Are there any Atheist cyclists out there?



wiredued said:
So if I get the birdflu my posterity may grow wings and when I go fishing I might catch grandpa?:)
Uhm.... no.

I'm going to suggest that you do something which I'm sure would not be easy to do. I know you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution and it's always difficult to really try to learn about those things we don't believe are true. But just the same, since you seem so completely positive that there is no truth to the Theory of Evolution, doesn't it make sense that you understand precisely what it is you're so sure is wrong? How can you make a fair and objective decision about the validity of any proposition if you're not familiar with the assertions of the proposition? So I would ask that you take a little time and truly explore the suggested mechanisms of evolution. It's quite rare that I see creationists who have ever heard anything other than the creationist's warped and distorted version of the Theory of Evolution. It makes it very hard to offer a credible argument against it when you don't really seem to know that much about it. So maybe it would be worth your time to learn about it before dismissing it, rather than dismissing it without really understanding what it is you're dismissing. Anyway, you decide. Dismissal from ignorance, dismissal through knowledge or perhaps even, acceptance through new learning.
 
Fish and people? Could you have picked anything more dissimilar to blur the lines between. It's no wonder you have a problem determining kinds of creatures.:) A fold in the skin is not necessarily gill slits.

Beastt said:
Uhm.... no.

I'm going to suggest that you do something which I'm sure would not be easy to do. I know you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution and it's always difficult to really try to learn about those things we don't believe are true. But just the same, since you seem so completely positive that there is no truth to the Theory of Evolution, doesn't it make sense that you understand precisely what it is you're so sure is wrong? How can you make a fair and objective decision about the validity of any proposition if you're not familiar with the assertions of the proposition? So I would ask that you take a little time and truly explore the suggested mechanisms of evolution. It's quite rare that I see creationists who have ever heard anything other than the creationist's warped and distorted version of the Theory of Evolution. It makes it very hard to offer a credible argument against it when you don't really seem to know that much about it. So maybe it would be worth your time to learn about it before dismissing it, rather than dismissing it without really understanding what it is you're dismissing. Anyway, you decide. Dismissal from ignorance, dismissal through knowledge or perhaps even, acceptance through new learning.
 
wiredued said:
Fish and people? Could you have picked anything more dissimilar to blur the lines between.
I'm not attempting to blur any lines. The dissimilarity is precisely the point. Despite being so dissimilar, in the embryonic stage, we are, in fact, quite similar.

wiredued said:
It's no wonder you have a problem determining kinds of creatures.:)
I don't have a problem classifying creatures. I have a problem when people present vague words such as "kind" which has no true meaning within biological classification and then refuse to provide a clear definition for what they mean by "kind".

wiredued said:
A fold in the skin is not necessarily gill slits.
Yet it is exactly how the gill slit of a fish begins to form during the same stages of embryonic development. And while you seem quite quick to dispute the information regarding gill slits, you have completely avoided the topic of the tail which forms in the human embryo, then is reabsorbed before birth, (in the vast majority of cases). Have you no rebuttal for the tail or are you simply hand-waving this information because it provides convincing evidence against what you choose to believe?
 
wiredued said:
Can life come from rock soup is that science or faith?

There's more evidence that it came from rock soup than from thin air (or thin nothing).
 
wiredued said:
So if I get the birdflu my posterity may grow wings and when I go fishing I might catch grandpa?:)

I suppose anything is possible if you believe in a god.
 
mitosis said:
There's more evidence that it came from rock soup than from thin air (or thin nothing).


In truth there are more questions than answers in the everything to nothing, or "big bang".
Even Einstein's theories on unified fields have faults in them, although some of the questions have been answered , most of the premise is still theory.
We can't even agree on how old the universe is, 7 billion? 18 billion years?
Way, way too many questions for anyone to get cocky at this point.
I for one will listen read and keep an open mind and try to understand.
I suspect I will be gone long before any revalations of enlightenment are found to prevail.
 
jhuskey said:
In truth there are more questions than answers in the everything to nothing, or "big bang".
Even Einstein's theories on unified fields have faults in them, although some of the questions have been answered , most of the premise is still theory.
Technically speaking, if there are faults in these propositions, they can't be theories. If they have been shown to contain flaws, they can be no more than a hypothesis. A theory must comply with all known evidence, as long as the refuting evidence is of a credible, empirical nature.

jhuskey said:
We can't even agree on how old the universe is, 7 billion? 18 billion years?
The generally agreed upon age for the Earth is 4.6 Billion years and 13.7 Billion years for the universe.

jhuskey said:
Way, way too many questions for anyone to get cocky at this point.
I for one will listen read and keep an open mind and try to understand.
I suspect I will be gone long before any revalations of enlightenment are found to prevail.
I agree that we must all keep an open mind. As soon as we decide that we know the answers, we remove our reason to continue exploring and looking for answers. That's when we cease to learn.
 
DarkRider said:
I believe the pre-eminent cosmologist Stephen Hawking, among other top tier scientists went from being an atheist to a believer. Hawking was actually raised by a communist sympathizer mother who was vehemently atheist and instilled it in him, but his study of the universe and it's origins has left him to conclude that it "must have been created by a Creator"

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/hawking/schaefer.html

Hawking, like all scientists, has an open mind. The quote was not his words but those of schaefer.
 
mitosis said:
Hawking, like all scientists, has an open mind. The quote was not his words but those of schaefer.


Schaefer quotes the book, which I myself read a while back while at the U.. it's filled with reference to God.. Hawking is a believer for all intents and purposes, as were: Max Planck, William Thomson Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Gaileo Galilei (his dispute with the church not withstanding).

Believing in God is not (contrary to what many say) incompatible with science.. and those names ARE the major names in science.

Anyway.. I hate these types of arguments since nobody ever changes their mind and we can go on and quote references till we're blue in the face.. so I'm gonna get outta here..
 

Similar threads