Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,983

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Full Story
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#65509 Dec 4, 2012
You lack any edge.
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
There are always two sides to a coin:

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#65510 Dec 4, 2012
Thinking wrote:
We can see those "embryonic tails". They're fact.
<quoted text>
Yes, but what you see is not what you suppose.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65511 Dec 4, 2012
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but what you see is not what you suppose.
As in the theory of vestigial organs, which includes things that look like tails, egg yolk sacs and the suggestion of fish gills. This supposed evidence of manís evolution from animals is utterly false and for a very logical reason. One cannot identify organs totally lacking in function.

In the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionist biologist S.R. Scadding states:

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65512 Dec 4, 2012
Isn't it sad how hard they work to remain enslaved to the superstitious beliefs of ancient Palestinians?
Thinking wrote:
We can see those "embryonic tails". They're fact.
<quoted text>

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65513 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
There are always two sides to a coin:
The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins or fish actually changing into tetrapod limb bones.
...
Do you really think evolution happens within an individual animal such that it could be "observed" actually changing? That's insane and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

But we don't even need to look at Acanthostega to consider "transitional" animals. ALL animals are always under environmental pressure to change and are ALWAYS "transitional". Even the one that don't appear to change much ove rdeep time are still by definition "transitional".

The insistence on "transitional fossils" is nothing more than a strawman fallacy created by creationists.

The very idea of "species" is a human categorization to make study of biology easier -- we made the word up. Animals themselves could care less how we try to divide them into discrete categories.

Look at the platypus or the walking catfish or countless other animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomic ranking system.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#65514 Dec 4, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think evolution happens within an individual animal such that it could be "observed" actually changing? That's insane and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
But we don't even need to look at Acanthostega to consider "transitional" animals. ALL animals are always under environmental pressure to change and are ALWAYS "transitional". Even the one that don't appear to change much ove rdeep time are still by definition "transitional".
The insistence on "transitional fossils" is nothing more than a strawman fallacy created by creationists.
The very idea of "species" is a human categorization to make study of biology easier -- we made the word up. Animals themselves could care less how we try to divide them into discrete categories.
Look at the platypus or the walking catfish or countless other animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomic ranking system.
OK, I accept that you make things up.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65515 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
There are always two sides to a coin:
The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins or fish actually changing into tetrapod limb bones.
Incorrect. The features of the acanthostega identify it as transitional. Perhaps you don't know what it means to be transitional?
Dr. Colin Patterson, an eminent palaeontologist explains why have these fossils fail to qualify as missing links....
"As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
In other words, fossils such as Acanthostega are regarded by some evolutionary enthusiasts as "missing links" not because they actually are, but because they are believed to be. If belief is all it takes to make a truth in your world, you should have no problem accepting the "belief" that the universe was created by a god.
A misunderstanding of Patterson's point. We never *know* exact ancestry from the fossil record. We do not know if one particular species is ancestral to another, later species. The information we have is simply not detailed enough for that determination. BUT, we can and do have enough data to say which *families* are ancestral to which later families. To be transitional means to be related to the actual ancestors closely enough that the family ancestry is established.
TalkOrigins? You're kidding, right? That website is known as "the uneducated atheist's Bible." It's not only woefully out-of-date but seriously misleading.
I didn't mention talk.origins at all. While it is a source of a lot of good information, it *is* out of date in many ways. The subsequent research, though, has only verified evolution, not shown it wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65516 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
As in the theory of vestigial organs, which includes things that look like tails, egg yolk sacs and the suggestion of fish gills. This supposed evidence of manís evolution from animals is utterly false and for a very logical reason. One cannot identify organs totally lacking in function.
In the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionist biologist S.R. Scadding states:
"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."
Again, a misunderstanding of Scadding's point. Vestigial organs do not give any *special* evidence of evolution above and beyond the fact that they are homologous organs. But homology itself *does* give evidence for ancestry and hence, of evolution.

From the same paper of Scadding:

"Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs.... While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument ... asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution."

"Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality."

Perhaps you should attempt to actually understand what an author is claiming before making the assertion that they agree with your argument.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65517 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
Common ancestry? You mean like the fish Coelacanth for example, supposedly extinct 70 million years ago and presented by evolutionists as a "transitional form" between marine and land creatures? It was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since?
Already addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1...
postscript wrote:
There is no reason to believe that fish were radically different eons ago from what they are now. To suggest that they lived long enough in shallow water to turn gills into lungs is absurd hence the lack of transitional forms.
I guess you missed these transitional forms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.h...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65518 Dec 4, 2012
Prove it.
nanoanomaly wrote:
Why should I be expected to prove anything to you if scientists don't have to?
Because your claim wasn't a scientific claim.
nanoanomaly wrote:
I remember what you spewed, that's good enough for me.
In other words, you can't produce any evidence to support your claim. Yeah, no surprise there.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65519 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution
No, Acanthostega is evidence in *support* of common descent.
postscript wrote:
Dr. Colin Patterson, an eminent palaeontologist...
The same Patterson who wrote: "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes..."
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65520 Dec 4, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think evolution happens within an individual animal such that it could be "observed" actually changing? That's insane and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
Evolutution has never been observed and it never will. If evolution were true - transitional evidence should be abundantly available in fossilized forms. Period. The fact that paleontologists and anthropologists have been looking for them ever since Darwin fabricated his bogus theory says they don't exist.
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>But we don't even need to look at Acanthostega to consider "transitional" animals. ALL animals are always under environmental pressure to change and are ALWAYS "transitional". Even the one that don't appear to change much ove rdeep time are still by definition "transitional".
There is a big difference between environmental adaptation within a species and evolution involving transitional forms from one species to an entirely different one i.e. lizards to birds. Fish might adapt to pesticides in their watery environment over a period of time, but they are not going to sprout wings and tail feathers and fly out of a lake!
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>The insistence on "transitional fossils" is nothing more than a strawman fallacy created by creationists.
And it is also the embarrassing bane of evolutionists who can't find the necessary fossils to prove their theory.
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>The very idea of "species" is a human categorization to make study of biology easier -- we made the word up. Animals themselves could care less how we try to divide them into discrete categories.
I've heard some silly excuses from you atheists about the lack of fossil evidence, but this one takes the cake. LOL!
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>Look at the platypus or the walking catfish or countless other animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomic ranking system.
Mother Nature is chock full of remarkable examples of creatures that don't fit science's assessment of reality. But this doesn't change the fact that a platypus was a platypus when it first appeared, and it still is.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65521 Dec 4, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Already addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1...
<quoted text>
I guess you missed these transitional forms:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.h...
Johnny come lately.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65522 Dec 4, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, a misunderstanding of Scadding's point. Vestigial organs do not give any *special* evidence of evolution above and beyond the fact that they are homologous organs. But homology itself *does* give evidence for ancestry and hence, of evolution.
From the same paper of Scadding:
"Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs.... While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument ... asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution."
"Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality."
Perhaps you should attempt to actually understand what an author is claiming before making the assertion that they agree with your argument.
You atheists are a riot. You revere scientists, but only when they agree with your half-baked unsubstantiated notions.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65523 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
You atheists are a riot. You revere scientists
I revere those who practice good science.

