|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Take the Atheist Challenge!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote: You would treat my statements differently. Rather than analysing them at their face value, you would respond with, "Well, of course you would say that. You're an X." I know...I know...absolutely maddening to have to respond to someone without any preconceived notions about how he's supposed to behave. To have to consider his statements for their intrinsic value alone without extraneous prejudices coloring your opinion of them. Means you have to think on your own and not rely upon mental shortcuts.
quote: Of course I can. But then again, I'm not the one saying that you should change your religious attitude all the while refusing to take the same challenge myself. If you cannot give up your god, what makes you think anybody else could give up theirs?
quote: Because you expect me to smack my head in the style of the old V-8 commercials and say, "My word, you're absolutely right!" You are relating your experiences not because it's an interesting topic of conversation but because you're trying to convert. That, by definition, is preaching and that, by definition, is obnoxious and rude. It is disrespectful to all other religious opinions.
quote: But there is no other way to view it. Since all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor, then they should all behave identically. If one is immune, all are immune. If one is susceptible, all are susceptible. Without evolution, it is physically impossible for a colony of bacteria descended from a single ancestor to have differing results to the same stimulus. Therefore, the fact that we do see differing results is evidence that evolution happens. There is no other conclusion.
quote: Because bacteria reproduce by fission. Each daughter cell is a clone of the mother cell and is genetically identical. Therefore, given that the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor, they must all contain the exact same genes because they are all clones of the first. Therefore, if there is no evolution, their genetic abilities are all identical. Therefore, if even one of them is genetically incapable of fighting off the phage, they must all be equally incapable of fighting off that phage and if one dies, they all die. But the fact that not all die necessarily means that they are not genetically identical. But how can that be since they reproduce by fission and each daughter cell is an exact duplicate of the mother cell? Simple: Each daughter cell is not an exact duplicate of the mother cell. They evolve. The replication process from generation to generation is not perfect. Mutations enter into the process and the daughter cells are genetically distinct from the mother cell. Later on, a selective pressure may come along that will make some of those mutants more likely to survive. Well, that's the definition of evolution.
quote: Personally? No. But it is easily done. The genome of the E. coli bacterium was sequenced a long time ago.
quote: Humans don't reproduce by fission. They reproduce by sexual recombination. Therefore, it is impossible for you to be a genetic duplicate of your parents. Do I really have to explain this?
quote: Yep. They evolved.
quote: It doesn't matter. All the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor. Since bacteria reproduce via fission, they must all have the same genetic makeup. It isn't like bacteria have a conscious will to commit suicide or an "I'll get to it later" attitude that would make them hesitate in the face of a viral infection. It's a genetic response. And since they all have the same genes, they all behave identically. The fact that they don't necessarily means they don't have the same genes. But how can that be if they're all clones of the original cell? It must be that they evolved.
quote: Mutation. It's a random thing.
quote:quote: Yes. Now, that part of it is beyond the scope of the average high school lab session. Most high schools don't have genetic sequencing equipment. But, it has been done and it only serves to nail down the specifics of what we already know: The bacteria evolved.
quote: Why yes, yes they do. Bacterial sex is also well-understood. But here's the thing: If you're all clones of each other, you're only passing around the same genes. If I have two genetically distinct bacteria, one can pass its unique genes to the other. But if I have two genetically identical bacteria, what unique property could one give to the other?
quote: If there is no evolution, yes. The only way the daughter cells can possibly be different from the mother cell is if they evolve. Mutation is the hallmark of evolution. If you allow mutation, you must necessarily allow evolution.
quote:quote: And the arrogance and disrespect show themselves again. Have you considered the possibility that they have the same argument to make toward you? Get over yourself and put yourself in someone else's shoes just for a moment. If you seriously accept the claim that people who don't believe in your god are willful people who cannot see the forest for the trees, what possible defense do you have against their identical claim about you? Why are you incapable of feeling the power of Shiva? We're not surprised that you don't...not even Shiva expects everyone to do so. So with you and Hindus making the exact same argument, how is a third party supposed to determine who is the one to listen to?
