Who else hates evangelical atheists?

[Sillywilly]

You make it sound like non-believers need to know about evolution to justify their atheism.

Wasn't meant to come off that way. What I meant was most religious people have never met an atheist that wasn't a firm believer in evolution so it has become one of the most associated/assumed characteristics of the core atheist belief system.

[Ero Elohim]

Wasn't meant to come off that way. What I meant was most religious people have never met an atheist that wasn't a firm believer in evolution so it has become one of the most associated/assumed characteristics of the core atheist belief system.

Sorry if this comes off as inflammatory, but I always find the phrase "belief in evolution" kinda funny. There's more supporting evidence for the standard theory of evolution than there is for the existence of atoms and molecules. We understand more about the evolutionary process than gravity. It's so well-supported that even the Catholic church has publicly stated their trust in evolution theory, claiming it's a process by which God influences the world. "I believe in evolution," is sort of like saying "I believe two plus two equals four."

[VKhaun]

Sorry if this comes off as inflammatory, but I always find the phrase "belief in evolution" kinda funny. There's more supporting evidence for the standard theory of evolution than there is for the existence of atoms and molecules. We understand more about the evolutionary process than gravity. It's so well-supported that even the Catholic church has publicly stated their trust in evolution theory, claiming it's a process by which God influences the world. "I believe in evolution," is sort of like saying "I believe two plus two equals four."

Except for the beginning.

What you're describing is more individual parts. Two plus two equals four would be equivalent to natural selection, mutation, and certainly the ability of those two to cause things to evolve, but that's not the same thing as 'The Theory of Evolution' which states that life came from nothing.

[Ero Elohim]

Except for the beginning.

What you're describing is more individual parts. Two plus two equals four would be equivalent to natural selection, mutation, and certainly the ability of those two to cause things to evolve, but that's not the same thing as 'The Theory of Evolution' which states that life came from nothing.

That thought process is akin to refusing the existence of atoms and molecules because we aren't sure the Big Bang is what kicked off the universe.

The current Theory of Evolution doesn't claim that life came from nothing. The consensus is that life was created by a chemical reaction that produced a batch of self-replicating molecules, such as RNA.

[VKhaun]

lol... okay... you win. It didn't come from nothing, it came from stuff that came from nothing.

The point stands.

Evolution as a theory includes an origin for life tacked onto the back end which is no where near the level of proof and understanding as the rest of it. Someone saying they don't believe in The Theory of Evolution is not the same as someone saying they don't believe in the process of natural selection or mutations and how they affect organisms over time, or that they doubt the fossil record, dinosaurs, or anything else.

[Ziel]

Evolution as a theory includes an origin for life tacked onto the back end which is no where near the level of proof and understanding as the rest of it.

No, that's abiogenesis. The only time I've seen abiogenesis tacked onto evolution is in creationism debates, otherwise the theory of evolution says nothing about how life came to be, only how it developed once it was.

[Alex Mars]

No, that's abiogenesis. The only time I've seen abiogenesis tacked onto evolution is in creationism debates, otherwise the theory of evolution says nothing about how life came to be, only how it developed once it was.

Yep, dishonest religious freaks try to confuse the issue by mixing the two.

[VKhaun]

Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification".

According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection.

Once again I find myself defending something I don't feel strongly about... *sigh*...


Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Yes I'm fully aware that there's a demographic of crocoduck drawing blithering idiots scared to death that their world view might have to change who don't want to except the process of evolution, who think if they feel they can defeat some part of it they've defeated the whole thing and saved their faith... The thread is here because there are atheists who have the same problems. Bringing up the freaks is not really a counter point so much as a dodge.

Both sides force these two together.

Go open one of those textbooks they don't like in the bible belt and tell me if it has a chapter in the evolution section about the origin of life...

