₦airaland Forum

Are Athiest The Most Intelligent People? ?

Deep Sight:
The fundamental principle of evolution is development of species through natural selection.

Natural Selection is based on the notion that favours survival of the fittest.

Creatures supposedly develop features over time that enable them to survive competitively within the natural world.

Thus Evolution and natural selection tend firmly towards life and survival.

This in itself clearly presupposes that nature is life-driven - as it continuously hones its creatures towards life.

Perhaps the question should be asked: why is this? Why is nature interested in the furtherance of life?

It is paradoxical as a strictly material universe surely could not be bothered about furthering life.

It thus emerges that the very principle of natural selection which operates to further life is compelling evidence that the entire system we live in is life-driven and grows towars the furtherance of life.

Why is this?

A good answer to my mind would be the existence of God - Ultimate Life, as it were.

Because it is glaring that if LIFE by itself were not a living pulsating reality, nature could just as easily have tended towards death or annihilation.

Evolution proves the existence of God!

nuclearboy:
^^^ Actually, its more like science looking for a way to explain something they've been forced to agree happened yet desire to water down

Joke's on science here

Odunnu:
When atheists fill forms and come to the part whr they include their religion,what do they fill out. Just curious

vescucci:
The good thing about atheism is that it is unbelief and not belief in anything. You can just carry on like nothing is happening. Dodge many religious rituals or do them to keep appearances. Thing is atheists are looked upon as some kinda devilish people who have no godly psychomotor. Unfortunately, atheism is turning into a systematic set of unbelief and they'll soon be asserting their rights to assembly. It's becoming a religion

OLAADEGBU:
Karl Marx: Passionate atheist.

When the time came for his death, he wrote in his poem The Pale Maiden:

"Thus heaven I've forfeited, I know it full well, My soul once true to God, Is chosen for hell."

Could you believe that this man used to be a christian until he began to toy with socialism and ended up being a ardent communist/marxist that hated God and his people with a passion.

ogoamaka99:
One of the great tragedy of religion section of nairaland forum is the way some spiritually ignorant and spiritually blinded folks are peddling lies and half baked biblical truth.Worse still is that some of them even profess to be atheist.

But to me i refuse to accept that they are atheist but rather are religious ignoramous  who has lost their mind and so could not reason well again. I said this because if they are truly atheist ,then what on earth are they doing in religion section of this forum.?

My dictionary defines atheist as one who denies the existence of GOD, and the Bible and the Koran are books of religion written about GOD or ALLAH. If actually they are atheist , [/color]how come they claim to have great insight in Biblical and religion topics being discussed in the forum?.[color=Black]

A true atheist does not have any thing to do with religion yet these group are the greatest noise makers in this forum.They post religion articles and equally reply to religion posts.

[snip] Is it not logically an irony for someone who claim that there is no deity or GOD and yet still claim and pose as having great insight and understanding of religious matters".

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

(8. What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?

OLAADEGBU:
This is another set of questions that evolutionists have not answered, lets see whether they would be up to the challenge.

One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?

Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

OLAADEGBU:
Information is UDI ask your apostle to give you his explanation.  If  you believe that dinosaurs had feathers that means you believe pigs have wings to fly.

Show me where you answered the question or forever remain silent.  But I am impressed that you took your time to check out the good person test.

All these diversionary tactics would not work, answer the question I asked and stop beating about the bush.

What question did you ask me that I did not answer?  If you've forgotten let me direct you to the thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=304357.0

While this question follows the same tack of misunderstanding evolution, I wanted to point out that the evolution of a new species wouldn't have been by chance. While mutations occur by chance, selection removes that element of chance. Thus, new species of dinosaur will have undergone natural or/and sexual selection.

Here you go again, answer the question I asked if your evolution is not by chance then what is it?

Mutations are just like you make photo copies, would the copies be as good as the originals, would it be better or worse?

The genetic mutations can either cause loss of information or gain of new information but all observed mutations are in the category of loss of information.