quote: Incorrect. You are telling them, you are not merely wondering if. You said so, yourself:
Now are you willing to accept that those who don't believe in Jesus are just as sincere as you are? I cannot accept any of that So you can understand why I claim that you have no respect, no integrity, no decency. You cannot accept the possibility that other people who disagree with you are just as sincere as you are. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote: Because we have directly observed it. When we watch organisms over time, they change. We call that change "evolution." Or are you saying that organisms don't change over time?
quote: On a factual level, yes. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, seeks to explain the fact of evolution just as gravitational theory seeks to explain gravitational fact. A ball falls from my hand to the ground. We call the force that pulls it down "gravity." But what is gravity? How does it work? Ah, those are questions to be answered by theory. We'll never be able to prove the theory because that isn't how science works. But there is no way to contradict the fact: When I drop a ball, it falls to the ground. Similarly for evolution. What it is? How does it work? Those are questions to be answered by theory. We'll never be able to prove the theory because that isn't how science works. But there is no way to contradict the fact: When we observe organisms over time, they change.
quote: It is precisely what you claim has never been observed. Don't take my word for it. Run the experiment for yourself. Get back to us with the results. We have a wonderful chance here to test whether or not evolution happens. There is a singular event that must happen if evolution happens and a specific test that will determine if that event happened. Well, the test determined that the event happened. Therefore, evolution happened. The bacteria evolved. And then the phage evolved.
quote: As a fact, yes. As a theory, no. There's no way to prove a theory. You can disprove it handily enough, but theories can never be proven as they are an observational process. Since one can never observe everything, there is always the possibility that something has managed to escape your watch.
quote: Biblical creation based upon a reading of Genesis requires all plants, including and specifically fruit-bearing plants, to have existed before the rise of the animal pollinators that they require to reproduce. The fossil record, however, clearly shows that the animals appeared before the fruit-bearing plants. Therefore, such a story of creation is physically impossible and thus disproven.
quote: Irrelevant. How does my answer affect the veracity of my statements? Is evolution any more true if I say yes?
quote: Irrelevant. How does my answer affect the veracity of my statements? Is evolution any more true if I say yes?
quote: It's an adaptive response that increases survivability of the next generation. In social animals such as humans, it provides a means to keep the social unit intact, thus making the group more likely to survive, thus making the individuals in the group more likely to survive, thus making it more likely that the individuals in the group will reproduce and bring about the next generation. Wait, don't tell me you think that knowing how a rainbow gets made somehow destroys the beauty and wonder of it, do you? If you refuse to learn how the rainbow gets made for fear of losing your sense of awe, you'll never learn where the best place is to stand in order to see it in its full glory.
quote: Why do you ask? Should I be? What makes you think I'm an atheist? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote: Then explain the bacteria experiment. Are you saying that if I drop a ball and it falls to the ground, it is not a demonstration of the fact of gravity? Because that's what you're doing when you deny that the bacteria experiment is a demonstration of the fact of evolution. Once again, you seem to have confused observation with theory. There are facts and there are theories. Facts are not science. They are merely observations. Theories are analyses of those facts and that is where science does its work. One cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. We cannot have gravitational theory without the fact of gravity to base it upon. Gravitational theory seeks to explain gravity, so how could it possibly do that if gravity doesn't exist? Identically, we cannot have evolutionary theory without the fact of evolution to base it upon. Evolutionary theory seeks to explain evolution, so how could it possibly do that if evolution doesn't exist? I drop a ball. Organisms change. We call the first "gravity." We call the second "evolution." Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
quote: This coming from the person who said:
I am not telling anyone that they are misguided Get your story straight, riVeRraT. Are you judging people or aren't you? Are you allowing for the fact that they are not delusional or does everybody who disagrees with your stance on the nature of god have a screw loose?
quote: What do the beliefs of scientists have to do with anything? Are you saying that the switch from aluminum to copper technology in computer chips would have a different efficiency boost depending on if the engineer who was studying the process believed in god or not? People who believe in god aren't affected by gravity as much as those who don't? Those who follow Shiva actually use right-handed proteins for food instead of left-handed ones like the rest of us? Even the Pope understands that evolution is the only scientific explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. Are you calling the Pope an atheist? I'm not saying you should convert to Roman Catholicism or that you have to agree with anything the RC Church has to say about theology. I am merely asking if you think the Pope believes in god. (By the way...most scientists do believe in god.) Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
quote: Why not? If they're not true, why not say so? Surely you aren't saying we should choose a comfortable fantasy simply because the truth is more painful to bear, are you? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
quote: Because if there were no evolution, then they would all behave identically as they would all have the identical genome as they would all be identical genetic clones of the original ancestor. The fact that they don't all behave identically is necessarily evidence of evolution.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? What stops a genome from mutating?
