Question for atheists.?

Question

What is your evidence for evolution. (I use the worth atheists as they are the one's that believe in evolution, as they don't believe a god made life.) Believing in evolution is stupid. Why? Because no evolutionist has ever said that there is some kind of intelligence. That's like believing Google popped into existence and that people did not develop the code for it. Also, Google updates Google.com Gmail.com YouTube.com AdWords.com etc. frequently. I would love to see someone say that the coding randomly changes for the better without programers changing it.

Answer 1

The four letter code that constitutes the DNA of all living things changes over time; for example individual or several letters can be copied incorrectly [substitution], lost [deletion] or gained [insertion]. Such changes can lead to functional and structural changes in genes and proteins and ultimately to the formation of new species.



Insertions are much more common whilst deletions appear to be rare.



The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!



Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!



Nice that christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at fundie expense!



But behind the laughter is the despair at the fundamentalists striving so hard to destroy christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology!



Surveys suggest that 29% of American christians are so extremist in their beliefs that they fall well outside of the accepted bounds of christianity!



Please state which extremist sect you belong to so that GOOD christians can disassociate themselves from you and explain why your sect is so at odds with Christianity!



Just another fundamentalist striving so hard to destroy christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology!

Answer 2

1) Science is not atheism. Atheism is not science. Although science is atheistic, the evidence is overwhelming that there are no gods behind it. Not the least that the same experiment whether done by a Shinto priest, a Buddhist monk, a Rabbi, an Imam, or an Evangelical Protestant Fundamentalist will get the same results. Nylon clothing is no more special if it's on an atheist, deist, pantheist, panentheist, monotheist, or polytheist. There is one science, that is blind to both the faith of the scientist and the faith of those who use the science. It does not need gods, so is without gods, so is atheistic.

--> Beyond that, there is no other necessary link between science and atheism.



2) Evolution is well-observed.



The primary principles of Evolution:

* Living things have variation

* Some variation allows certain members to produce more than others.

* This beneficial variation is passed to the offspring



If you are instead objecting to "macro-evolution" I have three points for you

* All macro-evolution consists of is many micro-evolutionary events accumulating. There is no barrier between the two

* Macro-evolutionary events in the form of speciation events have been observed in nature and in the lab.

* Beyond 'speciation' we have the growth of new organs as well as the fossil record and DNA sequencing to show the progression and formation of new 'kinds' from a common ancestral species.



3) "That's like believing Google popped into existence and that people did not develop the code for it"

--> As opposed to non-self-replicating code, life is 100% capable of self-replication. In fact that is the sole defining feature separating life from non-life.

--> But excepting that, Google didn't make the changes in one giant swoop. It slowly adapted. It added small features by making minor modifications to its code, adding bit by bit over time to satisfy consumer demand and survive.

---> As to "coding randomly changes for the better without programers changing it", you have never designed a web page. Most of the work for developing a website is literally adding small changes to the code and seeing the effects of these changes. Good effects from the RANDOM yet functional coding go on to stay in the code. Bad effects are removed.



And before you complain, the fact is that the code changes are 'random' because the effects are not known beforehand. See, for DNA, if I were to ask you to guess which exact base-change would be the next to occur you would have only 12 options to choose from. Adding insertion and deletion options for one- and two-base groups, that is still only 16 specific mutations. It's not "random" in the sense of hitting a keyboard with your face and submitting that code. It's "random" in the EXACT same sense of rolling a die and changing the operation to another operation.



And that type of change, while not always OPTIMAL, will often enough give something BETTER than before. Also, most of these changes will be NEUTRAL so they will probably be kept in to experience a change for the better at some later date. And this is exactly what we see in nature: neutral and better. And we rarely see optimal unless it comes from a line of 'betters' upon 'betters'.



So your own example, when the details are applied, disproves your position.

Answer 3

Firstly, a lot of Christians (particularly Christian scientists) accept the evidence of evolution. There are plenty of examples even here in the Y!A R&S mental asylum.



"That's like believing Google popped into existence and that people did not develop the code for it."



Secondly, I have heard this argument before, and I'm not convinced. This is what's known as a weak inductive argument. It goes along the lines of: "Lots of things are like this (in this case, designed), therefore everything is probably like this". The strength of the argument depends on how consistently it holds. The fact is, the man-made things are only a tiny portion of the observable universe. Almost all of it, we have no clear idea of any beings that did (or even could) create it. So, your argument is extremely weak. If your conclusion that a god created everything is true, then it would be simple coincidence given your argument.



Also, your argument doesn't explain why we can tell the difference between natural and man-made things. We can often tell if something is designed by man, or naturally occurring. Because we can tell, it means there is some clear distinction between them, which means that there's no reason prima facie to assume that they're alike.

Answer 4

Believing in ANYTHING is stupid. Belief implies doubt. Either you know, or you do not know, but you should not BELIEVE.



Any species that is better able to replicate itself will, over time, win out over another species that isn't as able to do so. And it doesn't require any intelligent force to oversee the process; it just happens. There's no value judgment involved, no species that is more advanced than any other. Whether we're talking humans or protozoa, every species that is alive today is only here because it found a niche that allowed it to continue to perpetuate itself. If that niche disappears, that species will disappear. If a new niche appears, over time new species will evolve to take advantage of it. That's all there is to it.



