octave

That's a stunning admission for an evolutionist, and my bet is the ancestor is Homo Erectus Erectus

what is a stunning admission?

You may have to clarify, it sounds like you are saying that the common ancestor that humans an amoebas share is homo erectus erectus?????? Surely this is not what you are saying? My point is that the amoeba and humans share a common ancestor who lived in the distant past, and who is not alive today. This is like how you and your cousin share a grandparent. Your cousin is not your grandparent. The amoeba that exists today is not the organism we descended from. The amoeba that exists today comes from a lineage that has been evolving for just as long as humans have been evolving, only the forces of natural selection have caused them to remain relatively simple and superficially similar to their distant ancestors.

This is not a stunning admission this is what the theory suggests.

I'd question your assertions about those Universities,

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/degree-finder/bsc_bscevbiol.html

Bachelor of Science (Evolutionary Biology)

2015 2015 2014 2013 2012

CampusNorth Terrace Campus

Degree TypeBachelor

Duration3 years full-timeor part-time equiv.

SATAC Code324281

2014

ATAR79.85

Evolutionary Biology involves the study of information contained in living plants and animals and their fossils to determine how they evolved. This knowledge assists in understanding biodiversity and planning for its conservation. The program provides access to South Australian Museum staff and collections and is unique in South Australia. It is designed to deliver internationally competitive training.

this was the first of many links to uni degree courses teaching evolutionary biology.

. A recent publication mentioned a monkey which had DNA " very similar to a human". Without the mitochondrial it isn't part of the human species.

As far as evolution goes it's an unproven theory which you have to prove.

I think that since evolution is the current theory taught in universities all over the world and accepted by the vast majority of scientists that the burden of proof is the other way round.

I am never sure whether you are saying that sometime in the past the theory of evolution has been overturned and it is just some outdated idea? If so this is demonstratively untrue.

Perhaps you are suggesting that it is still taught and accepted but new evidence is about to be presented that will blow it out of the water.

but basically if we start with current humans and go back to an amoeba

Just to be clear here, we did not evolve from amoebas but rather we share at some point a common ancestor.

Logical arguers, look at this tripe Roflmao. You should be on the stage.

Perhaps we should examine some of this "tripe" I would hate to think that I had posted illogical "tripe" so feel free to draw my attention to any "tripe" I might have posted.

I'm just pointing out the emperors lack of clothes - no evidence of DNA being added, no mechanism to even do this, no example of one species transitionin

You keep saying this. You want one example of a transitional species - archaeoptryx - http://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html If you want more examples then make the effort do some reading, at the very least it may improve the quality of your argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I really don't care if you accept the evidence or not but it is quite dishonest to suggest that the standard mo0del of biology has been discredited. Can I ask you how you came to this notion. I know for a fact that Evolution is still taught as the foundation of the biological sciences.

Now if you are saying yes it is still the current theory but it is wrong then that is a different matter, but I would love to see the evidence.

Yes atheists find comfort by faith in their belief that life has no meaning or purpose and there will be no future judgement of their actions.

You seem to know a lot about atheists. It is breathtakingly arrogant for you to suggest that my life has no meaning. Yes it is true, without a belief in god my life is empty and meaningless all I have left is the love of my family and friends, art, literature, music theater, the beauty of the natural world, history, science, sex, the cosmos, mountains, oceans, clouds and the joy of a session of touch and go's - that is enough for me.

As far as future judgement goes, I lead a good life not because of some future judgement but because of the present judgment of my friends, family, my society, and most importantly my own conscience.

Ah, we're into manufacturing scenarios now, don't you love atheists, they just can't stop looking over the fence and carping about believers.

remind me how this thread start again!

yeah those nasty atheists always knocking on my door and trying to talk to me about atheism, pressuring the government to put atheist chaplains in schools telling people how to live their lives etc and all with a tax free status!

Why are some atheists focusing on Jesus Christ rather than telling us why they don'y believe in God?

Why I don't believe in god.

Although I did not come from a religious family I do remember there being a bible in the house. I can clearly remember the picture on the front, a man with long flowing robes and long blond hair and a blond beard.

When I was about 6 or 7 a neighbor offered to take me and my sister to sunday school, something we did not usually do. I suspect my parents agreed to this due to social pressure. I recall having to sing "All things bright an beautiful" and after I asked the sunday school teacher if god had made the horrible things as well, this question went unanswered (I was not trying to be a smart arse it was a genuine and obvious question). I could smell BS. Fortunately I was not forced to continue but at this point I think was an atheist (although I had never heard of that word).

