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

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#137773 Nov 14, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Going with your statement,{It didn't fuse gradually. It fused in one go. After that, it was organized gradually}.
Where is the gradual and slow change?
This Chromosome #2 fusing is telling me there was no gradual change.
But one very big major change.
This defies what evolution has been teaching.
So when did this fusing take place?
Oh, sorry, missed the date. It had to happen after the Pan/hominin split, so after 6.3 million years ago.

That's about the best I can tell you since I'm not up to date on that. It wouldn't really matter when it happened, but it could only happen after that time. I would guess later, to be honest, probably just before Lucy. Although, it may have happened after her, too.

Without genes taken from ancient bones, it's impossible to say. Well, that's not really true. We could probably test the mutation rate on the centromeres and come up with a guess, but as far as I know, that hasn't been done.

I just checked and it looks as if the Devinsonian DNA has the fused chromosome as we do, so that puts it at least about 2 million years old (b/c H. erectus left Africa roughly 2 million years ago and evolved into Devinsonian hominins around 400 000 - 800 000 years ago).

Here's one of the original papers on it, so you can see why scientists have decided that this hypothesis is confirmed (but it gives no dates):

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.p...

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#137774 Nov 14, 2012
Holyfuckingshit!

LOL

Poor Bob.
Ban Stalkers

Franklin Park, IL

#137775 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Should I start with the alphabet song and just work my way up?
Just so you know, you are in one of the sexiest cities in the world, and it is 11:47 pm and you can't even find a rat that's finds you attractive. A brain and boob implant might help ya. Silicone for both.

Are you sure that your dad did not want a boy, so he tied your chest with duct tape and kept your breast 12 year old size? Wait, perhaps another reason.

~~~SMILE~~~
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#137776 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear what you're saying but I disagree.
God knows what we're all gonna do but that doesn't mean it's preordained. WE don't know.
Also, God allows us to make our own decisions in life, otherwise there's be no atheists.
We can all act on our own discretion. THAT is free will.
No, of course YOU don't know, but God does. God see's that tomorrow you're going to take a different route to work, can you now, take one that is different? A week from now God knows that you will hit a scratch ticket for $2,000 dollars, is it at all possible for you to NOT buy that ticket? If what you say about Gd being all knowing, all seeing, then your path through life is set, God knows exactly what path you will take, you have no other choice but to follow that path. You think you are making decisions but it's an illusion, those decisions you're gong to make 5 min. from now are preordained. You have no free will!!!!!
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#137777 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I've tried to explain it to him in very, very simple terms. He either is incapable of learning or doesn't want to.
For example, he reposts stuff about "living fossils" every now and again. As in "why are horseshoe crabs still around???" Then I explain to him how the "species concept" works and how he's not invoking it at all.
Then he screams and cries out "why don't chimpanzees drive???" And I explain the concept of "niche" and "adaptive peak" but...but...I might as well be teaching a crocodile to sing.
He's one of this so indoctrinated in his religious beliefs that his mind simply cannot accept evolution. In doing so, he thinks it will invalidate his beliefs. You shouldn't be surprised, I'm sure you've seen this kind of mind poisoning before. But please keep trying as I enjoy the information you provide, it broadens my understanding.
blacklagoon

Hyde Park, MA

#137779 Nov 14, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I donít think the majority of scientist are involved in some kind of mass conspiracy. Understanding that there are many disciplines of science. Only a very small percentage are evolutionist. These evolutionist truly believe in their discipline.
However, there is a hell of a lot of speculation and imagination in this field. Great spans are missing in their theory. It is and remains a science of the imagination. Full of artist conceptions to convince students and the public that it indeed happened.
Itís an interesting theory. But it lacks any real substance. I have looked at the fossil record. Itís pretty damn scarce for human evolution. A single bone from six million years ago. Another millions later. Here a bone and there a bone. O McDonald had a farm E I - EI - Oooo.
Doctor, Iím going to have to remain a sinner when it comes to macro evolution. I just canít come down to the alter over a speculation based theory.
In 2009 there were 135,000 articles published in peer review and scientific journal supporting evolution. Guess how many were published refuting the FACTs of evolution......yep, ZERO, why is that do you suppose? If the TOE is so chalked full of speculation rather than hard cold facts, why has no one published anything pointing out these alleged flaws? Maybe you could publish something. Is there any reason why you couldn't have something published in a reputable scientific journal? If you feel so strong about how wrong the TOE is, and seem to know without doubt, then do the world a favor and publish something so we can all know how flawed the Theory is. Of course you just might have to demonstrate some knowledge on the subject, maybe make the publisher aware of your credentials as an expert on the subject. I'll be waiting for your article, I can't wait to hear how 135,000 experts on the subject are totally wrong, and you are right. Good Luck.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137780 Nov 14, 2012
Ban Stalkers wrote:
<quoted text>THIS IS THE DEAL FOLKS, THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO LIVES AND ARE LOSERS. SO, THEY TRY TO GET INTO PEOPLE'S LIVES SO THEY CAN ATTACH THEMSELVES TO A LIFE. YES, LEACHES, BLOOD SUCKING FOR LIFE.
I fink sumbody's pwojectinnnng :( Poor baby, it's ok.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137781 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave is yours. Dave is so yours.
Damn! Jedi mind trick again!
Yes! It never fails. You can have sloppy seconds :)

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137782 Nov 14, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, here's a tough one for you: Dave or Eagle?
Easy - Dave. He is an obstinate jerk, but all his batshit lunacy is charming, in a crazy old person kind of way. Eagle just doesn't have that certain something.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137783 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we use duct tape?
If so, then Eagle, no contest.
If not, then Eagle, no contest.
But it's better with duct tape (apologies to Eagle).
Pshhh

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#137784 Nov 14, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Recently a senior NASA scientist involved in Mars exploration was fired because he came out and said he didnít believe in macro evolution. He as a case pending in court.
David Coppedge was not a senior scientist at NASA but a computer specialist who worked on the Casini mission to explore Saturn. It is quite possible to advance in IT without understanding science in a larger sense, which is why the term "computer scientist" is a misnomer more often than not. NASA attorneys argued that Coppedge was "a stubborn and disconnected employee who decided not to heed warnings to get additional training, even when it became clear the Cassini mission would be downsized and computer specialist positions eliminated," not because of his view, and Superior Court Judge Ernest Hiroshige agreed in a tentative ruling earlier this month.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#137785 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugh.. Here's one of many tests that show prayer DOES work:
"1. "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"
Methods
Cardiac patients from the San Francisco General Medical Center were randomly divided (using a computer-generated list) into two groups. The names of the patients in the "test" group were given to a group of Christians, who prayed for them while they were in the hospital. The intercessory prayer team members were chosen on the following basis:
Born again Christians on the basis of John 3:35
Led an active Christian life on the basis of
daily devotional prayer
fellowship in a local Christian church
The "placebo" group received no prayer. Neither the "test" nor the "placebo" group of patients knew if they were receiving prayer. Likewise, the hospital staff, doctors, or nurses were "blinded" since they did not know which patient belonged to which group.
Results
Statistics were acquired from the prayer and placebo groups both before and after prayer, until the patients were discharged from the hospital. There were no statistical differences between the placebo and the prayer groups before prayer was initiated. The results demonstrated that patients who were prayed for suffered "less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently intubated and ventilated." Statistics demonstrated the the prayer group had a statistically significantly lower severity score based upon the hospital course after entry (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis of all the parameters measured demonstrated that the outcomes of the two groups were even more statistically significant (p < 0.0001). In science, the standard level of significance is when a "p value" is less than 0.05. A value of 0.01 means that the likelihood the result is because of chance is one in 100. A p value of 0.0001 indicates that in only one study out of 10,000 is the result likely to be due to chance. Table 2 from the study is reproduced below. The remarkable thing which one notices is that nearly every parameter measured is affected by prayer, although individually many categories do not reach the level of statistical significance due to sample size. However, multivariate analysis, which compares all parameters together produces a level of significance seldom reached in any scientific study (p < 0.0001). The author points out that the method used in this study does not produce the maximum effect of prayer, since the study could not control for the effect of outside prayer (i.e., it is likely many of the placebo group were prayed for by persons outside of the study). It is likely that a study which used only atheists (who had no Christian family or friends) would produce an even more dramatic result. However, since atheists make up only 1-2% of the population, it would be difficult to obtain a large enough sample size."
www.godandscience.org/.../pra ...
The basic problem with this study is that similar studies have shown contrary results, so that it fails a basic test of good science: repeatability.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#137786 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote: And Christianity & Catholicism are variations of an ancient religion. They are different.
Similar, yes. But still different. There's a lot if beliefs & traditions that Catholics do that Christians don't.

scaritual wrote: You mean Judaism?

LULZ>...
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you f_cking brick. I said Christianity..........
I know it's hard for you to comprehend. No need to get angry.

You mentioned: "Christianity & Catholicism are variations of an ancient religion"

Just what "ancient religion" were you talking about?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#137787 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And Christianity & Catholicism are variations of an ancient religion. They are different.
Similar, yes. But still different. There's a lot if beliefs & traditions that Catholics do that Christians don't.
The problem with your posts is not your concept, but your terminology. You use the word 'Christians' to denote members of both the whole of Christendom and a subset of it. I would suggest using an adjective to make your meaning clear, i.e.,'fundamentalist Christians' or 'vangelistic Christians' or even 'Biblical Christians' to indicate the subset rather than just 'Christians.' Isn't it worth the effort of typing a few more letters for the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion and the appearance of contradicting yourself?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#137788 Nov 14, 2012
booooots wrote:
<quoted text>Don't worry,some girls develop late. Maybe, when you turn 16 you fill out.
Daaaa! You promised not to tell!!!

River...are they...are they getting bigger?

sayyes sayyes sayyes!

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#137789 Nov 14, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Pshhh
What can I say? The Jedi mind trick you used was overwhelming.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#137790 Nov 14, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic problem with this study is that similar studies have shown contrary results, so that it fails a basic test of good science: repeatability.
I'm not sure what Riverside is talking about, but when I searched his key terms, this is what I came up with:

"Intercessory Prayer and Cardiovascular Disease Progression in a
Coronary Care Unit Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial"

"Conclusions: As delivered in this study, intercessory
prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after
hospitalization in a coronary care unit."

http://buckcash.com/opinions/iconspicsetc/May...

That's from the Mayo Clinic, about the most respectable medical research clinic around.

I found this study that, at first glance backs up RR, but if you read anything to do with the study, it's a complex joke that aims to make fun of people like RR. Here, their stated goal:

"To determine whether remote, retroactive intercessory prayer, said for a group of patients with a bloodstream infection, has an effect on outcomes."

That means "we want to see if prayer after someone has been healed and released is effective." So...they didn't pray for people not healed! hahaha

It goes on:

"Remote intercessory prayer said for a group of patients is associated with a shorter hospital stay and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection, even when the intervention is performed 4-10 years after the infection"

Isn't that awesome! So the next time you get sick, if you get better, remember to pray for yourself 4-10 years after the event. It will help the past.

But there's more:

"Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was associated with a shorter stay in hospital and a shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection. Mortality was lower in the intervention group, but the difference between the groups was not significant. A larger study might have shown a significant reduction in mortality."

meaning they invalidated their findings! The best is their references:

"Borges JL. Labyrinths. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1970. A new refutation of time."

I laughed and laughed.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#137791 Nov 14, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know all the facts Hiding.
Here we have a established scientist that has advanced to the top.
Leading a team of other scientist.
He worked for NASA 15 years. This wasnít a probationary employee.
But he wasn't an established scientist, he was a computer specialist. Leading a team in IT is hardly indicative of a rise to the top. those 15 years were actually part of the problem. The Casini mission is beginning to wind down, resulting in downsizing. Only those who had kept their skills sharp would be attractive to the managers of other projects. Not having done so, Coppedge was at risk for layoff anyway. The same goes for his apparent inability to work smoothly with others as part of a team.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#137792 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No, you f_cking brick. I said Christianity..........
scaritual wrote:
scaritual wrote: You mean Judaism?
LULZ>...
<quoted text> I know it's hard for you to comprehend. No need to get angry.
You mentioned: "Christianity & Catholicism are variations of an ancient religion"
Just what "ancient religion" were you talking about?
He probably meant Judaism. It's pretty unlikely he meant Sumerian mythos, though it's possible, since he uses the word "ancient."

:)
:p
:)

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#137793 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Eagle...why does the Chromosome fusion have to be gradual according to evolutionary theory?
On the contrary, the fusion itself could only happen in one go. After that, evolution gradually changed it to what it is today (some mutations on the teleomeres, some rearranging of DNA).
If you know anything about meiosis, you can understand why the fusion had to happen in one event. If you don't know anything about meiosis, it works like this:
During meiosis, all your chromosomes are divided into two (non-identical) as one germline cell becomes two sperm cells (I'm oversimplifying). They recombine in the egg.
Prior to meiosis, the germline cells divide by mitosis - that breaks them apart at the centromeres, replicates each chromosome, divides the cell wall (with each half cell taking half the identical chromosomes). Then, meiosis and, if the sperm is lucky, recombination.
The division of chromosomes is done by enzymes. They act like scissors, cutting the chromosomes in half. During mitosis, that's done at the centromeres. During meiosis, that's done at roughly the halfway mark. Immediately after mitosis, different enzymes stitch the chromosomes back together. After meiosis, the stitching has to wait until fertilization with the egg.
The "stitching" enzymes will stitch anything they find. So if, for whatever reason, the chromosomal material couldn't get out of the way in time, the enzyme would include it in the stitching. It's a dumb enzyme, right?
That's what happened. In this one, extremely rare instance, the wrong chromosome was too slow in being moved out of the cell half. So it got stitched together, making chromosome 22.
That could only happen in one event. It couldn't happen in more than one event, b/c the event requires the genetic material from both parts of the now chromosome 22. Secondly, it's such an unlikely event that it would extremely improbable to have, say, 1/4 of a chromosome being attached and then, at some later date, another quarter and another. Third, we only find 2 teleomere fragments in the middle of chromosome 22, not a several - so, only one event.
Next, Darwin was wrong about many details about evolution. He is 160 years out of date. Sorry. Compared to what we know now, Darwin was drawing on chalk boards. Yes, he came up with the central theory, but he was wrong on the speed, didn't know anything about genetics, and added some garbage to his book that simply doesn't work.
The speed of evolution is only limited to the mutation rate and the kinds of mutations that can occur. That's it. When environments change very rapidly - say, a large meteor hits the planet - species either evolve or go extinct. If the mutation rate is slow and the species is a specialist, it's probably going extinct. If the mutation rate is high, it might be ok.
Last - what changes are you going to see in morphology with the fusion of the chromosomes? Why would you see any change in morphology?
The fusion of chromosome #2 in one is exciting.

This means that a human kind appeared suddenly with 46 chromosomes.

It also means the chromosomes have been unchanged since #2 first fused.

All this discussion proves man didnít evolve as claimed. A slow gradual change over 6 million years is not possible if chromosome #2 fused in one event.

This means there had to have been a first. A first man with the 46 chromosomes with #2 fused. That first man was Adam.

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 7 min MUQ1 22,249
Stump a theist with 2 questions 19 min TheHeadlines 64
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 42 min Jaimie 78
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 1 hr Patrick n Angela 4,105
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Patrick n Angela 473
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 2 hr yup 105
Introducing The Universal Religion (Feb '14) 14 hr Patrick 762
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••