User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Experience
Science used to disprove Creationism, in turn actually Proves it.

Now to begin things off, Atheism in itself is not a belief because every person on the planet has something that they either worship or believe in so I call Atheists "Humanists" just because most of them are stuck up scholars who worship themselves. But lets get back to the points...

(also I am only talking about "Macro-Evolution", not Micro-evolution which has been proved)

1.Believing that Infinitesimally complex single cell organisms could evolve from a primordial "soup" and have the ability to reproduce is like believing that if I left tons of scrap metal and gasoline and rubber in my basement it will evolve into a mercades.

2.I look at a mouse-trap and automatically think that it was created due to its complex design, when i see a cell i see that it is so complex that just a bunch of random ingredients came to produce a self reproducing cell well that is alot harder to belive than creation in my opinon. I just think that most people are just to prideful to admit it...

Brandon said, "Now to begin things off, Atheism in itself is not a belief because every person on the planet has something that they either worship or believe in" -

This is a foolish contradictory comment that is meaningless. Atheism is not a belief period. Atheists do not believe in anything that would require worshiping it, and they are on the planet.

Brandon said, "So I call Atheists "Humanists" just because most of them are stuck up scholars who worship themselves."

It's obvious why you would call anyone with even a rudimentary education stuck up. Atheists and Humanists are not necessarily the same things, because Atheists could be Humanists but all Atheists are not Humanists. Secular Humanists are atheist but all Humanists are not necessarily atheists.

Brandon said, "But lets get back to the points..."

Let's get back to what points? You don't have any points, unless you mean idiotic points.

Brandon said, "(also I am only talking about "Macro-Evolution", not Micro-evolution which has been proved)"

That is not true it is the kind of information that comes from apologists, creationists, pseudo-science or Intelligent Design, and it is not true or accurate.

The terms microevolution and macroevolution are being used by some creationists who are anti-evolution, but the terms are being used incorrectly as totally separate things. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is false. The 'difference' between the two terms is that one occurs within a few generations, and the other occurs over a very long period of time (a quantitative difference) describing the same process. The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization.

Some creationists try to separate evolution into two types, microevolution and macroevolution in order to argue that microevolution can make minor changes, but can't build new structures or make other major changes to organisms. Creationists often claim that a chain of small microevolutionary steps can't add up to a macroevolutionary step.

Macroevolution has been observed in the laboratory under carefully controlled conditions, and the results can be replicated. The results are described in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences titled Historical Contingency and the Evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia Coli.

In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate. Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and "that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species." Many traits were observed changing over time. Creationists dismissed these changes as microevolution. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.

Each population experienced billions of mutations in the first 30,000 generations. Since every possible point mutation was tried many times, scientists were either looking at a rare mutation (such as a large piece of DNA inverting) or a mutation made possible by the cumulative mutation history of prior generations. If this was just a rare mutation, then a sample of bacteria taken just before the trait first appeared would be no more likely to evolve the trait again than a sample taken from the other populations at the same point in time. However, if the ability to use citrate was from an accumulation of microevolutionary changes, then a sample from earlier generations of the E. Coli would be able to evolve the ability to use citrate again.

Fortunately, the scientists had frozen samples of each population every 500 generations. Sure enough, when they revived earlier samples, they watched the citrate-growing ability evolve in the "micro-evolutionary" line, but not from samples taken from other lines.

We know that in one population, a series of changes that happened between the 15,000th and 20,000th generations laid the groundwork for a major evolutionary advance. It is a clear example of macroevolution under carefully controlled laboratory conditions.

There are well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action. The fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors was discovered in 2004 by a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal.

Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil, is 20 times older than most fossils that explain human evolution. Ida is 20 times older than most known fossils that can shed light on human evolution. It has been concluded that she is a new species they have called Darwinius masillae, to mark the bicentenary of Charles Darwin's birth.

Known as "Ida," the fossil is a transitional species - it shows characteristics from the very primitive non-human evolutionary line (prosimians, such as lemurs), but is more related to the human evolutionary line (anthropoids, such as monkeys, apes and humans). At 95% complete, the fossil provides the most complete understanding of the paleobiology of any Eocene primate so far discovered.

For the past two years, an international team of scientists, led by world-renowned Norwegian fossil scientist Dr Jørn Hurum, University of Oslo Natural History Museum, has secretly conducted a detailed forensic analysis of the extraordinary fossil, studying the data to decode humankind's ancient origins. At 95% complete, Ida is set to revolutionize our understanding of primate evolution.

