Yeah, that's a real tough one.

What scientist in his right mind would possibly want to immortalize himself through one of the most ground-breaking discoveries in human history? What man would want to be synonymous with Einstein and Newton? What scientist would want to validate his own existence as a man of science by winning the Nobel Prize?

None that I know of!


Also the magic bullet has nothing to do with this.

An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support

I don't believe something because it's termed "theory," I accept it because it is based in well established scientific fact. "Magic bullet" most certainly is not.

Plus, a theory in the context of science is not really the same thing as a theory in common language. People seem to think that the term "theory" in science implies a certain degree of uncertainty. This is not the case. It is not termed "fact" because it is not a fact. It gives a plausible explanation of "how" or "why" a fact is, based on previous scientific research and new observations. There is the theory of evolution (debatable, although reasonably only on a very technical level). Then there is the natural phenomenon (fact) of common descent.

You don't seem to get it do you? Maybe a diagram will help:

Nobel Prize ----> Money (Nobel Prize brings money)

You don't go into science for the money. A Biology or a Physics PHD will get you shit for cash. People go into it because they have a passion for finding the truth. That said, quickest way to money in a research-related career is a Nobel prize.

If you're worried about getting money to research an alternative, if a plausible hypothesis is given a university would fund it. If not, there are many people who would love for a scientist to "disprove" evolution. Just get some of the wealthiest organizations in America (churches). I'm positive that they would love to see a renowned scientist disprove evolution, and would fund it if given a reasonable opportunity. Now, if you're looking for a hidden agenda, that's where you should turn.

Well, because of threads like this. Despite apodictic evidence, you deny common descent. That's fairly closed minded.

I mean, if you can believe in God, you shouldn't even need evidence. Why can't you simply "believe in" evolution, like you do God? Not saying that's a smart thing to do, but the logic doesn't make sense to me.

Let me ask you this: is there anything reasonable that would convince you that evolution is valid? Key word there is reasonable.

Generally when I pose this question people retort with, "Well what would it take to make you believe in God?" Before you dodge my question by throwing that at me, I'm going to just anticipate it and answer it for you.

First of all, this depends on how you define God. If you want to define God as whatever it was that initiaited the universe, then I could believe in God. General Relativity indicates that the universe is finite in both time and space. The fact that we exist inside it means if it wasn't always around, by our current understanding, it had to have been started at some point, so I can in this case reasonably acknowledge the existence of God. I'm not acknowledging any type of "outside" intelligence whatsoever, I'm simply saying whatever it was that initiated the universe can be called God, and that in that case it (term used loosely...because extra...universal anything is an opaque subject to science altogether) definitely exists.

However, people nowdays define God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and in Christianity at least, omnibenevolent being. That very definition seems to contradict itself. If, by its very definition, it is contradictory, how am I supposed to acknowledge the validity of outlandish myths based solely on the idea that God exists. When so much of his book clearly contradicts evidence, why/how should I believe in it. If you want me to believe in something that contradicts evidence, show me a miracle or something. Part the red sea by supernatural means. I'm blasphemous. Smite me when I yell at you to strike me down with lightning. Do something. In all honesty, even the parting of the red sea would not prove God's existence. It would simply prove that the red sea inexplicably parted. Although I think I would find that a bit too coincidental to not at least doubt my atheism. You might be able to convert me if you part the red sea. Science doesn't promise miracles. It simply offers the facts, and plausible (usually highly likely) explanations for those facts. God, on the other hand, promises miracles. I can give you fact after fact and explanations which fit all the observed facts. Can you give me a miracle?

Because religion is absolutely about being closed minded. Are you open to other people's religions? No, of course not, that's against your religion. Are you open to other people's ideas? Of course not, it isn't in your bible and your preacher doesn't teach you anything about it so it must be wrong.

All a religion is is a shitload of people who decide they are only going to believe one thing and automatically say everyone else is wrong. Religion is the biggest load of shit ever.

