The Atheism Thread - Part 7

[Levsky]

I am an atheist and I would like you to know that not each of them stands up against the Church and religion. I'm not another immoral anticlerical like a lot of people think about atheists. In fact, I don't believe in God because I cannot - it's not a matter of will and that's how it looks like in most cases. Besides, I fully respect our whole latin civilization and its legacy which was derived from Europe and mostly shaped by Christian influences during the Middle Ages. I'm aware of its flaws and benefits but what is for me, as a man who was brought up in this culture, truly important is our universal and humanistic moral code, values and inheritance which, what I'm observing with heartbreaking sadness, more and more people are turning back from nowadays. I may not be an ideal person, I don't believe in God, but I hope I know what is essential in life and I don't consider myself another thoughtless and deprived of ideologies, convictions and respect to culture person (and I see around me loads of catholics who have such attitude). Allah or Jahwe or whatever... they can be perhaps only imagination's products but most important are the visible effects of religions impact on society, history and morality. I am one of many atheists who don't look down on it and criticize unreflectively.

 

[-Arya-]

Wanted to know if any other atheists here who have trouble with other atheists? People who have seen me before know I'm a pretty staunch atheist, but I have to admit that I have big problems with others who identify by that title.

I really dislike Richard Dawkins. His whole incident with Rebecca Watson totally soured me to him. I also really hate the r/atheism site on Reddit, which is just filled with massive, trollish a-holes. I find that I don't have too many atheist friends around, not just because of the lack of them, but because they always wanna talk about Dawkins, and I tell them I think Dawkins is an a-hole, and then we don't become friends after that.

I agree to an extent about some atheists being needlessly confrontational. I do have some atheist friends (though I don't think they would label themselves as such) but the topic of religion doesn't come up too often. Personally, I have a huge problem with the athiest label in the first place. Technically I am an atheist, but I never feel the urge to publicly make that known - it allows a huge quantity of misconceptions to be attached to oneself. Rather than do that, I simply explain my position, although as I've said before, this situation rarely occurs.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

So, god created Adam and Eve, whom then had some children and those brothers and sisters married one another eh? god sure loves him some incest perversion.

You'd think George R.R Martin wrote the bible

 

[The End]

I'll respond to this portion of your post and leave the rest to Doctor Evo.

You see, before Science even knew that chromosomes existed, it was already postulated by certain atheists

Plenty of christians accept evolution. Many theists have not had an issue with evolution. The popularity of creationism, more specifically the denial of evolution and common ancestry, is a relatively recent phenomenon and even so only among certain theists. Evolution is not atheistic. Science doesn't tell you whether or not there is a god. It's only if you want to put god into the gaps of knowledge that god would shrink. You talk about presuppositions but ironically, from where I'm sitting, you're the one that has trouble letting go of certain presuppositions - namely, that theists cannot also accept evolution and common descent.

that humankind evolved from chimps/apes. You do not walk through the doors of the lab with this kind of mindset (or presupposition) if you want to experience true Science or true, properly disciplined and vetted scientific endeavors. So knowing, if a scientist did not or does not set aside his or her presuppositional beliefs prior to genetic researchers finding a fused human chromosome (#2), one might make the leap that this explained at least why chimps have 48 and humans only have 46 chromosomes even though one evolved from the other. Don't you agree?

In this context, its a prediction - they'd predict that they'd find a link between humans and chimps, based on the theory of evolution which is supported by over a hundred years of work across multiple disciplines. Predictions are part of how science works and part of its power to explain.

The work on human chromosome 2 is published for any geneticist that wants to see it and repeat the tests. If the work is in some way flawed, anyone that is qualified is welcome to repeat the work and show how it is flawed. Until then, merely asserting that the evidence of human chromosome 2 fits with evolution and that humans and chimps share common ancestry only because of 'presuppositions', rings very hollow, and such empty claims ring very much of science denialism.

Question: [/B]Has the long standing (100 + years) atheistic belief that man evolved from chimps/apes skewed recent "scientific" conclusions made by some geneticists? (Rhetorical, but you and I both know the answer based on the now debunked claims made early on within genetic research.)

What is it about evolution that you think is atheistic? Are the theists that believe in god and believe in common descent between chimps and humans not true theists?

And do not just assert that the results are skewed - show it.

Let go of your own presuppositions before asserting that others are guilty of what you assert.


I'd also like to know the sources you're using.

 

[Shikamaru]

The majority of Christians in the Western world believe in evolution. Even back when I was a Christian, I still accepted the theory of evolution.

 

[The End]

Chromosomes can split or join with little effect on the genes themselves. One human chromosome, for example, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes (Yunis and Prakash 1982). Because the genes can still align, a change in chromosome number does not prevent reproduction. Chromosome counts can also change through polyploidy, where the entire genome is duplicated. Polyploidy, in fact, is a common mechanism of speciation in plants.

References:

Lewis, Harlan, 1993. "Clarkia", In: The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California, J. C. Hickman, ed., Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 786-793.
Nachman, M. W., S. N. Boyer, J. B. Searle and C. F. Aquadro, 1994. Mitochondrial DNA variation and the evolution of Robertsonian chromosomal races of house mice, Mus domesticus. Genetics 136(3): 1105-1120.
Yunis, Jorge, and Om Prakash, 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science 215: 1525-1530. See http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chr.bk1.html for Fig. 2a: Human and chimpanzee chromosomes 1-4.

 

[The End]

Show me where good Science invalidates some, any, or all of the KJV Bible?

I don't understand what you're asserting here. Are the only true theists, theists that believe the KJV bible literally?

KJV literal interpretation is contradicted by mounds of evidence across multiple fields, across many thousands upon thousands of published peer reviewed journals. The Earth is not the centre of the universe, the universe cannot literally be only 6000 years old, there's no evidence that there was ever a global flood, it is physically impossible for people to live until they are 900 years old, and the evidence that humans share common ancestry with apes is massive.

But only a fraction of theists believe in a literal interpretation of the KJV bible.

Just where do you think that the major evolutionary concepts came from?

Seriously, do you not know or understand the history and growth of evolution as an atheistic doctrine?

What on earth are you talking about? You sound like a conspiracy theorist, which frankly is another sign of science denialism. It's all a conspiracy to get rid of god!

 

[regwec]

I admit it took WAY WAY longer to come to grips with the timeline of the Creation Event, but the 1000 years as a day thingy sanded that smooth for me personally.

We're all entitled to believe whatever we like, but I must say I find that so depressing. It seems to imply that you managed, willfully, not only to shut out learning and logic, but to actually force yourself to regress on those attributes.

It's not my place to speculate whether you were under emotional strain at the time, but I hope you think it was all worth it.

 

[regwec]

All I can say to your response is that when you believe you know everything, you'll end up learning nothing.

Also, I keep an open mind, which apparently you do not. Personally, I'm good with that.

Keeping an open mind is not the same as treating evidence as immaterial.

 

[The End]

All I can say to your response is that when you believe you know everything, you'll end up learning nothing.

Ironically, this is another projection.

It's you that's claiming you know that god did everything exactly as described in the KJV bible, you're the one that believes you already know everything. You go as far as to reject other religious interpretations. YOU are the one that thinks you know everything.

Also, I keep an open mind, which apparently you do not. Personally, I'm good with that.

Apparently, you're not open to evidence. Science requires open-mindedness.

And you STILL haven't answered the question of how evolution is atheistic.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html

Claim CA602:

Evolution is atheistic.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 215.
Response:

For a claim that is so obviously false, it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth.

Many, perhaps most, evolutionists are not atheists. If you take the claim seriously, you must claim that the following people are atheists, to give just a few examples:

Sir Ronald Fisher -- the most distinguished theoretical biologist in the history of evolutionary thought. He was also a Christian (a member of the Church of England) and a conservative whose social views were somewhere to the right of Louis XIV.
Pope John Paul II -- a social conservative.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin -- a paleontologist and priest who taught that God guided evolution.
President Jimmy Carter -- a devout and active Southern Baptist.

More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

Anyone worried about atheism should be more concerned about creationism. Creationism can lead to a crisis of faith when people discover that its claims are false and its tactics frequently dishonest. This has led some people to abandon religion altogether (Greene n.d.). It has led others to a qualitatively different understanding of Christianity (Morton 2000).

By saying that only one religious interpretation is correct and universal, creationism typically is a rejection of every other religious interpretation. For example, young-earth creationists reject the religious interpretation that the universe is more than 10,000 years old (Sarfati 2004), and design theorists reject the idea that God has guided evolution (Dembski 1996). For people whose beliefs about God differ from those of a creationist, that creationism might just as well be atheistic.
Links:

NCSE. n.d. Voices for evolution: Statements from religious organizations. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp
References:

Clergy Letter Project. 2005. An open letter concerning religion and science. http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
Dembski, William A. 1996. What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design. http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_theologn.htm
Greene, Todd S. n.d. My motivation. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/motivation.html
Sarfati, Jonathan. 2004. Refuting Compromise. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
Morton, Glenn R. 2000. The transformation of a Young-earth Creationist. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 52(2): 81-83. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm
Further Reading:

Ruse, Michael. 2001. Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Incest was probably halfway common in our species' early years. That's why it's a really bad idea today, because most of us are already more closely related than you might think.

 

[regwec]

Incest was probably halfway common in our species' early years. That's why it's a really bad idea today, because most of us are already more closely related than you might think.

I think the fact that human siblings generally do not find one another sexually attractive is some indication that incest is not within our "nature".

 

[The End]

ANOTHER irony is that, when Old Timer's talking about believing both the bible and evolution not being viable, but he believes in an old earth, there are fundamentalists that would be happy to tell Old Timer that the bible and a believe in old Earth aren't viable together.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Yes, plants tend to handle genetic duplication and even cloning rather well. But are plants really alive in the same sense as humans are alive? But that's a question for another day....

Well, yes, they are, for the purposes of our discussion here. They have genomes, they have chromosomes, they reproduce sexually, and they must express their genes - and the mechanism by which they do so is, for all intents and purposes, virtually identical to the way we do it.

Let's not move the goalposts please. In general, we were/are speaking of two chromosomes fusing and or one or more chromosomes duplicating within the same kinds of animals or during macro-evolution over a period of time.

Nobody's moving the goalposts. I'm not sure that phrase means what you think it means. However, we ARE probably digressing from our primary topic of conversation, sure.

The fusion of chromosomes in other animals/mammals similar to that found on human chromosome #2. (Like with sheep, which have three such chromosomes. Rats (or mice?) too, but I forget the number of fused ones they actually have.

Fair enough. I was worried that you were trying to imply that the actual genetic sequence(s) were somehow similar or the same.

So I guess you are intimating that "the split" was "so deep in time" that we wouldn't find any record of it in either the chimps or the sheep today. Is this what you mean?

No, we certainly would, but the split is deep enough to necessitate comparisons with other species in order to be able to track these changes with any level of confidence. And looking to chromosomal fusions/duplications as evidence of common ancestry probably wouldn't be a very good approach, in this particular case.

Time and context both matter a great deal here.

I treat it as markedly equivalent when trying to find or sort out a logical scientific reason for the belief that two chimp chromosomes (now they say not from chimp #2 and an unknown one, but from chimp #13 & #14 if I'm not mistaken) fused to create a single chromosome in humans. "Evolutionary Science" makes the claim we find a record of the fusion of two chimp chromosomes within the human chromosome #2. I admit it is quite a leap, and I personally believe it is base more so on a presuppositional belief system or thinking rather than utilizing good scientific deduction.

You see, before Science even knew that chromosomes existed, it was already postulated by certain atheists that humankind evolved from chimps/apes. You do not walk through the doors of the lab with this kind of mindset (or presupposition) if you want to experience true Science or true, properly disciplined and vetted scientific endeavors. So knowing, if a scientist did not or does not set aside his or her presuppositional beliefs prior to genetic researchers finding a fused human chromosome (#2), one might make the leap that this explained at least why chimps have 48 and humans only have 46 chromosomes even though one evolved from the other. Don't you agree?


Question: Has the long standing (100 + years) atheistic belief that man evolved from chimps/apes skewed recent "scientific" conclusions made by some geneticists? (Rhetorical, but you and I both know the answer based on the now debunked claims made early on within genetic research.)

You keep conflating evolutionary theory with atheism. It is not a necessarily atheistic belief. I happen to know more than a couple of scientists who happen to be Christian and also acknowledge evolution as fact.

But getting to your point, the only time that such presuppositions are truly detrimental, in a scientific context, is when they lead to poor study design or result in data that are not representative of reality. That is simply not the case here. The data are what they are - and while the authors of a study may come to their own conclusions about the implications of those data, they don't force anyone else into those conclusions.

EDIT: Actually, The End put it very well when he said the following:

In this context, its a prediction - they'd predict that they'd find a link between humans and chimps, based on the theory of evolution which is supported by over a hundred years of work across multiple disciplines. Predictions are part of how science works and part of its power to explain.

The work on human chromosome 2 is published for any geneticist that wants to see it and repeat the tests. If the work is in some way flawed, anyone that is qualified is welcome to repeat the work and show how it is flawed.

And, again, it is silly to look at this particular piece of evidence in a vacuum. You seem to insist upon this mindset, for reasons I still can't comprehend. Scientists don't simply ignore previous evidence. It appears as though you are advocating that they should.

All of this begs the question: do you know what hypotheses are, and how they are formed? Do you understand their practical utility in terms of the scientific method?

Also: how would you explain or interpret these findings (regarding human chromosome #2), in a scientific context? If it should be ignored as nonsense, then the burden is on you to explain why.

Forgive me, but you don't need to keep calling in semantics in order to mask the obvious points I am making. Personally, I call a spade a spade, so in prose this means a careful choosing of the vocabulary utilized.

Here: Devolution (Plz see #2)

Just because the word exists doesn't mean it reflects any sort of biological reality. Also, that is an incredibly vague definition.

1. & 1.1 - Because the researchers say it themselves. Well, at least the ones that value candor say it.

Really? Do you have a source for this? Forgive me, but I do suspect that you're fabricating this claim.

They believe that the initial individual to undergo this "evolution" would have to have reduced its number of chromosomes to 47 in the first few dozen, hundreds, thousands or whatever number of the early generations. You and I know that a human with 47 chromosomes, arising from duplication, suffers debilitating physical and mental affects. We also both know that a reduction in the number of chromosomes would be a fatal, species ending event were it to occur, which includes a reduction occurring in humans and or chimps "deep in time."

SO IT IS BELIEVED, BUT IT IS NOT KNOWN, THAT SOMEHOW EITHER A FERTILE OFFSPRING WITH 47 CHROMOSOMES SOMEHOW SURVIVED LOSING A CHROMOSOME, or that somehow chimps/apes are actually the descendants of humans/humanoids and the chimps/apes were somehow able acquire another chromosome pair in the evolutionary past.

*Sigh*

Why are you ignoring my earlier point about the fusion of the two chromosomes leading to no loss of genetic information? I even explained in detail how and why this was the case.

Yes, chromosome number was reduced, but there was no deletion. How are you still missing this crucial point?

If there was no deletion of genetic information, why would such an event prove "detrimental?"

One slight problem with the latter choice though. You see, it was already asserted by atheists that man evolved from the chimps/apes, so the alternative choice of chimps/apes evolving from humans is not really a viable alternative after all. Although its not being viable isn't based on genetic research per se, it is based on over a hundred years worth of presupposition of the atheists. (They can't change the story now.....)

Actually, humans didn't evolve from modern apes, nor did modern apes evolve from humans. So I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to say here...?

^ You do understand this relatively basic concept in human evolution, correct? That nobody asserts that humans evolved from modern apes (including chimps)? If you don't, you may want to reconsider your position, as it is based on a severely flawed understanding of evolutionary theory.

Did the change in chromosome number two occur first in the human male or human female? I believe it's a valid and important point. If you honestly think it isn't, I drop it for the sake of brevity and move on.

1) It probably didn't occur in humans.

2) Why would it matter, exactly? I'm curious.

You asked about my experience. I am am autodidact and to date have researched evolutionary "Science," from both sides of the fence if you will, for over 35 years. (Oh, usually only a autodidact knows what the word means without googling it. )

I know what it means. It's also a giant red flag when somebody proclaims themselves to be an autodidact.

C'mon Dr Evo, you know hose these types of discussions can get way off track and follow rabbit trails so to speak. I'm not being disingenuous in the slightest as it is the only evidence we are currently speaking about.

As much as you might want it to, it doesn't exist in a vacuum, Old Timer.

If your aim is to ignore any semblance of context, then I'm not sure this is a conversation worth having.

No I was not aware of your profession exactly, but I'm sure you'll agree that the Dr Evo screen name is a telling nom de' plume nonetheless.

I wasn't trying to be subtle.

Okay, I will agree to disagree as for my money, losing information is not evolving in the sense of survival of the fittest or mutations over time.

Given the trend observed in parasitic organisms, and given the prevalence of parasitism, I'm going to have to conclude that you're sorely mistaken here.

Also, the loss of information IS a mutation.

You call it semantics, I call it precision.

One point of order first if I may, my faith and trust are solely derived from the Words in the Bible and not from "my religion."

Which is odd, coming from someone who claims to have such a high standard for evidence.

In my 35 year or so history of studying out the roughly six major concepts of evolution, I have found that the early tenets of evolutionism were created so as to be in direct opposition and conflict with the creation accounts found through the entire Bible. Although it may be a bit more subtle today, I still find that the original paradigm and basis for creating evolutionism's major tenets hasn't changed up through to our modern time.

So in your mind evolutionary theory is a massive anti-Creationist conspiracy? Interesting...

 

[The End]

The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html

Conspiracy theories the first 1.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I touched on this very fact within my post to Dr Evo.

I don't believe you did, actually. Your assertion is that such events are "detrimental," when in fact we're demonstrating that this need not be the case.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I think the fact that human siblings generally do not find one another sexually attractive is some indication that incest is not within our "nature".

A newer trait? A trait present from the beginning, but with the option of incest still on the table in extreme times?

I'm not trying to be a perv, but there's some research to suggest that what I said is true.

I could post a few articles, if you really want. It's just some people criticized the Bible for the Genesis incest, when it may be one of the book's more accurate... claims?

 

[Doctor Evo]

I knew evolution pretty well...

Forgive me, but that isn't the impression that I'm getting.

 

[The End]

You do one google search, find something that aligns with your existing presuppositions, and somehow do not understand or realize that you are providing a perfect demonstration and example of one of my major assertions.

The TalkOrigins index of creationist claims are refutations based on the science, with references to back them up.

You didn't even attempt to address them.

I even went through the trouble for you of putting in bold key points for your consideration.

You STILL have not answered the question of how evolution is atheistic.

You've completely regressed now, into this wilful ignorance stance, in which you don't even attempt to express your position or to address refutations to your arguments.

It's YOUR presuppostion that evolution is atheistic and this simply does not stand up. Your position requires a rejection of other religious interpretations and ignoring the vast number of theists that also believe in evolution.