"This is the first link to all humans - truly a fossil that links world heritage," said Dr. Hurum.

"It's really a kind of Rosetta Stone," commented study co-author Professor Philip Gingerich, of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of Michigan.

If you don't like the answer that tough!

Im glad that this is your life...when your 80 years old it will mean so much

Also everyone worships something it is ignorant to say other wise be it money, love, or power. Second how can you quote Evolutionists to prove evolution science is supposed to be completely unbiased and deal with facts and to date i cant think of any empirical proof of evolution, just a lot of failed "missing links" and hypotheses. You could argue the same with creationism...but that isn't the point. It is suppose to be an in depth look at the FACTS as in PROVEN by the scientific community. So if per say evolutionism was dis proven then...atheism would *poof* disappear. No one ever remarks on "irreducible complexity" you never talk about that. why don't you delve into your obviously "vast" amount of knowledge and explain what "irreducible complexity" means.

Also how bout some empirical evidence for explosions producing more order and complexity....big bang theory = fail

No, everybody is not bowing down and serving something or "worshiping" it.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY: is an Intelligent Design argument in which intricate cellular components are cited as evidence of intelligent design. Intelligent Design proponents say that they couldn't have evolved because they can't be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts. They are irreducibly complex, so an intelligent designer must have intentionally designed them.

New research into mitochondria provides a devastating refutation of one of the main talking points for Intelligent Design "Irreducible complexity." New research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine - exactly the sort of structure that's supposed to prove intelligent design - were there long ago, and that over time they came together to become more complex.

THE REDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY OF A MITOCHONDRIAL MOLECULAR MACHINE: Molecular machines drive essential biological processes, with the component parts of these machines each contributing a partial function or structural element. Mitochondria are organelles of eukaryotic cells, and depend for their biogenesis on a set of molecular machines for protein transport. How these molecular machines evolved is a fundamental question. Mitochondria were derived from an á-proteobacterial endosymbiont, and they identified in á-proteobacteria the component parts of a mitochondrial protein transport machine. In bacteria, the components are found in the inner membrane, topologically equivalent to the mitochondrial proteins. Although the bacterial proteins function in simple assemblies, relatively little mutation would be required to convert them to function as a protein transport machine. This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general. The pieces "were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function," said Sebastian Poggio, a postdoctoral cell biologist at Yale University and co-author of the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

THE BIG BANG: The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) sketched out a blackbody curve the evidence convinced scientists that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred.

A space telescope that was launched in May has already begun to collect light left over from the Big Bang that created the universe. The Herschel and Planck space telescopes. Planck is known as a cosmic background mapper, launched in conjunction with an infrared space telescope named Herschel. The Planck telescope is the key to the European Space Agency's first mission to study the 13-billion to 14-billion-year-old radiation from the Big Bang.

Both Planck and Herschel are designed to focus on the darkest, coldest and oldest parts of the universe, studying dark matter, and dark energy, which is believed to drive the accelerating expansion of the universe. Both crafts are designed to help scientists unravel the mysteries of the Big Bang by peering back into the earliest moments of the universe.

Herschel, equipped with the largest mirror ever launched into space, will observe a mostly uncharted part of the electromagnetic spectrum so as to study the birth of stars and galaxies as well as dust clouds and planet-forming discs around stars. In addition, it is the most effective tool ever devised to look for the presence of water in remote parts of the Universe.

Planck is designed to map tiny irregularities in fossil radiation left over from the very first light in the Universe, emitted shortly after the Big Bang. Planck has enough sensitivity to reach the experimental limits of what can be observed, peering into the early Universe and studying its constituents such as the elusive dark matter and dark energy.

I didn't see any proof at all in your statement that justifies the big bang theory.

" THE BIG BANG: The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) sketched out a blackbody curve the evidence convinced scientists that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred.

A space telescope that was launched in May has already begun to collect light left over from the Big Bang that created the universe. The Herschel and Planck space telescopes. Planck is known as a cosmic background mapper, launched in conjunction with an infrared space telescope named Herschel. The Planck telescope is the key to the European Space Agency's first mission to study the 13-billion to 14-billion-year-old radiation from the Big Bang.

Both Planck and Herschel are designed to focus on the darkest, coldest and oldest parts of the universe, studying dark matter, and dark energy, which is believed to drive the accelerating expansion of the universe. Both crafts are designed to help scientists unravel the mysteries of the Big Bang by peering back into the earliest moments of the universe.

