Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
crookedspiral

Atheism is incompatible with science

3,193 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

XenoFish

Is there such a thing as 'just living'? Without any ties to any ideology. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Ha! How can a invisible creature be pink? :lol:

Its a metaphysical unicorn obviously. :innocent:

Apparently using the word metaphysical means that you can do anything.

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
19 hours ago, Khanivore said:

No is the burden of proof not on you as the global minority who does believe in a God, most of humanity does in some form. So the burden of proof is on you. 

The burden of proof is on the people who makes a claim. It is completely irrelevant how many people have a belief, what matters is if the belief is true or not.

19 hours ago, Khanivore said:

I bet you believe in concepts that have no proof but you'll accept them purely on testimony not science or observations. 

There is also such a thing as plausibility.

If you claim you have a pet dog I would probably accept it as that is a very common thing to have. If on the other hand you claim to have a pet dragon I would have to see some solid evidence before I believed you.

If you claim to have a cold it is perfectly plausible. If you claim to have been dead and then come back to life it would require a lot more to convince me.

19 hours ago, Khanivore said:

If you believe in infinite universes, that means there are infinite possibilities, so there is a possibility that unicorns and leprechauns exist some where. So do you adhere to these modern unsubstantiated theories? 

I don't really have any position on the existence of infinite universes. They might exist, but then again they might not. 

The thing is that I am prefectly willing to utter those dreaded 3 words that so many theist fear to utter: "I don't know"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Is there such a thing as 'just living'? Without any ties to any ideology. 

Coma victim?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Coma victim?

I need to quit asking questions. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Is there such a thing as 'just living'? Without any ties to any ideology. 

What would you define an ideology as? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
Just now, danydandan said:

What would you define an ideology as? 

 

A set of beliefs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
16 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

A set of beliefs. 

Then no, I reckon it's impossible to live ideology free. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 4/30/2019 at 2:17 AM, Khanivore said:

What do you consider to be reasonable standard of knowledge?

The theory of evolution... versus the claim that each individual species was created fully formed. That would be one good example of "reasonable standard of knowledge" putting paid to religious mythology. There are lots of others re this god, enough to conclude it is mythology, like fairies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
9 minutes ago, Horta said:

The theory of evolution... versus the claim that each individual species was created fully formed. 

 

Butterflies?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
3 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Butterflies?

 

 

Ah, of course, how could I forget the butterflies lol.

So all species evolved from a common ancestor except for butterflies...which were just magically generated into existence fully formed, by god. 

Thanks for highlighting the type of "science" that atheism is incompatible with Will (ie. "creation science").

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Horta said:

Ah, of course, how could I forget the butterflies lol.

So all species evolved from a common ancestor except for butterflies...which were just magically generated into existence fully formed, by god. 

Thanks for highlighting the type of "science" that atheism is incompatible with Will (ie. "creation science").

 

 

No. You didn't get it.

You said that the theory of evolution is the "reasonable standard of knowledge" right?

You said "The theory of evolution... versus the claim that each individual species was created fully formed."

Butterflies emerge from their cocoons "fully formed" do they not?

Where's the missing link between a caterpillar and a butterfly?

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

No. You didn't get it.

You said that the theory of evolution is the "reasonable standard of knowledge" right?

You said "The theory of evolution... versus the claim that each individual species was created fully formed."

Butterflies emerge from their cocoons "fully formed" do they not?

Where's the missing link between a caterpillar and a butterfly?

 

 

Good analogy for evolutionary missing links :)

Obviously the simple answer is the chrysalis.   But the caterpillar doesn't just change into a butterfly.   It metamorphoses slowly.  Changing very, very slightly every day, such that the difference between any 2 or 3 days is imperceptible, and yet each day it forms the missing link between the day before and the day after.

Although I suppose you could argue that half way through the metamorphosis it become the missing link between the caterpillar and the butterfly?


btw what's the missing link between an impregnated egg and a baby?  ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
8 minutes ago, Essan said:

Good analogy for evolutionary missing links :)

Obviously the simple answer is the chrysalis.   But the caterpillar doesn't just change into a butterfly.   It metamorphoses slowly.  Changing very, very slightly every day, such that the difference between any 2 or 3 days is imperceptible, and yet each day it forms the missing link between the day before and the day after.

Although I suppose you could argue that half way through the metamorphosis it become the missing link between the caterpillar and the butterfly?


btw what's the missing link between an impregnated egg and a baby?  ;)

 

In the evolution of certain things (not necessarily biological) there are no missing links.

They just occur "suddenly".

Which is still a metamorphosis. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Essan said:

Good analogy for evolutionary missing links :)

Obviously the simple answer is the chrysalis.   But the caterpillar doesn't just change into a butterfly.   It metamorphoses slowly.  Changing very, very slightly every day, such that the difference between any 2 or 3 days is imperceptible, and yet each day it forms the missing link between the day before and the day after.

Although I suppose you could argue that half way through the metamorphosis it become the missing link between the caterpillar and the butterfly?


btw what's the missing link between an impregnated egg and a baby?  ;)

 

Let's address this further.

What goes on during pregnancy does not constitute a "missing link". The fetus is not a species "inbetween".

In biological evolution, the evidence is that between the species of man, there are no missing links.

Then what this suggests is that during the pregnancy of a woman of one human species, a new human species appeared suddenly via the metamorphosis that occurred in the womb. Without a missing link. Thus the new human emerged "fully formed" and this happened several times.

What on earth caused that?

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
5 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Let's address this further.

What goes on during pregnancy does not constitute a "missing link". The fetus is not a species "inbetween".

In biological evolution, the evidence is that between the species of man, there are no missing links.

Then what this suggests is that during the pregnancy of a woman of one human species, a new human species appeared suddenly via the metamorphosis that occurred in the womb. Without a missing link. Thus the new human emerged "fully formed" and this happened several times.

What on earth caused that?

 

 

That's not how it happens.  You clearly don't understand evolution or biological science.  Which seems to be a common factor amongst those who refute evolution ;)

Between one species and another there may be a hundred thousand generations,   Each is the missing link.

You are the missing link between Homo Habilis and a future species of homonid that may exist in a million years time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, Essan said:

That's not how it happens.  You clearly don't understand evolution or biological science.  Which seems to be a common factor amongst those who refute evolution ;)

Between one species and another there may be a hundred thousand generations,   Each is the missing link.

You are the missing link between Homo Habilis and a future species of homonid that may exist in a million years time.

 

I'm not refuting evolution. I'm reinforcing it.

Science has not found missing links (and never will) between the progressing species of man. This is true because science is in its infancy and there is much still to discover.

Evolution is not accidental. One species evolves from another suddenly. That's what the evidence shows.

You are not a missing link. But you can link yourself to the thing that caused evolution to unfold. All according to plan.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
26 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Evolution is not accidental. One species evolves from another suddenly. That's what the evidence shows.

Not it's doesn't. I'm no expert, but I know evolution is a slow burner. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
29 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Science has not found missing links (and never will) between the progressing species of man.

The whole point of Darwin's Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is that every living creature is just another link in a never ending chain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Whenever the UB enters a discussion it's time to pack it up and go home.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Plus you'd figure there would be some rebuttal from the OP of this thread, nadda.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
7 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Not it's doesn't. I'm no expert, but I know evolution is a slow burner. 

 

2 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

The whole point of Darwin's Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is that every living creature is just another link in a never ending chain...

 

Yes I know. Darwin's theory is just that. A theory.

But his theory requires missing links between species. 

I'm no expert too, but my understanding is that missing links between the progressing species of man have not been found. That's evidence isn't it? Evidence that species evolve without progressive links between them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

"I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. "

Quote

But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about.

I don't think atheism is about a right to make a final statement about something he/she does not know about.

Atheism is just a simple lack of a belief in god/gods. Simple.

Seems like this physicist likes strawman arguments.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Yes I know. Darwin's theory is just that. A theory.

A theory is different than a hypothesis.

A theory is established at the end of the scientific method, after you test the hypothesis and then formulate a conclusion. Whereas a hypothesis is formed near the beginning of the scientific method, and needs to be tested.

In other words, there's no such thing as "just a theory." To say that is to insinuate that it's merely a hypothesis or a guess with little to no real solid evidence either way.

8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

But his theory requires missing links between species. 

I'm no expert too, but my understanding is that missing links between the progressing species of man have not been found. That's evidence isn't it? Evidence that species evolve without progressive links between them.

I'm no expert either, but I at least have a basic understanding of biology.

Missing links don't invalidate the whole chain. Ever see the game show Wheel of Fortune? A few missing letters don't mean there isn't a message.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

A theory is different than a hypothesis.

A theory is established at the end of the scientific method, after you test the hypothesis and then formulate a conclusion. Whereas a hypothesis is formed near the beginning of the scientific method, and needs to be tested.

In other words, there's no such thing as "just a theory." To say that is to insinuate that it's merely a hypothesis or a guess with little to no real solid evidence either way.

I'm no expert either, but I at least have a basic understanding of biology.

Missing links don't invalidate the whole chain. Ever see the game show Wheel of Fortune? A few missing letters don't mean there isn't a message.

 

Alright but it would seem that a theory that's based on evidence would have to conclude that given all the institutional research done in the field, and because there isn't evidence that there are links between species and that evolution occurs without them.

Problem with that is, it shoots down that natural selection is the thing that drives the evolution of species and implies something else is at play.

Of course scientifically, that's an elephant in the room. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.