Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[Agent]

true, I dispute evolution as a phenomenon of chance:

1) I venture evolution without God's assistance is ludicrously beyond plausibility. the logic of evolution is *nice* but the numbers do not compute. FWIW have a looksee into Darwin's finches.

2) I believe humans are separate and distinct from any other species, ie did not evolve from apes. They COULD have evolved from apes with His help but He says they did not, so not a biggie. Call me gullible.

[GBG] Atheist News: How Chimp Chromosome #13 Proves Evolution
Watch the video.

You call it a "phenomenon of chance" - Do you realise the kind of probability involved here?
Even the bloke in that video who is religious has to resign to the fact that its practically implausible that we didn't evolve from apes.
Unless 'god' put the chromosomes there just to fool us, of course. At this point, what kind of a god is this? One who wants to deceive his creation?

[Agent]

Another one to go with it:
Scientists find missing evolutionary link using tiny fungus crystal

[Stewart]

Around were I live, Chinese girls get their houses stoned for being coloured.

Are the really garish, like bright pink or something? Round here this bloke got his windows smashed for putting up loads of Xmas lights.

[Kezzer]

When it comes to Jesus, just like Scarlet but unlike the civil war, there is no evidence of his actual existence. The Church has been looking for it for thousands of years and has found exactly nothing! All of those histories of the time period you list contain no genuine reference to someone who should have been a significant figure.

But then neither does evolution have any hard evidence yet evolutionists are equally as "religious" about it. No matter what anyone says, there is no hard evidence of evolution - we have closely related species, some with signs of evolution, but that's exactly like saying "this man was healed, that's a sign from God".

I'm not trying to hold anyone accountable here, but doesn't the apparent behaviour of evolutionists and creationists mostly seem synonymous? Atheists tend to jump on the "we have scientific proof" yet everything they spout is prefixed with "the theory of..." then of course we can go look up the definition of theory and - as many of you know - see that it is something unproven.

The problem with all of this is that we all have a monotrack mind and relatively can only see the correctness in our own logic. It's like trying to get the dog to understand it's wrong to take a leak on your living room carpet. The dog sees no wrong in it, and finds it hard to understand your logic.

I could go on forever, but I think every single one of us know for a fact that this is merely a game of tennis, we could hit that ball back at our opponent forever and ever.

[yamangman]

There is overwheling evidence supporting evolution. As you can recognise you have a one-track mind, i'd of thought you capable of opening it to notice this.

But then neither does evolution have any hard evidence yet evolutionists are equally as "religious" about it. No matter what anyone says, there is no hard evidence of evolution - we have closely related species, some with signs of evolution, but that's exactly like saying "this man was healed, that's a sign from God".

I'm not trying to hold anyone accountable here, but doesn't the apparent behaviour of evolutionists and creationists mostly seem synonymous? Atheists tend to jump on the "we have scientific proof" yet everything they spout is prefixed with "the theory of..." then of course we can go look up the definition of theory and - as many of you know - see that it is something unproven.

The problem with all of this is that we all have a monotrack mind and relatively can only see the correctness in our own logic. It's like trying to get the dog to understand it's wrong to take a leak on your living room carpet. The dog sees no wrong in it, and finds it hard to understand your logic.

I could go on forever, but I think every single one of us know for a fact that this is merely a game of tennis, we could hit that ball back at our opponent forever and ever.

[ajbrun]

Atheists tend to jump on the "we have scientific proof" yet everything they spout is prefixed with "the theory of..." then of course we can go look up the definition of theory and - as many of you know - see that it is something unproven.

That depends if you're looking up the dictionary definition of 'theory' or 'scientific theory'...

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

We're defiantly been through this before in most of the other threads of this nature, so I'll keep this short:
Any scientific theory has evidence to support it. The difference between creationism and evolutionism is that while the latter has a great deal of evidence surrounding it (hence why it's called a scientific theory), creationism has very little (mainly the words from a book and a few philosophical debates).

Would you also say that gravity is also 'unproven'? I am certain that today's scientists will be able to provide much more evidence for their (scientific) theory than evolutionism can for their (unproven).