Herschel, equipped with the largest mirror ever launched into space, will observe a mostly uncharted part of the electromagnetic spectrum so as to study the birth of stars and galaxies as well as dust clouds and planet-forming discs around stars. In addition, it is the most effective tool ever devised to look for the presence of water in remote parts of the Universe.

Planck is designed to map tiny irregularities in fossil radiation left over from the very first light in the Universe, emitted shortly after the Big Bang. Planck has enough sensitivity to reach the experimental limits of what can be observed, peering into the early Universe and studying its constituents such as the elusive dark matter and dark energy."

I still didn't see any point made...so i will restate my question

"when have you through the process of Observation seen order and complexity come out of an explosion." personally i never have...

Astrophysicists have uncovered a great deal of evidence over the past hundred years to support the Big Bang theory. Among this evidence is the observation that the universe is expanding. By looking at light emitted by distant galaxies, scientists have found that these galaxies are rapidly moving away from our galaxy, the Milky Way. An explosion like the Big Bang, which sent matter flying outward from a point, explains this observation. Another critical discovery was the observation of low levels of microwaves throughout space. Astronomers believe these microwaves, whose temperature is about -270 degrees Celsius, are the remnants of the extremely high-temperature radiation produced by the Big Bang. Astronomers can get an idea of how hot the universe used to be by looking at very distant clouds of gas through high-power telescopes. Because light from these clouds can take billions of years to reach our telescopes, we see such bodies as they appeared eons ago. These ancient clouds of gas are hotter than younger clouds.

Scientists have also been able to uphold the Big Bang theory by measuring the relative amounts of different elements in the universe. They've found that the universe contains about 74 percent hydrogen and 26 percent helium by mass, the two lightest elements. All the other heavier elements -- including elements common on earth, such as carbon and oxygen -- make up just a tiny trace of all matter. Scientists have shown, using theoretical calculations, that these abundances could only have been made in a universe that began in a very hot, dense state, and then quickly cooled and expanded. This is exactly the kind of universe that the Big Bang theory predicts.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this explosion the Big Bang. While an explosion of a man-made bomb expands through air, the Big Bang did not expand through anything. That's because there was no space to expand through at the beginning of time. Physicists believe the Big Bang created and stretched space itself, expanding the universe. About one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang, protons and neutrons formed, and within a few minutes these particles stuck together to form atomic nuclei, mostly hydrogen and helium. Hundreds of thousands of years later, electrons stuck to the nuclei to make complete atoms.

About a billion years after the Big Bang, gravity caused these atoms to gather in huge clouds of gas, forming collections of stars known as galaxies. Gravity is the force that pulls any objects with mass towards one another.

The Big Bang theory explains what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. At the big bang itself, the universe had zero size, and was extraordinarily hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased. One second after the big bang, it would have fallen to about ten thousand million degrees. This is about a thousand times the temperature at the center of the sun. About one hundred seconds after the big bang, the temperature would have fallen to one thousand million degrees, the temperature inside the hottest stars. Within only a few hours of the big bang, the production of helium and other elements would have stopped. And after that, for the next million years or so, the universe would have just continued expanding, without anything much happening.

There are something like ten 1,000,000 to the 14th power or (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. Where the energy came from; the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. The gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space. This negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. The universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge; it would have neither beginning nor end- it would simply be. No need for a creator.

There are scientific explanations for the origin of the Universe, and the origin of life in that Universe, and the origin of new types of varying life forms. Most people who don't believe in the theory of "evolution" don't actually know what it is. They wouldn't understand a scientific theory if it were painstakingly explained to them. The subject of where did it all come from is answered for them with the "god did it" theory because it's so easy. Fortunately, a few people on this planet decided that the bible didn't answer anything, and they started looking for real answers with scientific explanations. In 2001 the Human Genome was Mapped (ge·nome - one haploid set of chromosomes with the genes they contain; the full DNA sequence of an organism.) The human genome mapping provides indisputable proof that Darwin was right.

Free energy, the ability to do work, is the most universal currency known in the natural sciences. In an expanding, non-equilibrated Universe, it is free energy that drives order from disorder, from big bang to humankind, in good accord with the second law of thermodynamics and leading to the production of entropy. On all scales, from galaxies and stars to planets and life, the rise of complexity over the course of natural history can be uniformly quantified by analyzing the normalized flow of energy through open, non-equilibrium, thermodynamic systems.