The floor is yours. Go back and try again.

 

[regwec]

I disgree and would counter that its holding to presuppositions and presuppositional thinking that's illogical and shuts out learning.

Belief in the literal truth of a text like the bible requires any number of presuppositions. Even if you did have a genuine erroneous "eureka" moment, whereby you decided that it was true, you would still have to ignore or rebut an array of contrary evidence, by the presupposition that your chosen religious text was "true" and that was that.

It was personal situation in which truth became paramount to me. I was, am, and believe always have been a seeker of truth, but the situation at the time greatly magnified truth's importance to me. Not so much emotionally stressing per se, but just a stronger than ever desire to get to the bottom of things.

I have read your posts over the last few days. I doubt my opinion will really matter to you, but I don't accept that "truth" is really what you are interested in. I think what you have is a powerful need to believe in something, and sufficient anxiety over the subject matter of your chosen belief to move you to shut out reason and evidence.

I think we're lucky to have someone like Dr Evo who is willing to patiently set out the evidence on the questions that you are asking. A "seeker of truth" should certainly challenge all of that, but he should also be somewhat more receptive and thoughtful about the answers he receives.

 

[regwec]

A newer trait? A trait present from the beginning, but with the option of incest still on the table in extreme times?

I'm not trying to be a perv, but there's some research to suggest that what I said is true.

I could post a few articles, if you really want. It's just some people criticized the Bible for the Genesis incest, when it may be one of the book's more accurate... claims?

I do not dispute that incest has occurred and does occur. The Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and the Habsburg family are sufficient evidence of that. I strongly dispute the notion that a healthy and resilient species can spring from one pair, however.

 

[The End]

Quite frankly, I feel like the dude gave me a metaphorical middle finger in his last reply to me. I thought it was a very ignorant reply.

It's often been my experience that religious apologists project their flaws onto the people that they argue with. regwec is quite right that a literal bible interpretation requires many presuppositions. And Old Timer's belief that evolution is atheistic, is a presupposition that he's yet to explain.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

A newer trait? A trait present from the beginning, but with the option of incest still on the table in extreme times?

I'm not trying to be a perv, but there's some research to suggest that what I said is true.

I could post a few articles, if you really want. It's just some people criticized the Bible for the Genesis incest, when it may be one of the book's more accurate... claims?

Incest is less advantageous to each individual, hence it's becoming rare.

As the objective is to pass on your genes (as well as the genes of your siblings, let's say) it becomes more advantageous to have two families that pass on your genes (with diversity added from two other individuals) to ensure the best chance of survival of your genetic traits.

But incest itself is not an inherent trait. Just use yourself and people around you for a sample, how many in your social group are/have been involved in incestuous relationships?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Incest is less advantageous to each individual, hence it's becoming rare.

As the objective is to pass on your genes (as well as the genes of your siblings, let's say) it becomes more advantageous to have two families that pass on your genes (with diversity added from two other individuals) to ensure the best chance of survival of your genetic traits.

Inbreeding also raises the risk of the expression of deleterious recessive traits. There can be enormously strong purifying selection pressures exerted upon inbred lineages.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Although the number of chromosomes is important to evolution, it’s my understanding that it’s essentially internal “accounting” - how particular genetic information is organized. Presumably, even a staunch creationist accepts that there’s no direct correlation between the quantity of chromosomes and apparent “complexity” (the so-called “higher/lower” organisms in “the great chain of being”). For instance: a carp has over 100 chromosomes; one species of fern has over 1000; the highly intelligent and mobile chimpanzee has the same number of chromosomes as the fairly mindless and sedentary tobacco plant; etc. So if you’re beef is about the gradual accumulation of genetic “information,” the number of chromosomes (and their occasional splitting and fusing) is a bit of a red herring.

That doesn't really seem to be his objection.

He's arguing that a reduction in chromosome number constitutes a loss of genetic information, and that such a loss is necessarily detrimental to the affected individuals.