Creationists don't practice any science.

So I have no reason to revere them.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65524 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutution has never been observed and it never will. If evolution were true - transitional evidence should be abundantly available in fossilized forms. Period. The fact that paleontologists and anthropologists have been looking for them ever since Darwin fabricated his bogus theory says they don't exist.
<quoted text>
There is a big difference between environmental adaptation within a species and evolution involving transitional forms from one species to an entirely different one i.e. lizards to birds. Fish might adapt to pesticides in their watery environment over a period of time, but they are not going to sprout wings and tail feathers and fly out of a lake!
<quoted text>
And it is also the embarrassing bane of evolutionists who can't find the necessary fossils to prove their theory.
<quoted text>
I've heard some silly excuses from you atheists about the lack of fossil evidence, but this one takes the cake. LOL!
<quoted text>
Mother Nature is chock full of remarkable examples of creatures that don't fit science's assessment of reality. But this doesn't change the fact that a platypus was a platypus when it first appeared, and it still is.
There are thousands of fossils which support evolution. But even if there were only 1, it would be 1 more than any evidence for any magical **poof** from some invisible supernatural sky being.

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy and DNA shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!"

But the real bottom line is that it doesn't matter how much evidence there is for biological evolution. Our current understanding for how biology works allows us to make testable predictions about biology. This one ability has greatly improved food production, animal husbandry, and human healthcare.

The only thing that could EVER remove our current theory of biological evolution from scientific consideration would be the ability to make more accurate testable predictions.

If you can't offer that, you've got nothing. In fact you've got less than nothing. All you're doing is whining about stuff you apparently don't understand.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65525 Dec 4, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
There are thousands of fossils which support evolution. But even if there were only 1, it would be 1 more than any evidence for any magical **poof** from some invisible supernatural sky being.
Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy and DNA shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!"
But the real bottom line is that it doesn't matter how much evidence there is for biological evolution. Our current understanding for how biology works allows us to make testable predictions about biology. This one ability has greatly improved food production, animal husbandry, and human healthcare.
The only thing that could EVER remove our current theory of biological evolution from scientific consideration would be the ability to make more accurate testable predictions.
If you can't offer that, you've got nothing. In fact you've got less than nothing. All you're doing is whining about stuff you apparently don't understand.
The only reason you give Darwinism any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes a creator, and to call yourself an atheist, you must mindlessly reject gods at every turn and corner. But obviously you doubt, or you would not feel compelled to defend your disbelief on public forums like this. To say absolutely that God does not exist, one would have to be omnipotent himself, he would have to know ALL things and based on the caliber of your posts, you fall dismally short of the target.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65526 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
The only reason you give Darwinism any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes a creator
Imagine if someone said "The only reason you give the Germ Theory of Disease any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes disease being caused by demons."

That's how I see your statement.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65527 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The only reason you give Darwinism any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes a creator, and to call yourself an atheist, you must mindlessly reject gods at every turn and corner. But obviously you doubt, or you would not feel compelled to defend your disbelief on public forums like this. To say absolutely that God does not exist, one would have to be omnipotent himself, he would have to know ALL things and based on the caliber of your posts, you fall dismally short of the target.
But that is NOT the atheistic position. That some strawman caricature someone has fed you, and it's a total fallacy.

Literally a-theism is "without theism". More accurately it is "without belief". It is most definitely NOT a substitution of one belief for another.

You claim that there is a god. As an atheist, I simply doubt YOUR claim made without evidence. And that's really no different than what you do with anybody else's "god" claim. When a Hindu person claims that Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma exist, you doubt their claim and ask for evidence ... real, independently verifiable evidence.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65528 Dec 4, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine if someone said "The only reason you give the Germ Theory of Disease any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes disease being caused by demons."
That's how I see your statement.
Scared of demons. Thought so. No god, no sin, no hell, is that it?

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 7 min woodtick57 2,302
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 min polymath257 232,803
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 24 min Crazy Mess 1
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 1 hr _Bad Company 124
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr _Bad Company 23,186
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 16 hr Thinking 28
God' existence 16 hr Thinking 57
More from around the web