I think this summarizes the difference between religion and science:

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscel...vs%20faith.png

Pretty much yeah, that looks about right. Except the graph to the right is missing the "find evidence that is bullshit but believe it anyway" box. Like how Joseph Smith got those golden plates that had some divine language on them that only he could read and after he read them the "angels took away his ability to read them." And how nowadays there are actually prophets in the mormon church and pretty much anything they say is straight from God.

Oh and something interesting and slightly funny, the tomb of jesus and his family is thought to have been discovered. They've found loads and loads of evidence that statistically proves it's jesus' tomb. The funny thing is, a lot of christians I've talked to about it are like "yes see we were right all along!" when it actually completely disproves their religion. If christ rose from the grave, why would his remains stay behind?

The next step in this conversation is they say "God put that there to test our faith. The true believers won't be fooled by this."

Hence why I think religion is the biggest load of bullshit ever.

I actually watched that... the one thing that gets me is that they tested the DNA from the tombs of "jesus" and "mary magdalin" to see if they matched up as relatives.... they said they weren't(like they were in the first place:rolleyes: )... why coulden't they have tested the body of "mary" that would at least prove that there was a connection between them (mother to son)... so that test made no sence to me....


Those people you talked to... don't represent all believers.... I will admit that a majority of "believers" don't know half of what there talking about...
As much as i hate to say this many "believers" only come to church because they are afraid or they want something...

You really think that people place enough money into collection plates to give the church that kinda money? Most people palce only a few dollars here, and a couple of dollars there....

Correction, I never denied common descent... I denied massive changes that are not even related to what the original descent was...

I do understand some resonabilities of evolution such as becoming acclimated to the weather around you or becoming a different color because your survival depends on it (like if a species of frog had two colors [say green and yellow] if they live in the woods natural selection would weed out the hurtful trait because the yellow frog would be easier to spot....

First of all, miracles were only given when they were needed.... (Ill use your example) the parting of the red sea was only done once because moses was told to save the slaves of egypt and bring them to the promised land.... God does not just give out miracles willy nilly.....

[QUOTE=Draco]You really think that people place enough money into collection plates to give the church that kinda money? Most people palce only a few dollars here, and a couple of dollars there....

http://static.flickr.com/59/154079409_fe5904d99a_o.jpg

http://www.reformation.org/vatican-city.jpg

http://www.engr.uiuc.edu/internation...can_garden.JPG

Absolutely. If I had to pay $40,000 a week to keep my grass trimmed I doubt I could help pay for the advancement of the human race either.

What? I'm not sure what it is you object to anymore. Most people who don't like evolution seem to not like the idea of common descent. If you're okay with that, what do you have against evolution? I mean, I don't know about you, but I would consider the rise of human beings from prokaryotes to be a fairly massive fucking change.

Exactly. Such changes are cumulative in a population. Given enough time, a new species rises. It's hard to distinguish exactly when a population is in a transitional state and when it is finally a species of its own, but it is what happens.

But you dodged my earlier question. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of the theory.


Convenient how you can simply decree by fiat that the only thing that could really be seen as evidence for a Judeo-Christian God is impossible. I do agree with you, though. Miracles are impossible. Just as impossible as they were 2000+ years ago.

Goddamn you Black Jesus! If you keep making more sense, I'll have to cry to God to smite thee!

If you hadn't lost before, you have definitely lost now. Just stop fooling yourself. It looks bad.

You know the mormon church requires its members to give 10% of their income to it, right? The mormon church is fucking rich. Mormon families are huge, when all the children grow up they all have to pay 10% of everything to the church.

Not only that but you're agreeing with the exact fundamentals of evolution but denying its existance. I don't think you really understand what evolution is. It doesn't mean that if I go swim around in the water I'll grow gills and be able to breathe underwater.

Hahaha!

A friend has just sent me links to MC Hawking. Amazing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNwJZe8HtOE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ

He's doing what the Vancome lady does when she covers her ears and goes "LA LA LA LA! LA LA LA LA!"