Highlight for spoilers:IT DOES LOL

[Boxy Brown]

According to wikipedia, The Catholic church subscribes to the theory of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi..._XVI_and_today

[Sillywilly]

According to wikipedia, The Catholic church subscribes to the theory of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi..._XVI_and_today

Never judge the Christian faith by the retards known as Catholics. They're no fucking smarter than they were during the dark ages. They're still a political hierarchy based on collecting as much taxes, sorry I meant to say "tithes" as possible. My disdain for the Catholic denomination is almost as bad as it is for militant atheists. (molestation cover ups not even included).

Yep, dishonest religious freaks try to confuse the issue by mixing the two.

Not me, I call bullshit on BOTH and am more than willing to defend it to anyone anytime. Artist illustrations and piss poor morphology a missing link (between any organisms) do not make. If you want contradictions that piss all over each others validity the current theory of evolution is your go to.

[VKhaun]

Not me, I call bullshit on BOTH and am more than willing to defend it to anyone anytime. Artist illustrations and piss poor morphology a missing link (between any organisms) do not make. If you want contradictions that piss all over each others validity the current theory of evolution is your go to.

There's more supporting evidence for the standard theory of evolution than there is for the existence of atoms and molecules. We understand more about the evolutionary process than gravity.

123

[Boxy Brown]

Silly, do you actually know anything about the theory of evolution?

I only ask because you've stated numerous times that it isn't backed by any real evidence, when in fact it's been more or less... you know... proven.

[Ziel]

*Links*

Go open one of those textbooks they don't like in the bible belt and tell me if it has a chapter in the evolution section about the origin of life...

Highlight for spoilers:IT DOES LOL

What's your point? The theory of evolution and abiogenesis are two separate things. That doesn't change because the science channel, a textbook or darwins-theory-of-evolution.com says so.

[Ero Elohim]

What's your point? The theory of evolution and abiogenesis are two separate things. That doesn't change because the science channel, a textbook or darwins-theory-of-evolution.com says so.

In their defense, the two are linked under the topic, 'The Origin of Life.' You're correct, though, abiogenesis is the process by which life developed from inorganic materials, while evolution is how we ended up with the diversity we see today. I don't believe I've ever seen a textbook with a chapter on evolution alone. Usually it's an abbreviated history of the development of life.

[Sillywilly]

Silly, do you actually know anything about the theory of evolution?

I only ask because you've stated numerous times that it isn't backed by any real evidence, when in fact it's been more or less... you know... proven.

No it hasn't lol.

I'm really seriously telling you guys and gals, you don't have the foggiest clue about what evidence they do and do not have for evolution. Whether you will admit it or not your experience with the theory of evolution is a few very broad and general concepts from school and Morgan Freeman narrated discovery channel specials.

If you want to know what makes me that psycho guy that doesn't believe in evolution then do exactly what I was doing when I lost my "faith" in the theory of evolution:

Set aside a couple hours a day and record one of these specials on the discovery channel or the book you're reading, then keep your laptop handy. As you're watching yet another one of these specials, every time they bring up name of an extinct "missing link", etc look that fucker up. No I don't mean look it up on some bullshit website like "talkorigins" that will just give you the text version of what you're supposed to believe. I mean really look that fucker up. Find out who discovered the fossils (if any lol), where they were discovered but most importantly actually try to find at the very least an illustration if not actual pictures of the fossils this organism is based on.

[off topic] After 3 decades of neanderthal fiasco if you still have any faith in morphology there's nothing I can tell you except that you're an idiot. [/off topic]

When you've done 2 or 3 episodes or several National Geographic articles worth of stuff in this manner, then come back and tell me how strong the evidence is for evolution. Then on top of that try to connect the dots between the "facts" you've researched.

You'll hear/read that the modern organism Z is supposed to be descended from X. You'll hear/read that Y is the proposed missing link between X and Z. You'll hear all about how this makes sense, you'll year what X ate and what Y ate. You'll hear what they preyed on, what preyed upon them, etc.

