Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Alisa]

Natural selection is not the basis for evolution, it is mutations.
Natural selection provides the best chance for the mutation to continue.

You have it a little twisted. Just reread Craig's first post on the subject, I think he did a great job and I don't feel like being redundant.

As far as the others, if you read the whole original posts you will understand.

 

[Mike375]

You have it a little twisted. Just reread Craig's first post on the subject, I think he did a great job and I don't feel like being redundant.

From Craig's post

Of these, really, the only one that actually creates something entirely NEW in the DNA pool of the 'species' is mutation

 

[Rich]

somebody obviously thought

Shouldn't that be plural?

 

[Mike375]

Shouldn't that be plural?

You blokes are picking on me. You know how sensitive and easily offended I am

 

[Rabbie]

I think any reasonable person without prejudice would agree that lizard gradually evolving to a snake is a very shaky looking deal. If you were making something in Access and the way you were doing it looked as shaky as Lizard to Snake, then you would back track real quick and look for an alternative.

See this link for information about the Slow Worm which is a legless lizard. Where do you think it came from?

 

[Rich]

"Always being there" is in the same boat as supernatural.

No it isn't

 

[dan-cat]

I find it a part of the natural human arrogance to argue that all that is currently not understood can and will be eventually understood by the human mind.

How patterns like cosmic orbits or binary fission have come to be in a function and form we can perceive as patterned should provoke awe. But the arrogance of the human mind convinces some that we are not simply a product of these patterns but a possible understander of their origins.

The requirement of evidence for something to exist is an arbitary human law arrogantly presuming that all required evidence can be perceived by the human mind.

A caveman could not possibly understand how a car came into being but can perceive its form and function. The form and function of the car is there by design. We are all bombarded by universal form and function and yet some dismiss it as mere chance. Why then do humans find the products of chance so easy to perceive?

Atheists simply stand on the shoulders of giants and refuse to acknowledge their existance. IMO.

By the way, Alisa, your line of argument is flawed from the very beginning as you attempt to argue from authority and ad hominem. To suggest that your argument is superior because atheists are more intelligent is fallacious. Your argument is sound or not regardless of the intelligence of others.

 

[Mike375]

See this link for information about the Slow Worm which is a legless lizard. Where do you think it came from?

As I posted earlier the legless lizards are only superficially like snakes. They are as the name says, a lizard without legs. When I kept reptiles one type I had were legless lizards. The big problem from lizard to snake is the skull/jaw structure.

The legless lizard is probably convergent evolution. That is where two unrelated species develop similar traits becuase of the environment.

 

[Rabbie]

By the way, Alisa, your line of argument is flawed from the very beginning as you attempt to argue from authority and ad hominem. To suggest that your argument is superior because atheists are more intelligent is fallacious. Your argument is sound or not regardless of the intelligence of others.

There have been others on the other side of this debate who have also used similar arguments to claim there is a supernatural explanation.

The requirement of evidence for something to exist is an arbitary human law arrogantly presuming that all required evidence can be perceived by the human mind.

I feel it is not unreasonable to see evidence before believing something. I do not see this as arrogance. I feel that repeatedly using the word Arrogant about those who disagree with you could be interpreted as arrogance itself. We have tried on both sides in this debate to keep this on a friendly level. Don't lets get abusive to each other.

 

[Mike375]

"Always being there" is in the same boat as supernatural.

No it isn't

Stephen Hawking and others might disagree with you.

 

[dan-cat]

There have been others on the other side of this debate who have also used similar arguments to claim there is a supernatural explanation. I feel it is not unreasonable to see evidence before believing something. I do not see this as arrogance. I feel that repeatedly using the word Arrogant about those who disagree with you could be interpreted as arrogance itself. We have tried on both sides in this debate to keep this on a friendly level. Don't lets get abusive to each other.

Perhaps you would like to point out a specific example?

 

[Rabbie]

Perhaps you would like to point out a specific example?

Try post 141 for starters. And perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of 140

 

[Rich]

Stephen Hawking and others might disagree with you.

They're welcome to, but being British I wouldn't call them arrogant, neither am I standing on their shoulders

 

[Mike375]

I feel it is not unreasonable to see evidence before believing something. I do not see this as arrogance.

What evidence have you seen with the Big Bang etc and etc and etc.....

 

[dan-cat]

Try post 141 for starters. And perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of 140

Post 141 is a good example.

As for your other comment.

My use of the word 'arrogance' refers to a human trait not to an individual. I didn't call any individual arrogant. Just the human condition.

The human requirement to understand all, whether by theists or atheists is arrogant, IMO. It assumes we have the capacity to do so.

 

[Rich]

What evidence have you seen with the Big Bang etc and etc and etc.....

The expansion of the Universe

 

[Mike375]

What is it about post 141

 

[Mike375]

The expansion of the Universe

How have you observed the expansion of the universe.

 

[Brianwarnock]

The human requirement to understand all, whether by theists or atheists is arrogant, IMO. It assumes we have the capacity to do so.

I think without that requirement we would still be in caves, also the fact that we have it does not mean that we think we can understand everything, I've failed enough exams to KNOW I can't.

Brian

 

[Rich]

What is it about post 141

"Always being there" is in the same boat as supernatural.