Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[fuelair]

Also, there was a person in here that stated I was trying to manipulate people by this thread. In a way that's funny. How can you manipulate people by informing them of generally accepted scientific principles.

If you mean me - because I did: Your manipulation is what you do with a simple fact not the simple fact as presented.

Just as quick examples: you manipulated/misinterpreted the exact original quote you sent us off to see and you tried to manipulate us (I doubt it was remotely successful) with your line "The more knowledge a person has about both science and religion, the better that person can make their decision concerning religious and philosophical matters. " in which you try to manipulate us around to the idea that there is some reason to think about religion (beyond cultural quaintness and old philosophy) if something looks odd to non-specialists in a field of science.

 

[kane42]

All I want out of all this is for everyone to learn what science is saying. Magazine covers only put apes on the covers when talking about evolution. I've never seen a bacterium on the cover of a magazine when it has an article about man and evolution.

Yep... In the absense of the magazine covers you want, I just don't see where anyone might have encountered such shocking ideas.

 

[Tanstaafl]

That is exactly correct. I know for a fact that my language wasn't abstract or obtuse. I know the vast majority of people here understood my position. The only options that I can see is that:
1.) DOC understands so little of biology that even my admittedly simple explanations were lost on him.
or
2.) DOC is intentionally assuming that I'm ignorant as a ploy to gain my ire.

Option 1 I can forgive. Option 2 is another story.

I think it's pretty clear that both 1 and 2 are correct.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

All I want out of all this is for everyone to learn what science is saying.

...with the clear implication that somehow science is wrong despite what nearly 200 years of tried and tested evidence would indicate and that barbaric superstitions are somehow right without any evidence to support them what so ever.

Essentially, science is saying you're a fool, DOC.

 

[-Fran-]

If you mean me - because I did: Your manipulation is what you do with a simple fact not the simple fact as presented.

Just as quick examples: you manipulated/misinterpreted the exact original quote you sent us off to see and you tried to manipulate us (I doubt it was remotely successful) with your line "The more knowledge a person has about both science and religion, the better that person can make their decision concerning religious and philosophical matters. " in which you try to manipulate us around to the idea that there is some reason to think about religion (beyond cultural quaintness and old philosophy) if something looks odd to non-specialists in a field of science.

Yes, that's what I've been thinking and saying all along.

Funny, we even have to explain his own games to him Or more likely, now that he sees it doesn't work, he denies he's doing it. I don't buy this innocence act.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yep... In the absense of the magazine covers you want, I just don't see where anyone might have encountered such shocking ideas.

I did a search on the time magazine site. You can search covers by keyword. I used "evolution". About 2/3 had apes, hominids, or primitive men, but there were also invertebrates, meteors, and a scientist holding a test tube. (From 1939).

 

[articulett]

Also, there was a person in here that stated I was trying to manipulate people by this thread. In a way that's funny. How can you manipulate people by informing them of generally accepted scientific principles.

See Bokononen's answer above yours.

See every thread started by a creationist. See your silly thread about people not electing atheists (you presume it's because there is something bad about atheists and not due to the prejudice and lies spread by people exactly like you.)

You just aren't saying anything and inferring that you are saying a lot.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

DOC is the most interesting hybrid. In my debates with Creationists they tend to fall into one of three categories. They will be ignorant, instransigent or hystrionic. He seems to have a combination of all three characteristics. He misunderstands what the science says or the idea vs. the reality. He just keeps repeating incorrect assertions, even after correction. And he turns threads into whine and cheese parties griping about how he's being ganged up on and doesn't want to debate, just present information and let people decide for themselves so why is everyone being so mean.

He's a most interesting specimine.

DOC, you've been given a large amount of information on how you're not quite getting the LCA and ULCA concepts. Would you be willing to read The Ancestor's Tale or at least an Internet article that discusses it?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

He's a most interesting specimen.

Yeah, but so is small pox.

 

[articulett]

Yeah, but so is small pox.

and ebola

(But neither are as interesting as the last universal common ancestor )

 

[DOC]

...with the clear implication that somehow science is wrong despite what nearly 200 years of tried and tested evidence would indicate and that barbaric superstitions are somehow right without any evidence to support them what so ever.

What tried and tested evidence. This thing about all plants and animals coming from one bacterium is just a theory. No one celled organism has ever been created by man (from inorganic or even organic material) and in my opinion never will.

As far as Christianity having no evidence this famous Oxford historian had plenty of historical evidence for his belief in Christianity.

The following quote is from Oxford historian, Thomas Arnold, author of the famous three-volume "History of Rome":

"Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through [the evidence for the resurrection] piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Source: Thomas Arnold, as cited in Wilbur Smith's "Therefore Stand" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1945), 425-26

 

[Hokulele]

Stop derailing your thread DOC.

 

[Taffer]

What tried and tested evidence. This thing about all plants and animals coming from one bacterium is just a theory. No one celled organism has ever been created by man (from inorganic or even organic material) and in my opinion never will.

Firstly, thank you. What you probably don't realise is that calling evolution a "theory" is quite a compliment. Don't believe me? Go look up what the word "theory" means in science.