Whether you care to believe in it or not, evolution is real, it's happening all around you, all the time. And the engine for evolution, genetic mutation, is the basis for just about all of modern medicine. Drugs, therapies, etc. are all based on it. So if you don't think evolution is real, then if you're honest with yourself, you should swear off all medical care that was developed using it. Which includes just about all cancer therapies, for example. Just pray to God to heal you when you're sick. Good luck with that.

Answer 5

I believe in jesus, but also strongly believe in evolution as well. There is no "greater" intelligence, I believe personally. Everything including people are made up of atoms/elements from the periodic table, and so is everything else in this world and even the universe. I understand why you don't understand evolution and outer space and such. It's a very hard concept to grasp, but outer space is real and theres proof obviously, so it only really makes sense the scientific way, at least in my mind. But anyways like you said before people, or "google" didn't pop into existence. People slowly evolved from elements over millions of years, and slowly gained intelligence as time passed.

Answer 6

Evolution:



There is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.



Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.



The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.



While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.



Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.



Another flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.



Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.

Answer 7

You should also address this question to the various scientifically literate theists who also accept evolution.



>> That's like believing Google popped into existence and that people did not develop the code for it.



That's like making a false equivalence, since the Theory of Evolution makes no comment on a 'guiding hand' as the concept is not testable by science. It also gets a bit strawman with what the TOE actually proposes.

Answer 8

You are SO wrong about that. There are plenty of Christians that believe in evolution... are you kidding me? It's just the extremists that seem to deny it. You can have faith and still believe in evolution.



There is plenty of evidence for evolution and I'm not about to explain it here. Maybe you should start with the book The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, he explains a great deal.

Answer 9

The difference between Christians and atheists is that atheists believe in fact. Christians believe in a really old book. Evolution can be supported by fossils. Look it up. If you ask me, believing in something you've never seen is stupid. Atheists don't think they have everything figured out like Christians do. They take the evidence they have and don't make up a bunch of stuff to believe in for no reason.



I leave you with one question: Who created god?

Answer 10

The fossil record and similarities in DNA of related organisms are evidence of evolution. Google is not a living thing. It can't reproduce like living things do. What a terrible analogy you attempted to make.



Where's your evidence of intelligent design?

Answer 11

All the evidence has been displayed repeatedly on this sight and many others. If you are incapable of understanding or unwilling to view it then that is probably why you only have a "belief" and not a theory.

I would be care full using the word or attempting to label others as "stupid", did you read this before you posted?

Think about it!

Answer 12

The only people that do not believe in Evolution are the stupid American nutjobs with their pathetic religion controlled lives and their 32nd best in the world general education system.



So who is stupid?

Answer 13

The irony is that evolution is what the body goes through over time and religion is about the supernatural which by definition has nothing to do with the body except what the spirit or soul does with it to survive.

Answer 14

Matter has ALWAYS existed. Law of conservation of energy. :). Explain cytochrome c without common ancestry. That's right!



Edit: Bella there is no contradiction, you are copying pasting off of a creationist website. That is completely false, if you'd like you can do research. Your premise for evolution being false has been disproved numerous times.

Answer 15

There's lots of evidence is support of evolution. Go to your local library and the ask the Reference Librarian to help you search for peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject.

Answer 16

Well you believe in a God that popped into existence when no-one made a code for it it's not quite better.



By the way, ultimately matter (atoms) created the code that you are looking for.

Answer 17

God, I hope you are a Poe. In the rest of the civilized word (other than the US Bible belt) Christians accept evolution as fact.

Answer 18

Um... apparently you are not aware that the vast majority of theists actually believe in evolution. You also seem completely unaware that there are atheists who DON'T believe in evolution.



Perhaps you should educate yourself before you call others "stupid."

Answer 19

Let me get this directly,you are asking questions of atheists and complaining once we reply? Would some time now not be higher spent complaining approximately the devout now not answering whilst you ask questions of them? Religion is backwards. I believe eighteen is your lot roughly

Answer 20

the silly thing about your question is that coding does randomly change without programmers changing it.

not in google, but it does.

computer virus' evolve to avoid detection. the ones that are easily detected by virus checking software are deleted and those that adapt survive to reproduce. its survival of the fittest right there.

Answer 21

I fail to understand how evolution equates to "Google should have magically pooped into existence!" the mere fact you would say that makes it sound like you are a meth addict.



I just can not imagine a sober person saying such a thing with any level of seriousness

Answer 22

Why is this question under adwords? I believe in the creator but this is not the place for debate about God but I do believe he exists.

Answer 23

*facepalm*



On so many levels...



My condolences on your education and I feel sorry for your teachers...



As for my atheism, it has nothing to do with evolution.... only the lack of evidence for any gods, including yours... I could claim BOB did it and have just as much evidence as you cannot prove he didn't... using your 'logic'... he must have did it...



IMHO

Answer 24

I guess the answers you got when you asked the same question in the Anthropology section where not suitable?

Answer 25

Ask in the Biology Section if you want a real answer. If you don't, you're apparently afraid you'll hear something you don't want to hear.

Answer 26

Evolution and science have nothing to do with my atheism.

Answer 27

im sick of constantly explaining it. instead, whats you evidence that god has ever exsisted? what evidence is there that he created everything?