quote: Yes. No chemically replicating organism reproduces perfectly every single time. That's just the nature of chemistry. If I were to take two moles of hydrogen gas and one mole of oxygen gas, mix them in a container at STP, and spark the mixture, I'll get water. Mostly. There will also be some hydrogen peroxide and some unreacted gas left over because no chemical reaction is perfect.
quote: Are you referring to the second part where you take the K-4 bacteria and re-infect with T4 phage? Did you bother to read my entire post? Since you seem to have missed it, here it is again:
Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear. So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity. So no, it can't be that the bacteria evolved backward. There are too many resistant bacteria around. It has to be the phage the evolved.
quote: Reversion mutations? Yes. But note, that still necessarily means evolution. As soon as you allow for mutation, you necessarily allow for evolution.
quote: Chemically. No chemical reaction is perfect. Chromosome duplication is a chemical process. Therefore, it will never be the case that every single chromosome is duplicated precisely every single time. Mutations necessarily show up. But if there are mutations, then there is evolution.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? You claim to know science and you don't know about the luminiferous ether? Before the late 1800s, it was thought that all waves had to have a medium in which to propagate. Given the wave-like nature of light, it must also have a medium through which it travels. It was called the "luminiferous ether." In 1887, the Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted to test for the presence of this ether. By casting a light beam both in the direction of travel of the earth through the ether and crossways to it, it should show up as a detectable difference in the speed of light. But there was no difference. The speed of light was the same no matter which direction the light beam was going. It was because of the Michelson-Morley experiment that Einstein began thinking about the nature of light, leading to his development of the theory of relativity.
Luminiferous aether quote: Their very nature. It is not a question of the person developing the hypothesis but a question about the hypothesis, itself. Take the "atheist challenge." If an atheist takes the challenge and becomes a theist, then the god hypothesis is supported. But if an atheist takes the challenge and remains an atheist, then it was because the atheist was just stubborn and refused to open his mind and thus, the god hypothesis is supported. In other words, this test is unfalsifiable. No matter what the outcome, including direct contradiction, the conclusion is to support the god hypothesis. Thus, since the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, it is useless. A test only has significance if there are two distinct outcomes.
quote: There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. Taking pride in your ignorance and refusing to recognize one's ignorance, on the other hand, is shameful. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah responds to me:
quote: Where on earth did you get that idea? I have been very careful to keep my personal opinion about the existence of god out of this forum. It is irrelevant. Evolution is true or not true on its own merits, not because I do or do not believe in god. Surely you aren't of the opinion that just because I don't believe in your god that doesn't mean I don't believe in any god, are you? There are lots of religions out there. Many of them have absolutely no connection to Judaic, Christian, or Islamic traditions. Have you considered the possibility that the god I might believe in is completely different from your conception of what god is supposed to be like?
quote: Because it would be the way to get me to believe. If you truly loved someone and wanted only the best for that person and the only way that person could come to realize that is if you take him by the shoulders and shake him to snap him out of his reverie, wouldn't you do it? If all you need to do is put "that look" on your face in order to tell your child that he needs to rethink what he's doing, but your child isn't facing you, wouldn't you put yourself where he could see you in order to stop him from doing what he shouldn't be doing?
quote: But it is meaningless unless you're willing to do the same thing. Give up your god first and then get back to me about following yours. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah responds to me:
quote: Then why do you demand I give up and deny mine? Why are you unwilling to do what you demand of others? Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah writes:
quote: Don't tell me you're about to confuse evolution with abiogenesis....
quote: Yep, you are. (*sigh*) Look, evolution doesn't try to explain where life came from. It doesn't care where life came from anymore than chemistry cares where atoms came from. Evolution is compatible with every single form of genesis you care to think of. Chemically through abiogenesis? Fine.Supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence? No problem. Extraterrestrially through alien seeding or panspermia? No sweat. Interdimensionally through a rift in space-time? No worries. So long as that life doesn't replicate perfectly from generation to generation, evolution is satisfied. Evolution is about what happens to life after it exists, not about how it came into existence in the first place. The method by which my hammer came into existence has little to do with how I use it once I have it. Whether the quarter I have in my had was last used in a video game or in a coin-op laundromat has little to do with me using it in the vending machine. Where something comes from has nothing to do with what it can do now that it's here. Are you saying god is incapable of creating life that evolves? Heck, even the Pope agrees that evolution is the only scientific explanation to explain the diversity of life on this planet. Surely you're not calling the Pope an atheist, are you? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah responds to me:
quote: Did you not read your own words?
A cell doesn't come from nowhere. Don't be disingenuous and claim you were suddenly shifting the conversation to abiogenesis, abandoning evolution, acceding to the fact that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, are you?
quote: Then why did you mention cells? Message 109:
A cell doesn't come from nowhere. What was the point of this if not to connect evolution to the origin of life?
quote: Are you saying you didn't write the following?
A cell doesn't come from nowhere. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah writes:
quote: What makes you think atheists haven't done precisely that? Remember, the vast majority of atheists used to be believers. They eventually came to the conclusion that they weren't really hearing god but were only hearing their own desires.
quote: You know, I do this pretty much every time I am in a hotel, just to see what happens. I usually wind up somewhere in 1 or 2 Kings. I don't know why. Here, let me try again...yep, 2 Kings: 2 Kings 16:10: And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof. That doesn't really fill me with the glory of god. To be honest, the Bible is a frequently boring book. There's a reason most evangelicals tend to stick to the good parts...it's the same reason most people stick to the Inferno and skip the Purgatory and the Paradise.
quote: Why should they when you won't put your money where your mouth is and do the same thing by giving up your god? Why should they when, if they come out the other end still atheists, you'd just respond that they weren't being open minded but rather had a joking matter and did it "just to say hey Zach I did it and nothing happened"? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah responds to me:
quote: As the Man in Black said to Inigo: Get used to disappointment. I am not going to tell you what my beliefs are precisely because of those reasons you gave. I do not want you to respond to my statements with an attitude of, "Of course you would say that. You're an X." You can understand why I want to avoid that. I don't want people reacting to what I say because of some preconceived notion of how a person of thus-and-so characteristic is supposed to behave. I want them to react to what I actually say. Suppose I were to tell you that I was Muslim. What effect would that have upon the validity of my statements? Would their veracity change because a Muslim said them? Suppose I were to tell you that I am a Scientologist. How would that affect the relevance of my statements? What if I were Mormon? Pentecostal? Reformed Jew? Greek Orthodox? Shinto? What difference would it make with regard to whatever I said? Get used to disappointment. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Now guys, please. Stop or I'll get a swelled head (as if my headshot isn't bad enough....) Thank you for your accolades, but I know there are others on this list who are just as patient if not more so, say things in ways that make me wish I had said them that way, and show nothing but class in all their dealings.
Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah responds to me:
quote: So you're saying that in the middle of a discussion about evolution, you decided to completely abandon the topic of evolution to bring up abiogenesis, all the while not mentioning the fact that you were abandoning evolution and that your comments shouldn't be taken to be in reference to evolution? Are you seriously telling me that you understand that evolution and abiogenesis have no connection to each other and that evolution is consistent with every method of origin of life you could care to name?
quote: Why? Why shouldn't I point out the complete vacuousness of your "challenge" and warn people that there is no point to it? That you will accuse those who come out the other side still not believing of being closed-minded, lazy thinkers who didn't take it seriously?
quote: It most certainly does. If you don't have the respect to put your money where your mouth is, why should anybody pay any attention to you? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
quote: Incorrect. What everyone is telling you is that there is the fact of evolution and then there is the theory of evolution just as there is the fact of gravity and then there is the theory of gravity. You see, facts are things that we observe. The bacteria experiment is a demonstration of the fact of evolution. It's proof. When organisms reproduce over time, they change. We call that change "evolution." Theories, however, can never be proven. That evolution is driven by mutation and selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, etc., is all theory and while it is heavily justified, it is not proven. Theory is based upon analysis of observed facts. But since we cannot observe absolutely everything, there is always the possibility that we missed something. The fact that things evolve is proven. The why of evolution, however, can never be proven. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024