Secondly, our inability to create a single celled organism has nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

Thirdly, there is so much evidence that evolution occurred that claiming it is false is akin to claiming we did not land on the moon.

As far as Christianity having no evidence this famous Oxford historian had plenty of historical evidence for his belief in Christianity.

The following quote is from Oxford historian, Thomas Arnold, author of the famous three-volume "History of Rome":

"Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through [the evidence for the resurrection] piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Source: Thomas Arnold, as cited in Wilbur Smith's "Therefore Stand" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1945), 425-26

Appeal to authority. Please provide this "evidence", or admit you have none.

 

[DOC]

Stop derailing your thread DOC.

I was responding to a derailer.

 

[Hokulele]

I was responding to a derailer.

So we are back in kindergarten now with the "He started it"?

 

[DOC]

Appeal to authority. Please provide this "evidence", or admit you have none.

You'll have to read his 3 Volume History of Rome. Its on Amazon.com for 36 dollars. Here are some key words from it.

Key Phrases -
thousand ases, older legion, two consular armies, aristocratical party, military tribuneship, first plebeian consul, consular army, old ascendency, later legion, ten tribunes, named dictator, patrician party, patrician magistrates, poetical story, new consuls, curule offices, miscellaneous notices, first consulship, consular year, proconsular power, common chronology, full franchise, curule magistrates, chosen consul

Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
Appius Claudius, Dion Cassius, New Carthage, Valerius Maximus, Fasti Capitolini, Cisalpine Gaul, Papirius Cursor, Servius Tullius, Spurius Cassius, Asia Minor, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Palatine Hill, Publilius Philo, Sacred Hill, Fabius Gurges, Ptolemy Ceraunus, Valerius Corvus, Fabius Maximus, Fynes Clinton, Manlius Torquatus, Ancus Marcius, Cornelius Lentulus, Cornelius Scipio, Marcius Rutilus, Alexander of Epirus

 

[Taffer]

You'll have to read his 3 Volume History of Rome. Its on Amazon.com for 36 dollars. Here are some key words from it.

Key Phrases -
thousand ases, older legion, two consular armies, aristocratical party, military tribuneship, first plebeian consul, consular army, old ascendency, later legion, ten tribunes, named dictator, patrician party, patrician magistrates, poetical story, new consuls, curule offices, miscellaneous notices, first consulship, consular year, proconsular power, common chronology, full franchise, curule magistrates, chosen consul

Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
Appius Claudius, Dion Cassius, New Carthage, Valerius Maximus, Fasti Capitolini, Cisalpine Gaul, Papirius Cursor, Servius Tullius, Spurius Cassius, Asia Minor, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Palatine Hill, Publilius Philo, Sacred Hill, Fabius Gurges, Ptolemy Ceraunus, Valerius Corvus, Fabius Maximus, Fynes Clinton, Manlius Torquatus, Ancus Marcius, Cornelius Lentulus, Cornelius Scipio, Marcius Rutilus, Alexander of Epirus

Yay.

Say, is there any particular reason why you ignored the rest of my post?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What tried and tested evidence. This thing about all plants and animals coming from one bacterium is just a theory. No one celled organism has ever been created by man (from inorganic or even organic material) and in my opinion never will.

It continues to baffle us how obstinately ignorant you chose to be about even the most basic concepts you discuss with us.

The tried and tested evidence is the genetic analysis of existing organisms. Here's some links for you to read so you can even get to the starting line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Common_Ancestor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

Taffer already corrected you on the meaning of theory.

And how would us conjuring up an organism in the lab be evidence for common ancestry of all life that already exists? I mean come now man, at least think about these things before you type them.

And not that it really matters, but couldn't you cite Arnold directly instead of from a 62 year old Christianity book published by an Evangelical publishing house?

 

[wollery]

As far as Christianity having no evidence this famous Oxford historian had plenty of historical evidence for his belief in Christianity.

The following quote is from Oxford historian, Thomas Arnold, author of the famous three-volume "History of Rome":

"Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through [the evidence for the resurrection] piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Source: Thomas Arnold, as cited in Wilbur Smith's "Therefore Stand" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1945), 425-26

The only supposedly original contemporary accounts of the resurrection are those contained within the gospels. And they don't agree with one another. All other accounts are based on these.

That's pretty slim evidence.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The only supposedly original contemporary accounts of the resurrection are those contained within the gospels. And they don't agree with one another. All other accounts are based on these.

That's pretty slim evidence.

The surviving gospel accounts are not precisely contemporary either. They were written, at a bare minimum, beginning one generation removed from the occurrences they supposedly describe. One was written 60-100 years afterwards. And two are directly based on the first -- Mark -- with John partially based on Mark as well.

We essentially have one account written a generation afterwards and that account was clearly not written as history but as a literary work.

Arnold's statement is simply demonstrably false.

There are plenty of better attested historical accounts than Jesus' resurrection. How about the battle of Kadesh? We have opposing accounts of this battle from the two sides -- each with its own peculiar interpretation of events but both agreeing on several particulars. That battle is clearly better attested than the resurrection of Jesus.