This Should Silence Atheists Who Believe In Blind Evolution

[Gibsons]

I am not, but your biological mechanisms doesn't explain to me a lot of things. I'm using my own brains of analyzation and have scoured my sorroundings, I have pondered at the beauty of a nice-looking female, of a daisy flower, the birth of a child, of how timely the Sun shines above us and sets down at the end of the day, how a tree grows out of NOTHING and provides us fruits for our sustenance, how a human brain is "self-aware" and is able to build things that exceeds our bodily capacities (such as flying). Deducing from all these observations I have concluded that the universe and us are not the product of a blind explosion, something superior and intelligent built it.

How can something that blindly and randomly came into existance in some organic soup (first cells) billions of years ago be able to form and produce a living being (fetus) and form it for 9 months until it comes out as a human being? These blind dumb cells also produced every genre of animal species out there too? No I don't think so.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity

 

[Anteaus]

I am not, but your biological mechanisms doesn't explain to me a lot of things. I'm using my own brains of analyzation and have scoured my sorroundings, I have pondered at the beauty of a nice-looking female, of a daisy flower, the birth of a child, of how timely the Sun shines above us and sets down at the end of the day, how a tree grows out of NOTHING and provides us fruits for our sustenance, how a human brain is "self-aware" and is able to build things that exceeds our bodily capacities (such as flying). Deducing from all these observations I have concluded that the universe and us are not the product of a blind explosion, something superior and intelligent built it.

How can something that blindly and randomly came into existance in some organic soup (first cells) billions of years ago be able to form and produce a living being (fetus) and form it for 9 months until it comes out as a human being? These blind dumb cells also produced every genre of animal species out there too? No I don't think so.

Your making major assumptions. This might be a rash judgement, but you sound like someone who has had little higher education, because much of your arguement revolves around ideas that very easily explained in physical anthrology, historical geology and physics. If you look back on geologic history, things don't "just appear". Modern day humans didn't show up until around 100,000 years ago. There is a long and well documented road that life took to get where it is now. The mammal explosion didn't take place until after the KT extintion 65 million years ago.

All i'm saying is that if we were created, it only happened after billions of years and billions of other creatures were placed here and destroyed by countless extinction events.

I feel bad that you have trouble with these concepts. I would hate to have to attempt to explain relativity theory to you because that would really throw you for a loop.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

You realize that doesn't get you out of the problem,yes?

If anything, it makes it far worse for you. Now, instead of having to deal with the improbability of a single replicator from a soup rich in organic compounds, you're dealing with the improbability of a calling an intelligent being capable of creating an entire universe into existence.

You've just increased your improbability by so many orders of magnitude it boggles the imagination.

 

[William Gaatjes]

One atheist biology scientist said something in a 1990's copy of the Watchtower Magazine that should silence the most ardent and fanatical evolutionist. This is what he said;

Because 1 "scientist" makes a statement because he does not understand how life works, gives you proof that everything is a lie ? Wauwsers, you are easy to deceive.

I will give you some explanation.
The problem is the definition of life :

the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

A virus for example is not alive by this definition. But strictly speaking all "life" needs certain products it does not create it self. For example EM energy or building blocks.

The spectacular forms of self assembly found in the wild are the basis of life.
Self assembly happens when certain rules are met.
You need to learn about self assembly.

As agnost, i am just telling you that the answer is not in your by man written book with tales. Your answer is within science. If you need a religious example, Read about Michael Faraday. He was a religious man and his religion was a very strong motivator to understand how the world works. The lies of the church are shackles around the brain of man and woman.

You do know the first rule religion started with right ? No worshipping ...

What does the roman catholic church do ? A Jesus with blue eyes and brownish hair.

What do the people in Mekka do ? Worship a certain black stone to name something.
Jewish symbols needed ? They are right there during worshipping...

Your body is your temple...

 

[Ninjahedge]

Against abiogenesis.

Basically I'm saying that you could leave a soup mixed of chemicals for a billion years and it won't produce that "spark" of life, and let's not get into the details how those chemicals reached there or were created because then we will open another pandora box..

