Intellectual Laziness of Atheists

I didn't have to do any research. This just came to me through common sense -

Two main examples of reductionism, the fact that dogs are not becoming genetically varied as are bacteria.

Sorry, dont have much to elaborate but:

Dogs have only been domesticated and bred for less than 10,000 years. Hardly enough time to branch off into new species. Also, dogs tend not to be submitted to 'natural' selection.

Bacteria is asexual, therefore it always has the same genes every time it breeds. This is unless there is a mutation. These occur very rarely, so it takes a while to create new strains of bacteria. I don't actually know how you can disprove that there are new strains of bacteria as a result of natural selection, or have you just ignored this fact?

Also, looking at the nature of DNA. Only people with a knowledge of biology will understand this, there is actually no single factor which can prevent the variation of genetics. If a species are separated for a susbtantial amount of time and subjected to different selection factors, through sexual variation and through mutations, their gene pools can only inevitably become more and more diverse, therefore creating new species. The only thing that could stop this is some sort of mystical force.

I think i could go a lot further. There are a lot of holes in reductionism. I think its intellectual laziness at its peak.

 

So far, you just made a good argument for intelligent design.
I suppose you think that is just as easily an argument for a spine to somehow 'know' to rewrite its DNA so that its offspring is suddenly just 'born' with a straight spine.
In the world of real science we call that the 'ROFLFAO' Principle.

Your Spine is exactly the right shape and proportions to walk upright.
If it was bent forward only a few degrees more.. say 15 degrees.. then you would have severe pain and require surgery. It would be called 'Kyphosis'.

You do not have bones for a tail but I suppose you can 'Imagineer' that you might have one.
You skull might be made for horns too but you have none.
Imagination is FUN!

Which, I suppose, you believe is a 'Vestigial Organ'.
Well sorry but its been removed from that list as have most of the things we had not yet found uses for.
Its 2006... not 1935.

Once again, Erector Pili Muscles do exactly what they do and although we all know very well now that our hair keeps heat and sweat on (or off) our bodies - its certainly fun to 'Imagineer' they are unevolved monkey muscles.
Other than just 'dreaming it so' it not actually so.

Yeah. Ive been meaning to speak to the problem on the internet these days with people figuring out what 'Appeal to Authority' can do and when to use it etc.
This is not one of those times.
But hey.. Dont let me stop you from being a Darwinian Evolutionist. Personaly I would LOVE to see you go make that presentation at the dwindling Evolutionists Conference.
That Riotous laughter as you suggested that Natural Selection was the mechanism for Evolution would be Film Worthy!

So by all means, go right ahead and ...lol.. be a Darwinist!

HOLY SHIT!
You ARE a Darwinist!!

Ok yeahhhhh.... umm... I realise you have been frozen in time or bullshitted so relentlessly by 'NeoDarwinists' that you actually believe you are giving me some evidence of evolution.
In fact, you are giving me a demonstration AGAINST evolutionism and for DEvolution (tm).
Do you understand that its not 1890 anymore and we KNOW exactly and matter of factly that White Rabbits are SELECTING 'White Fur Genes' and NOT selecting say 'Black Fur Genes'.
Well they dont actually know they are and its actually the natural environment (namely Hawks and Predators etc) that are doing the selecting for them.
Yeah... Sorry to break it to you but its called Natural Selection and those White Rabbits actually have LESS variation to choose from now.
They are DEscending from the original gene pool.
Note: they are not AScending from anywhere.

No. You HAVE been Fooled.
Probably some evolutionist science teacher actually told you that Natural Selection is ...lmfao.. 'Evidence' of 'Evolution'.

In a way I am saying that.
They may be 'better off' in the sense they are now more specialised and 'better off' at not being killed by that specific antibiotic - however, they are LESS apt to adapt to the world outside that Antibiotic.
They are DEscending and specialising but not AScending and becoming more complex.
Just compare it to the Rabbit Situation. Same idea here.

Once again, there is at least SOME reason to believe that an ID is SOME SORT of explanation for complex working information.
There is ZERO reason to believe that random order can just somehow create information.
There is every reason to believe it CANNOT.
So if you want to believe in Naturalism - go right ahead, but just dont blame it on science or reason.

 

i'm starting to see the humour in all of this

 

Uh Oh...

There is Zero reason for you to suggest that even more time would give any reason to believe the Dogs would 'somehow' just begin to add new genetic information to themselves.
Speaking of 'just saying its so' - this is exactly what you and every evolutionist does.
Simply insisting that Evolution 'must have happened' or 'would eventually'.
Really?
Well once again Imagining things is really fun for Evolutionists.

