• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

Status
Not open for further replies.
godless dave said:
Why would you think most atheists are unaware of this? I learned it in sixth grade science class. It's not exactly kept secret.
Click to expand...

What did you learn in the sixth grade. You almost certainly didn't learn that all the millions of plant and animals species alive today are descendant from the "same" one cell organism (according to science). I'd like to know the title and page number of any grade school book that mentions anything even close to the scientific opinion that all life we see today came from the same one cell creature.
 
DOC said:
What did you learn in the sixth grade. You almost certainly didn't learn that all the millions of plant and animals species alive today are descendant from the "same" one cell organism (according to science). I'd like to know the title and page number of any grade school book that mentions anything even close to the scientific opinion that all life we see today came from the same one cell creature.
Click to expand...

DOC, I don't know how old you are, but in I was in the 6th grade in 1980. The same year Cosmos first aired and I watched this animation on the series.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EYzx6C4irsI
 
Radrook said:
I have been aware of that claim for the past 25 years. So there definitely isn't anything innovative about it. Not only are we supposedly related to every other animal, but we are also supposedly related to the plants as well. I agree with you that most atheists are unaware of this.Perhaps it isn't emphasized in order to avoid turning many atheists away from evolution due to the incredulity that such a claim might generate?
Click to expand...

I agree about the emphasis point. That's why we almost always hear people talking about man being descendant from apes, while we almost never hear about man being descendant from bacteria.

Although I don't think it's so much worry about turning atheists away from evolution (although that could happen with some), but I think its more about the worry of turning the general public away from evolution. And if that happened it would give more strength to religion in society, which many secular forces simply don't want to happen.

So when you think about it, it is somewhat deceptive to almost totally emphasize only a "part" of the theory (man is descendant from apes) for what I (and probably Radrock) believes is the fear that the public just won't accept the entire theory (all plants and animals are descendant from the "same" one-celled organism).
 
Last edited:
I also find this assertion quite puzzling. I cannot remember a time when I did not understand that all life on earth is related. While it is true that apes are often mentioned so is "primordial sludge" and "coming out of the sea and onto land" All sort of common phrases besides "descended from apes" I really don't think this is obfuscated at all
 
DOC I am happy to accept that all life on Earth began as single celled organisms and the probability is that at one point they were all the same. Evidence and logic point that way. Why would the general public, of which I am a very average and ordinary part, be worried about that? Unless, like you and Radrook they see themselves as something special and apart from the universe we exist in because their particular brand of FSM says so.
 
Radrook said:
I have been aware of that claim for the past 25 years. So there definitely isn't anything innovative about it. Not only are we supposedly related to every other animal, but we are also supposedly related to the plants as well. I agree with you that most atheists are unaware of this. Perhaps it isn't emphasized in order to avoid turning many atheists away from evolution due to the incredulity that such a claim might generate?

BTW
By related I mean having a common biological origin.
Click to expand...
It's falsifiable. Scientists have been trying to falsify it with no luck. Vast amounts of evidence suports the hypothesis and scientits can and do make predictions based on the theory and verify the predictions all of the time. Neither credulity nor incredulity need play any part.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Although I don't think it's so much worry about turning atheists away from evolution (although that could happen with some...
Click to expand...
Given the breadth and depth of the evidence it would take a very ignorant atheist to turn away from evolution. Evolution is a fact.
 
USA≠Rest of world​

Most of Europe, not to mention, I'd imagine, Canada, accept the Theory of Evolution. The US is pretty much the only democratic and modernized Western country I can think of, perhaps apart from England, where the ToE is questioned by more than a tiny handful of loonies.

As for 'atheists' and 'scientists' censoring parts of the ToE to make it more appealing to the masses, the Theory of Evolution is not the Bible. It's more than one of many mostly unproven stories without evidence that people turn away from if they delve into them too deeply and discover too many oppressive rules and horrific atrocities. The Theory of Evolution is proven, and as such you can't 'turn away from it' more than you can 'turn away from' believing in World War II just because it's full of evil.