Here's the problem with that statement.

Please show me where a soup of materials as described has been tested over a billion years, including geothermal, cosmic and atmospheric stimuli, and has NOT produced life.

We don't even know if we are the only ones around.

As for how those chemicals "reached there", WTH are you talking about? You are saying that chemicals can't react? You would rather believe in a mythical being coming down and zapping everything together with "his" hand than that somehow it was a really lucky coincidence?

One other thing for you to digest. Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, God uses existing mechanisms to do things? I am not trying to put any "meaning" behind things. "God's way" is a bunch of hooey that people often use to ameliorate disaster victims. What I am saying is, what if that "spark of life" was literally a lightening bolt on a planet filled with protenacious goup? You are saying that that might not be the hand of God?

Are you saying that the Big Bang itself might not be a mechanism that God created to make the universe? That he did not set it up using thnigs that we will eventually find and prove? What if Science is the set of rules that God made in this reality?

Why does Science have to be evil whenever it does not match our own uneducated juvenile anthropomorphic visions of how the world and reality should be?

Just keep in mind that many a scientific mind has a strong basis in religion. The only difference being that they never accepted "because" as an answer to their questions.

 

[Turtle.Man]

Kink:

There's way too much fallacy in your post to address in a piecemeal fashion, so I'll just throw out a quickie fact: chemical bonding is not a random process by any stretch. Atoms are quite picky about when and what they will form a bond with. To treat the assembly of a complex molecule from fragments as a random event is completely unrealistic and wrong!

tman

 

[Ninjahedge]

I am not, but your biological mechanisms doesn't explain to me a lot of things. I'm using my own brains of analyzation and have scoured my sorroundings, I have pondered at the beauty of a nice-looking female, of a daisy flower, the birth of a child, of how timely the Sun shines above us and sets down at the end of the day, how a tree grows out of NOTHING and provides us fruits for our sustenance, how a human brain is "self-aware" and is able to build things that exceeds our bodily capacities (such as flying). Deducing from all these observations I have concluded that the universe and us are not the product of a blind explosion, something superior and intelligent built it.

First, if you have pontificated on so many worldly beauties you should also know of one called a SPELL CHECKER.

Use it.

Second, your grammar is horrible. Don't try to talk fancy if you have trouble with even the simple.

And you keep compressing 1.5 billion years into an instant. You cannot compare an explosion to a billion years. It simply does not work that way.

Your associations are also weak. The sun being timely? Yeah, it sets right at sunset like it should! That is INCREDIBLY stupid. We EVOLVED on a solar schedule. We also evolved on a lunar one (menstruation would be a good example). Saying that they fit us has it ass backwards.

Your inability to see beauty as being random is just sad. Everything may have an explanation, but not everything has a reason.

How can something that blindly and randomly came into existance in some organic soup (first cells) billions of years ago be able to form and produce a living being (fetus) and form it for 9 months until it comes out as a human being?

By evolution. One group was able to replicate when millions of other combos could not. Eventually one did better than the others and became more proliferant. The growth spread and some did better in some areas than others.

You get a few billion years and stuff can happen.

These blind dumb cells also produced every genre of animal species out there too? No I don't think so.

These cells did not PLAN this you doofus. You seem to think that someone laid out an evolutionary schedule for 1.5 billion years.

Yeah, a comittee of 1 celled organisms got together and planned their own evolution into man.

You are conflating too many things together and ruling out some because you do not understand them and they conflict with your own simple, magical solution.


Again, just ask yourself. Does God need to work with a magic wand, or is "he" really the one that used the way things were to make what is now?

 

[pctweaks]

I have concluded that the universe and us are not the product of a blind explosion, something superior and intelligent built it.

Please give an argumentation to your conclusion.

 

[sandorski]

Clearly a Blind god did it. I mean, it's obvious...

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into.

OP is clearly a troll and posted this here looking for a fight.

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[pctweaks]

deep in our hearts, every human has a big, ugly troll hidden.

