Are there any Atheist cyclists out there?

[meehs]

Kind not species is the word, dogs came from wolves so a pair of wolves would probably cover dogs and pups would be best to economize space and food. Do you beleive it rained on the rocks for millions of years turned them into soup and life just happened by random chance with a dna code incredibly more complex than anything Bill Gates ever wrote?

Oh I see... Dogs evolved from the wolves that Noah loaded-up onto his ark along with every other "kind" of animal that existed on the planet, but humans didn't evelove from the lesser primates they were created from dust by a magical supreme being who got bored one day. Gotcha! Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[baj32161]

Oh I see... Dogs evolved from the wolves that Noah loaded-up onto his ark along with every other "kind" of animal that existed on the planet, but humans didn't evelove from the lesser primates they were created from dust by a magical supreme being who got bored one day. Gotcha! Thanks for clearing that up.

And herein lies a common misconception....the theory does not categorically state that humans evolved, necessarily from lesser primates. What it does state is that humans and primates share a common ancestor. The "fact" that modern dogs evolved from a pair of wolf pups is ludicrous beyond imagination.

There is no way anyone in here is going to change anyone elses mind so the arguments are pointless and colossal wastes of enegry. I am just happy to see that the vast majority of us are free thinkers and refuse to be bound by some archaic "laws" set down a mere couple thousand years ago by some "spirit" on a mountaintop in a burning bush to some guy named Moses...or was HIS name Gilgamesh too?

Lets give it a rest folks and just agree to disagree. We Atheists have been doing that all along. It is not we who choose to force our values or beliefs down anyone elses throats afterall (yes that was the final dig )>

I bet this gets up to 200 posts....I'm out.

Peace (yeah, right!),

Brian

 

[wiredued]

Variation of kind or micro evolution (size, colors, temperament etc) happens alot but there are limits no one has ever seen a dog produce a none dog and it is not science to say that they can it is a belief system called macro evolution.

Oh I see... Dogs evolved from the wolves that Noah loaded-up onto his ark along with every other "kind" of animal that existed on the planet, but humans didn't evelove from the lesser primates they were created from dust by a magical supreme being who got bored one day. Gotcha! Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[wiredued]

As for your beliefs not being forced on people I would have to say your wrong I am forced to pay for evolution to be taught to kids in the public schools. Is any one forcing you to pay to spread creation science?

And herein lies a common misconception....the theory does not categorically state that humans evolved, necessarily from lesser primates. What it does state is that humans and primates share a common ancestor. The "fact" that modern dogs evolved from a pair of wolf pups is ludicrous beyond imagination.

There is no way anyone in here is going to change anyone elses mind so the arguments are pointless and colossal wastes of enegry. I am just happy to see that the vast majority of us are free thinkers and refuse to be bound by some archaic "laws" set down a mere couple thousand years ago by some "spirit" on a mountaintop in a burning bush to some guy named Moses...or was HIS name Gilgamesh too?

Lets give it a rest folks and just agree to disagree. We Atheists have been doing that all along. It is not we who choose to force our values or beliefs down anyone elses throats afterall (yes that was the final dig )>

I bet this gets up to 200 posts....I'm out.

Peace (yeah, right!),

Brian

 

[stevebaby]

When you find a fossil can you tell if it had any kids let alone different kids?

Why are you feebly attempting to use "logic" when faith alone should be enough?Are you trying to convince yourself?It's self defeating to use logic which inevitably must be used to defeat you.
It is really amusing that christians try to use "logic" and "reason" to justify their religion,until their arguments are totally destroyed,and they fall back on "faith".
In which case,if religious belief depends on faith,then surely all religions are equally valid,or at least as valid as the amount of belief that their adherents have.And that being the case,every christian would have to agree that Islam,hinduism,buddhism were also universal truths.
Which negates christianity's claim to be the truth.
Hmmmm...Nero...an enlightened rationalist - before his time: discuss.

 

[stevebaby]

Variation of kind or micro evolution (size, colors, temperament etc) happens alot but there are limits no one has ever seen a dog produce a none dog and it is not science to say that they can it is a belief system called macro evolution.

You can hardly spell or construct a sentence.
I don't think you are likely to convince anyone .
Perhaps you would do better in Iran where the mullahs share your mindset,if not your actual beliefs.
In the meantime,in the spirit of free speech,I extend a welcome to you and those of your ilk to discuss religious matters with me and my dobermans.
I hate paying for dog food,and your bones will be good for their teeth.
You'll go to straight to the big trailer park in the sky and be a martyr and I"ll save a couple of bucks that I can spend on beer.
Win/win situation really!

 

[wiredued]

The thread seemed to be very one sided it needed more input from another point of veiw to liven it up. Evolution can be just as dangerous as religion macro evolution has been used by some dictators to justify killing people they consider to be inferior death to them is progress. People that believe in God even today face firing squads in some countries that have whole heartedly embraced macro evolution.