During my primary school years my prize possessions were my science encyclopedia, my "How and Why" Books, my "Tell me Why" books and my microscope. I can remember the excitement of the "apollo" years and the moon landings. Later as a teenager I was given a telescope and I joined the Astronomical Society which met monthly at Adelaide Uni. I would often on the weekend stay up most of the night with my telescope and I loved reading about astronomy and cosmology. I did of course want to become an astronomer but to be brutally honest although in high school I studied physics and chemistry my academic performance was less than impressive.

So that is my childhood, I have never been directly mistreated by anyone in the church, I am not rebelling against anyone and I am most certainly not "angry at god" as many believers like to suggest.

So is there a god?

In my opinion probably not but of course it is impossible to say for sure. The fact that we don't know the origin of the universe, saying that god did it is pointless, it is explaining one unknown with another unknown. If you tell me that god created the universe then the logical and rational question is where did god come from? At the moment I am reading 'The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene and "A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Kraus which outline what we do know about the beginning of the universe (and it is more than you might think)

What if there is a god?

I am often asked "what if you are wrong and there is a god?" The answer to this is of course, "what if you are wrong and it turns out you have been worshipping the wrong god?"

The universe has approximately 300 sextillion stars (that is 3 followed by 23 zeros), The furthest object to be observed is a galaxy that is 13.1 billion light years away. As Douglas Adams once said "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space"

So my thoughts on this are why would a god that supposedly created this vast universe be so interested in what we do with our gentials and whether we sleep in on a sunday or not?

Why would such a god be so needy in terms of being loved and worshipped. We all want to be loved and respected but the kind of love and respect that comes with a threat of eternal torture is surely worthless.

"But how do you know right from wrong"

I don't really need a god or a bible to tell me that killing and stealing is wrong. The reasons for me not to steal or kill are:

1) empathy, we have evolved to feel anothers pain and loss, granted we are also capable of cruel behaviour but our society would never have flourished if we had absolutely no empathy.

2) There is a deal we have with our fellow humans (well most of them) I wont steal your car if you wont steal mine.

3) Because all human societies have some form of law. Aboriginals had a system of justice and punishment long before they were exposed to the Bible.

When people raise this point I usually ask them if their belief in god is the only thing stopping them from transgressing, perhaps these people do need religion.

I could go on an on about this but I fear it my be a tad boring, so to summarize:

I strongly suspect there is no god (but sufficient hard evidence could sway me)

If there is a god I feel it is unlikely that he/she is the cranky insecure god of the bible.

I have a happy and fulfilling life and as I don't believe in an afterlife I know that this life should not be wasted.

I have no problem with people believing on all sorts of things , but religion is not science and science is not religion.

Not gods Octave, a single God. i'm only searching for references to a single God

Why only a single god? Do you rule out multiple gods? Not having a go here, just wondering where you are coming from.

Why is is that some atheists here are trying to perpetuate the myth that the Bible is "the word of God" when most of the authors are clearly identified, and nowhere has God signed off on a paragraph?

Because that is what Christians tell us. I don't really know many Christians or denominations that don't believe the Bible is the inspired word of god. What do Christians on this forum think?

Why are people still trying o make something of the Bible error that the world is only 6,200, 6,300, 6,700 years old when we have carbon dating proof otherwise?

Because SOME Christians (the creationist type) are pushing this line. There is a push by some religious organisations to have creation taught as science. Whilst I have no problem with people believing in a god, I do think that turning our science education over to these people would be a disaster for our country.

Why are some atheists focusing on Jesus Christ rather than telling us why they don'y believe in God?

Challenge accepted, happy to say why I don't believe in god. I will get right on to it and will post it later today.

Let's see someone trying to challenge the evidence coming from the dead sea scrolls, the Essenes, and other groups going back that 30,000 years who believe in God

I don't have any problem with the notion that people may have believed in gods for 30 000 years, in fact I would be extremely surprised if humans had not believed in gods for a good deal longer than that. The fact that belief in gods has been around a long time does not prove that they actually exist. The belief in which craft has been around a long time but that does not mean that they actually exist.

"Science of Big Bang gets knocked on head"Today's Herald Sun story explains how scientists are now abandoning their clsim.

 

The last line quotes: "it's like finding out there's no Santa Clause"

 

Maybe so, looks like God was watching

OK, I went and bought a Herald Sun (I feel dirty now) and read the article, I then found from a different source the full article. The Herald Sun shortened version seemed a little misleading. This article is more complete and from a reputable source. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140921-big-bang-signal-could-all-be-dust-planck-says/

Here is my understanding: Cosmic inflation is a leading theory of the Big Bang (but not the only one). Last year a team conducted an experiment to detect what they thought should be a radio signal (a swirl pattern which would confirm gravitational waves) which would be absolute proof of cosmic inflation. They concluded that they had found this evidence. Through the process of peer review it was found that the method they had used could not rule out that the signal detected being contaminated due to cosmic dust. In other words the further evidence for cosmic inflation they thought they had found was invalid therefore we return to the situation as it was before their supposed discovery. Their work continues.

quote:

Inflation will remain the leading Big Bang theory even if the entire BICEP2 signal fades to dust, said Mark Trodden, a professor of physics at the University of Pennsylvania. It explains the smoothness and uniformity of the universe and gives a mechanism for structure formation, he explained — “but all this evidence is highly circumstantial.”