[G4Z]

But then neither does evolution have any hard evidence yet evolutionists are equally as "religious" about it. No matter what anyone says, there is no hard evidence of evolution /snip

Your wrong, simply stating that 'no matter what anyone says' does not cut it. There are many evolutionary biologists that will vigorously disagree with you, because they have tested evolution and they have masses of evidence. In fact evolution is one of the most rock solid scientific theories and should be considered a scientific fact. Agent just provided several links to support my assertion, you clearly didn't bother to look, and you certainly didn't bother to provide your own sources for yours. I only post here to counter what I would call deliberate misinformation on your behalf.

[iranu]

But then neither does evolution have any hard evidence yet evolutionists are equally as "religious" about it. No matter what anyone says, there is no hard evidence of evolution - we have closely related species, some with signs of evolution, but that's exactly like saying "this man was healed, that's a sign from God".

I'm not trying to hold anyone accountable here, but doesn't the apparent behaviour of evolutionists and creationists mostly seem synonymous? Atheists tend to jump on the "we have scientific proof" yet everything they spout is prefixed with "the theory of..." then of course we can go look up the definition of theory and - as many of you know - see that it is something unproven.

The problem with all of this is that we all have a monotrack mind and relatively can only see the correctness in our own logic. It's like trying to get the dog to understand it's wrong to take a leak on your living room carpet. The dog sees no wrong in it, and finds it hard to understand your logic.

I could go on forever, but I think every single one of us know for a fact that this is merely a game of tennis, we could hit that ball back at our opponent forever and ever.

Wow no one in the history of mankind has ever come up with that argument. You are the first and a true giant of knowledge and understanding. Or should that be misunderstanding.

I was thinking about this ridiculous argument that all theories are just theories and not proven the other day. First and foremost everyone knows that the definition of theory that is in common usage in the dictionary is not the definition that scientists attribute to the word.

Theory

–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

[Origin: 1590–1600; < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eǐn) to view + -ia -y3]

—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Ok. I've proven you wrong with a simple two minute exercise that anyone can do, unless of course you are lazy or ignorant, have an agenda or all three so what do you say? Thank you iranu, I was ignorant before but you have taught me something new and I am know longer ignorant with regards to the word "theory", I have greater knowledge than I had before.

Recently at work I've been working with a bloke who is looking at producing new alloys. This is highly specialised and you have to know your stuff. I had to go back to my old university notes and some text books because I needed to refresh stuff I had forgotten or required the mathematical understanding (which was discarded about 2 seconds after my last exam 12 years ago). I needed to refresh with regard to Dislocation Theory, because I had understand mathematically what happens to dislocations when interacting with strained lattice due to interstitial, substitutional atoms and particulates. What I had forgotten was that this "theory" underpins a huge amount with regard to our understanding the way metals and infact other materials behave, but what is more is that this theory was just that! Now I was going to write a large abstract detailing the history of the theory with as many references as possible but I think you will find it boring so I had a quick google.

The history of dislocations is one of the great success stories of physics, as applied to materials science. Beginning life as a purely theoretical construct in mathematics, with no apparent practical application to anything, the dislocation concept first enjoyed practical success when it was found that it could explain the worrying large discrepancy between the theoretical and real strengths of solids. "All the difference", as someone remarked, "between trying to slide an entire carpet, or push a ruck across it". The first observation of dislocations, using electron microscopy, must have been as satisfying as the confirmation of the light-bending predictions of relativity; an analogy which is not as inappropriate as it might seem.

Dislocation Theory

Dislocation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is not bad to start. I now have a different take on the 111 crystallographic plane (eleventy111!!! plane)

And here they are! Rows of missing atoms! IAP/TU Wien STM Gallery: Dislocations Can you think of the scoffers who would say "rofl - you can't see missing atoms, der, and what's more your imaginary theoretical mathematics can't work because of it - Ipwnzuloleleventy1111!!!"

What amazes me now is that when i was at uni studying this it was all done with 2d drawings but now with the advent of computers and their power people are able to model dislocations, how they interact with each other and particles in a crystal lattice.

Dislocations
The Dislocations Gallery

[ajbrun]

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Institute of Medicine today released an 88-page booklet—-intended for wide dissemination—-that explains why evolution is science and creationism is not. An electronic version of the booklet is available here for free.

Science, Evolution, and Creationism

I thought this was relevant. I'll give it a bit of a read sometime soon I expect.

