Comments on: Looking at Both Sides of the Argument http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/ Just another WordPress site Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:49:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: GarLord http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/#comment-2028 GarLord Sat, 30 Apr 2011 03:53:50 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/?p=58#comment-2028 Is because of this "entropy" that natural selection exists. When bad mutations occur, which they most certainly do, or when a phenotype stops being helpful, many factors within the environment help "filter" these genes. Amongst those are sexual selection, and survivability (i.e. If a gene makes a gazelle slower, then it could be easily attacked and eaten by a predator, therefore eliminating her gene from the population's gene pool). Albinos in wild populations are quite an example. They can easily be spotted by predators in many if not most environments. Is because of this “entropy” that natural selection exists. When bad mutations occur, which they most certainly do, or when a phenotype stops being helpful, many factors within the environment help “filter” these genes. Amongst those are sexual selection, and survivability (i.e. If a gene makes a gazelle slower, then it could be easily attacked and eaten by a predator, therefore eliminating her gene from the population’s gene pool).

Albinos in wild populations are quite an example. They can easily be spotted by predators in many if not most environments.

]]> By: train http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/#comment-2004 train Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:36:02 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/?p=58#comment-2004 How does that argument not favor the atheist viewpoint? The argument is simple - if you are going to back your opinion with a statement, be sure that the statement does not refute your belief simultaneously. If the universe is too complex to be created by something other than a higher power, why is the higher power even here in the first place? How does that argument not favor the atheist viewpoint? The argument is simple – if you are going to back your opinion with a statement, be sure that the statement does not refute your belief simultaneously. If the universe is too complex to be created by something other than a higher power, why is the higher power even here in the first place?

]]> By: Under(/)ath http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/#comment-444 Under(/)ath Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:00:50 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/?p=58#comment-444 seeing as we believe god created reason and logic, yes he can defy it. parents create rules for their kids that they themselves don't follow all the time. and for the second paragraph, intricate and complex things that CAME into existence had a designer. we believe god always was and is, he had no beginning point seeing as we believe god created reason and logic, yes he can defy it. parents create rules for their kids that they themselves don’t follow all the time.

and for the second paragraph, intricate and complex things that CAME into existence had a designer. we believe god always was and is, he had no beginning point

]]> By: Anonymystified http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/#comment-443 Anonymystified Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:10:35 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/?p=58#comment-443 Do you mean in that God defies reason and logic, and therefore if you try and apply reason and logic to him you will fail? You could say as much about any fictional, irrational thing. The theists argument has a starting point of assuming that things which are complex and intricate do not come into existence on their own, a designer must do it. The atheist's response is to ask "isn't god supposed to be complex and intricate? If even a bacteria is too complex to have come into existence without a designer, then either god is less complex than an ameoba, or someone designed god." Of course the whole argument is silly since no evolutionist claims that things popped into existence randomly. Do you mean in that God defies reason and logic, and therefore if you try and apply reason and logic to him you will fail? You could say as much about any fictional, irrational thing.

The theists argument has a starting point of assuming that things which are complex and intricate do not come into existence on their own, a designer must do it. The atheist’s response is to ask “isn’t god supposed to be complex and intricate? If even a bacteria is too complex to have come into existence without a designer, then either god is less complex than an ameoba, or someone designed god.”

Of course the whole argument is silly since no evolutionist claims that things popped into existence randomly.

]]> By: The Basics of Evolution http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/#comment-442 The Basics of Evolution Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:56:44 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/?p=58#comment-442 [...] for actual evidence for evolution, there is plenty.  We have evolution that’s been observed in laboratories (even to the point where it’s reproducible, I called it “Evolution on tap”), [...] [...] for actual evidence for evolution, there is plenty.  We have evolution that’s been observed in laboratories (even to the point where it’s reproducible, I called it “Evolution on tap”), [...]

]]> By: InvaderKap http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/#comment-441 InvaderKap Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:06:22 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/?p=58#comment-441 Don't worry about it; read my comment at the bottom of the page and you'll see that all proofs are essentially invalid anyway. You can't prove that there's a God, but you can't prove that anything they say in science is true, either. So for all we know, there could be an anything out there. Or nothing. Don’t worry about it; read my comment at the bottom of the page and you’ll see that all proofs are essentially invalid anyway. You can’t prove that there’s a God, but you can’t prove that anything they say in science is true, either. So for all we know, there could be an anything out there. Or nothing.

]]> By: The Atheist’s Challenge - 22 Questions http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/#comment-440 The Atheist’s Challenge - 22 Questions Sat, 30 May 2009 20:15:32 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/?p=58#comment-440 [...] to your conclusions. Quite simply, there’s a mountain of evidence to support evolution. From laboratory recreated speciation, evidence within our own bodies (for example, the Palmaris Longus muscle), to the fossils of [...] [...] to your conclusions. Quite simply, there’s a mountain of evidence to support evolution. From laboratory recreated speciation, evidence within our own bodies (for example, the Palmaris Longus muscle), to the fossils of [...]

]]> By: InvaderKap http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/#comment-439 InvaderKap Mon, 25 May 2009 03:05:51 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/?p=58#comment-439 Should that property exist in the meaning, that is. Should that property exist in the meaning, that is.

]]> By: The Atheist http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/#comment-438 The Atheist Sun, 24 May 2009 01:45:01 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/?p=58#comment-438 The definition of a species is generally defined as a group that is capable of inter-breeding. your absolutely right that this is just a method us humans use to classify organisms and it is fraught with difficulty. There are, for example, organisms that breed asexually, so they are difficult to fit neatly into a species. We also have organisms that belong to the same <em>genus</em> but different <em>species</em> that can breed and produce offspring - see the Liger for an example of this (the result of two members of the Panthera genus, but different species - Panthera leo and Panthera tigris, mating). However, there is sufficient diversity of organisms to render any but the highest level grouping of them irrelevant. There is also such an abundance of evidence of evolution and natural selection causing speciation that the arbitrary boundaries we draw around organisms based on their traits and ability to breed is also irrelevant. We can redraw the lines if needbe based on other factors, but we will still find evidence for evolution causing speciation. The definition of a species is generally defined as a group that is capable of inter-breeding. your absolutely right that this is just a method us humans use to classify organisms and it is fraught with difficulty. There are, for example, organisms that breed asexually, so they are difficult to fit neatly into a species. We also have organisms that belong to the same genus but different species that can breed and produce offspring – see the Liger for an example of this (the result of two members of the Panthera genus, but different species – Panthera leo and Panthera tigris, mating).

However, there is sufficient diversity of organisms to render any but the highest level grouping of them irrelevant. There is also such an abundance of evidence of evolution and natural selection causing speciation that the arbitrary boundaries we draw around organisms based on their traits and ability to breed is also irrelevant. We can redraw the lines if needbe based on other factors, but we will still find evidence for evolution causing speciation.

]]> By: The Atheist http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/#comment-437 The Atheist Sun, 24 May 2009 01:29:17 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/?p=58#comment-437 Yes, of course. I simply started off saying that theists are often offended by the thought of evolving from primates (which they are, even though that's not what actually happened) and continued with the same phrase for consistency. Also, it's quicker to type. Yes, of course. I simply started off saying that theists are often offended by the thought of evolving from primates (which they are, even though that’s not what actually happened) and continued with the same phrase for consistency. Also, it’s quicker to type.

]]>