Then you'll do your research. You'll find that they barely have a single ounce of evidence that X even existed. There's a 3 square inches of skull cap and maybe a toe bone. They can't even get neanderthal right with tons of fossilized shit, they damn sure can't tell me what a supposed marsupial ancestor from 3 million years ago ate or looked like from a skull cap and a fucking toe. You'll see that they could have pretty much made X out to be whatever they wanted it to in order to make it be the daddy of Y and the grandaddy of Z. So then you'll move on to Y. WHAT THE FUCK? Yep Y is a HYPOTHETICAL animal because it's necessary to explain going from a fucking rat (X) to the opossum(Z). Yes I mean HYPOTHETICAL in that it's completely fucking made up to fill in an otherwise critical gap. If you really want to make your brain pulsate look up where these fossils originated and do some investigative digging to find out the conditions for how X could have actually made it half way around the world to become Y to eventually be Z.

You'll see that geographical barriers made it practically impossible, you'll see that there is zero fucking fossil evidence from X migrating half way around the world and ever becoming Z. (and certainly Y because there's not even confirmation that Y existed).

A "super" migration coupled with bottle necking due to geographic isolation explains a lack of fossils and the basis for mutation?

Yeah maybe if they survived the fucking contagious cancers and other shit they would have developed:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0022402

(link is an example of a contagious facial cancer in tazmanian devils in Tunisia. Inbreeding has made them so genetically similar that shit like cancer can actually leap from one organism to the other like a virus or bacteria can in a normal population).

The theory of evolution requires 1 in a billion shot random genetic mutations and is shot down every time we discover a venomous mammal, a mammal that lays eggs, a reptile that gives live birth, etc, etc. Evolution looks somewhat PLAUSIBLE as scattered pieces of a puzzle that are examined individually. When you try to put them together though...............

[VKhaun]

The entire collection of recovered fossils isn't on Google so it doesn't exist?
That's your argument? Really?

You have basically outlined that you have your head buried in the sand.

You do reallize that even in the most modern sense palentology predates the internet by at least two hundred years... right? Ever think of going to, you know, like, a museum? There are still living examples of X going to Y to become Z... Here's this one off the top of my head just from watching the news:

July 2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...lands-13965286
April 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17762196

Statement: Polar bears are evolved from brown bears.

Nature documentary thingie: As the earth's climate grew colder a group of brown bears was split away, and very harsh conditions changed the way traits were favored causing -insert recap of topic here- and resulting in a new species better adapted for the conditions in various ways, from physical differences for the terrain to genetic aid like clear hair.

Proof for Sillywilly: They can look at the DNA of two different species and tell the ancestry, just like tracing back human families, and show they have a common ancestor. They can prove the concept of the split happening naturally by showing DNA from bears nearer to the border have more mixed DNA indicating cross breeding was happening more recently than bears found living farther away.

Argument: There was one kind of bear. DNA shows that one kind of bear split into two groups of the same bears which are now, after much time has passed, two different species of bear. Both kinds of bear, original and new, are still alive and if it makes a difference to you I'm sure we have fossils of both. If not we could make some. Or you could... you know... go to a zoo and open your eyes...

[Sillywilly]

The entire collection of recovered fossils isn't on Google so it doesn't exist?
That's your argument? Really?

You do reallize that even in the most modern sense palentology predates the internet by at least two hundred years... right? Ever think of going to, you know, like, a museum? There are still living examples of X going to Y to become Z... Here's this one off the top of my head just from watching the news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17762196. You have basically outlined that you have your head buried in the sand.

You're making straw men lol.

No where did I say not finding a fossil online means it doesn't exist lol. You said that and proceeded to kung fu the hell out of it. I commented on the fossils you DO find. Some of you people really give me the intellectual shits when I think about you making decisions that requires any competency in information gathering and processing.

What museums have you been too? I've been to museums in the US, London, Rome and Norway. Don't talk out of your ass about what experiences you have if you've never left your moms basement lol.

PS - As for your link, do you even know WTF you're reading when you read that article lol? Do you even know how they determine through DNA how long ago two organisms split from a common ancestor, etc? If you did understand that, would you even understand that they're just guessing at how long they think it would take for DNA to change X amount across the two organisms? No you wouldn't lol.

[Ero Elohim]

...you don't have the foggiest clue about what evidence they do and do not have for evolution.

