Atheists Unite!
-
It's useless anyway. Even with solid facts presented in front of them, these idiots will still stubbornly argue without anything.
-
there are too many things which science cannot explain.Originally posted by Cystaire:Actually if it is established that science cannot be used to prove God then creationism and intelligent design would be irrelevant, which is fine by me.
However the issue is not so simple. Science can only investigate Nature, so by right the supernatural are out of bounds. But yesterday's supernatural has become today's natural. Nobody really knows what the boundaries of Nature are.
one example. the brain.
science can create fake body parts, such as hearts, joints, limbs, glass eyes etc..
even if it can produce a brain, it will not have a unique personality and character.
thus i believe in the existance of souls, which is belongs to the supernatural side of things. one which science can never dream of reaching. -
Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research.
Practical aspects of evolution include:
Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture.
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy.
Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in many other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology.
Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness by tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery.
Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease.
Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region.
Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including enzymes, pigments, antibiotics, flavors, biopolymers and
bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes.
The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering.
Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other uses. For example:
Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists, especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical techniques have much wider application today. The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript and the history of languages.
RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS WHO REJECT EVOLUTION SHOULD ALSO REJECT MANY OF THE SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES, TECHNOLOGICAL CONVENIENCES AND MEDICAL CARE OF MODERN SOCIETY.......ONE WHO REJECTS EVOLUTION BUT STILL USES ANTIBIOTICS OR MANY OTHER HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS IS BASICALLY A HYPOCRITE! -
Supernatural is also part of nature, just that our knowledge of science at the moment now is still unable to explain these phenomenon. Science is progressing everyday so the times will come to reveal all the secrets of the supernatural.
-
Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:
And what makes you think evolution cannot be the product of creation?
RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS WHO REJECT EVOLUTION SHOULD ALSO REJECT MANY OF THE SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES, TECHNOLOGICAL CONVENIENCES AND MEDICAL CARE OF MODERN SOCIETY.......ONE WHO REJECTS EVOLUTION BUT STILL USES ANTIBIOTICS OR MANY OTHER HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS IS BASICALLY A [b]HYPOCRITE!
[/b]
adam and eve might have been created through evolution.
no one knows. -
Pls, we dun want to go thru this again. Last time in the eternal hope forum, those bloody christians will always want to argue that evolution is part of creationism. If you want to prove creationism, just simply show some evidences.Originally posted by OO_OO_OO:And what makes you think evolution cannot be the product of creation?
adam and eve might have been created through evolution.
no one knows.
-
ok we assume evolution and the big bang theory holds.
how was the universe created? the big bang
who created the big bang? its particles and antiparticles?
did it just appear because of nature?
who created nature?
who created time?
every single thing, in or outside of the universe has to start somewhere.
the only logical explanation by far, is the various religious texts, ranging from years back to explain the presence of a creator.
science cannot explain beyond the boundries of time. and over the years, countless scientific arguments have been proven wrong. science is just one big hypothesis, no one knows what exactly is true.
thus i feel that the only valid argument is WHO is that creator and not if he exists at all. -
This is again a flawed argument. You are implying that for everything that exists around us, there must be a WHO to create them and in this case, the WHO is your specific God.Originally posted by OO_OO_OO:ok we assume evolution and the big bang theory holds.
how was the universe created? the big bang
who created the big bang? its particles and antiparticles?
did it just appear because of nature?
who created nature?
who created time?
every single thing, in or outside of the universe has to start somewhere.
the only logical explanation by far, is the various religious texts, ranging from years back to explain the presence of a creator.
science cannot explain beyond the boundries of time. and over the years, countless scientific arguments have been proven wrong. science is just one big hypothesis, no one knows what exactly is true.
thus i feel that the only valid argument is WHO is that creator and not if he exists at all. -
actually eons and eons ago, a dragon from another universe caught a flu and sneezed so loudly, it caused the big bang! and that is how our universe was formed.
-
you should watch discoveryOriginally posted by Ito_^:actually eons and eons ago, a dragon from another universe caught a flu and sneezed so loudly, it caused the big bang! and that is how our universe was formed.
they found out that the universe is expanding at accelerating rate
-
yeah i know about datOriginally posted by laurence82:you should watch discovery
they found out that the universe is expanding at accelerating rate -
lol...machiam like some coco crunch advert like that...hahaOriginally posted by Ito_^:actually eons and eons ago, a dragon from another universe caught a flu and sneezed so loudly, it caused the big bang! and that is how our universe was formed. -
i didnt say it must be a MUST.Originally posted by NUS_Superst@r:This is again a flawed argument. You are implying that for everything that exists around us, there must be a WHO to create them and in this case, the WHO is your specific God.
different religions have different prophets explaining the creation/formation of things.
science doesnt offer a single explanation for it.
so of course it doesnt have a say in this area. -
Taken from: An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
It is not true that ALL religious people reject evolution.
In the website above, over 10,000 clergy members from various church denominations signed an open letter SUPPORTING evolution.
For far too long, strident voices, in the name of religion, have been claiming that people must choose between faith and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have however already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy.
One can be a religious person and yet see the truth of evolution. Not all religious people are anti-evolution and pro-creationism. A number of scientists are religious (not all science people are atheists) but yet have the moral courage to back the truth of evolution. -
Originally posted by ProudlySingaporean:lol...machiam like some coco crunch advert like that...haha bingo!
-
-
SO WHEN'S THE GATHERING?[/i]
-
Atheists rulz
-
i wish all atheist a final gd luck. i'm outta here. Exit
-
"I HAVE WON THE VICTORY"
God's Promise In The Empty Tomb
His Birth
The words of King Herod when told of the birth of Jesus.
"Kill him. There is room for only one king in this corner of the world."
The number of religious leaders who believed a messiah had been born in Bethlehem. Zero.
The type of people who did. Some stargazers, night-shift sheperds, and a couple of newlyweds who claimed to have more expereience giving birth than having sex.
The reward given to Joseph and Mary for bringing God into the world. Two years in exile, learning Egyptian.
This was the beginning of the Christian movement. (And these were the calm years.)
His Ministry
The word on the streets of Jesus' hometown when he claimed to be sent from God. Wierd family. Have you seen his cousin?
The reaction of the hometown folks. Stone him.
The opinion of his brothers. Lock him up.
The number of disciples Jesus recruited. Seventy.
The number of disciples who defended him to the authorities. Zero.
The assessment of Jesus' followers as found in the Jerusalem editorial page. A group of unemployed ne'er-do-wells recruited off the shipping docks and out of the red-light districts.
The numbers of lepers and blind and lame people Jesus healed. Too many to count.
The number of healed lepers and blind and lame people who defended Jesus on the day of his death. Zero.
His Execution
The popular opinion regarding Jesus before he cleansed the Temple. See if he'll run for office.
The popular opinion regarding Jesus after he cleansed the Temple. Let's see how fast he can run.
The decision of the Jewish council. Three spikes and a spear.
The talk on the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus died. He should've stayed in the furniture business.
The number of times Jesus prophesied that he would come back to life three days after his death. Three.
The number of apostles who heard the prophecy. All of them.
The number of apostles who waited at the tomb to see if he would do what he said. Zero.
The number of his followers who belierved in the resurrection before it occurred. You do the math.
The odds a street-corner bookie would've given the day after the crucifixion on the possibility that Jesus' name would be known in the year 2000. "I'll give you better odds that he'll rise from the dead."
His Movement
The official response of the Jewish leaders to the rumors of the resurrection. Of course they say he's alive. They have to. What else can they say?
The actual response of the Jewish leaders to the resurrection of Jesus. "A great number of the Jewish priests believed and obeyed" (Acts 6:7)
The decision of the Jewish leaders about the church. "If their plan comes from human authority, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them" (Acts 5:38-39)
The response of the church. "The number of followers was growing" (Acts 6:1)
The official response of the Jewish leaders to the conversion of Saul. Good riddance to the former Pharisee. Won't be months before he is in jail, and then what will he do? Write letters?
What Saul, turned Paul, understood that his former colleagues didn't. "God gave [Jesus] as a way to forgive sin" (Rom 3:25)
The Movement Continues
The belief of French philosopher Voltaire. The bible and Christianity would pass within a hundred years. He died in 1778. The movement continues.
The pronouncement of Friedrich Nietzsche in 1882. "God is dead." The dawn of science, he believed, would be the doom of faith. Science has dawned; the movement continues.
The way a Communist dictionary defined the Bible. "It is a collection of fantastic legends without any scientific support." Communism is diminishing; the movement continues.
The discovery made by every person who has tried to bury the faith. The same as the one made by those who tried to bury its Founder; He won't stay in the tomb.
The facts. The movement has never been stronger. Over one billion Catholics and nearly as many Protestants.
The question. How do we explain it? Jesus was a backwater peasant. He never wrote a book, never held an office. He never journeyed more than two hundred miles from his hometown. Friends left him. One betrayed him. Those he helped forgot him. Prior to his death, they abandoned him. But after his death they couldn't resist him. What made the difference?
The answer. His death and resurrection.
For when he died, so did your sin.
And when he rose, so did your hope.
For when he rose, your grave was changed from a final residence to temporary housing.
The reason he did it. The face in your mirror.
The verdict after two millenniums. Herod was right; there is room for only one King.[/b] -
Modern science is heading this way
Richard Dawkins:
"An atheist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful." -
When the times come that science is able to prove the non-existence of god, these ppl will still stubbornly stick to their faiths and that's blind faith.
-
so i assume the contary is true?Originally posted by NUS_Superst@r:When the times come that science is able to prove the non-existence of god, these ppl will still stubbornly stick to their faiths and that's blind faith.
when science proves the existance of an unexplained supernatural being, the atheists will stubbornly stick on to their believe that further studies will show otherwise? -
As I mentioned earlier, we are talking about science, so I hope that you are getting your scientific information from reputable sources. So quoting your source will help convince me and other readers that you have credible data.Originally posted by banzie:Does it matter? The point here isn't it about getting knowledge from your sources to prove who is right? So where is your points from your science magazines?
In addition, I am working hard to debate with you personally, so it's laziness on your part to paste other people's argument wholesale without even analyzing them.
Ibram Gaunt has already written well on the importance of evolutionary biology to science (see above).
I know you will not be convinced by whatever evidence I present here, but for the benefit of other readers I shall try to address your (actually other people's) criticisms.
1. Evolution is untestable? False.
J B Haldane once said that if you can find rabbit fossils in the Precambrian, it will help refute evolution. None have been found.
In addition to fossil evidence, modern genetics experiments also overwhelmingly support evolution. I have already mentioned experiments on flies, butterflies and chick that test evolutionary theory. Other models include zebrafish and mouse.
2. Irreducible complexity is pure bunk. Paley's brass watch and Behe's mousetrap are both terrible analogies of living systems. I have written a criticism of their analogies in this article.
http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/10/irreducible-complexity-pwned.html
3. The "increase in information" angle comes from Bill Dembski. In reality, new information enters genomes all the time. I have already mentioned polyploidy in plants. In addition to whole genome multiplications there are additional chromosomes, gene multiplications, lengthened genes, truncated genes, modified genes...many modes of increasing information.
4. Fossilization of organisms is rare, so it is unreasonable to expect all the transitory forms to be recorded in fossils. Palaeontologists can find dozens of transitory fossils per genus, but creationists are never satisfied. Do you know why?
If they can find one million transitory fossils, creationists will demand 2 million. If they can find 2 million, creationists will want 4 million. Where scientists build evidence, creationists always see gaps.
5. Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary biology, and personally I think it is not as strongly supported as evolution. Still I should remind you that the definition of life (as an emergent trait) has always been controversial.
People (vitalists) once considered sub-cellular components such as "organic" chemicals (eg. urea) as alive. Today we can synthesize them chemically, so we don't consider them alive.
Since cells are made of non-living parts, how can cells be alive? We just accept this. So if it is easy to imagine life emerging from non-life spatially, we can also imagine life emerging from non-life in time.
Anyway even if life has always existed, it would not support special creation. In fact it would refute creationism, since life has always existed it would by definition not require any sort of creator.
6. Biological evolution is a non-random process, because it acts via natural selection. Also, since genes have organization, sequence changes can produce predictable effects.
Also, very low probability events are inevitable at evolutionary (geological) time scales.
As for that extra arm you were waiting for... someone someday will eventually sprout an extra arm.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2021142&page=1
7. "Microevolution" is just the creationist excuse to have their cake and eat it too. They know that bacteria and viruses mutate rapidly and display wildly different characteristics such as virulent, host jumping and multidrug resistance. So they say that microevolution can only occur below the species level.
But here's the trick: they don't accept the scientific definition of species (reproductive isolation) and use their own definition called "kinds". So no matter how much the descendant populations diverge they are still the same kind.
Using this word game no organism can ever evolve beyond the "kind" level! Monkeys evolving into other monkey species are still monkeys - only microevolution!
In reality there is no such barrier to evolution. Every speciation step is of course at the species level, but it does not magically stop at that level. Life continued to evolve until we have the full biodiversity we see today.
8. You say that since no human was around to record exactly what happened during the inception of life, everyone is only guessing and the origins must be taken on faith.
If all criminal investigators believe that, then murderers will never be convicted, because many murders occur without anyone else around. Also the data is usually incomplete. Even if caught on camera, video cameras have a 1/20 second gap between frames.
Yet the bloody shoe prints, knife in the sink with suspect's fingerprints and victim's blood, absence from usual routine during time of crime... various evidence using different approaches, demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty.
Faith is not used to determine the truth here.
So why do you insist on using faith to refute something which already has so much supporting evidence??? -
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
You have neglected to mention the other faiths that worship God(s). They still exist too and their followers are also in the billions.
The verdict after two millenniums. Herod was right; there is room for only one King.
Of course there are also non-religious people who don't believe in any sort of personal God. They number in the hundreds of millions, which is approximately a few hundred million more numerous than you.
Try convince all these people that yours is the only King.