I agree about the emphasis point. That's why we almost always hear people talking about man being descendant from apes, while we almost never hear about man being descendant from bacteria.
Click to expand...
Funny, I hear the 'man evolved from apes' line spouted mostly by fundies. Perhaps if you're so very tired of hearing people say we evolved from apes, you could stop saying it.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
What did you learn in the sixth grade. You almost certainly didn't learn that all the millions of plant and animals species alive today are descendant from the "same" one cell organism (according to science). I'd like to know the title and page number of any grade school book that mentions anything even close to the scientific opinion that all life we see today came from the same one cell creature.
Click to expand...


I learned the general basis for that in 7th grade. The common ancestor was very briefly mentioned as part of a unit on pre-history, covering the paleozoic and mesozoic eras. It was more the neccesity of showing that all things alive today trace back into and beyond those time periods. I do not know what book was used, because the teacher wrote the information on the chalkboard, and we copied it down. Does that invalidate it?
There was also something about wrinkly peas way back in 4th grade.
I went to a Roman Catholic elementary/junior high school.
 
Last edited:
Parsman said:
DOC I am happy to accept that all life on Earth began as single celled organisms and the probability is that at one point they were all the same. Evidence and logic point that way. Why would the general public, of which I am a very average and ordinary part, be worried about that?
Click to expand...

I notice you said the plural "organisms". Are you willing to accept and do you believe the general public would accept that all the plant and animal species that are visible today (according to science) came from a single asexual one-celled creature - lets give it a name -- Fred?

I know earlier in the thread, one regular atheist in these threads said it was laughingly absurd for that to be the case.
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
...The Theory of Evolution is proven, and as such you can't 'turn away from it' more than you can 'turn away from' believing in World War II just because it's full of evil...
Click to expand...

What is the scientific paper that proves the Theory of Evolution?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I know earlier in the thread, one regular atheist seemed to imply that it was absurd for that to be the case.
Click to expand...

  • I don't think so (I think I know who you are talking about and I don't think you understand what his point was).
  • Even if you are correct it doesn't prove anything other than one person's opinion (atheists can be wrong).
  • What the general public will accept is proof of nothing.
 
DOC said:
What is the scientific paper that proves the Theory of Evolution?
Click to expand...
Much of modern medicine and scientific reaserch and devolopment depend on evolution. Many, many predictions have been made and have been demonstrated to be correct. No attempt to falsify evolution has succeded and evolutionary scientists regularly try and falsify it. Of course it's worth noting that creation scientists make little if any any attempt at falsifying evolution (that would be a waste of time for them). I just love that irony. :)

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
Evolution does this in spades.
 
DOC said:
What is the scientific paper that proves the Theory of Evolution?
Click to expand...


If all you are looking for is evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection, you may want to start with On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. I would recommend reading it (the first version is the easiest to follow), then coming back here with specific questions.
 
DOC said:
I agree about the emphasis point. That's why we almost always hear people talking about man being descendant from apes, while we almost never hear about man being descendant from bacteria.

Although I don't think it's so much worry about turning atheists away from evolution (although that could happen with some), but I think its more about the worry of turning the general public away from evolution. And if that happened it would give more strength to religion in society, which many secular forces simply don't want to happen.
Click to expand...
This is just not true and you know it's not true. I'm simply exhausted with your deceptions.

DOC said:
So when you think about it, it is somewhat deceptive to almost totally emphasize only a "part" of the theory (man is descendant from apes) for what I (and probably Radrock) believes is the fear that the public just won't accept the entire theory (all plants and animals are descendant from the "same" one-celled organism).
Click to expand...
it's a shame you don't read children's books. When I was 6-7 years old, I had a book on dinosaurs which explained the age of the earth, had a chart outlining in beautiful graphic color the timeline of life, from single celled organisms to modern man. It was a great book.
 
RandFan said:
  • I don't think so (I think I know who you are talking about and I don't think you understand what his point was).
Click to expand...
I believe he was referring to my point that it is rather absurd to believe that there was only 1 single, solitary cell that started life. Rather, it was most likely a collection of similar loosely cellular entities contained within the same environment. But, again, DOC does not care for truth in any of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom