Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#164637 Apr 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The geological time scale is something that was deduced from the evidence. In particular, that many processes take millions of years was well-established before Darwin wrote any of his books. It is also supported by radiometric dating (NOT carbon dating---carbon dating only works for things less than about 100,000 years old--very young for geological processes).
The geological time scale informs us of how long various stages of evolution took, but it is not dependent on the evidence of evolution, nor is the evidence for evolution directly dependent on the geological time scale. The two *do* inform each other, though.
I should also point out that the geological time scale, which involves actual dates and times is different than the geologic column, which tells the *order* of events, but does not give the timing of those events. So, we can look at various human ancestors and know the order of their appearance even in the cases where we do not have good dates for the different species. The geologic column was well-established long before the dates of the events in that column were figured out.
So more or less they use fossils to date rocks, and rocks to date fossils?

And if they date the rocks by the fossils, how can they then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?

I was reading an artical on this, and that was a question it asked.

Just curious to hear someones input on it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164638 Apr 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Dig any ditches today or were you unloading trucks?
If you are unable to formulate that he is a being in your book of holy myths then it is obvious you have never read the bible.
<quoted text>
That's a cheap way of saying you can't answer the question.

I accept your defeat.

Hand over your welfare check.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164639 Apr 29, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>*sigh*
The most annoying thing about debating fundies, is that they don't know the first effin' thing about their bible.
Or about science.
Or about debate.
More fundamental atheist baseless claims?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164640 Apr 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They won't be "illegals" much longer.
The one thing that will be enacted this Congressional session (and maybe the only thing, in the dysfunctional state of our federal government) is an immigration reform bill.
And it will be a bipartisan bill.
Comprendes o no, pendejo?
Ya, that'd be great.

Make 'em wait ten years to get a green card, give them no welfare, food stamps or Obamacare....

Oh, and charge them a fine upon signing up.

I'm surprised you're into that, Catch.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164641 Apr 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
These Christholes are allergic to reality.
<quoted text>
You haven't posed anything to suggest that "there is no god" is reality.

If you could, you would.

But you can't, so you won't.

FAIL

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#164642 Apr 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You give yourself too much credit, based on this post alone, it's plain to see you have zero education in any scientific field at all. Sad that you wasted your life.
One could say the same about you, yet all of your knowledge will end at the grave, and what has it proffited you?

Well, at least i am honest and dont claim to be something im not! Who do you work for NASA?

Honesty is a good thing, you should try it sometime..

And you think just because some one has no education in science you deem them as to have wasted their life.

You are so narrow minded that if a mosquito landed on your nose and done a mule kick, it would put out both eyes..

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#164643 Apr 29, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
So more or less they use fossils to date rocks, and rocks to date fossils?
And if they date the rocks by the fossils, how can they then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?
I was reading an artical on this, and that was a question it asked.
Just curious to hear someones input on it.
They established a baseline of ages in certain layers that appear identical in numerous places around the world, they established the age of these layers by radiometric dating things embedded in it.

So the baselines are known values of age from knowing what layer it is in. This is where correlation between the geologic time scale and the rock strata comes into play. There are identifying layers that have a known ages and have distinct chemical trace properties to identify them. So when something is found just above or below that marker its age is approximately known from it's position in relation to it.
Thinking

London, UK

#164644 Apr 29, 2013
Why?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
More fundamental atheist baseless claims?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#164645 Apr 29, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
So more or less they use fossils to date rocks, and rocks to date fossils?
And if they date the rocks by the fossils, how can they then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?
I was reading an artical on this, and that was a question it asked.
Just curious to hear someones input on it.
Let's start at the beginning. We see a bunch of layers of rock (strata). In those layers, we see fossils. We are able to trace a given layer over very long distances. We also have the general principle that older layers are below newer ones (more on caveats to this later). This gives us the *relative* ages of the different layers: in other words, it tells us which are older and which are younger.

Now, through observation and experience, we find out that certain fossils only appear in certain layers. Different layers will have characteristic fossils that are different, but for certain fossils, we can say that they only appear in particular layers.

Now, the caveat: there are geological forces at work: mountain building, erosion, etc. Occasionally, layers can be so bent by mountain building that the order is reversed. This is usually pretty obvious because we can actually see the regions where the bending happens (more on this later).

Now what we have is layers with relative dates and fossils in them that are characteristic of those layers. Now, there are also other fossils that are NOT characteristic of particular layers: species that lasted much longer periods of time than those limited to specific layers.

Next, we learned how to get absolute dates for the layers via radiometric dates. The problem is that such dates are often limited to igneous layers (not sedimentary). So we can date certain igneous layers and use those the *relative* dates for those above and below to get ranges of dates for the sedimentary layers.

Now we have two scenarios: in one we find a new fossil in a particular layer and this layer has been found between two igneous layers with good dates. This layer helps us to date the fossil we are interested in.

In the other scenario, we finds a layer with one of the *characteristic* fossils. because those only happen during limited time periods, this gives a date for that layer. In turn the date for that layer will give dates for all the *other* fossils in that layer.

The patterns of evolutionary change were obvious just from the sequence of the rocks and the changes in the types of fossils in each layer. The specific dates for a particular fossil tend to be found by dating that layer. Since layers with fossils are generally sedimentary layers, this usually involves either finding igneous strata above and below that can be dated, OR relying on *previously found dates* and finding a characteristic fossil for that layer.

There *is* a give and take: the layers are surveyed, the different fossils for a layer are determined, the fossils that only appear in a particular layer are found. Then we get radioactive dates for the igneous layers, which gives us dates for the sedimentary ones between. Finally, new and interesting fossils are dated by determining the age of the layer in which they are found. This can happen by using the characteristic fossils because those particular ones are limited to only specific time periods.

What does NOT happen is that we determine the age of a layer from a fossil and the age of *the same fossil* from the layer.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#164646 Apr 29, 2013
Anon wrote:
Where is Dave Nelson?
I have been wondering where Dave Nelson may have gone.

He and Eagle12 disappeared.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#164647 Apr 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, that'd be great.
Make 'em wait ten years to get a green card, give them no welfare, food stamps or Obamacare....
Oh, and charge them a fine upon signing up.
I'm surprised you're into that, Catch.
The details will have to be worked out.

But I'm glad you're with the program.

You weren't a while back, were you?
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#164648 Apr 29, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
One could say the same about you, yet all of your knowledge will end at the grave, and what has it proffited you?
Well, at least i am honest and dont claim to be something im not! Who do you work for NASA?
Honesty is a good thing, you should try it sometime..
And you think just because some one has no education in science you deem them as to have wasted their life.
You are so narrow minded that if a mosquito landed on your nose and done a mule kick, it would put out both eyes..
Yes, having no education in the sciences is in fact a wasted life. Education is how intelligent people move forward, its how we learn about the world around us, it's what got our species out of the cave and on to the moon. NOT having a basic education in the sciences means you are willfully ignorant. Being such should be shameful for you, I'm not sure why it isn't.

You claim to be uneducated in the sciences yet you accuse someone else of having a narrow mind. This makes you seem not only uneducated but incredibly stupid. Try reading a book, start with a book on science, anyone will do for a start, Good luck!!!
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#164649 Apr 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't posed anything to suggest that "there is no god" is reality.
If you could, you would.
But you can't, so you won't.
FAIL
Same old lame ass tactic eh!!! When confronted with absolutely no argument, try turning it around and ask for someone to prove a negative. It has been explained to you time and time again that anyone with any intelligence at all, KNOWS that the person with the POSITIVE claim shoulders the burden of proof. For most of us Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot analogy put an end to that argument years ago, guess you didn't get the memo, how embarrassing for you!!!! Every time you take this tact your idiot meter spikes. It must suck to have no argument for the existence of your demon God, and have to resort to idiotic ploys!!!!!
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#164650 Apr 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been wondering where Dave Nelson may have gone.
He and Eagle12 disappeared.
Maybe they're holed up in a cheap motel...

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#164651 Apr 29, 2013
Did your god walk with Adam and Eve? Did he wrestle with Jacob and even injure his leg while rolling on the ground with him? Does he not speak to people and have back and forth conversation with them? Show his glory to them?

I could go on but obviously you have idea what I am talking about as your bible knowledge is elementary at best. So yes there are several passages stating your god is a supernatural being or entity.

So god is an entity not a mere emotion, unless you disagree with the bible?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>That's a cheap way of saying you can't answer the question.

I accept your defeat.

Hand over your welfare check.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#164652 Apr 29, 2013
Childish argument that I am surprised any adult would stoop to.

If a rambling man on the street said to give him all your money to build a weapon because giant ninja turtles will come and take over your city would you do it? If you said no and he shrieked that they exist unless you can prove they don't would you waste your time doing so? Of course not. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Sorry that's just how the real world works.

Why not just show proof that your god exists it is your claim so either back it up with observable evidence or the atheist in on solid ground.

If unable to I accept your surrender.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>You haven't posed anything to suggest that "there is no god" is reality.

If you could, you would.

But you can't, so you won't.

FAIL

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#164653 Apr 29, 2013
Honeymoon?
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>I have been wondering where Dave Nelson may have gone.

