Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obviously, Arnold is nothing more than another shill in the long line of "Liars for Jesus."
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hence my use of the word "supposedly".
 
Hokulele said:
Stop derailing your thread DOC.
Click to expand...

wollery said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ichneumonwasp said:
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.{truncated}
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me how my fellow atheists just can resist apologetical troll bait. The proper response to DOC is to, as Hokulele properly noted, derail his own thread and to keep hammering him on his misunderstanding of science in general, biology in particular and specifically the ULCA/LCA concept.

As soon as posts like Mark's show up in an ostensibly Creationism and Evolution thread it seems like the Apologetical response (which is out of desperation by the Creationist since they can't address the science) is sure to turna tangent into a total derailment my most atheists.

Sorry if I buck that trend.

DOC, will you address my question about The Ancestor's Tale or any of the Wikipedia links I provided for you above so we can clear up your misunderstandings about ULCA/LCA?
 
What's so wrong about derailing a thread that began with an idiotic, unsupportable opinion in the first place?

What else is there to do but derail it? Absent statisics to show that most atheists do not understand common descent, there is nothing but unsupported and probably unsupportable opinion here. I don't understand what attraction there is in validating the OP's opinion of himself -- look so many people respond to me I must be important.
 
DOC will never address the errors in his science. DOC has never demonstrated the ability to admit error. Any attempt at pushing the subject is futile.

So, to keep with the theme of this thread, which is the presenting of information regarding a specific view that people might not be aware of.

Allow me to present another:
The Christian god believes that the appropriate punishment for children who mock a bald man is mauling.

" From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)"

I am willing to bet that <12.3% of christians know that god approves of children being put to death for mockery. I just think it's something that a person should be aware of. What they do with that information is up to them.
 
Holy mauley, those she-bears were obviously possessed by the holy spirit imbuing them with supernatural powers. How else can you explain 42 KIDS? If they were just ordinary bears, 40 of those kids would have run away while the first two were being mauled. They must have been flying holy bears, or bears with the power to cloud kids' minds, to have gotten them all like that.

I think you're wrong, though. In my experience, not even two Christians in 100 know this truth contained in the holy strip search.
 
joobz said:
Allow me to present another:
The Christian god believes that the appropriate punishment for children who mock a bald man is mauling.

" From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)"
Click to expand...

As a balding man I approve of this punishment.:D
 
DOC said:
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..
Click to expand...

Far be it from me to try and convince you that this theory is a sound one. If the concensus of the scientific community doesn't convince you, the added weight of my support isn't likely to do any good. However, that wasn't, specifically, the topic of this thread, and I want to see where we stand on that.

We've established that it is indeed the concensus of the scientific community that there was in all likelihood an ancenstral cell, a common ancestor of darned near every life form around today. This cell was not likely to be the only cell in existence at the time. Scientists don't think there was ever one cell floating free in an ocean, and it started dividing and became us. You agree, correct? As far as I can tell, you never said anything different, just that the concensus was that there was a common ancestral bacterium. So far so good, right?

Now, though, the interesting part of the thread, to me, is your assertion that if people understood this, they would stop believing in evolution. I want to see where we stand on that assertion. First, there have been plenty of people here who do understand that, and it hasn't deterred us from believing. We're pretty sure that we are related to our houseplants, via a common bacteria-like ancestor, probably something very much like a blue green algae cell. (a cyanobacterium)

You think that we are not ordinary believers, though. You think the "average Joe" doesn't realize that this is the claim put forward by the concensus of the biological community, and if they did realize that, they would drop their belief in evolution.

I find that an interesting assertion. I think, frankly, that you are projecting. You are a creationist. You find such assertions implausible. I think you are projecting your opinion onto a lot of other people. You find it hard to believe that your opinion is a minority opinion, and so you must find another solution to the problem that so many people do, in fact, believe in evolution. Your solution to this problem is to believe that people must not realize what the theory really says.

That pretty much sums up your position, doesn't it? You think that if they really understood what the theory says, they would reject the theory.

I don't think so. Among people interested, they have studied the available evidence, and reached the conclusion that we are descended from one-celled life. Among the less interested, they have pretty much accepted an argument from authority. They really haven't studied the science, and don't care to, but they figure those scientists probably know what they are talking about. For the first group, which includes most of the people here, we have accepted the theory despite your belief that it is implausible. For the second group, they have accepted it based on the argument from authority. Therefore, actual confirmation of the specifics of the authority's claims wouldn't affect their judgement. They would still probably believe the same authorities.

In other words, you might try a different tack on persuading people away from evolution. The people who accept the theory either already understand what you are saying, or they aren't interested in the specifics, which wouldn't be of interest to them.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Spoke too soon:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
It is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form. The team of scientists has already successfully transplanted the genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another, effectively changing the cell's species. Mr Venter said he was "100% confident" the same technique would work for the artificially created chromosome.

The new life form will depend for its ability to replicate itself and metabolise on the molecular machinery of the cell into which it has been injected, and in that sense it will not be a wholly synthetic life form. However, its DNA will be artificial, and it is the DNA that controls the cell and is credited with being the building block of life.

Mr Venter said he had carried out an ethical review before completing the experiment. "We feel that this is good science," he said. He has further heightened the controversy surrounding his potential breakthrough by applying for a patent for the synthetic bacterium.
Click to expand...


