Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
[/LIST]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.
Click to expand...

Random chance occurred in exactly the same way, multiple times, at the same time?
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Random chance occurred in exactly the same way, multiple times, at the same time?
Click to expand...
Have you ever studied chemistry or read about solid phase synthesis?
The description of "random chance same way multiple times" is a gross simplification of the reality of chemistry.
 
joobz said:
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.
Click to expand...

So to clarify, do you believe that all plant and animal species visible to the naked eye that exist today came from the same one cell creature?
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
How exactly are you defining the word evolution in relation to your assertion that evolution is a fact?
Click to expand...

I'll let Laurance Moran respond.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
Click to expand...
 
DOC said:
So to clarify, do you believe that all plant and animal species visible to the naked eye that exist today came from the same one cell creature?
Click to expand...
Of course, because that is what the evidence shows.

And what exactly do you believe about them? They were just suddenly poofed into existence with DNA that people wouldn't discover for eons that just looks like this is how it happened???

That's a pretty deceptive sky fairy you have, don't you think?
 
joobz said:
[/list]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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I had you in mind. I just read the first 5 pages and it seemed to me that Doc was simply hearing what he wanted to hear.
 
So to clarify, do you {joobz} believe that all plant and animal species visible to the naked eye that exist today came from the same one cell creature?

articulett said:
Of course, because that is what the evidence shows...
Click to expand...

Well I asked the question of joobz, but thanks for your statement that the evidence shows that all the plant and animal species that are visible to the naked eye that exist today came from the same one celled creature.

But I still am not certain that joobz believes that, and I won't be cetain until he says that he believes it.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I'll let Laurance Moran respond.

"Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming."
Click to expand...

Unnamed and unnumbered biologists have treated TOE in a kindly manner therefore it is fact?


You still have neglected to define evolution in the context of your assertion the it is fact. What is fact?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Unnamed and unnumbered biologists have treated TOE in a kindly manner therefore it is fact?
Click to expand...
I'm appealing to a consensus of authority. A valid appeal since they are experts on the subject.

You still have neglected to define evolution in the context of your assertion the it is fact. What is fact?
Click to expand...
?

Are you being obtuse? Asserting that I have neglected to define evolution in the context of my assertion doesn't make it so. I clearly did.

"...modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms..."

Is there something about that statement that you don't understand? Is it confusing or somehow difficult to read or are you just unwilling to acknowledge that I clearly defined evolution in the context of my assertion that it is fact?

In other words, are you about to start playing a game?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are using the word that is to be defined in the definition. :confused:

Please, you seem much brighter than this.
Click to expand...
So, this WILL be a game. That's fine. So long as I know up front.

Evolution:
The process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next
 
RandFan said:
DOC, do you believe that evolution is a fact?
Click to expand...

I've never read or seen anything that proves its a fact. And I have read a portion of Darwin's Origin of Species. But even if it is a fact, that doesn't disprove God.

In other words, I have more evidence that Christianity is true than I have evidence that evolution is true.
 
RandFan said:
So, this WILL be a game. That's fine. So long as I know up front.
Click to expand...

One of the few which does recognize that logic is a bit of a game. Kudos to you.

Evolution:
The process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next
Click to expand...

Thank you for your direct answer to a direct question. This is seen little on the internet. :)
 
DOC said:
I've never read or seen anything that proves its a fact.
Click to expand...
I can't make you see what you don't want to. However, if evolution isn't a fact then there is no such thing as fact.

  • There is simply too much evidence.
  • There have been too many predictions verified.
  • All attempts at falsification have failed.
  • Evolution is the basis of much of modern medicine and scientific R&D. In other words we all rely on it. (Next time you get sick you should just pray and don't bother with the medicine made possible because scientists understand and use evolution).

But even if it is a fact, that doesn't disprove God.
Click to expand...
?

What on earth does this have to do with the discussion at hand. I think you doth protest too much.

In other words, I have more evidence that Christianity is true than I have evidence that evolution is true.
Click to expand...
Sure. You bet.

Christianity: Virgin birth, walking on water, water to wine, resurrection, etc.
  • None of the metaphysical claims of Christianity are falsifiable.
  • Christianity has not produced any predictions that have come true.
  • There is no objective evidence to prove the metaphysical claims of Christianity.
Evolution: Decent with modification.
  • Claims are falsifiable.
  • Evolution has produced many predictions that have been verified.
  • There are mountains of objective evidence to prove the claims of evolution.
"A man he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." --Paul Simon

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." --2 Timothy 4:3

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

The evidence is clearly there DOC. It's up to you to accept it or not.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I can't make you see what you don't want to. However, if evolution isn't a fact then there is no such thing as fact.

There is simply too much evidence.
Click to expand...

Now here is a real global game. If one evidences that any particular point concerning TOE does not evidence TOE than the argument is: But, there is so much more evidence!!!


How many evidences of TOE would you need that were proven a logically improper extrapolation for you to believe that the TOE is not evidenced?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom