Take the Atheist Challenge!!!

What have I misunderstood?

Well, this isn't the best analogy but it will do...The other day one of my friends said that he didn't think I could run faster than a 5 minute mile. He even said that if I do run faster than a 5 minute than I am a god. So we wrote it down, if I run a 4:59 minute mile then I am a god. And behold I ran a 4:53 mile.By your reasoning it is now a fact that I am a God.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Because if you pretend to be any of those in your responses, then you won't get true answers.

---

There's that arrogance again.You have the only path that could possibly be right. Everybody else is wrong and there is absolutely no possible way at all that it's you who is in error.You did exactly what I predicted: If you were to find out that I had a religious opinion of a specific stripe, you would dismiss me as incapable of "getting true answers." Not out of any analysis of what I said, mind you, but simply because my religious opinion differed from yours.And now you know why I will never tell you. You'll have to live with the possibility that maybe, just maybe, I do follow the same god as you but have a different relationship and understanding of god that allows me to have such a distinct response compared to you regarding evolution and its place in the world.

quote:

---

You can't just say "I am from nowhere, and nothing".

---

Sure I can. It's the only way to ensure objectivity. If you know nothing about me and can only go off of the individual statements, your prejudices about people who share my traits cannot be brought to bear.Would evolution be any less true if I told you I'm Catholic? Would it be any less true if I told you I'm Lutheran? If my religious standing has no bearing on the veracity of evolution as the sole theory describing the diversity of life on this planet, what is the point of you asking me?

quote:

---

Everytime you read it, you can get something new from it. I can't say that about a science publication. But maybe you could?

---

You really ought to read more. You might want to start with Darwin. Not necessarily the Origin of Species, but his works are filled with far-reaching implications that you might never notice if you only rush through it once.Try his last published work on worms.Consider the implications of what it means for such a lowly creature to be the sustainer of life.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to purpledawn:

quote:

---

Saying the prayer and meaning it are different.

---

Thank you, riVeRraT. You just fulfilled my prophecy.Upon hearing that purpledawn wasn't immediately filled with the love of god, your first response was to dismiss PD as being insincere.Now do you understand the charge of arrogance? Now do you understand the futility of this "challenge"? There's no way for you to lose: If they convert, you win. If they don't, they're recalictrants who stubbornly refused to accept god and again, you win.Is there any way for a person to do this "challenge," come out the other side not believing in your god, and you agreeing that they were sincere but that it simply did not work?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Would you happen to know how they (the creationalists) came to that number?

---

You mean you don't know? Haven't you read the Bible?With all those geneologies, it never occured to you to count them up?Genesis 5 gives the generations of Adam up to Noah. Genesis 11 gives the generations of Noah up to Abraham. Genesis 12 tells us Abraham was 75 when he made his covenant with god. Galations 3 tells us 430 years passed between the covenant and Exodus. 1 Kings 6 tells us that 480 years passed between the Exodus and the founding of Solomon's Temple.Since it is generally accepted that Solomon's Temple was founded about 960 BCE, the sum of all the previous years as explicitly stated in the Bible gives a total date from the beginning of creation to the present day of just under 5800 years.

quote:

---

Is that method subject to error?

---

Only if one claims that when the Bible says one number, it really means another. And that somehow the word "day" doesn't mean "day" despite it being translated as "day" and understood to mean "day" in every other instance except this once.I'm reminded of the Happy Days episode where Howard is trying to teach Marion how to cheat for their bridge game:"Now when I put my hand over my heart, that means I have Spades."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

I am talking about physically feeling God, not some voice in my head.

---

And the difference is?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

I was under the impression that science thinks that we all came from one person or DNA.
The Bible agrees with this.

---

No, it doesn't.The Bible says that Adam and Eve were contemporaries, knew each other, and had children by each other."Mitochondrial Eve" never knew "Y-Chromosome Adam."You see, Mitochondrial Eve existed about 150,000 years ago.Y-Chromosome Adam was only about 60,000 years ago.Note, the title of ME and Y-CA an change. Time for a thought experiment:Suppose a man goes on a vacation to a tourist island entirely people with women...he's the only man. While he's there, something happens to all the other people not on the island (some bizarre alien ray that manages to overlook this one place) such that the men so affected have highly reduced sperm counts and that their sons inherit this flaw.The man on the island, however, has been busy impregnating all the women on the island.He and his sons will be far more likely to have their children reproduce than all the other people on the planet. Eventually, the only people alive on the planet will be able to trace their lineage back to this one man.If this happens over and over again, the title of the Y-Chromosome Adam will be passed on. The Y-CA is merely the most recent patrilineal common ancestor.And thus you can see how Y-CA doesn't have to meet or have children with ME: Reverse the scenario where it's a single woman who is fertile and she becomes the new ME.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Well bacteria can evolve in groups, where as humans might not evolve in groups.