Compare that there is no evidence for Christ's existence and historians are increasingly skeptical that there was even a historical Jesus. There are no contemporary accounts of the guy who was supposed to be doing miracles all over the place. All info. came much later and the earliest accounts don't jibe with the later accounts--both of which were based primarily on memory, shared story telling, and revelation. This are not accurate means of understanding history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-myth_hypothesis

You are just so blinded to the truth you want, that you miss seeing the truths that are. What is truly miraculous is that some lucky humans for the very first time have been able to really understand our origins using data amassed through the brightest minds-- no faith and fairy-tales are necessary. But you can't "hear" it because of a mental virus that makes you fear biting from the tree of knowledge. Now, that is sad.
 
At this point I think I can safely assume that DOC will not address the call for evidence to back up his claim in the OP. I take this as an admission that he made these claims without any supporting evidence but he is unwilling to admit that he is in error.
 
DOC said:
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
Click to expand...
How many of them were there when it purportedly happened? How many examined verified original source materials? How many interviewed people who were there when it purportedly happened? Unless these points are/can be answered, don't think so (saying millions of believers read the bibble and agree with it is NOT research and is NOT proof of anything appropriate to your point. And I have not even got to the point of how many of them had the remotest background in research. (How many DUK? - a rough estimate will do!):rolleyes::rolleyes::jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
 
Foster Zygote said:
At this point I think I can safely assume that DOC will not address the call for evidence to back up his claim in the OP. I take this as an admission that he made these claims without any supporting evidence but he is unwilling to admit that he is in error.
Click to expand...

Gasp! Are you suggesting that there are Christians who are unwilling to admit error? Say it isn't so! (And are you inferring that there are Christians who can back up their claims?)
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
What's so wrong about derailing a thread that began with an idiotic, unsupportable opinion in the first place?
Click to expand...

I know. I know. Why let an opportunity to try and educate the lurkers pass by when you can tell a stupid xian how stupid he is. The lurkers need to see more of that.

bokonon said:
Like that's ever going to happen...
Click to expand...

O.k. That I can agree with. He's not going to read Ancestor's Tale or anything else.

joobz said:
DOC will never address the errors in his science. DOC has never demonstrated the ability to admit error. Any attempt at pushing the subject is futile.
Click to expand...

Apart from what I snipped... agreed completely.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
And two (gospels) 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.
Click to expand...


I noticed they're are no sources for any of this.

Matthew (the tax collector) was an apostle and an eyewitness to the life of Christ. Why would an eyewitness need to base his gospel on someone (Mark) who was not an eyewitness.

Luke (The physician) was a traveling companion of Paul. Paul met with Peter and some of the other disciples for 15 days (Galations 1;18). I have a feeling Paul and Peter did not talk chariot races in those 2 weeks.

John was also an apostle and an eyewitness. Once again why would an apostle and an eyewitness need to use the gospel of a non eye witness.

And if these 2 eyewitnesses did copy anything from Mark, it was probably because it was the truth. After all Mark was a companion of Peter (essentially the main apostle). I go into Peter in greater detail in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633&highlight=peter

And did these 11 apostles choose to die for what they knew to be a false story.

Apostolic Age—1st century

* Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 35 A.D.
* James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
* Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
* Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
* James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
* Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
* Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
* Mark was beaten to death.
* Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
* Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
* Saint Jude was crucified.
* Saint Bartholomew was crucified.
* Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
* Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
* Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.

(Note: John the Evangelist according to legend was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I noticed they're are no sources for any of this.

Matthew (the tax collector) was an apostle and an eyewitness to the life of Christ. Why would a eyewitness need to base his gospel on someone (Mark) who was not a eyewitness.

Luke (The physician) was a traveling companion of Paul. Paul met with Peter and some of the other apostles for about 2 weeks. I have a feeling Paul and Peter did not talk chariot races in those 2 weeks.

John was also an apostle and a eyewitness. Once again why would an apostle and an eyewitness need to use the gospel of a non eye witness.

And did these 11 apostles choose to die for what they knew to be a false story.

Apostolic Age—1st century

* Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 35 A.D.
* James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
* Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
* Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
* James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
* Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
* Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
* Mark was beaten to death.
* Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
* Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
* Saint Jude was crucified.
* Saint Bartholomew was crucified.
* Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
* Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
* Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.

(Note: John the Evangelist according to legend was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs
Click to expand...

*Ahem*

Evidence?
 
Foster Zygote said:
At this point I think I can safely assume that DOC will not address the call for evidence to back up his claim in the OP. I take this as an admission that he made these claims without any supporting evidence but he is unwilling to admit that he is in error.
Click to expand...

Where have you been? Meadmaker and articulett have already pointed out that all plants and animals did come from the "same" single organism according to the generally accepted scientific theory.
 
DOC said:
Where have you been? Meadmaker and articulett have already pointed out that all plants and animals did come from the "same" single organism according to the generally accepted scientific theory.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what that means, DOC?
 
Originally Posted by DOC
Where have you been? Meadmaker and articulett have already pointed out that all plants and animals did come from the "same" single organism according to the generally accepted scientific theory.


Taffer said:
Do you understand what that means, DOC?
Click to expand...

Yes, its generally accepted scientific theory. And meadmaker and articulett agree with that mainstream scientific "theory". Do you disagree with it and why.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3066934#post3066934
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom