Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Darwin caused atheism
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 76 of 122 (601608)
01-22-2011 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by subbie
01-22-2011 12:01 AM


Sorry, not following you. Can you expand or clarify?
The adaptation of species to their environment does at least look as though an intelligence designed them to fit their environment; whereas although you can always imagine a thunder-god being responsible for the lightning, it doesn't particularly look as though it's intelligently directed --- lightning does not, for example, exclusively smite sinners, or we might begin to wonder if it was intelligently directed.
So although it was always possible to proffer "goddidit" as an explanation for anything you didn't understand, only adaptation seemed to require such an explanation. In that case the supposition of an intelligent motivating force was not merely an argument from ignorance --- it was, at the very least, an argument from analogy.
So although people did ascribe all sorts of natural phenomena to the gods, there was this one case --- adaptation --- where doing so was not completely arbitrary and stupid. And then along came Darwin and Wallace with a better explanation, and suddenly the only remotely good reason (from a scientific standpoint) for believing in an invisible anthropomorphic entity was without merit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by subbie, posted 01-22-2011 12:01 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4711 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 77 of 122 (601638)
01-22-2011 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Iblis
01-21-2011 11:09 PM


Re: Inflation links
Iblis writes:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
Message 27 et al
My cosmology is definitely not "insider knowledge" though; I take correction regularly here from the actual insiders. As for example
Message 71
Thank you, much obliged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Iblis, posted 01-21-2011 11:09 PM Iblis has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 78 of 122 (601642)
01-22-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Iblis
01-21-2011 10:26 PM


Re: good for the goose
Sorry, no. The singularity version of the Big Bang was falsifiable, clearly, as it has been falsified.
No, it hasn't been falsified. It is not a case of inflation or singularity - they are in entirely different categories of concept. Guth obviously has his place in the annals of cosmology, and inflation is a leading contender for solving a number of the issues with the Big bang model, but the language he uses in your link is awful: both misleading and innacurate. I would look elsewhere for details on modern cosmology; Guth seems to have lost perspective.
For example,
Inflation requires no matter singularity, and indeed such a singularity was the biggest flaw in the BB theory before Guth, as nothing comes out of a black hole.
is non-sequiturial nonsense

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Iblis, posted 01-21-2011 10:26 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Iblis, posted 01-22-2011 9:57 PM cavediver has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2781 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 79 of 122 (601661)
01-22-2011 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ApostateAbe
01-20-2011 10:41 PM


Re: good for the goose
Hi, Abe.
ApostateAbe writes:
...the most common motivation for accepting the position of atheism is that there is generally no evidence for God, and God is an extraordinary claim...
The theory of evolution is seldom the direct argument...
If, in the future, I become a true atheist, I think I would cite the Theory of Evolution as the primary reason for it. I think Dr Adequate's explanation in Message 76 is quite good.
On top of what Dr Adequate said, I would add the following: current understanding of physics and chemistry, at best, rule out a few of God's "parlor tricks" (throwing fire from the sky, turning people to salt, etc.); but evolution challenges the very core of our relationship to God. People tend to care about what is closest to them, and our birthright is therefore a more fundamental part of our belief system than the magic magical powers that God has.
Granted, ToE alone isn't enough to take me all the way to atheism: when looking at the complexity and functionality of life, I still have my moments of incredulity that mutation and natural selection did it all, and begin to wonder if, indeed, some sort of guiding intelligence was needed for some of it. Usually anymore, I'm able to remember that my incredulity isn't evidence for anything, but sometimes it takes a lot more will power than other times.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-20-2011 10:41 PM ApostateAbe has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by petrophysics1, posted 01-23-2011 3:35 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2781 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 80 of 122 (601662)
01-22-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
01-21-2011 11:26 AM


Re: good for the goose
Hi, Taq.
Taq writes:
However, the question of how that first, simple replicator came about can not be answered through the mechanisms of mutation and selection.
I don't know that I entirely agree with you.
If we define "mutations" narrowly to refer only to changes in DNA across generations, then I suppose I wouldn't be able to argue much. But, I think such a narrow definition would serve little purpose outside of defining abiogenesis and evolution as separate things.
Surely the first replicator also had to emerge from a series of random chemical changes that were selected for at each step by a fitness filter of some kind. While this would differ in several specific ways from the mechanics of ToE, the overall process is arguably similar enough to be considered an instance of the same general phenomenon.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 01-21-2011 11:26 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 2:05 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3979 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 81 of 122 (601673)
01-22-2011 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by cavediver
01-22-2011 3:45 PM


Re: good for the goose
non-sequiturial nonsense
Thanks man, but I'm going to need a lot more than that. The "old" version of the big bang depicts all the matter currently making up the universe as being compressed into an area smaller than whatever, a nucleus for example. This is a classic black hole of enormous quantity, and I don't see any way for that matter to ever get out.
Guth's version begins without this excess matter, and uses "false vacuum" to produce the mass of crap and expansion and whatnot that we observe as the universe, in a process that certainly seems to my layman math-impaired thinking to correspond in some sense to the wonders of "vacuum energy".
Obviously based on your response I need a lot of work. Fine, where do I start? And why am I starting now, rather than one of the other times that I have posted this basic line of crap right in front of you?
* As, for example
Message 7
Message 48
Edited by Iblis, : added links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 01-22-2011 3:45 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 01-23-2011 3:50 AM Iblis has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 82 of 122 (601686)
01-23-2011 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Iblis
01-22-2011 9:57 PM


Re: good for the goose
Thanks man, but I'm going to need a lot more than that.
Agreed, but then I looked at the thread title and realised that this was not the place
This is a classic black hole of enormous quantity
No, this is a popular misconception and is incorrect - but any more than that will have to await the correct thread. Where do you want to take it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Iblis, posted 01-22-2011 9:57 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Iblis, posted 01-23-2011 1:05 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3979 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 83 of 122 (601712)
01-23-2011 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
01-23-2011 3:50 AM


Re: good for the goose
Where do you want to take it?
Here, Message 174, in Where did the matter and energy come from?.
Back on this topic, what do you think of Dr. A's point about evolution taking away the last reasonable defense of the existence of deity?
I keep eying it, I do believe it's the nicest exposition of what was likely to have been Abe's point in this thread that we can expect. But I'm still pondering on whether it really contributes much to atheism per se, as opposed to just increasing its social acceptability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 01-23-2011 3:50 AM cavediver has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 122 (601723)
01-23-2011 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Blue Jay
01-22-2011 6:20 PM


Re: good for the goose
Bluejay writes:
If, in the future, I become a true atheist, I think I would cite the Theory of Evolution as the primary reason for it
I wouldn't do that unless you are interested in being wrong.
Evolution has nothing to do with the existance of God. God may have made you But He diden't make your body. Like both the atheists and theists here you are trapped into thinking you ARE a body.
Have you looked everywhere in the physical universe for evidence of God's existance?
If you have you will be able to answer the following questions, if you can't you don't know shit about yourself or God.
1.) Tell me 40 things that happened to you before the age of 4 and how they affected your thinking or health.
2.) Tell me what it was like to be born.
3.) Tell me when/how you became a sentient being.
The answers to all these questions exist in your mind, a part of the physical universe.
If you wish to play the game of "I'm an idiot like everyone else", go right ahead.
Or you could answer the questions.
If you become an atheist basest on the TOE, you are a fool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 01-22-2011 6:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-23-2011 6:35 PM petrophysics1 has replied
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2011 7:39 PM petrophysics1 has replied
 Message 101 by Blue Jay, posted 01-24-2011 11:17 AM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 2:10 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4711 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 85 of 122 (601734)
01-23-2011 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by petrophysics1
01-23-2011 3:35 PM


Re: good for the goose
petrophysics1, do you think, if there was no theory of evolution or any other natural theory to explain life, then the existence of God would seem at least a little more probable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by petrophysics1, posted 01-23-2011 3:35 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by petrophysics1, posted 01-23-2011 8:21 PM ApostateAbe has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 122 (601736)
01-23-2011 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by petrophysics1
01-23-2011 3:35 PM


You What?
Your point is ... obscure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by petrophysics1, posted 01-23-2011 3:35 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by petrophysics1, posted 01-23-2011 8:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 122 (601740)
01-23-2011 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ApostateAbe
01-23-2011 6:35 PM


Re: good for the goose
petrophysics1, do you think, if there was no theory of evolution or any other natural theory to explain life, then the existence of God would seem at least a little more probable?
NO!
God's existence has nothing to do with bodies or how they came to be.
Rise above thinking of yourself as a piece of meat.
There is YOU, and then there is your mind and body. God didn't make those last two. Get out of the idea that he did.
Then you will understand my POV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-23-2011 6:35 PM ApostateAbe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-23-2011 8:37 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4711 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 88 of 122 (601742)
01-23-2011 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by petrophysics1
01-23-2011 8:21 PM


Re: good for the goose
petrophysics1, do you think that the theory of evolution does not at all help to enable the paradigm that we are all pieces of meat--i.e. mammals with merely greater mental ability than livestock? That is my paradigm. Does the theory of evolution have no effect on that way of thinking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by petrophysics1, posted 01-23-2011 8:21 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 122 (601743)
01-23-2011 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
01-23-2011 7:39 PM


Re: You What?
Your point is ... obscure.
Only if you can't answer the three questions I asked.
Which you didn't do. In fact they never even occured to you.
It took me 17 years to be able to remember being born, you never even thought about it.
Answer the three questions I asked or shut up.
If you can answer them you are close to understanding that God exists.
If you can't and don't look you are a person who doesn't know shit about themselves or God.
So stop posting like you know something.
Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2011 7:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 01-23-2011 8:48 PM petrophysics1 has replied
 Message 91 by subbie, posted 01-23-2011 9:45 PM petrophysics1 has replied
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2011 10:52 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34058
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 90 of 122 (601745)
01-23-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by petrophysics1
01-23-2011 8:41 PM


Re: You What?
I'm sorry but what the hell do your really silly questions have to do with any god, God or GOD?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by petrophysics1, posted 01-23-2011 8:41 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by petrophysics1, posted 01-23-2011 9:55 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024