Why are you feebly attempting to use "logic" when faith alone should be enough?Are you trying to convince yourself?It's self defeating to use logic which inevitably must be used to defeat you.
It is really amusing that christians try to use "logic" and "reason" to justify their religion,until their arguments are totally destroyed,and they fall back on "faith".
In which case,if religious belief depends on faith,then surely all religions are equally valid,or at least as valid as the amount of belief that their adherents have.And that being the case,every christian would have to agree that Islam,hinduism,buddhism were also universal truths.
Which negates christianity's claim to be the truth.
Hmmmm...Nero...an enlightened rationalist - before his time: discuss.

 

[jhuskey]

The thread seemed to be very one sided it needed more input from another point of veiw to liven it up. Evolution can be just as dangerous as religion macro evolution has been used by some dictators to justify killing people they consider to be inferior death to them is progress. People that believe in God even today face firing squads in some countries that have whole heartedly embraced macro evolution.

Evolution is the best theory put forth as yet,in a scientific format,to explain the origin of species on this planet.
Evolution does however have many dead ends and gaps if you try to trace a chain of events that led up to today. That is why it is still called a theory and not the history of the world.
Although I am open minded,at least I consider myself as such, and not an athiest anyone would be hard pressed to convince be of a fundamentalist belief that the earth is only 10,000 years old.
I have stated before it is not theories or beliefs that kill people ,in the sense that you are inferring.
People kill people and use reasons or rationalizations to justify the end.

There is that another point of view? You judge!

 

[Beastt]

The thread seemed to be very one sided it needed more input from another point of veiw to liven it up. Evolution can be just as dangerous as religion macro evolution has been used by some dictators to justify killing people they consider to be inferior death to them is progress. People that believe in God even today face firing squads in some countries that have whole heartedly embraced macro evolution.

I suppose one could make the argument that heliocentrism is also dangerous since the church used to consider such a suggestion to be heresy. Galelio almost fell pray to this kind of thinking when he followed in the footsteps of Copernicus and Aristarchus in offering that the Earth seems to orbit the Sun rather than the other way around. Fortunately for him, he was allowed to recant publicly and was then granted the mercy of the church in only being placed under house arrest where he spent the last nine years of his life. One might ask the fair question; is heliocentrism the problem or was it the attitude of the church that was the problem? Along that line; was it evolution that is the problem or the attitude of the dictators to which you refer?

The Theory of Evolution is more heavily evidenced than is the Theory of Gravity and several other widely accepted theories. You can even toss out the entire fossil record and the Theory of Evolution continues to stand on its own through things like ERVs, dozens of examples of observed speciation, the Avida simulation and patterns in allele frequency.

Keeping in mind that any concept, just as any tool, can be used or misused, I find it reasonable to promote that which can be supported on empirical evidence rather than that which is based on superstition.

 

[wiredued]

Even today wolves and dogs can breed together after their kind so it isn't as far fetched as the macro evolution claims.

And herein lies a common misconception....the theory does not categorically state that humans evolved, necessarily from lesser primates. What it does state is that humans and primates share a common ancestor. The "fact" that modern dogs evolved from a pair of wolf pups is ludicrous beyond imagination.

There is no way anyone in here is going to change anyone elses mind so the arguments are pointless and colossal wastes of enegry. I am just happy to see that the vast majority of us are free thinkers and refuse to be bound by some archaic "laws" set down a mere couple thousand years ago by some "spirit" on a mountaintop in a burning bush to some guy named Moses...or was HIS name Gilgamesh too?

Lets give it a rest folks and just agree to disagree. We Atheists have been doing that all along. It is not we who choose to force our values or beliefs down anyone elses throats afterall (yes that was the final dig )>

I bet this gets up to 200 posts....I'm out.

Peace (yeah, right!),

Brian

 

[Beastt]

Why did a freshly killed seal carbon-14 date at 1,300 years old?

Because whoever performed the dating process either doesn't understand how Carbon 14 dating works, or entered into the process knowing that the date would be off. And while such endeavors seem successful at misguiding those who don't understand how Carbon-14 dating works, it provides little more than a chuckle to those who do understand it.

Cosmic rays entering the Earth's atmosphere regularly collide with other atoms. This results in a secondary cosmic ray known as an energetic neutron. When an energetic neutron collides with nitrogen-14, the nitrogen is converted to carbon-14. Carbon-14 is radioactive with a half-life of about 5,700 years. In other words, a given quantity of carbon-14 will become half carbon-14 and half carbon-12 in a 5,700 year period. In another 5,700-years, half of the remaining carbon-14 will convert to carbon-12. This process continues with each 5,700-years finding half the remaining quantity of carbon-14 converting to carbon-12. A sample showing half of its original carbon-14 converted to carbon-12, is about 5,700 years old. One showing three-quarters of the carbon-14 converted to carbon-12 is 11,400 years old. A sample showing seven-eights of the C-14 converted to C-12 would be about 17,100-years old.

Carbon-14 combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to create carbon-dioxide. Plants take in carbon-dioxide through a process called "transpiration" and the carbon-14 becomes locked into the plant tissues. Some animals eat plants while others eat the animals that eat plants so all living things contain an amount of carbon-14 and this amount is known to remain very stable. As long as the organism is alive, it continues to take in carbon-14. But when the organism dies, no more carbon-14 is taken in and the amount of carbon-14 begins to decline through conversion to carbon-12. So by determining the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12, it is possible to determine the approximate age of a sample. This is why we hear stories about attempts to date volcanic rocks which return wildly erroneous results. The rocks were never alive and carbon-14 dating only works on those things that were once alive. And because the half-life of carbon-14 is relatively short, it doesn't work on anything more than about 50,000 years old.

But seals are alive so if one has just been killed, carbon-14 dating should return a credible age, right? Wrong. Seals are marine mammals and as such, they take in much of their carbon through limestone which has been at the bottom of the sea floor for millions of years. The carbon-14 in the limestone is long gone by the time it is absorbed by the marine life, so if carbon-14 dating is attempted, the levels of carbon-14 will be decidedly below what might otherwise be expected. This is why those familiar with the limitations of dating techniques would never attempt to use carbon-14 dating on a marine mammal or even on a polar bear because polar bears regularly feed on seals.

So the problem isn't with carbon dating techniques. The problem is with those who don't understand the limitations of the technique and attempt to utilize the technique outside of its known limitations.

 

[wiredued]

I consider the catholic church to be largely responsible for the Dark Ages and when the printing press was invented things began to change. People could study the scriptures for themselves people that believed differently than the catholic church started finding countries that were open to those beliefs. No apostles ever killed some one for not agreeing with them and that can't be said for the catholic church so no argument there. I am nondenominational.

I suppose one could make the argument that heliocentrism is also dangerous since the church used to consider such a suggestion to be heresy. Galelio almost fell pray to this kind of thinking when he followed in the footsteps of Copernicus and Aristarchus in offering that the Earth seems to orbit the Sun rather than the other way around. Fortunately for him, he was allowed to recant publicly and was then granted the mercy of the church in only being placed under house arrest where he spent the last nine years of his life. One might ask the fair question; is heliocentrism the problem or was it the attitude of the church that was the problem? Along that line; was it evolution that is the problem or the attitude of the dictators to which you refer?

The Theory of Evolution is more heavily evidenced than is the Theory of Gravity and several other widely accepted theories. You can even toss out the entire fossil record and the Theory of Evolution continues to stand on its own through things like ERVs, dozens of examples of observed speciation, the Avida simulation and patterns in allele frequency.

Keeping in mind that any concept, just as any tool, can be used or misused, I find it reasonable to promote that which can be supported on empirical evidence rather than that which is based on superstition.

 

[Beastt]

Even today wolves and dogs can breed together after their kind so it isn't as far fetched as the macro evolution claims.

While it is true that most types of dogs can interbreed, there are many examples of speciation in which the determination for speciation is weighed on the lost ability to interbreed. This is the case with at least 5 species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago which were isolated from the parent stock less than 4,000 years ago. The same is true of studies conducted on the fruit fly, "Rhagoletis pomonella" which show conclusive evidence of speciation some 150-years ago.

Other examples of observed speciation include Drosophila paulistorum, the Faeroe Island House Mouse, three species of goatsbeard, Australian rock wallabies and certain species of subterranean mole rats, to name but a few.

 

[Beastt]

I consider the catholic church to be largely responsible for the Dark Ages and when the printing press was invented things began to change. People could study the scriptures for themselves people that believed differently than the catholic church started finding countries that were open to those beliefs. No apostles ever killed some one for not agreeing with them and that can't be said for the catholic church so no argument there. I am nondenominational.

Hopefully, the point isn't lost that it's not the beliefs that are dangerous but the reactions to those beliefs by individuals or organizations which may be charged with the responsibility to apply law and enforcement of law. While holding some beliefs may retard education, it should never be considered a violation of any legal premise. It would be a misinterpretation, in my opinion, to conclude that any belief is dangerous because those in power choose to extend punishment to those holding such beliefs.

Thusly, it is not evolution which presents harm but those who have decided that belief in evolution is dangerous.

 

[meehs]

...So the problem isn't with carbon dating techniques. The problem is with those who don't understand the limitations of the technique and attempt to utilize the technique outside of its known limitations.