A sphere (such as) planets and stars is the most steady and effective form for a massive object to take since gravity pulls towards the center of mass. This effect of gravity to make objects above a certain mass assume a spherical shape has no connection to the shape of the universe, since the universe did not form from the accumulation of separate clusters of matter which gradually amalgamate into a sphere due to the force of gravity; the universe expanded from a singularity.

I disputed every apologist's argument that you have made with scientific answers. Your responses do not disprove them. Even though you claim "Science used to disprove Creationism, in turn actually Proves it." If you compared scientific theory with creationist's pseudoscience - They would have to prove that there is a god. I say they would have to prove that a complex 'god' that came from nothing existed. (Scientist can't go into fantasyland for explanations and neither can anyone else.) Everything that exists is either matter or energy. Did god make the Universe from something or nothing? If the creationists can't tell us what god is made of or what god made the Universe from than they haven't answered anything.

Your claim "Science used to disprove Creationism, in turn actually Proves it" is false. You haven't given one shred of evidence or proof of your claim. No instance of a supernatural explanation supplanting a natural cause has ever been observed.

Brandon Michaud:

Why did you copy almost the entire answer on the Big Bang without providing a dispute to each comment that you copied. "I never observed complexity come out of an explosion" is not a counter-argument. Copying comments that support the Big Bang theory and then posting an ID argument at the end is not a rebuttal. You also didn't put it in quotes or explain who said what.

Linda said, "Planck is designed to map tiny irregularities in fossil radiation left over from the very first light in the Universe, emitted shortly after the Big Bang."

The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 secured the Big Bang as the best theory. There was plenty of other information on that subject that you seem incapable of disputing or overlooked. Do you realize that all of the "quotes" you posted are proof that a Big Bang did occur?

An ID argument made out of ignorance of the theory against the actual proof that it did occur is not an argument. Where is any testable Intelligent Design theory about the origin of the Universe or life in that universe? A theory answers questions about the biological world or solves problems. A creator designed it "cause" is not physical or material, it cannot be invoked in a scientific explanation. A philosophical doctrine can not answer any of the questions, and is not science. The origin of the solar system can be explained without any supernatural event.

A Creator is responsible for the presence and structure of life on Earth is not a better theory than evolution. The claim that there are certain biological structures that are so complex that it is simply impossible to attribute them to non-intelligent causes because they are "Irreducibly Complex" and could not have evolved by gradual accretion has not been proven. But you were given proof that complexity of biochemical systems is not beyond the capabilities of natural causes and nobody has disputed it or presented an alternative testable theory. Nobody has described or carried out any research program based on creation or intelligent designer theory. Intelligent design has not shown that their theory can account for any of the information that evolution accounts for, and they have not provided any reason for believing that their theory even has the potential to produce anything useful to science. For instance, no alternative theory has been presented with findings that can be used in the study of genetics. Those studies are finding the reason for abnormalities and diseases, and those findings will lead to finding the cures.

Intelligent Design is not science, and ID has never come close to being a theory because no science is involved. Just presenting possibilities is not science. A scientific theory has to present a testable theory that proves the theory is not only possible but is very probable. Creationism is a story in the Bible that has never had any proof to back it up. It is not logical and has no evidence to support it.

Hmmm.... I think it's actually possible. If you left scrap metal, rubber, gasoline and other things around...

Well, imagine if you left EVERYTHING laying around. Then, yes, it would evolve into a Mercedes, or at least a part of the everything would.

Of course humans would have to evolve from some of the everything. Then they could build the Mercedes. I think that still counts though.

It would just take a really really really really really really really long time.... probably.

Well I consider myself philosophically Buddhist...but i digress.

Brandon, the fact that you used that example supports the point of no god. You can't just have a bunch of stuff poof into something. Hence your pile of scrap can't become a mercedes, which doesn't disprove evolution because that isn't a good example of how evolution works. Try reading about evolution, no not a blurb about it, a book. I promise you will enjoy it and it doesn't turn you into an atheist. If after you read it you still don't agree then great, but come back with a better example and debate on why evolution doesn't sound plausible.

Also saying that you understand micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you understand how to take a step, just not how to walk.

HOLD on now...I left out tequila, limes, salt, and sour...are you telling me that they won't evolve into a margarita?!?!

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ustream.tv

Join us for the Bat Cruise Lecture, 1:15pm September 27th at Trinity United Methodist Church, at 40th and Speedway. Lecturers will be Richard Carrier and Chris Johnson.

The ACA Bat Cruise is set for Saturday, September 27th, 6-8pm. Purchase tickets in advance here.

The audio and video from Dr. Shahnawaz August lecture is now available.