[santa claus]

Today's "Big Questions" revealed that there was statistical evidence that the religious were more likely to be mentally healthy than those who are not. Apparently, some atheists feel this is an indication that there is indeed a God

[Blitzen]

Today's "Big Questions" revealed that there was statistical evidence that the religious were more likely to be mentally healthy than those who are not. Apparently, some atheists feel this is an indication that there is indeed a God

Did you see the 'Dispatches' program on Channel 4 last week about the big mosque in Birmingham?

Their leaders (immams i think they are called) definitely dispell the 'mentally healthy' (seriously mentally disturbed would be more appropriate)notion you have posted above judging by the outrageous claims and comments they made and they are 'supposed' to be religious (or pretend to be).

Anyone see it? I couldnt believe what was being said.

Just for the record aswell......how can evolution NOT be what happened?
Everyone has a right to WANT to believe in God (whichever one) if they see fit. If it makes them feel safer, more secure or happier in themselves how can that be a bad thing?

To say that is what happened though is a bit 'far-out'. Some all supreme being clicking fingers and we appear is a very strange notion.

[santa claus]

.....and they are 'supposed' to be religious

As are you if you stand by this comment LOL!

.....God help you if you bought one from them then.

Incidentally, I agree with you about Mesh.

[Kezzer]

Your wrong, simply stating that 'no matter what anyone says' does not cut it. There are many evolutionary biologists that will vigorously disagree with you, because they have tested evolution and they have masses of evidence. In fact evolution is one of the most rock solid scientific theories and should be considered a scientific fact. Agent just provided several links to support my assertion, you clearly didn't bother to look, and you certainly didn't bother to provide your own sources for yours. I only post here to counter what I would call deliberate misinformation on your behalf.

My sincere apologies for offending you in any way, that was not my intention.

I'm all open to listening to whatever proposals there are, however, I don't keep up to date with what's the latest news on creationism versus evolutionary theories. No, I didn't read through the 11 pages of this thread as I didn't have time and that's entirely my fault for ignoring it all and I am fully accountable (something I'm aware of).

I hear many theories, ideas, proposals etc. but most of it never makes any (logical) sense to me when we consider the introduction of existence i.e. time and matter itself. Evolution is one thing, but existence is another thing which I always think is probably more important in the theological debates.

[G4Z]

Look mate, I am not offended by anything you say I simply do not want you to be able to say things which are blatantly wrong that go without an answer. I notice you started another thread about a cruise, it sounds really cool but I take it that you think of buoyancy as more than a theory right?

Its not a case of whatever proposals, ID/creationism is NOT a theory its a fairy tale, if your seriously looking for an explanation about how we came into existence and why we are the way we are, there is only one game in town and that is evolution. the links I referred to were in the posts immediately before yours on the same page and one of them was a video so surely it wouldn't be too much of a hardship to go check it out before you go making claims that evolution has no hard evidence for it.

If your talking about the beginning of the universe that is a whole new debate and there is no certain answer to that at this point, however we are able to account for the billions of years between the instant of the big bang and now, no problem. we know how the solar system came about and we know how organic life came about, and we know how it evolved into us. For me there is no controversy, until the theologists can come up with more evidence than a 'book', you know like some hard data like you get with geology then it is all a fairy tale as far as I am concerned.

[Kezzer]

I'm not going to argue with you as there's nothing to argue about. You have a different opinion to me, I respect that, although it's no reason to get all heated up against me for my beliefs. The fact that you are getting heated up about it means you're heavily influenced by religious propositions - perhaps you've had some experience with creationists in a negative way in the past? I don't know

I hear things from both sides, you could always check our Dr. Kent Hovind's works: YouTube - Age Of The Earth by Dr. Kent Hovind

[ajbrun]

You really could have linked to someone better than Ken Hovind who is currently spending time in jail for fraud...

There's been a link already in this thread that totally discredits anything he's said. I'll edit my post when I find it.

But basically, saying the earth is/was surrounded by a layer of water is just stupid.

Here's my edit as promised:

YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1) (Part 1 of 11) They are worth watching by anybody.

Admitably, Kent Hovind only appears in the last few videos of the series, but many of the same arguments are there. I hope you find the time to watch all 11, then post back with some sort of a response.