He and Eagle12 disappeared.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#164654 Apr 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's start at the beginning. We see a bunch of layers of rock (strata). In those layers, we see fossils. We are able to trace a given layer over very long distances. We also have the general principle that older layers are below newer ones (more on caveats to this later). This gives us the *relative* ages of the different layers: in other words, it tells us which are older and which are younger.
Now, through observation and experience, we find out that certain fossils only appear in certain layers. Different layers will have characteristic fossils that are different, but for certain fossils, we can say that they only appear in particular layers.
Now, the caveat: there are geological forces at work: mountain building, erosion, etc. Occasionally, layers can be so bent by mountain building that the order is reversed. This is usually pretty obvious because we can actually see the regions where the bending happens (more on this later).
Now what we have is layers with relative dates and fossils in them that are characteristic of those layers. Now, there are also other fossils that are NOT characteristic of particular layers: species that lasted much longer periods of time than those limited to specific layers.
Next, we learned how to get absolute dates for the layers via radiometric dates. The problem is that such dates are often limited to igneous layers (not sedimentary). So we can date certain igneous layers and use those the *relative* dates for those above and below to get ranges of dates for the sedimentary layers.
Now we have two scenarios: in one we find a new fossil in a particular layer and this layer has been found between two igneous layers with good dates. This layer helps us to date the fossil we are interested in.
In the other scenario, we finds a layer with one of the *characteristic* fossils. because those only happen during limited time periods, this gives a date for that layer. In turn the date for that layer will give dates for all the *other* fossils in that layer.
The patterns of evolutionary change were obvious just from the sequence of the rocks and the changes in the types of fossils in each layer. The specific dates for a particular fossil tend to be found by dating that layer. Since layers with fossils are generally sedimentary layers, this usually involves either finding igneous strata above and below that can be dated, OR relying on *previously found dates* and finding a characteristic fossil for that layer.
There *is* a give and take: the layers are surveyed, the different fossils for a layer are determined, the fossils that only appear in a particular layer are found. Then we get radioactive dates for the igneous layers, which gives us dates for the sedimentary ones between. Finally, new and interesting fossils are dated by determining the age of the layer in which they are found. This can happen by using the characteristic fossils because those particular ones are limited to only specific time periods.
What does NOT happen is that we determine the age of a layer from a fossil and the age of *the same fossil* from the layer.
Thank you for taken the time to explain the method..

So in other words you use the ''igneous layers'' and characteristic fossils as the main starting point to date all other fossils and layers of rocks in the dateing method?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#164655 Apr 29, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Im assuming the supposed contradiction lead you that way?
Well if one reads a ''book'' that says they are a God, then one could read a ''book'' that says they aint a God. All depends on what you are looking for. Me personaly wasnt looking in or reading a book to find God, he found me and i answerd his calling.
<quoted text>
So is God still real to you?
Thanks for sharing, and i as you say.
My Faith has also found its resting spot as well, content and unmoveable..
No.

I came to realize later in life that God had never been real to me and that my struggles with religion sprang form an inner core of skepticism that has been part of my psyche from my earliest memories, which begin sometime before my fourth birthday. I so wanted to believe. I really tried to for a very long time. In the end, it required more effort than I could muster. So I relaxed and allowed myself to be myself.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#164656 Apr 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, having no education in the sciences is in fact a wasted life. Education is how intelligent people move forward,
Im moving forward with great speed, and well off i might add. Accomplished that without a science book, dufec.. Its you who should get educated and learn how to communicate on a civil level, other than that of a self absorbd arrogant prick behind a computer screen tapping a key board!
its how we learn about the world around us, it's what got our species out of the cave and on to the moon. NOT having a basic education in the sciences means you are willfully ignorant.
Really? we went to the moon? Surely you dont believe that do ya??:> That was staged in hollywood..... You should try reading the only BOOK worth reading, Holy Bible... It will take you above and beyond the moon. It's you who remain willfully ignorant, a fool. Those who are ignorant let them remain ignorant, so please carry on..
Being such should be shameful for you, I'm not sure why it isn't.
You claim to be uneducated in the sciences yet you accuse someone else of having a narrow mind. This makes you seem not only uneducated but incredibly stupid. Try reading a book, start with a book on science, anyone will do for a start, Good luck!!!
Knowledge abounds but wisdom is rare. Hats off to the science world, they have done many great things. So get ur panties out of a wadd.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr shinningelectr0n 1,153,060
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Bruin For Life 28,359
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr Pearl Jam 306,952
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 2 hr Cowobunga 201,150
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 3 hr budd 2,658
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Tue Roy the Boy 685
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Tue The Real Daniel S... 281
More from around the web