Earliest monkey specimen: Apidium skull fossil.
Followed by: Aegyptopithecus, found in Egypt.
Transition period from monkeys to apes: Proconsul
Leads to the ancestor of great apes: pireolapithecus (Note, articles claim they found hands, feet, ribs, and spinal bones, but the skull is the only picture I can find.)
The popular link between apes and humans: Ardipithecus ramidus
The first known bipedal ancestor to modern humans: Australopithecus (There's tons of samples of this guy.)
Early humans: Homo habilis

You'll note that all of these evolutionary steps are far more than "3 square inches of skull cap and maybe a toe bone." In many cases, we have over 50% of a complete skeleton. This is all from a quick search over the internet. I'm sure an actual evening spent at a library with access to better resources could turn up much more.

TL;DR response to you:

[Andile™]

[Sillywilly]

Earliest monkey specimen: Apidium skull fossil.
Followed by: Aegyptopithecus, found in Egypt.
Transition period from monkeys to apes: Proconsul
Leads to the ancestor of great apes: pireolapithecus (Note, articles claim they found hands, feet, ribs, and spinal bones, but the skull is the only picture I can find.)
The popular link between apes and humans: Ardipithecus ramidus
The first known bipedal ancestor to modern humans: Australopithecus (There's tons of samples of this guy.)
Early humans: Homo habilis

You'll note that all of these evolutionary steps are far more than "3 square inches of skull cap and maybe a toe bone." In many cases, we have over 50% of a complete skeleton. This is all from a quick search over the internet. I'm sure an actual evening spent at a library with access to better resources could turn up much more.

TL;DR response to you:

Yep.

ScienTIST version of neanderthal remains:



Computers SCIENTIFIC simulation of neanderthal:






One of these pictures is based on scientific interpretation of fossils, morphology, you know, the scientists imagination?

2 of these photos are based on scientific, OBJECTIVE data compiled from several tangible sources and then used by a non-subjective, non-biased computer to produce a result based on that scientific data collected.

Can you spot a difference?

[Ero Elohim]

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

[VKhaun]

Sorry for so many edits. I originally posted to use an artical I JUST SAW the other night but now can't find, and I'm at work typing between other tasks that hit me via e-mail.

I'm done. :P

And now this:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

[VKhaun]

Oh shit, the convo flew past me.
Normally nothing updates around this time. o.o

Argument: There was one kind of bear. DNA shows that one kind of bear split into two groups of the same bears which are now, after much time has passed, two different species of bear. Both kinds of bear, original and new, are still alive and if it makes a difference to you I'm sure we have fossils of both. If not we could make some. Or you could... you know... go to a zoo and open your eyes...

Requesting fresh Sillywilly reply.

And yes, I understand the basics of DNA proving lineage.... you seem to be implying that there's some other claim being made based on DNA... I haven't made any other arguement. Only lineage. Do you think we can't prove lineage with DNA? Lineage meaning family lines just like in humans? Or do you not understand that one species being descendant from another (again both alive today to take samples from and for you to see) is proof of evolution... a species becoming a new species through changes over generations...






Also:

Set aside a couple hours a day and record one of these specials on the discovery channel or the book you're reading, then keep your laptop handy. As you're watching yet another one of these specials, every time they bring up name of an extinct "missing link", etc look that fucker up. No I don't mean look it up on some bullshit website like "talkorigins" that will just give you the text version of what you're supposed to believe. I mean really look that fucker up. Find out who discovered the fossils (if any lol), where they were discovered but most importantly actually try to find at the very least an illustration if not actual pictures of the fossils this organism is based on.

When you've done 2 or 3 episodes or several National Geographic articles worth of stuff in this manner, then come back and tell me how strong the evidence is for evolution.

The entire collection of recovered fossils isn't on Google so it doesn't exist?
That's your argument? Really?

You're making straw men lol.

No where did I say not finding a fossil online means it doesn't exist lol. You said that and proceeded to kung fu the hell out of it.

Are you retarded?
You just made exactly this statement.
Because you can't 'look the fucker up' online the evidence isn't real.