 

[litttlechica]

I'm going to throw this in. There is a reason why science will always trump religion when it comes to conjecture like this, and it has nothing to do with truth or faith. The simple fact is that science is based on observation, theories and prediction..02

You cannot say science will always trump religion in this instance... evolution is a THEORY because it is not proven and just because faith is associated with religion doesn't mean there aren't facts to support why creation is way more logical.

 

[CycloWizard]

You cannot say science will always trump religion in this instance... evolution is a THEORY because it is not proven and just because faith is associated with religion doesn't mean there aren't facts to support why creation is way more logical.

Evolution is NOT a theory and has been unequivocally proven beyond all doubt. The only argument you might have is that the theory governing the process of evolution (i.e. natural selection) is invalid.

 

[Anteaus]

You cannot say science will always trump religion in this instance... evolution is a THEORY because it is not proven and just because faith is associated with religion doesn't mean there aren't facts to support why creation is way more logical.

Evolution is theory and not law because of the way scientific laws are prescribed. There is no fundamental science behind evolution the same way there is behind motion. Also, to be declared a law it must have been witnessed directly in action. We understand evolution because of the evidence we have gathered. As far as theories go, evolution is not a new idea. It has been extensively researched and the evidence is unanimously conclusive with very little in the way of outlyers. When the "chicken or the egg" question comes up, just ask a geologist. The answer is the egg.

Creationism is not a theory. It is conjecture based on what is described in the bible as well as human perception of our place in the world. There is no evidence to creationism other than the arguement that it must be true because it won't make sense any other way. That is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. It is a natural step for one to look toward the supernatural for things that can't be explained easily.

We can argue all day about whether the big bang was kicked off by god, and both sides could make reputable points, but once you start dealing with geologic history and what actually took place in the world based on the evidence gathered, the picture is drawn rather clearly. I will never say that god didn't start the universe, but I can say with relative certainty that he didn't do much of anything directly after the fact.

 

[litttlechica]

Evolution is NOT a theory and has been unequivocally proven beyond all doubt. The only argument you might have is that the theory governing the process of evolution (i.e. natural selection) is invalid.

If you get technical about it, evolution just means change and yes, things change. But, using the "process of evolution" to explain the creation of living organisms is definitely an unproven theory since, as you said, the processes that evolutionists say created life are invalid as factual arguments.

It's really as far-fetched as the initial post states. Things don't come from nothing and none of us would agree that a watch or anything else complicated came into being without a designer and that it was just chance that all the complex pieces fell into place. We still don't understand our own bodies since we can't cure so many diseases etc and people say something as complicated as us just happened from evolution?

 

[litttlechica]

Also, to be declared a law it must have been witnessed directly in action. We understand evolution because of the evidence we have gathered. As far as theories go, evolution is not a new idea. It has been extensively researched and the evidence is unanimously conclusive with very little in the way of outlyers.

I will never say that god didn't start the universe, but I can say with relative certainty that he didn't do much of anything directly after the fact.

There is actually evidence AGAINST evolution like the fossil record which isn't just an "outlyer" that can be dismissed. When people look at it with a scientific approach, they can't dismiss things like that just because they want evolution to be the answer since they won't look at evidence of a creator and they have no other ideas.

God may not be fixing the world right now but no one seems to care to find out why but that's a whole different discussion which isn't scientific at all.

 

[William Gaatjes]

If you get technical about it, evolution just means change and yes, things change. But, using the "process of evolution" to explain the creation of living organisms is definitely an unproven theory since, as you said, the processes that evolutionists say created life are invalid as factual arguments.

It's really as far-fetched as the initial post states. Things don't come from nothing and none of us would agree that a watch or anything else complicated came into being without a designer and that it was just chance that all the complex pieces fell into place. We still don't understand our own bodies since we can't cure so many diseases etc and people say something as complicated as us just happened from evolution?

You should start to learn how important self assembly is for life. Self assembly is a very important aspect in this universe. For organic and inorganic forms of matter, self assembly or the formation of structures formed automatically by atoms is the basis of life. Self assembly and a lot of space and time is all you need to create out of "nothing" something.