---

No, they can't.No individual evolves by itself. Evolution happens to groups, not individuals.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Yea but, the bacteria had several mutations all at the same time.

---

No, they didn't.The 247th generation has several mutations compared to the first generation, but it isn't like they all waited for the 246th generation to reproduce and then all show up at once.Instead, the 4th generation had a mutation and the 12th generation (which has inherited the 4th generation's mutation) had a mutaton and the 31st generation (which inherited the 4th and 12 generations' mutations) had a mutation and....By the time you get to the 247th generation, a lot of mutations have built up.Now, this doesn't mean that you can never have more than one mutation at a reproductive split. After all, the average human has about 3 mutations compared to his parents. It means that you don't find huge amounts of genetic change happening all at once.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

I got in an uproar in the begining of this thread because it seemed that some would be using the TOE or science in general for not taking the challenge, or believing in God.

---

Incorrect.Nobody mentioned evolution until you did. Message 29: Remember what you said about you being honest?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Natural selection is fact?

---

Yes. The lion chases the antelope. If the antelope is quick and nimble enough, it doesn't get eaten by the lion. By not getting eaten by the lion, it is more likely to reproduce than its companions that get eaten by the lion.But neither the lion nor the antelope are consciously thinking about making faster, more dextrous antelope. The lion is simply hungry and the antelope doesn't want to die.There you go, right before your eyes, natural selection.

quote:

---

The darwin experiment with the black and white moths.

---

The situation with moths in England had nothing to do with Darwin...especially since it took place in the 1950s, long after Darwin was dead.Instead, Bernard Kettlewell attempted to ascertain why there was such a seemingly distinct variation in the coloration of Biston betularia (the peppered moth) in connection to the amount of industrial pollution in the area.Turns out that this is yet another example of natural selection: Dark moths are better camouflaged on light trees that are blackened with soot than are light moths. Similarly, light moths are better camouflaged on light trees that are not blackened with soot than are dark moths. Thus, birds will eat the moths they can see.

quote:

---

Just because the one color moth survives better, does that mean it evolved?

---

Yes.You can't reproduce if you're dead.

quote:

---

Is it not still possible that it could make white moths again?

---

As long as the genes for light coloration are around, yes. Evolution doesn't have a direction for any specific trait of morphology. If the past 100 years meant that being dark was more likely to confer reproductive advantage but the environment shifts and now being light is more advantageous, then the gene frequencies shift.Now, should there be a complete extinction of a gene and the environment shifts, some other gene is going to have to step up to the plate in order to confer survivability on the population. It might mean being better able to avoid the predators. It might mean the genes left over responsible for coloration mutate to a new, light-color version (different from the original light-color genes).How the shift happens is immaterial. The fact is the shift happens.

quote:

---

Same thing for the bacteria. Once its enemy goes away, can't it revert back to its original state?

---

Depends upon the mutation. Some mutations are much more difficult to reverse than others.If it's a single point mutation, then that's more likely to revert than a frameshift mutation.

quote:

---

Is it possible that, this is all it will ever be cabable of?

---

What could limit it other than extinction? You can't reproduce when you're dead, but so long as you survive there is always more to do.

quote:

---

Or how bout this question, isn't natural selection limited to natural enemies?

---

No. Sometimes selection is for something. Take sexual selection. The classic example is the peacock's tail. It's a huge monstrosity requiring a lot of biological resources to create and can be quite cumbersome to maintain...to the point of making a peacock more likely to be caught by predators because of his frickin' tail.But, there's one tremendous reason why peacock's maintain such elegant plumage:It helps them reproduce. Peacocks display their tails in order to attract peahens. The selective pressure isn't an "enemy" but rather the specification of who gets to reproduce and who does not.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Sylas responds to me:

quote:

---

Indeed, direct observation is often not as good as a strong indirect case through traces left behind.

---

I would call that an observation, too.I admit that I am using observation in a fairly abstract way. It doesn't mean literally using ones physical eyes (thought that is one way to observe something). It means a physical process is carried out that records an event. Blind people can still "observe" color by using a photometer. I can't personally see into the radio spectrum, and yet I observe radio waves all the time by turning on my radio.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Theories, however, can never be proven.

---

​

I disagree. It is true that there is never a final mathematical proof

---

As one who has a degree in mathematics, would it shock you to learn that I was referring to mathematical proof?That's what riVeRraT is talking about. He wants things neatly tied with a bow, never ever to change no matter what. Well, that's mathematical proof.Theories never get that far. They can be so solidly justified that it would take huge amounts of new observations to overturn them, but every theory can theoretically be overturned.

quote:

---

Proved means thoroughly tested to the point where you can have confidence in its validity.

