimum, it's me and a whooole lot of veeery smart people guessing using everything they know about the cosmos, which to me is miles better than you guessing using stuff you made up while high.


Btw, happy holiday, everyone  

More guessing Pinky.
It is easy to see humans, animals and plant that need feeding to survive.
To see inanimate things like matter, water, light, air and space that need feeding is a lot harder
but that will become more clear as you expand your consciousness.

Will it eventually become clear why you're answering a charge of argument from ignorance with another argument from ignorance? Actually...the same argument from ignorance?


Shit, I've been staring at this stuff too long.

Consciousness is much much more powerful than intellect that is why using the intellect to think
is not as good as using the consciousness to see the truth.

Have a good day.

I wish i had the time to answer all other post but my boss can't wait.  

Yeah, I'm sure he gets cranky if there's not somebody there to push the buttons on the rides.


Theories can or can not provide evidence and truth.
People all the time have a myriad of theories that doesn't mean that they are true.
Atheists think that there is no God or that there is no evidence for God.
These are unfounded theories.
Science can only see the reality of this physical world so how can science see in the real reality which
is not in this physical world?
Impossible.
That is why you should be careful to see the real truth in scientific theories based of course in this
illusory reality.  

[Little Rik]

Me rambling on?  

Not at all Rock.  
All i do is referring to the comments that atheists make abut evolution.  

Almost every time i talk about evolution atheists come up with the origin of the species
as the only evolution that they know.  

And guess what Rock?  

Someone called Darwin came up with this sort of idea.  

So please blame these atheists not me.  

Because you seem to be a little slow, I'll try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible:

1) Charles Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution; his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, years before, had done some work/writing in that field, as had many others. The "Modern Synthesis", as we call it, which forms the core of modern evolutionary theory, was not developed until the 1930s, combining the discoveries/insights of several people (including Darwin) into a form that included new genetics and chemistry data that was then becoming available. It has changed little between then and now, except to confirm what the previous Modern Synthesis had established upon the discovery of DNA scanning techniques, as well as fossils scanning equipment that allowed us to see things like feathers on Velociraptor and the other theropods.

2) What Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace co-discovered was Natural Selection, not evolution. NS was just an explanation for how it happened, giving the first practical insight into the process. Darwin discovered it before Wallace, but held off on publishing because he was afraid of the scandal it would cause, and wanted to be sure his book's questions and the answers he gave to those questions would stand up to scrutiny, until Wallace let him know he was about to publish a paper on the same subject... so they co-presented the papers, with Darwin reading first. That's why you think Darwin invented evolution.

3) I am an evolutionary biologist, so I know what evolution is and is not. Literally every member of my field team (there were 30-40 of us, depending on what crews were working on what projects) were Christians, with open displays of Christianity in their offices and on their persons, except for one Hindu and two atheists-- myself and one colleague (with whom I became best friends, but not for that reason). When you can explain to me why all those religious persons had no issue with evolution, why they all agreed with me, you might have a point. Until then, you're just blowing hot air and emoticons out of your ass.

When I ask you "what the fuck is Darwin Evolution", I am actually saying that the fact that you call it that means you have no idea what it is, what it says, or how we came to discover the things we know about biology. If you did, you would use other terms. You're just another simpleton who has only a passing understanding of the subject matters you ridicule. 

So much for Enlightenment.

Whooooooooooo, whoooooooooo, whoooooooooo.
So you know what evolution is and is not.  

Gee, that is great man.  
Now LR will have the possibility to understand this important topic.

Ok. let us start from the very beginning.
1) What trigger evolution to start in the first place?
2) Where evolution start from (matter, plants, animals, humans?).
3) Where evolution come from (from nowhere, planet Mars, the moon, from God or from God in a latent form and it just wake up?????).
4) Where evolution is heading to?
5) Is evolution individual or not?
6) Can we inherited consciousness from previous generation.
7) Can we lose consciousness or is only a way up?

Thanks mate Rocket for helping LR to understand.  

[LostLocke]

Thanks mate Rocket for helping LR to understand.  

He can't help you understand. You've asked these same questions and gotten the same answers before.
Yet, you never listen at all. Soooo....

[TheRocketSurgeon]

1) What trigger evolution to start in the first place?
2) Where evolution start from (matter, plants, animals, humans?).
3) Where evolution come from (from nowhere, planet Mars, the moon, from God or from God in a latent form and it just wake up?????).
4) Where evolution is heading to?
5) Is evolution individual or not?
6) Can we inherited consciousness from previous generation.
7) Can we lose consciousness or is only a way up?

1) Chemistry, the same thing that runs it, now. The current best hypothesis (there are several competing ideas for this one) is that comets containing the basic chemistry that would become life crashed down into our volcano-warmed oceans on the early earth, and seeded enough material near geothermal vents that the components which make up life were able to coalesce on a substrate (something like shale) into self-replicating molecules. From there, it was off to the races! This answer is unrelated to how evolution actually works, however, as we've explained to you numerous times.

2) Wut? If you're asking what the first life forms were like, the answer is bacteria (or more probably, archaea, which are similar). Life didn't develop multicellular forms until about a billion years into its existence. Our first evidence of that is among the cyanobacteria (the ancestors of the chloroplasts found in plants).

3) It came from earth. However, some of the components appear in interstellar ice clouds, formed by the way radiation from stars interacts with the materials contained in the comets. Experiments here on earth have demonstrated that what we see in space via radio telescopes actually happens.

4) I have no idea what this question means. You could ask those first multicellular cyanobacteria colonies where evolution was heading (if they were capable of understanding the question and communicating an answer), and they wouldn't be able to tell you what a plant was, let alone a chloroplast.

5) Evolution via Natural Selection is individual, in the sense that your ability to reproduce successfully is what matters. However, the mechanisms of evolution work on the scale of the entire gene pool in which that creature is reproducing. In other words, each individual's relative fitness for reproduction compared to others in that gene pool determines the evolutionary "direction" of that gene pool, over generations.

6) I have no idea what this question is asking. If you're asking if we remember what our grandparents remembered, then not as far as I am aware. If you have peer-reviewed data on this subject, I'd be interested... but I suspect you don't.

7) Literally no idea what you're asking me, here.

[LostLocke]

I think for questions 2 & 3, he's not asking about the mechanism of evolution or the 'stuff' that evolves, but rather about evolution itself. In other words, I think he thinks evolution is an actual thing.