To put it in a hypothetical situation :
Why is it that your god can only create life if your god is overseeing the creation step by step ? Because you see your god as a human just as described in your book of tales.

And to create a random creation story :
Your god seems pretty weak to me if your god is unable to create a random glob of energy that can self replicate into a universe. When this universe is at the stadium to support life because of a set of laws of nature for a time long enough to create a new conscience able to hold and grasp all probabilities to once again create a new universe when the old will cease to exist. A god that lives forever with eternal knowledge being able to live beyond universes.

I just made this up while typing ... ^_^.

See how easy this is ?

And i do not have a desire to control you by making you worship something only i have control of.
By worshipping you always will fail and others will have control over you.

 

[litttlechica]

I just made this up while typing ... ^_^.

It's obvious lol because it makes no sense. I am not sure I even feel like it's worth pointing out why.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Hello Phineas.

First thing I thought. Guess he moved from Wisconsin to Canada.

 

[lord_emperor]

That's neat.

Now spend 40 billion years blowing up bombs on each of the uncountable planets likely to support life as we know it.

 

[William Gaatjes]

It's obvious lol because it makes no sense. I am not sure I even feel like it's worth pointing out why.

Try me. Or are you afraid to confront me ?

Do i put fear in you ? I can rip your faith apart if i would desire to do so.
But as most people who wish to be enlightened, i do not force myself or my views upon you, i give you the free will to choose. Because as soon as you ask me to prove that god does not exist, i will ask you to prove that god does exist. You can not live with that doubt, it will make you weaker. I like the doubt, it gives a purpose. Another reason to live beyond replication and sharing love for everything.

EDIT:

Afcourse the self assembly part is not a story. It is a fact.

 

[sandorski]

That's neat.

Now spend 40 billion years blowing up bombs on each of the uncountable planets likely to support life as we know it.

Which brings up another issue...Why make all those Galaxies, all those Stars, and all those Planets then just put Life on one insignificant Planet in one insignificant Galaxy in some random location amongst all that?

It all made sense when little was know about the Universe and it all appeared to orbit around the Earth, but now we know better. To continue to hold onto the Thoughts of the innocently ignorant no longer makes any logical sense whatsoever.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You cannot say science will always trump religion in this instance... evolution is a THEORY because it is not proven and just because faith is associated with religion doesn't mean there aren't facts to support why creation is way more logical.

You need to seriously look up the definition of scientific theory.

Unlike the popular semantic use of the word, a scientific theory has more weight to it than an idol conjecture put out with no basis or grounding in observable fact.

 

[litttlechica]

Try me. Or are you afraid to confront me ?

Do i put fear in you ? I can rip your faith apart if i would desire to do so.
But as most people who wish to be enlightened, i do not force myself or my views upon you, i give you the free will to choose. Because as soon as you ask me to prove that god does not exist, i will ask you to prove that god does exist. You can not live with that doubt, it will make you weaker. I like the doubt, it gives a purpose. Another reason to live beyond replication and sharing love for everything.

Not at all. You can't touch my faith because it isnt blind.. it's based on FACTS. I don't believe in creation because someone told me to and I have no doubts.

Why is it that your god can only create life if your god is overseeing the creation step by step ? Because you see your god as a human just as described in your book of tales.

And to create a random creation story :
Your god seems pretty weak to me if your god is unable to create a random glob of energy that can self replicate into a universe. you.

I didn't find it worth it because you are making assumptions. You talk like as if God is weak because he didn't create matter to self-replicate into a universe. That wouldn't make God weak... if there really is a God who is so powerful he created everything, he would be able to make a CHOICE as to what he wants to do with that power and reasons. Just because He didn't do something doesn't mean he COULDN'T have.

 

[litttlechica]

You need to seriously look up the definition of scientific theory.

Unlike the popular semantic use of the word, a scientific theory has more weight to it than an idol conjecture put out with no basis or grounding in observable fact.

I took 6th grade science. I know what a scientific theory is based on. Just because scientific theories are based on observations does not make them proven facts or they would be called fact.

*Edit* I am also done posting for now because I'm at work and too busy to be debating this The debate never ends