If a beetle loses the information to make a wing on a windy island, the mutation is beneficial because the beetle doesn't get blown out to the sea and killed.  Genetically, the mutation caused a loss of information but was helpful to the beetle. What your fairytale teaches you is that the goo-you-via-the-zoo evolution over million of years by natural causes, and that single-celled life form gave rise to more advanced life forms.  In other words, what you want us to believe is that over millions and billions of years, increases in information caused by mutation and natural selection developed all the life forms we have today.

For single celled organisms like an amoeba to evolve into something like a dinosaur, new information would need to develop over time that would code for ears, legs, eyes, and so on.  If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information.  This increase of new information would need to continue in order for the kidneys, lungs, heart, brain and so on to develop.

If you are sincere you will realise that theses cells don't contain information for working heart, lungs or eyes and the DNA added would be useless and would only be more of an obstacle than a help.

There has to be billions of information-gaining mutations for evolution to be true but the fact is that we don't observe this in nature as your apostle admitted, what we see is organisms losing information.

How you say it then adds up to a gain is what you have to explain to us.

I believe that I just answered you question even though you didn't answer mine and I have a few others to ask you.

OLAADEGBU:
Loss of Information

OLAADEGBU:
With your limited knowledge of evolution can you answer the following questions that has remained unanswered by the atheistic evolutionists?

We have heard your cock and bull stories of how the dinosaur evolved into a bird, can you tell us the gender of the first bird that evolved?  Was it male or female?  Let's say it was a male.  How did it produce offspring without a mate?  If a female evolved, why did it evolve with a different reproductive organ? Was it gay or an hermaphrodite?

Did it evolve by chance, or did it evolve because it had the premonition that it was going to be needed by the male species?

How did it know what needed to be evolved if its brain hadn't yet evolved?  Did the bird breathe?  Did it breathe before it developed lungs?  How did it do this?  Why did it evolve lungs if it was happily surviving without them?  Did the bird have a mouth?  How did it eat before it had evolved a mouth?  Where did the mouth send the food before the stomach evolved?  How did the bird have energy if it did not eat because it didn't yet have a mouth?  How did the bird see what there was to eat before its eyes evolved?

alienYOUTH:
i'm gonna try my best to address the issue at hand and not the personalities involved, also, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but a little common sense ought to prevail beyond the crazed search for facts where the obvious glares us in the face.

To understand the movement of planetary body bodies, one has to understand the movement of particles of the atomic nature, likewise to understand Creation, u just have to look at the basic actions of man.

To claim that our existence in this realm emanates from random occurrences in time, and not intelligent design, is a great insult.

Bringing this evolution thingy down to earth , its like claiming, according to the "Infinite monkey theorem", that "Given enough time, a hypothetical chimpanzee typing at random would, as part of its output, almost surely produce all of Shakespeare's plays". This statement even simplifies the situation because the Chimpanzee and Computer would need time to evolve in the first place. You honestly do not need proof to know the answer to that.

My previous post advanced the thought that the Cellphone, Computer, and Airplane did not just evolve out of nothingness, they were deliberately fashioned out of the creativity and intelligence of man. These objects now further Evolved through time to what we have today, mind you not randomly, but still with the input of the Creators. This brings to the fore that Evolution is an offshoot of Creation.

Likewise on the grand and more complex scale, the world and all the complexities involved could not possibly have just "Happened" without intelligent input, it cant even continue to exist without sustained intelligence.

The evolution theory, i believe, is a very lazy and selfish thought process

attributing existence to chance; we all know there is no meaningful reaction without a deliberate action,

Creationism/Intelligent design is more proactive and accommodating approach to life. The mere fact the creator hasn't come out to defend his position does not debunk His existence.

The Evolutionist could just as well sit around while the next iphone evolves into their hands.

OLAADEGBU:
Its all a matter of what spectacles you use in viewing the evidence you see around you.

Jenwitemi:
Is the process of evolution not an act of creation? You talk as if evolution does not bring about creation, as if the two are separate. Are they, really? Whether an act of creation was automated or guided, it is still an act of creation, thus it is creationism. You seem to attach the word "creationism" only to the mythological tale of creation, while i see it in it's overarching context. To me, the word "creationism" means the very act of creating itself. All the other theories out there, including the theory of evolution, are nothing more than suggestions of how this act of creation was carried out. That is all they are.