I did not ignore it.. I actually explained it (basically) and once again, a poodle is a 'new strain' of dog like a new bacteria is a 'new strain'.
I think the word 'Mutate' is what is throwing people. Just because its a germ people get away with the usage but you would not say a Poodle is a 'Mutated Wolf'.
Mutation DOES happen in something called a 'Frame Shift' which is another thing that is wrongly used as some sort of evidence for 'Evolutionism' when in fact its 'Devolution'.
Thats another story I suppose.

Is Death one of them?
I pick that as my answer?

Ok.....

Woops.. bang! Mutations are bad. Really bad. The more 'substantial amount of time' the more mutations. Actualy they are quite rare but one thing we NEVER SEE (or can even begin to speculate) is how new genetic variations would be ADDED.
Doesnt happen and no know mechanism for this exists.. not even in some theoretical sense.
However...
We DO KNOW mutation occur and this means the longer the time (and number of generations) the LESS genetic selection there is.
Mutations = BAD.
Mutations often = LETHAL
Mutations Suck Balls and demonstrate a DEgenerating and DEvolving Planet.

At this point you just made something up.
There is ZERO reason for you to even start suggesting gene pools could, would, should become 'more diverse' and even less reason than zero to just fantasise they would become new Species.
I mean.. thats a wonderful fantasy but pretty much everything known to man flies directly in the face of that ever being possible even if there WAS any reason to think it could.

Good GAD!
Now you are even wondering 'how it could NOT happen'.
Wow.
How about.. hmmm... lets say a 'mystical force' like MUTATIONS and DEATH and I dunno... the fact that it has never even been observed to happen, scientifically speaking there is no possible way it could happen in the first place.

Yes, its like saying there are a lot of holes in a ten tonne granite rock which sits squarely in the backyard.
I confess to being so lazy as to simply accept the fact that its sitting in my yard rather than come up with a fantastical story about how its actually just going to 'transform itself' into Windsor Castle by responding to the Rainfall.
- That btw would be A BILLION times more likely to happen than for one single Dog to to transform itself into a new species.
But hey... you active imagination surely keeps you young at heart!

 

In the interest of not further expanding the size of these posts here are some of the continuing problems with your "arguments", Erasmus:

1) Even if I concede the point about the human back for the sake of argument, you've done nothing to refute any claims made about the appendix or the tail bone. Saying 'no it isn't' and giving a few zingers doesn't make a fucking argument!

2) Same problem with natural selection. You scoff at it but that's all you do. And don't keep telling us what year it is. You're nowhere near a convincing enough position for that sort of affected condescention. While you're checking on arguments from authority read up on ad hominem too.

3) Your reply to my white rabbit example is incoherent. You say that it's predators that are selecting the color of the rabbits (a natural rather than supernatural cause), then you once again say I'm foolish for being a proponent of evolution by natural selection but can't say why. If you can't say why ID is better then you've got nothing to say in favor of ID.

4) Most importantly, you have yet to give any of us any verifiable effects of this designer and I've grown tired of waiting. This has become too much like the time my mom found a bag of my weed, told me smoking it would mess up my life, couldn't point to anything in my life that was messed up as a result of getting high, and repeatedly made ridiculous and unsupported claims about the effects of smoking weed.

Libertine, Lying in a Field, this twerp's all yours (though you guys probably have better things to do too).

 

You read my mind gunison. Like most religious evolution bashers, Erasmus has very little understanding of the true workings of evolution. Being an ex born-again myself, i know that, sadly, this is the case all over the christian world.

 

By the way erasmus, please spend some time to look into meiosis.

It is the division of zygotes in sexual organisms. Through various processes, every sex cell is given random genetic information, taken from the original information from the mother and father. Futhermore, when a male and female breed genetic information is combined from two slightly genetically different beings.

In this way, genetic variation occurs every time animals fuck and conceive.

 

The main thing is that the two of you do not 'understand' what I explained to you.
Your asking for answers which are already self-explanatory and all you needed to do was a little bit of thinking and research to see how right I am and how mistaken you are.
The main thing you need 'get' is that your White Rabbits are SELECTING FROM an ALREADY EXISTING Pool of Traits.
Read that again.
DO NOT get into all kinds of things like 'how to position the argument' or 'zygotes' and these things yet.
Just stop and think and focus on this: Variation happens by selecting ALREADY EXISTING Genetic Traits.

The sooner both you and gunison figure this out - the sooner you can go on to talk about 'Vestigial Organs' or how and why novel genetic information would be added to a species and so on.

Otherwise, its me trying to explain it and you 'protesting' and asking where the explanation is over and over.

 

Ok sweetheart you are simplifying the genetic code as to make it out to be some sort of icecream van, with ALREADY EXISTING icecreams.

