Atheist?

[Ed the Ned]

It doesn't claim that this is all a random accident.

I don't understand your comment! Could you please explain. If there was no Creator then it must have been random, by chance, no design. That logical is it not?

lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance; "a random choice"; "bombs fell at random"; "random movements"

- wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

[Ed the Ned]

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.

- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... cat01.html

This quote was taken from a pro evolution web site, so I thought I would respond to it. The whole comment bites back at itself. I don't find this comment logical at all. If the genetic variation on which natural selection acts occurs randomly, then the result thereof must be random. How were the genes created in the beginning, according to evolution they must have been random. I don't see how this order is coming from random acts.

 

[logical bob]

Hi Ed. I'll try to explain, but it's not easy in a forum post. Like I've said before, there's no substitute for getting a book on evolution by a scientist working in the field.

OK, if by random you mean "lacking design or purpose" then yes, evolution is random. But in another sense it's very much not random. Natural selection favours organisms that are better able to survive, and what it takes to survive is not determined by chance. It's determined by the environment.

Fish and dolphins have evolved separately from very different ancestors. Despite this, they're very a similar shape. If evolution was random, you wouldn't see that. They've arrived at that shape because it's a good shape for surviving in an aquatic environment. For the same reason, bats and birds are somewhat similar. This is called convergence.

Mutations do occur by chance in any population, but it's the process of natural selection that decides which mutations survive and which don't. There's no chance involved in natural selection.

Essentially, natural selection is summarised as "survival of the fittest" not "survival of the randomly selected."

 

[Lgolos]

If the genetic variation on which natural selection acts occurs randomly, then the result thereof must be random. How were the genes created in the beginning, according to evolution they must have been random. I don't see how this order is coming from random acts.

This is an excellent video that answers your question and explains the origins of life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP ... re=related

 

[Ed the Ned]

Still dont buy it. Sorry. I understand Bob where you are coming from and your argument. It makes sense, I don't deny that, but it is obvious that when ones environment changes that our behaviour changes. If that environment is hostile (life threatening), anyone would have to change what they do to survive. This is passed down generations. I don't doubt that similar traits and even genetic changes will take place. The story with the fish and the dolphin, sorry there are squid, turtles, crabs and may other sea creatures that are not that shape. And why don't crocodiles look like fish and outer inland water creatures. I am not going to get into an evolution and a creation debate on this topic the forum has an area for that. I think its clear that we will always differ regarding this. (I am not being closed minded either, I believe I have a solid foundation in regards to my understanding of these things)

 

[logical bob]

I am not going to get into an evolution and a creation debate on this topic the forum has an area for that.

When you make several points against evolution and then say you won't get into a debate I'm unsure whether I should answer you or not.

 

[Ed the Ned]

I made the comment in response to yours. I just know that my argument is not scientific as you will clearly show yours is. My argument will come from scripture and faith that the Bible is the word of God. Clearly something you disagree with. How are we going to be able to debate this? If you don't acknowlege that scripture (the truth I believe in) is valid in a debate of this nature, we will always be in disagreement.
I am not a scientest and only recently, I have come to a decision to accept the seven literal day creation. This I know sounds strange to you. I cannot give you scientific evidence why I have made that decision. Its more a spiritual decision I have taken in my walk with God. That is something you cannot debate or I cannot explain. You can shove as much "scientific" evidence of biogenisis theory in my face, it wont change my decision. I am being honest and open about that. This does not mean I am not interested in these theories, it only means that I accept the Word of the Lord above the theories of man.

 

[Lgolos]

If that environment is hostile (life threatening), anyone would have to change what they do to survive. This is passed down generations.

Behavior is not hereditary. Genes may be responsible for early brain development, but most complex behaviors (those that aren't reflexes or autonomous responses) must be learned.

why don't crocodiles look like fish and outer inland water creatures.

This really isn't a valid question. 'Why' implies purpose, and evolution has no 'purpose' in terms of human thought, since it is not the result of human thought.

(I am not being closed minded either, I believe I have a solid foundation in regards to my understanding of these things)

You are not being closed minded, but I wouldn't say you have a solid understanding of evolution. What people too often forget is that the present theory of evolution is the result of millions upon millions of man-hours of observation, experimentation, and synthesis. Not all of it can be derived intuitively (which is why it took until Darwin to even begin to figure it out), and as a result one needs to do outside reading if one is to effectively understand it. I posted a link to a video on the last page which explains the origin of life; there are other videos in the series that illustrate other evolutionary concepts. They're each only 10 minutes long, but they're very informative.

The first four:
The Origin of Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
The Origin of the Genetic Code http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc
The Origin of Genes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM
The Origin of Sexual Reproduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM

And remember, 'species', 'population', 'evolution', and 'natural selection' are arbitrary, man-made distinctions, and to really understand evolution requires you not to think in terms of these words if you can help it.

I am not a scientest and only recently, I have come to a decision to accept the seven literal day creation. This I know sounds strange to you. I cannot give you scientific evidence why I have made that decision. Its more a spiritual decision I have taken in my walk with God. That is something you cannot debate or I cannot explain.

The feeling of divine conviction and one-ness with god are caused by a momentary shift from left-brain-hemisphere dominant perception to right-brain perception. The body image and 'sense of self' are suspended, and one perceives without the filter of the left hemisphere. This experience cannot be verbalized, but carries with it a feeling of supernatural 'truth'. All of the multitude of religions throughout history have attributed this to a supernatural, nonhuman force because it is not consistent with 'normal' modes of thought. However, atheists are capable of achieving this state, and within the last century the biology of religion has to some extent been elucidated (and will even more so in the future). So yes, it is something that can be explained.

 

[ivdavid]

The feeling of divine conviction and one-ness with god are caused by a momentary shift from left-brain-hemisphere dominant perception to right-brain perception. The body image and 'sense of self' are suspended, and one perceives without the filter of the left hemisphere. This experience cannot be verbalized, but carries with it a feeling of supernatural 'truth'. All of the multitude of religions throughout history have attributed this to a supernatural, nonhuman force because it is not consistent with 'normal' modes of thought. However, atheists are capable of achieving this state...

Is this an empirically observed fact or is it some scientific theory/model ?

 

[logical bob]

I made the comment in response to yours. I just know that my argument is not scientific as you will clearly show yours is. My argument will come from scripture and faith that the Bible is the word of God. Clearly something you disagree with. How are we going to be able to debate this? If you don't acknowlege that scripture (the truth I believe in) is valid in a debate of this nature, we will always be in disagreement.
I am not a scientest and only recently, I have come to a decision to accept the seven literal day creation. This I know sounds strange to you. I cannot give you scientific evidence why I have made that decision. Its more a spiritual decision I have taken in my walk with God. That is something you cannot debate or I cannot explain. You can shove as much "scientific" evidence of biogenisis theory in my face, it wont change my decision. I am being honest and open about that. This does not mean I am not interested in these theories, it only means that I accept the Word of the Lord above the theories of man.

First up, I haven't shoved anything in your face. You asked.

Actually, I can kind of respect where you're coming from, although you're right to say I find it strange. And I agree that we're approaching these questions in such disparate ways that there's no possibility of meaningful debate. That's fine. Your position makes far more sense to me that creation science or intelligent design. Trying to use scientific evidence to support a literal reading of the Bible produces some risible results.

 

[Lgolos]

The feeling of divine conviction and one-ness with god are caused by a momentary shift from left-brain-hemisphere dominant perception to right-brain perception. The body image and 'sense of self' are suspended, and one perceives without the filter of the left hemisphere. This experience cannot be verbalized, but carries with it a feeling of supernatural 'truth'. All of the multitude of religions throughout history have attributed this to a supernatural, nonhuman force because it is not consistent with 'normal' modes of thought. However, atheists are capable of achieving this state...

Is this an empirically observed fact or is it some scientific theory/model ?

It is a 'theory' insofar as it is an explanation of empirically observed facts. The feeling (called 'oceanic experience') is well documented, and occurs in people of all religions. The methods used by religions to achieve these states (prayer, sleep deprivation, fasting, psychoactive drug use, meditation, ritual sex) all suppress the activity of the left brain hemisphere and thereby increase the relative function of the right. This is a simplification of both religious experience and brain function, but the main points are all there. The specific biochemical mechanisms are beyond the scope of this post; "I and That: Notes on the Biology of Religion" by Alex Comfort explains religious experience, and "Left in the Dark" by Tony Wright explains brain hemisphere lateralization. I highly recommend both if you're at all interested in the topic.

 

[Ed the Ned]

First up, I haven't shoved anything in your face. You asked.

Didn't come out the way it was supposed to sorry . I was implying that in general and not to you.

 

[Winters Eve]

I hope you don't mind if I have a go, given our recent exchange.


You die. That's it.


Sorry, I'm not really sure what you mean.


My family, my friends, my community and myself.


From our upbringing, families and society. From our own feelings and judgements. From the need to live together as social animals.


I am not persuaded of the accuracy thereof.

I love the Galileo statement and by all accounts he would know considering he proved the Orthodox wrong and was punished for bieng right! so in his case it caused harm to other people as well. Religion in a whole seems causes alot of harm.
as far as I see the Athiest just wants to get on with life with out much fuss and enjoy what time they have left.