Your arguments with biblethumpers are just about the processes of creation and not the act of creation itself, which to me, is a sheer waste of time. Whether the universe came about through natural processes, or through some dude who waved a magic wand and went, "bippity boppity boo", it still does not remove the fact that all are just creation theories and nothing more.

Jenwitemi:
Latest news update; The theory of evolution has long become a dogma. Many scientists have lost their jobs by just challenging the theory and pushed to the fringe of science. Yes, it has become a dogma even though it is nothing more than a theory.

If the earth was not created, how come it is in existence then? I don't get your point here. Whatever is in existence is created. Maybe you need to be more specific here. Are you talking about the very act of creation itself, or just a version of it, like the biblical creationism?

Biblical creationism can never be scientifically proven or substantiated because it is in the realm of mythology, a kind of mythological poetry. Nobody should even try doing it because it can't be done.

But creationism itself, on the other hand, can only be scientifically theorized and the theory of evolution is just one of those theories, and it remains exactly that, a theory. How the  universe came to be is still being researched at the moment. We still know very little. Folks(theists and atheists alike) should stop acting as if they have the answer.

noetic16:
how is this a defeat to creationism?

1. The plaintiff makes an ambiguous case and calls "faith" as though it were "science". The judge logically throws out the case, based on the submissions of both sides. which is the rational thing to do here.

2. does this case rubbish the case for creationism? Absolutely not. The only problem here was the manner the in which the plaintiff presented its case. . .by stating facts and labelling them as science. it is a FACT that the earth was created, but to state this as a scientific notion, without making necessary scientific evidence inspired submissions is to declare faith.
So while the plaintiff's submission was "faith" inspired, there is a scientific case for creationism. what the judge has done is to assume that a dogma (creationism) without evidence was going to be taught as science. . .but what he did not consider was that another dogma called evolution was already being taught as science in schools.

3. There are scientific evidences and notions that support creationism. These are pretty obvious, the major difference lies in the acceptance or rejection of these evidences. The objective exploration of the science behind creationism presents plausible evidences for a created universe, while the objective exploration of the evolution case reveals holes and gaps that are scientifically, logically and intellectually inexplicable.

4. is evolution a science on its own?

alienYOUTH:
It doesnt make sense that these creationist guys r trying 2 "PROVE" creation. Faith is something u accept w/o question, not prove it.

Besides, anyone who thinks the world "evolved" after a big bang has some incredible imagination cos its easier to believe the universe was created, than reason d alternative.

If life evolved on earth, the same would have happened on Mercury or Pluto. Like i always say, aliens do not necessarily have to be anthropoid, they might as well breath nitrogen or thrive in extreme heat/fire; in fact d same way our kind of lifeform cannot thrive on Mercury because of d heat, a being on Mercury would find our environment hostile.

Even on earth, there r creatures that survive in d extreme depths of the sea where d pressure and absence of light would prove hostile for humans and most creatures. Even in volcanic areas of extreme heat, scientists have found thriving lifeforms. IF LIFE CAN EXIST IN SUCH SITUATIONS, THEY WOULD HAVE EVOLVED ON OTHER PLANETS OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM OR BEYOND!!!

The Airplane, Cellphone and Computer didnt evolve, they were created; much less more complex beings like Man and Beasts.

mantraa:
So far over twenty different species of extinct humans have been found. Homo sapians are the last surviving species of humans. Maybe we survived whilst all others became extinct is because we killed them all off when we migrated out of africa. Homo sapians have in the past had a great tendancy for genocide when coming into contact with others who are slightly different to themselves. 