The people you are arguing with have been into the back room of museums or in the field studying fossils that are barely cataloged on paper much less digitized to arrive at the conclusions you're arguing. It's like visiting Buzz Aldrin in the hospital to correct him that the moon is made of cheese.

[Sillywilly]

Oh shit, the convo flew past me.
Normally nothing updates around this time. o.o



Requesting fresh Sillywilly reply.

And yes, I understand the basics of DNA proving lineage.... you seem to be implying that there's some other claim being made based on DNA... I haven't made any other arguement. Only lineage. Do you think we can't prove lineage with DNA? Lineage meaning family lines just like in humans? Or do you not understand that one species being descendant from another (again both alive today to take samples from and for you to see) is proof of evolution... a species becoming a new species through changes over generations...






Also:





Are you retarded?
You just made exactly this statement.
Because you can't 'look the fucker up' online the evidence isn't real.

The people you are arguing with have been into the back room of museums or in the field studying fossils that are barely cataloged on paper much less digitized to arrive at the conclusions you're arguing. It's like visiting Buzz Aldrin in the hospital to correct him that the moon is made of cheese.

Wait what lol? So you're taking it on blind faith that these people have ample evidence to support their interpretation of these fossils? Kinda like Moses said he talked to a burning bush?

And no, no I didn't. You're arguing something that YOU are implying between the lines. I never said not finding it in your research means it doesn't exist. If you don't find anything about it you're at a draw. What I was saying is that people take it for granted how much of what they see on the surface is speculation and hypothesis based on human interpretation. No where did I say not finding something on Google means it doesn't exist and I never made that argument. I said use the data that you do find in your research. There is a difference in seeing a National Geographic special on the missing link between mammals and reptiles named Repmmal, and then not being able to find anything about Repmmal on Google or in the library as opposed to finding information on Repmmal and how it is a "proposed" missing link that scientist have never discovered any fossil evidence for but hypothesis it existed because it's necessary for the cross over.

Does that clear it up for you? I'm not sure if you're trolling me in your usual fashion when you're too fucking lazy to even pretend to have done your research or if you honestly don't see what I'm saying. I'm talking about getting confirmation from a source like National Geographic, etc that the organism has never actually been discovered, not that I couldn't find anything about it. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

Requesting fresh Sillywilly reply.

And yes, I understand the basics of DNA proving lineage.... you seem to be implying that there's some other claim being made based on DNA... I haven't made any other arguement. Only lineage. Do you think we can't prove lineage with DNA? Lineage meaning family lines just like in humans? Or do you not understand that one species being descendant from another (again both alive today to take samples from and for you to see) is proof of evolution... a species becoming a new species through changes over generations...

First of all, DNA testing is completely overhyped:

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...back-genealogy

That talks a little about it. NO I don't expect you to base your opinion on that one article, it's just food for thought. Yeah it's about lineage in humans but fuck sake, if you can't tell me for sure if I have Italian ancestry or not based on my DNA then mother fucker you don't know shit about animals that would have diverged several hundreds of thousands of years ago.

2ndly there's not a damn thing that says having certain genes in familiar with another organism means you have a common ancestor. That is based entirely on the assumption that evolution is true and that there has never been any interbreeding between the two. If two animals have no common ancestry but are able to interbreed then that can easily cause a crossover in DNA that can lead to the assumption that they share a common ancestor. An Irish bog corpse having Norwegian DNA in it does not mean that the Irish and Norwegians have a common ancestor it more likely means his mom survived a Viking raid and rape. (and that goes for any scale, any intermingling of different groups can cause enough "viral" spread of either groups DNA to make them appear to have a more recent common ancestor).

DNA testing the evolutionary relationship between two organisms such as the bears you mentioned is based entirely on how much the DNA differs and GUESSING how long they think it would have taken for that many mutations to have occurred which is also assuming that mutations occurred to cause the differences in the first place. It's assumption after assumption.