For every genetic trait there is a hugely complex level of genetic coding which accounts for thousands, if not millions of proteins, which combine to create hugely varied genetic traits.

I know exactly what you mean, but once you understand how complex genes are, you'll see that what might make sense for individual genetic traits, doesn't make sense when those traits are connected to a vast number of codes.

Ok, so maybe you could argue the idea of ALREADY EXISTING genes. Unfortunately these ALREADY EXISTING genes work in highly complex combinations, and at at least some areas in an organism's genetic code are incredibly varied. What drives evolution is the melding and changing of these many millions of combinations of genes. The possibilities are quite amazing. Which accounts for the many millions of incredibly varied species on the planet which possess DNA.

You like using the word 'added' as if to make the idea of species changing genetically over time ridiculous. Genetic information is not added, unless it is the form of new combinations of genes which create new proteins. Genetic information simply becomes varied, as in the case of sexual organisms, it comes from two different sources, the mother and father. This variation continues over each generation. If a gene pool is separated, then the more typical traits of that generation become further apart.

You mentioned once that mutations are bad. In most cases yes. Thank god for natural selection. Organisms with mutations that cause physical defects or anything that reduces their chances of survival will most likely die before they breed and in this way the defect is bred out. In very few cases, mutations do create changes for the better, depending on the environment. In this case, natural selection will mean this species is likely to survive long enough to produce young and in this way the genetic advantage will flourish.

I hope you know this, but what genetic traits are 'naturally selected' is highly dependent on the ever changing environment and what is considered a strength and a weakness at the time.

So thats my understanding of ALREADY EXISTING traits. Right or wrong, i don't see you being convinced. Granted, you probably couldn't convince me of the merits of Irreducable complexity. Just thought I might go back to basics for a while because I think there lies the foundation you lack in your argument.

But lets move on from the evolution vs irreducable compexity debate.

What I believe you have ultimately failed to answer is why we should believe in your God when there is so little proof. I have not seen or experienced your God, nor do I see any advantage in such an experience. Your argument on irreducable complexity, even if it could be true, doesn't at all prove the existence of your God. It simply disproves the existence of evolution.

Ok, so we can't disprove the existence of your God. Continuing on from an argument in one of my earlier posts, we can't disprove that the true God (responsible for intelligent design) is a giant chocolate donut with seven penises and seven vaginas, or a fish with no eyeballs, or that there exists clones of ourselves living on a planet in a far off universe that are playing us like video games. So why should I believe in any of these things over any other?

For the last time..give us a concrete reason to believe in the God almighty who made us in his image.

Do you have a personal account of his presence? If so i'd like to hear it and I will not judge you nor call you a liar. I cant speak for anyone else.

Peace to everyone on Earth and Happy New Year

 

That pretty much sums it up.
All the extra words were fun though!
Im not sure if you realise that variation does not in any way explain evolutionism, which is totally and at its very core asking for new genetic information to be added.
If its not asking for that anymore then Evolutionism does not exist anymore. That IS the very defining point of it.
ADDING new genetic information.
Kinda the OPPOSITE of Natural Selection and anything ever seen on Earth actually.
Evolutionism... the belief that species ADD new genetic information.
Seriously.. that IS what it believes in.

Fair enough, I cant really 'disprove' that a magical bowl of soup was hit by lightening and then began to morph into brontosaurus, Trump and billions of Chickens.. TRILLIONS OF TIMES no less.
No more than I can 'Disprove' a Flying Spaghetti Monster made Midgits(sp) or that a Fish Morphed into a Cow and the Cow then Morphed into a Whale.. (oh wait.. that IS evolutionism already).

Ok, I agree that its 'Possible' some soup had ALL THE GENETIC POSSIBILITIES OF EVERY KNOWN LIFE FORM ....
Ok.. Ne'er mind. I just cant stop marvelling at that one.

ID would account for the already existing genetic choices and it could even account for the seeming foreknowledge involved in making those choices available.
Does that work for ya?
Irreducable Complexity most certainly can be explained (to use that word) by an ID.
Especially the I and the D parts.
I would think that deserves a Yes - but because its ID, the opponents will just 'disapprove' of it as an explanation.

What makes you think I answer to 'you people' I have no idea but I suppose you should brace yourself for the possibility that you will not be getting a 'concrete reason' anytime soon?
If you dont - you plan on accepting the most insane possibility instead?
Wierdly, lots of people do (and some think its smart even lol)
Just look at Libertine.

 

'For the last time..give us a concrete reason to believe in the God almighty who made us in his image. '

I will not. First off, proof negates freewill, so were God real, proof of that is unlikely to be concrete, if our choice of whether or not to believe is to remain. Second, I feel you need to believe about God whatever you choose. I have no place, and no reason, to assume I know better than you what you should believe. I give my views, share my opinions, and, if asked, will offer my advice, but whether you agree, or not, is up to you. It is not my job to convince anyone of anything, and I don't think I can know what is right for another person, cuz I am not them. It is tough enough to decide what is right for me, I don't have time to decide for others even if I thought I was sure I should.
God loves atheists, if he is real. And atheists are just as righteous as theists of any faith. And if God doesn't like atheists as much as believers, then I will be surprised. Why wouldn't he? Insecure?, starved for attention?, Jealous?,
Vain?... not likely in my opinion. I bet God doesn't play favorites with religions.

 

'For the last time..give us a concrete reason to believe in the God almighty who made us in his image. '

Maybe that was a little forceful. It is silly of me to say such a thing, and expect 'concrete' proof of something. Your idea that proof negates freewill black guard is very interesting.

I'm off to get a pizza, can't talk more. But I think erasmus still lacks the basic understanding of evolutionary theory.

Ultimately I have nothing against Christianity, I think it is a wonderful religion. But I felt I needed to support my beliefs, so I presented my opinions as a counterbalance. Some of the ideas in this thread just lack sense and are more for the purpose of justifying than presenting fact.

If I was a christian i'd rather be off helping the poor like jesus than trying to gloat over the victory of irreducable complexity, which scientists around the world accept as highly unscientific.

I'm done here.

 

I never thought Id see the day but... I think the retarded guy really has an interesting comment on that.
Blackie.. sometimes you pull one out of the hat!

Pizza sounds interesting too.. Im off to the fridge.

 

I'd refute your 'retarded' description of me, but I would be insincere. You may well be right. Or... if not, I remember that an insult from an idiot is a compliment. Belvedere

 

I know most of you guys have been focusing on christian versions and conceptions of God, that are totally anti-christ and backward, ever since the catholic church got a hold of the religion and turned it into a bull of shit rape fest... but even though that is true, many christains mystics within the mainstream church turned on, tuned in and dropppped out! wohooo! like Therese Nueman, praise be the Christ heart and Buddha mind, that nun sure had it, talk about compassion, I dig!



A comment about Physics of the Soul by Amit Goswami


"In a brillaint integration of science, spirituality, and consciousness... physicist and author Dr. Amit Goswami uses quantum physics to describe mystical concepts such as the immortality of the soul, reincarnation, and the afterlife. Dr. Goswami describes conciousness as more then an abstract concept--as a reality primary and fundamental to science, and is his starting point for all scientific conduct. In Physics of the Soul, he integrates descriptions from the Tibetan Book of the Dead with his knowledge of quantum physics and concludes that reincarnational memory--past lives and our access to them--is an absolute, scientifically provable truth."

I'm only about halfway through the book but still haven't read all of his first book Self Aware Universe... because I tend to read several books at the same time... but already I have found my number one scientist of all time. He has convinced me and confirmed for me the truths I already know.

This book should be TAUGHT IN EVERY SCHOOL, not the ID theories that fundementalists promote!

 

Wesley has grown in leaps and bounds since we last visited the Yeuker residence.
Cheers

 

Cheers, I suspected as much. They are in expert hands. But I digress, I propose that atheists are no lazier than theists, they're all lazy. Thinking is out of style, and may not return. TV can think for us.

 

I hate to say it but thinking is being replaced with Television Sitcoms, X-Box360 and Cell Phones.
The internet forum has been a mitigating factor but even here, too many people are getting better and better at 'debating' but not better at 'thinking'.

It honestly seems like you have improved dramatically Blackie.. but I expect something retarded from you now and then - just to keep us all alert.

I should say this much - Atheism is definately experiencing a moment of sudden realisation that its about to die and that has brought about a bit of a re-awakening.
Like how people on a death bed, just in the final seconds will suddenly open their eyes and make a last minute statement before passing on.

 

I hate to say it but thinking is being replaced with Television Sitcoms, X-Box360 and Cell Phones.
The internet forum has been a mitigating factor but even here, too many people are getting better and better at 'debating' but not better at 'thinking'.

It honestly seems like you have improved dramatically Blackie.. but I expect something retarded from you now and then - just to keep us all alert.

I should say this much - Atheism is definately experiencing a moment of sudden realisation that its about to die and that has brought about a bit of a re-awakening.
Like how people on a death bed, just in the final seconds will suddenly open their eyes and make a last minute statement before passing on.

 

Yes Quantum mechanics has revealed what Amit Goswami called "the demise of material realism" exactly what you speak of... Atheism depends on scienetic philosophy of material realism.