This is a very good book to read.
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Twenty-Two-Species-Extinct/dp/0300100477/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276202670&sr=8-3

"Remarkable in scope and clarity, this stunning collaboration among scientists, scholars and artists reveals the vast panorama of hominid evolution. The project began when the Fossil Hominid Reconstruction and Research Team, led by anthropologist Sawyer and paleoartist Deak, began reconstructing fossilized skulls and skeletons, using meticulous procedures of forensic anatomical reconstruction to build three-dimensional models of contemporary humankind's known predecessors. Paleontological and anatomical data for each species were combined with anthropological and climatological research to produce this volume, covering 22 species and 7 million years. As chapters move chronologically from our most primitive antecedents, the poorly known "ape-men" of the African Sahel, through more well-known ancestors, such as the Australopithicines, Homo habilis and Neanderthals, the data grows in complexity and quantity; happily, fictional accounts of individual hominids draw readers into each new chapter. Illustrated with astonishingly life-like portraits of long-gone species, this volume also includes appendices that describe in detail how those portraits were achieved. Both inspiring and humbling, this look at humanity's ancestors-the worlds they inhabited, the challenges they faced and the legacies they left behind-is fascinating, informative, and deeply provocative."

And this one.
http://www.amazon.com/Extinct-Humans-Ian-Tattersall/dp/0813339189/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276202670&sr=8-1

There are also many other species of primates that we may never know about which have gone extinct and many more are on the verge of extinction due to us.

TV01:
So be the mutations good or bad, they remain humans, no?

However, yes, they are still humans, but one wouldn't expect just a known mutation here and there to cause speciation.

So what would?

Simply stated, Kangaroo rats are not actually rats. We have just presumed to  label them that and assumed "evolution" from rats, as it can't be evidenced?

Would a phenomena such as lions and tigers or horses and donkeys being able to mate, but producing sterile offspring be more suggestive? And are there different species of human, as this is not the case with us?

Surely there must be something to lend greater credence to the "fish to amphibian" postulation?

Thanks
TV

TV01:
My point being that seing as adaptative/mutative evolution  - please excuse my use of terms, just trying to be understood and avoid "semantic drag" - is so random, wouldn't we expect to see some very peculiar adaptations in particular human populations? And in as much as those things occur (maybe not as vividly as in Star trek perhaps ), they are still humans and not another species or creature entirely.

As for most mutations not being "physiological", thats nice to know, but presumably some do become codified over time?

I have no quibbles with any of this. But does this mean different/new creatures? This is merely variation in what I'd call the "genetic bandwith" inherent within each creature. Take dogs as an example. There're a million different "Mutt" variations, but they are all still dogs. And can viably mate with one another - Sausage Dog and Great Dane. Chihuhaha and Alsatian.

A new species that cannot mate or produce fertile offspring with non Kangaroo rats? Again not to drag, species is a form of construct, I'm talking one creature "evolving" into a completely different one here.

So some rats have big glutes? So do certain populations in Africa. Does that make them a different species fom the African or non-African populations that don't?

Adaptation, mutation with certain "genetic bandwiths" I can see, but morphing into a completely new creature I am yet to see evidenced.

Thanks for you as ever cogent post though.

Best
TV

Deep Sight:
KAG - Is there not a difference between  -

1. Adaptation within a species - whereat various sub-sets may emerge displaying variations within that same species - (e.g: the kangaroo rats you mentioned -

AND

2. Evolution into an altogether different species - e;g - Fish overtime becomes amphibian, which becomes reptile and which becomes bird.

TV01:
Hiya MadMax,

No need, you'd probably lose me quite early on anyway . But based on what you've said above, it makes it even harder to comprehend.

If there's no continuum or pre-defined end-point, with random mutations - and lets assume they are all beneficial - happening all over the species, shouldn't the variation amongst humans look like something out of Star-Trek? Webbed feet for the dwellers/fishermen of the Lagos lagoons, big padded bottoms for those who spend all day seated at computer screens and the like? But seriously!

Do biological threats - or any other kind - really lead to new species? Again, simply put, would a real biological threat take a "time out" for an "evolutionary response (over millenia)" to happen? There is either pretty much instantaneous change to cope or the population/sub-populace perishes. Just like when new diseases are introduced to  populations. Resistance/immunity may be developed/acquired, but it will be based on the immediate ability to adapt no? Has it been shown to lead to an entirely new species?

justcool:
@madmax
I have stated many times in this thread that not all types of adaption makes an imprint in the genes; thus not all forms of adaptation are inhereted or passed onto the offspring. I even gave an example --Acclimation. But it seems that no one is reading my posts.