There are only 4 possible combinations for a strand of DNA. Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, and Adenine. Every organism on this planet has a 25% change of sharing an identical strand of DNA. The common fucking sewer rat shares 67% of it's DNA with humans. There are similarities between the brown bear and a polar bear based on the way they interpret DNA and they interpret that to mean they shared a common ancestor within the last 700k years or so? Fuck me running you don't say? 0.o

People are under the impression that DNA is some kind of magical code that uniquely identifies the different types of organisms and the truth is DNA is more like what you're made OF rather than what you are. The basic building blocks of all carbon based life on the planet are very (or even mostly) similar.

And just for the record I don't have a problem with brown bears and polar bears having a common ancestor. I'm arguing based on the principle of your assumptions. Just because they share a lot of similar DNA doesn't mean they evolved by mutation. Brown bears and polar bears can interbreed suggesting they do in fact share a common ancestor. I have come to the conclusion that interbreeding species all share a common ancestor but vary in genetic footprint not because of additions to their DNA but because of deletions of DNA through bottle necking and inbreeding and natural selection.

In example, polar bears and brown bears do share a common ancestor, but the differences in the brown bear and polar bear are not the DNA they have gained over the years but lost. Just because two blond people have a child doesn't mean it's going to be blond. You carry a lot more DNA around than the exact coding in your own body and it's features.

I'd compare the theory to the hypothesis that red heads will eventually disappear. Elimination of DNA.

EDIT NOTE: I'm also under the impression that you people seem to think that animals of certain traits or colors only carry the traits for those colors. The junk DNA which has a graded response (and is the DNA that actually causes the different in caucasian and african hair characteristics) was not even included in the human to chimp genome comparison.


EDIT:

But mysteries remain, some more puzzling than ever. Why does the mitochondrial DNA suggest a much more recent origin for polar bears? Dr. Hailer suggests that it is evidence not of the origin of the bears, but of interbreeding between polar and brown bears long after they evolved, perhaps when the polar bears were driven to land because of sea ice loss.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/sc...ates.html?_r=1

I swear to god sometimes you people make my asshole throb and not in that excited vagina kind of way.

[VKhaun]

And no, no I didn't. You're arguing something that YOU are implying between the lines. I never said not finding it in your research means it doesn't exist. If you don't find anything about it you're at a draw. What I was saying is that people take it for granted how much of what they see on the surface is speculation and hypothesis based on human interpretation.

You keep saying you're not making the argument, then framing the exact same argument again.

I'm sorry if I implied something. More likely though I think you're trying to imply a connection to a previous conversation with Ero about a pair disjointed sentences telling a story that should have been a paragraph or two -and is in some translations...- but that's okay. I can let that go because you're not any good at implication.

There is no 'draw'.

There's a thing called THE FOSSIL RECORD and there are plenty of fossils to show things changing over time with plenty of transitional fossils showing traits between groups. Either you think it's real or you don't. The 'interpretation' as you put it is way beyond that. It's obvious, even to the untrained eye, that certain things are related. Once you get into types of bones, densities, etc. there's really no doubt that things have evolved short of flatly stating the devil put them there in the ground to trick people.

Even if you want to point out mistakes made in interpreting the record in the past, we know that they're mistakes because we learned more and put them in the right order. Any mistake you think hurts the cause only helped it that we identified and fixed it. It gets better and more accurate every day.





You are ignoring what people who live and breath these fields tell you because you can't find pictures of the fossils they studied in real life and you googled some tidbits on genetics that you think might maybe contradict something you don't know about genetics? These things make major fields in science 'BLIND FAITH' while some asshole from PopSci is 'food for thought', and googling in your underwear during a documentary is 'RESEARCH'?

Please come back to earth and have a real discussion. You do not get to write off the fossil record as a 'draw' because you might interpret differently something you say you haven't seen. You don't get to write off Geneticists using tidbits of genetics info that they obviously knew when they came to their conclusions. You do not get to write off all the fossils man kind has found, cataloged, and examined because they didn't bother uploading pictures of them all. These are not logical positions. 'BLIND FAITH' does not apply to something anyone can go learn or check, just because you choose not to go learn or check it beyond the first ten pages of google in your living room. That's just 'SillyWILLFULL IGNORANCE".