James’s Comments (group member since Jul 12, 2011)

James’s comments from the Debate group.

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (92%)
3. Liberal Quakers (83%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (75%)
5. Nontheist (75%)
6. Neo-Pagan (68%)
7. Theravada Buddhism (67%)
8. Reform Judaism (61%)
9. New Age (58%)
10. Taoism (56%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (53%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (51%)
13. Sikhism (47%)
14. Scientology (45%)
15. New Thought (42%)
16. Jainism (39%)
17. Baha'i Faith (36%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (36%)
19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (33%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (32%)
21. Islam (30%)
22. Orthodox Judaism (30%)
23. Hinduism (30%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (30%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (22%)
26. Roman Catholic (22%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (17%)

weird test obvious bias to some questions.

I am deeply confused as to what we're exactly debating here, people are talking about all sorts of things that don't pertain to evolution vs creationism.

This isn't a debate about the beginning of the universe or even life but how species are formed. In creationist theory all the species of life were created simultaneously by a designer just as we see them today (aside I imagine for the domesticated animals we have bred for labour or companionship like dogs, horses, pigeons etc which are still the same species but have different breeds). While evolution takes the viewpoint that life started in an extremely basic primitive life form and over time speciation occurred due to a variety of external factors environmental, other species, competition etc, and an internal element genetics/DNA which through as steady gradient of small changes gave successful lifeforms a slight advantage.

What makes all the evidence for evolution really powerful is that all the evidence matches up. Transitional fossils are found in rocks of just the right age and location, matching up with both the evolutionary timeline and the ancestral migration path of species.

Fossils are not randomly scattered. The fossil record also shows us evidence in their structure of an evolutionary "family tree" branching out from a common ancestor. The discoveries in genetics and DNA also show us an evolutionary family tree, one that matches up with the fossil record, Taxidermy and Paleontology.

The evidence found with historical constraints and vestigial organs both illustrate this same family tree. Dating/age, migration paths, fossil record, vestigial organs, genetics and DNA all independently tell the exact same story, exactly as the Theory of Evolution predicts.

In fact even without a single fossil and just DNA evidence we could still confidently say that evolution is the best system to correctly explain how everything came to evolve (Once again don't confuse this with how life started).

Please don't quote missing links as a viable problem for evolution pointing out x species has a link missing here is like saying we don't know what causes gravity so it doesn't exist / god does it. We have enough skeletons in enough species from prehistory to modern times that you need to provide positive evidence that backs up your theory of creation. Poking holes or pointing at the Cambrian explosion is all well and good but you need to provide some positive evidence for god and all species being designed/created.

As for an argument against creationism in comparison to evolution. Many organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:

Wisdom teeth. Our jaws are a bit small for these late-erupting teeth; some people have them, while others do not.

In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.

As for the eye (creationists love the eye) the vertebrate retina is wired “backwards”. That is the photoreceptors point to back of the retina, away from incoming light, and the nerves and blood vessels are on the side of the incoming light, this means that any image formed on the vertebrate retina has to pass though layers of blood vessels and ganglion cells, absorbing and distorting the image.

Unlike the squid eye which is far more efficient so ... God loved the squids, cuttlefish and octopi more than us?

So if there is a God he designed us badly which is impossible for a perfect creator, right? But even if you try to get out of that and say he cursed us when we left Eden you have to then explain why your christian myth of creation is better than that of Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto or the million other creation myths which are very different, and why he cursed all the animals who did nothing wrong with the same hereditary problems.

In summation, the theory of evolution explains all the available evidence before us, arguing with the fringes of evolution like punctuated equilibrium doesn't disprove the theory, nor does it explain anything, you need to give and explanation for something that fits with everything we have.

Before replying thinking like a skeptic and watch the video: Baloney Detection Kit. It's a good summation as to why science isn't an ideology or belief but a process.

Peace and love

James

Just would like to say hello to this group and put in my thoughts on this volatile subject. And look directly at the original question

Technically there is no way you can disprove there isn't a God. But equally, technically, you can't disprove a lot of things.

I'm assuming many of you don't believe in Fairies, trolls, dwarves nor do you believe in Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Amaterasu, Santa Claus or the Easter bunny or any theistic deity that isn't represented by your particular belief system. So in this sense you are fine in being atheist on these particular fictional beings but have decided, after reflecting on it, that your particular theology is the true path to salvation/enlightenment.

If you believe in a higher power that is beyond the religious writings on earth your position is a Deistic one, meaning you believe there is a higher being of some sort but far outside the understanding of humans. So much so that no religion could correctly reflect it. Possibly the universe is aware in a way we aren't capable of understanding but even if that were true, I wouldn't call it a god. But this is not Atheism or Theism it is another viewpoint most rational atheists wouldn't argue against a deist it's too exotic and has no dogma, legend or facts to argue against.

The primary difference I would say between atheists and religious people is believers are making an affirmative claim of the existence of something with absolutely no proof for the existence of that thing. I am saying there is no god because I have no proof, nor do I see a requirement for a creator.

Those are totally different ideologies it doesn't make atheism arrogant it makes it perhaps overly logical in some peoples eyes. But the opus is on the religious person to prove their faith is more accurate than the myriad of other alternatives out there not on the atheist to prove a negative.

I would add a religious text does not equal proof there are lots of religious texts and everyone says they are proof of Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, Amaterasu or Buddha. They can't all be right, you need independent, peer reviewed evidence by multiple different proponents that is proof.

peace and love

James