Let me put it to you this way.... when single celled organisms divide they create exact copys... so one splits into two, two into four, so on and so fourth... their DNA tells them how to split and when to split.... there could not possibly be a genetic trait in the organism that would go outside of the information stored in the cell.... otherwise scientists that study the organisms would have seen at least some sort of change by now.... I know you going to say that it takes billions of years, but at the rate that cells divide small mutations in the DNA would have shown something....

Let me also ask you this... The body is made up of systems. Visual system, respiratory system, cardiac system and so forth. Can you explain or can anyone explain how any of these systems could have been created, in peicemeal fashion over time to become a functioning system that is dependent upon the other systems to have a living organism. After all if you remove any of the parts of a system the system fails and the organism fails as well.

But lets just look at the visual system for a moment. You have the structure of the eye, the surface, the vitrious fluid that is so pure it is the only place in the body that it is found. You have the lens and then you have the cones of the eye that receive photons and turn them into electrons. You have the retina which recieves these electrons and then sends it along the nerve pathways to the cells of the brian that interprets these electrons into visual images that we see. Yet evolutionists would expect us to believe that the visual system was peiced together purely by accident over many many years through genetic "defects" that became beneficial. If you had 98% of the visual system put together the organism still can not see. It has to be 100% complete. So during all of this time while we were waiting for nature to accidently make the last peice of the puzzle we were running around blind for millenia.

To convince me of evolution, you would have to have at least one single shred of fossil evidence to support the theory. Today there is no single peice of fossil evidence to support the theory. That is why evolution anchors itself on hopeful monsters which use to be referred to as the missing link.

They keep saying it because all evidence of your posts points to that conclusion. If you don't think this is true, then you are a hypocrite. Choose either to be open-minded (thus accepting that, perhaps, evolution's overwhelming evidence could have a foundation in fact) or choose to accept that religion makes you closed-minded.

Furthermore, the improbability factor in evolution's action is entirely irrelevant. Consider that evolution requires improbability to function (for highly specialized organisations such as wings), why would this be its bane? For the rest, only those parts which, when checked by the actions of nature (living), are sufficiently bred to further generations (to flourish or fade, but, if an organisation is beneficial, it would surely flourish) will continue to emerge and undergo further specialization. Therefore, the tornado comment is a shot in the dark.

What are you even talking about? Such changes have been clearly visible, even in our own lifetime. How do you think bacteria is becoming more resistant to antibiotics?

Jeez, so many people are in denial. It's no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of those people are too religious to pull their head out of their bibles. The first paragraph is not even making a point. Systems? Lets move beyond high school biology class buddy. Bats are blind. Why are they alive without a 'visual system?'

The second paragraph is worse. If you are TOO CLOSE-MINDED to accept the possibility of genetic change over time (which is obvious in every form of life today), then you need to increase your gray matter and try again. We might even see something interesting in the next century. Many mentally "off" children are being born with significant abilities, most of which are termed autistic. However, these skills are usually overshadowed by their inability to meld with society. There might be an incident where normally functioning humans are born with some of the cognitive advantages of autism. This could lead to a new 'race' of humans. You might think thats impossible, but it's far more probable then something intangible and ambiguous like "god." Something of which there is NO proof at all, much like you claim evolution to have. (Although it obviously DOES). Even if there was only one piece of proof that evolution is fact, it is still more than NO EVIDENCE. Your beliefs are based on... well... nothing. How can you be comfortable with that? Because you choose to be ignorant. Don't get mad when those who choose to believe evidence make you look stupid.

Let me just also say that what you have said about no observed mutations is also quite wrong and you should probably do some research (or maybe Google for a minute) before you say something like that.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/12...ar-clocks.html

Strangely enough this has already happened. There is a guy that I saw on a discovery show about autistic people I think, he's autistic but he's fully functional in society. He looks, talks, acts, exactly like normal human beings. But he's a natural genius. That's about all the info I have on that though, as I don't remember where he lives or what his name is.

Autism and Asperger's is going to be the next ADD.