Atheism

I have no problem with genuine humility--i suspect that when people object to someone's humility, they are actually objecting to the flannel-mouthed hypocrite who is not truely humble, but merely wearing humility as they would a fancy-dress costume.

But for one to recognize and acknowledge one's limitations, that kind of humility is, in my never humble opinion, a good thing.

Feeling a little thin-skinned lately?

Hingehead, what is really hilarious, no, pathetic, is that your response reveals you really didn't understand the information I shared.

What's really pathetic is, you think it is relevant and meaningful.

Natural Selection 3


While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest (f). Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes (g).



f. “Darwin complained his critics did not understand him, but he did not seem to realize that almost everybody, friends, supporters and critics, agreed on one point, his natural selection cannot account for the origin of the variations, only for their possible survival. And the reasons for rejecting Darwin’s proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), pp. 274–275.

“It was a shock to the people of the 19th century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.” Michael J. Behe, “Molecular Machines,” Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998, p. 35.

g. In 1980, the “Macroevolution Conference” was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.” He went on to say:

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

“In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said ‘We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.’ ” Ibid., p. 884.

As stated earlier, micro + time ≠ macro.

“One could argue at this point that such ‘minor’ changes [microevolution], extrapolated over millions of years, could result in macroevolutionary change. But the observational evidence will not support this argument... [examples given] Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy—especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], not transformation....For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change.” Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered,” Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

What claptrap. Darwin himself used the analogies of " derived island" forms and their related root species that live on the mainlands. Darwin actually presented the concept of migration of species from the mainland OR he actually speculated whether landforms could actually separate by some means. DArwin saw the many types of tortoises that lived on several of the Galapogos Islands.

Yet, the fossil evidence, and geologic data (regarding times of first appearances and extintion of species) seem to support micro and macro evolution. All these species didnt appear all at once, You dont see any dinosaurs walking around today do you? They appeared , thrived, then disappeared. All within a measurable time interval. I wonder what Creationists have to say about that?

Im amazed that you quickly accept microevolution (as evolution within genera ) when micro evolution would include such things as major morphological differences , all of which can become fixed in a population. You seem to want to delimit all evolution as only within a genera. You realize how simple minded that is?

Yeh, of course, lets just deny what the genetics says and instead just look at fossils. The problem with Creationism is that it cant handle the huge Everest of evidence that exists in support of evolution.

You have, as a good little Creationist, learned to cut and paste, rather than think.

I would read that as referring to the gonad operations fm. That is the "origin of the variations". Looked at superficially I mean.

Bummer about priorities, agreed.

I should think they might ask you to tell them something they hadn't heard many times before. I mean to say fm!! Talking like that to grown-ups is ridiculous. Although I suppose you don't think they are grown-ups. Your basic bottom line in all circumstances outside of fm fawning.

Wow! an actual response. Dialogue! Not contextless cut and pastes that are completely off thread topic! Clap, clap, clap.

Not stuck for something to say are you hinge?

Anybody can pull that stroke.

I smell poo.

Pahu does not have the polite instinct, to begin a thread of his/her own and leave us to be atheists on this thread.

Agreed. The idea that evolution is inevitably linked to atheism is fundamentally flawed. I'm sure there were atheists before evolution was posited as a theory, just as I'm sure there are now christians who are avid evolutionists.

There is no rule that an atheist has to accept evolution, any more than a deist has to. But I can't imagine the world without evolution. I know in that case I would still have the same conclusions, but I would have a lot less ammunition to feed an argument. It would be just my word, plus the fact that none of it (religion) can be demonstrated, against the dogmas. While I am aware that evolution does not address gods and religions, it, along with other sciences, does knock down dogmatic claims about gods and religions. It does all this, without barring the religious from their faith that a god or two exists.

I am a christian so to speak as I share most of the same thoughts that I perceive christ would have shared even though I see things very different than most christians as I do not believe in the man made god that they believe in!

This may seem very strange as I am not sure that there is even a god!

I bet no one has ever said any thing like that before! The reason I say this is because I love the philosophy that christ has shared! I do not read the bible as most do, "I read it as a book of philosophy!

I get what you mean. I'm an atheist enjoying the pastor's sermons when they touch on morality. When they touch on incredible miracles, you'll find me snoozing

If there wasn't a God than nothing would be wrong, therefore someone could come up to you and punch you and it wouldnt be wrong ..are you following? you coulnt say that isnt fair because without God nothing is right and nothing is wrong . when we are sick are body heal by building us back up .. if everything just came into being our bodys wouldnt have an order on how we heal..

Huh?
I thought Christians believed the opposite.