About adaptation, if you don't believe me check out these sites:
http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/adaptatn.htm
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Physiological_adaptation


I repeat: Not all forms of adaptation are evolutionary adaptation. These is something called physiological adaptation adaptation, which happens in a lifetime of organism and is usually temporary.

justcool:
@KAG
I believe that my post above(which is directed to mad max) answered all your subsequent questions; there is no need repeating the same thing.

There are many types of adaption. I gave two types in my post above. Please take time to read my post above. And yes, not all adaptations involve the genes.

Also, if you will be kind enough as to give me your definition of 'Acclimation,' I will appreciate it.

Thanks.

justcool:
You can say that adaptation is a part of evolution, just like a single step is a part of journey but not the same thing as the journey. "Insepareble," is not the right choice of words, because not all adaptations lead to evolution. An adaptation that does not involve the genes will not lead to evolution.

An example of such adaptation is "Acclimation" which only involves acquired traits and not the genes. Such adaptation can be temporal, yet it is still adaptation because it is a response to a change in the environment, in such cases when the environment returns to normal, the organism loses the acquired traits.

I will give an example, a whiteman living in Nigeria gets a tanned skin. This tanning of his skin is adaptation but not evolution. It has not affected his genes, and when he returns to Europe he loses the tan. And also, he cannot pass on this acquired trait(tanned skin) to his offsprigs because it has not affected his genes.

The type of adaptation that leads to evolution comes from transmited genetic variations which is preserved by natural selection.

An amphibian, for example would not return back to being a fish just because it returned back to the water. This is because evolution has taken place; but a whiteman will quickly lose his tan on returning back to Europe, this is because no evolution has taken place.

Another difference is that evolution deals with a entire population over a larger period of time. It is impossible for an organism to evolve within a life time. Actually it is impossible for a single organism to evolve. A single organism can only adapt; and adaptation can take place in one lifetime.

Remember my analogy in my earlier post where I compared the relationship between adaptation and evolution to the relationship between a minute and a century.

justcool:
Thank you, and I rest my case.

justcool:
I have no probelm with the above, infact it is a good summery.

I think we have exhausted the issue of 'facts,' 'laws,' and 'theories.' I have nothing more to add to that.

@KAD
Evolution and Adaptation are not the same thing. There are no synonyms in science, each term has a different meaning.
In order not to make a long post, let me just ask you a question: If you asked in a science exam,

Is there any difference between evolution and adaptation?

What would your answer be. Please let me know.

JeSoul:
I like this quote. I have a few questions if you don't mind KAG.
Are you saying a theory can never be proven to be fact? And also, care to explain what you mean by "science doesn't do proof"? Thanks.

I share the opinion that making predictions or projections based on current evidence is infact good science. I think the problem Justcool has (and I share) is that often these predictions can have a knack of keeping one in a theoretical box, a box with dimensions that have been predicted or guessed, and hence may not be accurate, and hence may limit our scope of research.

That being said, I'm not sure there is necessarily a better alternative. We go by what we know, and what we know is limited. The minute we step outside of that, it becomes bias and conjecture.

Deep Sight:
@ KAG - before you dare use my above post in refutation of any past argument of mine (you know which one) remember that in this argument I refer to effects that extinct things have on a continuing world - whereas the previous argument reflected on a state of cessation altogether: to wit - if society is NOT eternal what does that the past mean in the context of an eventual absolute zero. We are not at that zero yet since we still exist, and recall it is my postive contention that zero in fact does not exist, and s such there will never be such a state of "nothingness" either in cosmic terms or in the existence of an individual being.

justcool:
madmax my friend, what you described above is only adaptation and not evolution. A lot of people, including scientists, confuse adaptation with evolution.

What is the difference then?

Evolution deals with change of a species from one species to another, over a very long period of time. While adaptation is only a refinement of a species to better cope with the demands of its environment.

As long as the species remain the same species, evolution is out of the question; it is rather adaptation. No matter how much defense a bacteria develops against penicillin and antibodies, as long as it remains a bacteria, it has not scientifically speaking, evolved.

No human, however, can mate(reproduce) with primates because they are of different species.