Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,477

Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking. Full Story

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3878 Jan 19, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>I see. So you want to see family level evolution, which tends to take millions of years in the wild, happen in a single generation, or even a few hundred generations? You don't see the problem with this???

Family level changes take a long time to happen *because* they are larger changes. But we do have fossil records of many transitions between family level groups. The most obvious one is that between certain dinosaurs and early birds, but this is hardly the only known transition. Another is the very well documented one between the reptiles and the early mammals. Another is between the rhipidistian fishes and the early amphibians. The triobites had several different orders and we have documentation of the transitions between this level (which is above the family level) for them.

So, no, we simply do not expect to see a new family develop within the time span of human history, especially a vertebrate family. The suggestion that evolution stands or falls on our ability to see this is just silly. It is similar to expecting to see a single star go through several stages of its cycle as we watch.
"I see. So you want to see family level evolution, which tends to take millions of years in the wild, happen in a single generation, or even a few hundred generations? You don't see the problem with this???"

No not at all. I just want proof of it.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3879 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Wait, so in a mere 5,000 years, a Liger/Tigon pair turned into lions, tigers, cheetahs, servals, ocelots, lynx, bobcats, cougars, and housecats?

Sounds like some kind of hyper-evolution.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#3880 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow thanks for that tidbit.
The point was that even if there had was a town of Nazareth at the time Jesus was supposed to have existed, that's not evidence he was a real person.(Can't believe I had to explain that...)

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3881 Jan 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>Please, take a basic science class.

Langoliers wrote, "
"The fossil record, however, is quite incomplete."

That's what one would expect! Percentage wise, very few dead things become fossilized.

Langoliers wrote, "
Here's one major reason why: Sediment has to cover an organism's remains in order for the long fossilization process to begin. Most organisms decompose before this can happen. Fossilization odds increase if the organism happened to exist in large numbers or lived in or around sediment. For example, trilobites, ancient marine arthropods, met both criteria, so they're rather common fossils. The Tyrannosaurus rex, however, is far rarer. It was large and land-dwelling, and as a top predator made up a far smaller percentage of the population.
Csnip)
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta... ;

Did you understand any of that?
Langoliers wrote, "
"Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
Fred Williams
January 2002

One of the most effective pitches evolutionists use to sell their theory is their claim that the fossil record supports evolution. This could not be farther from the truth; in fact the fossil record provides powerful and overwhelming evidence that evolution did not occur on earth. So how is the evolutionist able to effectively sell to their audience the precise opposite of what the data shows? They achieve this by employing a clever sleight-of-hand with the fossil data that can easily be missed by any reasonable person. The purpose of this article is to expose this sleight-of-hand, which will then dissolve the false illusion it creates. Once the curtain is pulled and the illusion exposed, the truth can clearly be seen – the fossil record is an overwhelming and devastating contradiction to evolution.
The Sleight-of-Hand
Here’s the catch, the magic behind the illusion. Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil. Why is this important? The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less!1 What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record? That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding from you. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!2
If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE!"

Why do fundies think using the caps lock key makes up for their lack of a rational argument?

Langoliers wrote, "
The remarkable completeness of this vast portion of the fossil record thwarts evolutionists from cooking up "transitionals" because speculation is not so easy when you have entire specimens. There is not the wild guesswork inherent when dealing with willy-nilly fragments of a tooth here, a leg bone there.""

And, of course, it makes sense that you would find more of some types of animals than of others.
Of course you do know that these quotes have come from science web pages such as " science.howstuffworks.com "

Save your comments for them.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#3883 Jan 19, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
Not replace just be the normal...As time goes by we leave behind cults and myth. Religion is crutch for weak minded scared sheep....
And anti-religious garbage like yours above is used to bolster the ego's of weak minded scared sheep like yourself above belief systems that formed the western world, produced some of its greatest minds and pionered science itself, morality, law, universities, knowlege & culture, the arts.....

Thje idea that science will replace religion is called the "secularization theisis"... although many pedestrian atheists still subscribe to it, it has been shown to be false, with the worlds people becoming more religious not less.

Weak minds however can (in their own minds) hoist themselves about billions of believers both now and in the past byu simple minded tactic of considering religious belief to be "silly" or "simple minded crutch" and the like..

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#3882 Jan 19, 2013
ooops
The point was that even if there was a town of Nazareth at the time Jesus was supposed to have existed, that's not evidence he was a real person.(Can't believe I had to explain that...)

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#3884 Jan 19, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if the Bible Jesus is a legend based on one character or an amalgamation of several individuals in the past, the end result is the character as described in the bible, multiplying dead fish and inanimate loaves of bread, transubstantiating liquids, reanimating corpses, and levitating into the sky. THAT Jesus never existed.
No question about that.
But I still wonder if there was someone the myth is based on.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3885 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"I see. So you want to see family level evolution, which tends to take millions of years in the wild, happen in a single generation, or even a few hundred generations? You don't see the problem with this???"
No not at all. I just want proof of it.
And why is the available fossil record not proof of such? Take, for example, the dinosaur to bird transition. or, if you prefer, the reptile to early mammal transition.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#3886 Jan 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No question about that.
But I still wonder if there was someone the myth is based on.
Meh! Probably many somebodies IMHO. Remember, there was a prophecy to be fulfilled at the time and there were many "contenders" (the messiah prophecy).
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#3887 Jan 19, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And why is the available fossil record not proof of such? Take, for example, the dinosaur to bird transition. or, if you prefer, the reptile to early mammal transition.
What about the horse, dont they have a the most complete fossil record of the evolution of the horse?

I read something to that effect some years ago.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#3888 Jan 19, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Go look on thi vey thread under the name "Fitz" to see examples of authentic religious belief and its more than apt understanding of science.
I find the atheists to often be ignorant of scince and extremley bigoted and small minded and totally ignorant what authentic religioon bings to the table intellectually & morally
II
Which religion are you referring to?

All of them?

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#3889 Jan 19, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
And anti-religious garbage like yours above is used to bolster the ego's of weak minded scared sheep like yourself above belief systems that formed the western world, produced some of its greatest minds and pionered science itself, morality, law, universities, knowlege & culture, the arts.....
Thje idea that science will replace religion is called the "secularization theisis"... although many pedestrian atheists still subscribe to it, it has been shown to be false, with the worlds people becoming more religious not less.
Weak minds however can (in their own minds) hoist themselves about billions of believers both now and in the past byu simple minded tactic of considering religious belief to be "silly" or "simple minded crutch" and the like..
Religion is dying not growing...I have seen in many towns churches close and church parking lots half full at best....RELIGION IS DYING......DONT LIE.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#3890 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So to you it matters not that world leaders in archeology are uncovering Nazareth ruins and have concluded that Nazareth was indeed a town that existed in the days of Christ. Go Figure!
Who are these archaeologists and why are they world leaders in their field?

Please share this with us.

I for one, would like to know what their accomplishments are that set them apart from the rest.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#3891 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>

There is one Kind of Rabbit.
Really?

Just one species of rabbit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit

Better look again.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3892 Jan 19, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And why is the available fossil record not proof of such? Take, for example, the dinosaur to bird transition. or, if you prefer, the reptile to early mammal transition.
A fossil can only be proof of what once lived. It cannot tell you or anyone what it planned on turning into. A transition fossil is nothing more the a fossil of what once lived. Science can Guess at the probabilities that it used to be this animal and later became that animal. There is noway a fossil can prove it came from one kind of animal or another. A fossil is only proof of what it was once was.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#3893 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
A fossil can only be proof of what once lived. It cannot tell you or anyone what it planned on turning into. A transition fossil is nothing more the a fossil of what once lived. Science can Guess at the probabilities that it used to be this animal and later became that animal. There is noway a fossil can prove it came from one kind of animal or another. A fossil is only proof of what it was once was.
Yes, that is true. And a fossil can not show you in what ways its children were different from that animal. As those differences progressed over time, evolution resulted.

So what is it about evolution that you are not getting?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3894 Jan 19, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Really?

Just one species of rabbit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit

Better look again.
No you fool, read it again.
You do know how to read?
You've shown no proof of that here.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3895 Jan 19, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Who are these archaeologists and why are they world leaders in their field?

Please share this with us.

I for one, would like to know what their accomplishments are that set them apart from the rest.
According to Yardenna Alexandre, excavation director on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority,“The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus. The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period. From the few written sources that there are, we know that in the first century CE Nazareth was a small Jewish village, located inside a valley. Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period”.

In the excavation a large broad wall that dates to the Mamluk period (the fifteenth century CE) was exposed that was constructed on top of and “utilized” the walls of an ancinet building. This earlier building consisted of two rooms and a courtyard in which there was a rock-hewn cistern into which the rainwater was conveyed. The artifacts recovered from inside the building were few and mostly included fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries CE). In addition, several fragments of chalk vessels were found, which were only used by Jews in this period because such vessels were not susceptible to becoming ritually unclean.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#3896 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No you fool, read it again.
You do know how to read?
You've shown no proof of that here.
Sure, I know that you don't understand what a species is.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3897 Jan 19, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>As I said, it is a fact that the universe is currently expanding and was once hotter and denser than it is now. It is also a fact that it was once hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to happen everywhere. What happened before about 10^(-9) seconds into the expansion phase, we simply don't have evidence to say.

The 'spinning singularity' is one I have never seen in any scientific context. The Big Bounce is a possibility, depending on which version of quantum gravity is correct. The 'something from nothing' is another possibility as a quantum fluctuation from a vacuum (the version of nothing implied here).

The current scientific consensus is called the LCDM theory (It uses the greek letter lambda instead of L, though). What happened before that theory kicks in, we simply do not know because we simply do not have any evidence from that time period. And science, unlike religion, is evidence driven.

We have conclusions based on the evidence. No other theory fits the evidence at this point. If you have an alternative, please publish it so it can be discussed. But that alternative better be able to explain the *details* of the fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation, the abundances of light elements, the red-shifts of distant galaxies, the effects seen via gravitational lensing, the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, etc.

I won't hold my breath.
"The 'spinning singularity' is one I have never seen in any scientific context"

"Wisp theory proposes that the collapse of a spinning ultra-supermassive black hole created a big bang event that formed the current universe. And prior to that, the black hole had been steadily growing, feeding on an expired universe."

"It is likely that the spin of the black hole causes the surrounding wisp space to rotate, which in turn causes it to stretch and reduce its density. In this rotating wisp space matter-fractals’ shapes would distort, becoming pear-shaped instead of spherical. Their shapes would attempt to restore to circular symmetry, and in doing so would produce a net additional force directed towards the black hole. The effect is similar to that which causes the Pioneer spacecraft to experience an additional retarding force – see chapter 5, section 5.6 (Pioneers’orbital discrepancies).
The expansion of wisp space in a rotating galaxy causes an effect that is similar to a galactic mass increase. This explains the mystery of the illusive ‘dark matter’, which is believed to cause the stars to orbit faster."

"Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded"

www.truthandscience.net/thebigbang.htm

Big Bang theorists claim the original singularity was spinning faster and faster until it exploded and then ..."

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
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 17 min _Bad Company 141
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 34 min woodtick57 2,410
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 40 min thetruth 34
God' existence 42 min thetruth 67
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 54 min thetruth 142
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 57 min thetruth 232,879
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 16 hr _Bad Company 23,198
More from around the web