---

That wasn't the way riVeRraT nor I were using the word "proved."I agree with your point and I often use your definition of "proven" with regard to theories, but I wasn't in this case.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

But comparing gravity with evolution, is not fair.

---

Why not? If they are identical in their justification and validity, why should we treat one differently than the other just because one makes you feel all icky inside?

quote:

---

If people believe in gravity, it doesn't interfere with thier belief in the Bible, which is a big thing for many people.

---

Have you considered the possibility that if evolution interferes with your belief in the Bible, the problem is with your conception of what the Bible is saying and not evolution?That is, have you considered the possibility that god does exist, but not in the way you think?Why should we treat evolution any differently from gravity simply because your personal squick factor can't handle it?

quote:

---

So if you go around claiming that evolution is fact, it could be taken the wrong way, and mis-lead people into not believing in God.

---

And whose fault is that? The person who never mentioned anything about god, certainly never exclaiming, "Thus, god does not exist," or the person who is unqualified to analyze the treatise and unjustifiably jumps to the wrong conclusion, to the point of making things up out of whole cloth as to what the first person actually said?Again, from the remake of DOA:What I say? That's "imply." The way you take it? That's "infer."Do not confuse your inference with my implication. If I say that the circumference of a circle is given by the product of the diameter with the number pi, equal to approximately 3.14159, then you are hardly justified in saying that I am denying god because the Bible says that a circle's circumference is equal to the diameter times 3:1 Kings 7:23: And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.I never said anything about god, so where does this claim that I am somehow denying god come from?

quote:

---

I don't think science has a right to mis-lead the public in this sense, and our schools should be teaching the possibility of God, or creation.

---

If you want to teach your children about god, find a private school that will do what you want.Until then, leave your theology out of my child's classroom. I don't want him being forced to learn your religion. Since you were so adamant about "freedom of speech," I would think you would be just as gung ho about "freedom of religion."Your right to preach your theology does not guarantee you an audience.Note, this does not mean the public schools should teach atheism. It simply means that they remain neutral on the subject.Are you seriously saying that be refusing to say anything, one is actively denying? That if I ask my cat "What's 2 + 2?" and he doesn't respond, he's deliberately refusing to answer me?

quote:

---

The mere fact that so many people believe in God, is enough evidence to justify it.

---

No, it isn't. Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.For thousands of years, people thought the earth was the center of the solar system, nay, the universe.Did that make it true?Just because you believe and just because you're sincere doesn't mean you're right or even that you have any justification for your beliefs.Are you seriously saying that reality should be subject to a popularity contest?

quote:

---

If you are one of those people that can see into the future.

---

But there has never been such a person.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain issued a good one, and I was surprised that no one complained that taking his challenge would compel a Christian or Jew to disobey the first commandment. But even if they had, Rrhain's point is made: regardless of the reason the creationist refuses to take that challenge the fact that he or she won't demonstrates the inherent unfairness of the athiest challenge. It's possible that I might have missed something along the way; I've been very busy lately and have only been able to follow this thread sporadically.I want to issue a different challenge to creationists, one that will not require breaking any commandment. The only thing required is the courage of your convictions.The next time you or any member of your family visits a doctor, ask the doctor whether he or she accepts ToE. If he or she does, you must find another doctor. Since you argue against ToE and believe it leads people away from Christ or the bible or whatever it is that ToE is supposed to lead people away from, you will be compelled to find a doctor who shares your views. Consider Romans 16:17: Surely this admonition which comes directly from the word of God would have to extend to those in whom we confide our most personal problems. If you believe that ToE is evil, how can you trust a doctor who agrees with it?Side note: whenever I find myself in a Baptist hospital, I love to ask the doctors if they accept ToE. They always do, but some of them will get irritated when you point out that they work for a fundamentalist institution. Others will dismiss the question with comments like "I'm not a Baptist so I don't know what they believe" (which of course may be true). Once in a while you get to have a very interesting conversation with someone who knows something about the subject.

I, through faith only, have found what I believe to be god, yet I am not aware of demons, devils or angels. Are you using the bible's definition of those things? If so, I do not believe in the validity of the bible, and I'm quite sure that the others that don't believe in 'it' are convinced that demons, etc. exist. What does this mean? Are you being attacked by the devil? The Prince of Darkness personally attacks you? Wow, I find that hard to believe, even more than if the devil does exist. As far as prayer helping you, wasn't Job tormented by the devil because the biblical god allowed it? So, are these demons or devils sent by the biblical god to see if you'll ask him to stop sending them?
What about all the innocent people that have asked their god to protect them, only to find their prayers are unanswered? Why does the biblical god answer your prayers for protection, while other's prayers are ignored?Sorry for so many questions, but I am curious.