Confirmation of primordial gravitational waves would have locked the theory down, resolving once and for all the picture of the beginning of time. Now, “the jury is still out,” Keating said.

The Herald Sun article is misleading, to say that "the big bang theory has not been knocked on it's head" is nonsense.

The big bang theory will ultimately be proven or disproven but this does not say anything about "whether magic man in the sky did it or not"

The popular press is about as reliable on reporting on science as it is on reporting aircraft accidents.

"Science of Big Bang gets knocked on head"Today's Herald Sun story explains how scientists are now abandoning their clsim.

 

The last line quotes: "it's like finding out there's no Santa Clause"

 

Maybe so, looks like God was watching

I would be very interested to read that, do you have a link? the only thing I can find online from the Herald Sun is this http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/big-bang-theory-under-threat-from-quantum-graphity-breakthrough/story-fncynkc6-1226454428502 from 2012

THE IMPIOUS FOOL SAYS IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD

When anyone uses this quote on me I assume it is because they are unable to use rational arguments.

I fear for people that blaspheme

so I guess you fear for blasphemers like me because you know that your creator , who created the universe (which contains approximately 70 sextillion or 7 x 1022 stars) loves us SO MUCH that if we don't love him back he will inflict unspeakable torture on us?

True but who had sex first ?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2008/04/080401-first-sex.html

What splits off a new universe? Is it my decision to wear red socks today? Can a dog's decision split off a universe? A worms? What if a falling grain of sand bounces to the left? Does another universe snap into being where it bounces to the right? What a load of hogwash!

Just because it is difficult to understand does not mean it is "hogwash" it is not just some fanciful idea and whilst it is still very much a hypothesis it is not without evidence http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

Remember that the theory of relativity was once considered counter to common sense.

For goodness sake Octave, I haven't quoted from the internet, just read the posts in this thread!

Turbo what you see as rubbish I might not, without knowing what you are referring to within this thread how could I comment.

Why all these defensive posts about people who invoke God when they say they are atheists.I smell a little self doubt.

Not just defensive, just pointing out the logical flaw.

The atheists who wrote that rubbish, and confirmed they didn't really understand what atheism is.

It is hard to comment without knowing which comments you are referring to, an example would be great.

It is important to recognise that people do use hypotheticals and perhaps leave out the "if" "then" part. A tactic of the believer is sometimes to make the assumption that us atheist only think that we are non believers and that a simple argument such as "see you just a quoted the bible, you must be a believer, but you just don't know it yet." Do you have any good examples of quotes from this thread where you think somone says they are an atheist but poses questions about god in a way other than as a hypothetical question?

You're quite right Octave - I wouldn't think to blame Thor for anything, but as I said, and if you look carefully at the posts, you will see that some atheists have taken it upon themselves to defy gravity and actually get angry with God, who when they are more rational, they profess doesn't exist - it's a funny world.

Turbs don't confuse someone asking "why did god allow disaster x to occur" with an actual belief in god. When I ask a believer such a question, what I mean is "you say there is a god, then why does x happen." This is a hypothetical not a statement of a belief in god

Nevertheless there are some atheists who are angry with God and have said so on here because He didn't fix this or didn't save that

Here we go again, by definition there are no atheists who are angry at god, that does not make sense. If an atheist is angry at god then by definition the are not an atheist. Being angry at god surely can only occur if you believe in god. Turbs I assume you don't in Thor? Perhaps it is because you angry at him

Reference? which christians said that? I'd say he has a front row seat in heaven personally.

So in your understanding Turbs belief in god is not necessarily a prerequisite for going to heaven. Most of my christian friends say that good works are not enough and the only way is salvation by accepting christ. Also this seems to be the line most churches take. Cool, I will just concentrate on the good works thing then

For those who are interesting in going , here is an article published today by a fellow Australian:

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/12/08/atheists-and-the-afterlife/

OK the logic of this article seems to be hell will be populated only by selfish people at each other throats etc . Christians say to me that it doesn't matter how many good works you do or how selfless you are you will still end up in hell if you don't believe in god. Presumably hell is not only full of selfish horrible people. Fred Hollows often proclaimed his atheism and although he restored the sight of many hundreds of the worlds poorest people he is still, according to many christians in burning in hell.