As usual a very well stated and well informed response Beastt. The other component to this problem is that a lot of "believers" will cling to any argument that they can find that will support their fantastic theories without putting any effort into finding out if the argument actually holds water.

Almost every one of the hypothetical questions posed by wiredued can be completely debunked if one simply would take the time to study the questions objectively rather than with the preconceived notion that the answer supports their belief and therefore it must be true. Oh well...

 

[Beastt]

As usual a very well stated and well informed response Beastt.

Thank you. I appreciate the observation.

The other component to this problem is that a lot of "believers" will cling to any argument that they can find that will support their fantastic theories without putting any effort into finding out if the argument actually holds water.

Unfortunately, I find this to be more of a human trait than a trait held only by "believers". People tend to gravitate toward those things which appear to confirm their beliefs, regardless of whether such beliefs are religious, political, dietary or any other highly regarded personal preference. We're always more receptive to that which appears to provide us with confirmation than that which refutes our personal beliefs. And while this stifles the ability to grow educationally, I'm not aware of a reliable means to defeat it other than to recognize it and attempt to avoid this blockade to learning on a personal basis.

Almost every one of the hypthetical questions posed by wiredued can be completely debunked if one simply would take the time to study the questions objectively rather than with the preconceived notion that the answer supports their belief and therefore it must be true. Oh well...

While this is true, it's certainly not something applicable only to any particular individual or even a particular group. No matter what is discussed, be it politics, religion, diet, current events or even the weather, there is always a factor of denial which will present a stumbling block for anyone who finds their traditional beliefs challenged. Unfortunately, I believe this can be applied to nearly every group. That's one of the reasons I tend to accept the findings of science, despite he occassional misguidance it may provide. Scientists are not a singular group. So for every discovery, there are dozens of researchers attempting to grab their 15-minutes by countering the findings of that discovery. But they too must remember that their findings will be equally challenged so that in the end, only the demonstrably correct will be allowed to stand.

 

[Beastt]

It never ceases to amaze me that "thinking" people could be atheists. Do you really believe the balance of the universe, the intricacies of the human body, etc could al be a result of time +matter+ chance? While the debate might rage over the nature of God it would appear obvious that there is a designer. But then you would probably think a watch found on a path "just evolved there."

We would determine the watch to have "evolved" there if and when we found the evidence to conclude that the watch came about through evolution. This isn't a matter of simply picking one of two choices. At least, not when it comes to the secular side of any argument. When one allows themselves to be guided by the evidence, it becomes apparent that natural processes allow for practically everything once attributed to God/gods. And while Christians today find the idea of Zeus as the source of lightening to be rather laughable, they tend not to apply the same reason to concepts born of their own religious backgrounds.

It's simply a matter of following the evidence. When the evidence leads to God, I'll believe in God. Complexity is, in no way, indicative of intelligence. Nature is filled with highly complex examples. Even a look at the sorting of sedimentary layers might insinuate intelligence to some. But I observe the sorting ability of the viscosity of water and the force of gravity acting together on particles to be a natural action, exhibiting and requiring no intelligence.

I've also seen people suggest that even the complexity of veining within a leaf as an example requiring intelligence. Yet these people rarely seem to find the same necessity of intelligence to the pattern of cracked mud along a dry lake bed, even when the notable similarities are readily apparent.

 

[meehs]

Unfortunately, I find this to be more of a human trait than a trait held only by "believers". People tend to gravitate toward those things which appear to confirm their beliefs, regardless of whether such beliefs are religious, political, dietary or any other highly regarded personal preference. We're always more receptive to that which appears to provide us with confirmation than that which refutes our personal beliefs. And while this stifles the ability to grow educationally, I'm not aware of a reliable means to defeat it other than to recognize it and attempt to avoid this blockade to learning on a personal basis.

Very good point. I didn't mean to single out "believers" really. Sorry if it came across that way. Lots of folks tend to hang onto any argument to support whatever theory it is that they're pitching. I've seen it applied to the positive attributes of carbon fiber, titanium, steel, etc. on this very forum!

Anyway, good observations.

 

[JohnO]

Evolution is simply the best estimate that science can make on the progression of life, based upon empirical evidence. It merely describes what happened.

Religion tries to explain why it happened. Whether the various religions succeed in this task is up to the individual to decide.

The two concepts are not necessarily exclusive of each other - because God can't be proven with today's technology, that doesn't mean that a God does not exist. Gravity can't really be explained with today's technology, either. But the world still sucks, so there you are. Like the old farmer I saw arguing with the court clerk over his lack of a birth certificate - I can't prove I was born, but you can't deny I'm here.

 

[EoinC]

Because whoever performed the dating process either doesn't understand how Carbon 14 dating works, or entered into the process knowing that the date would be off...

Very well written response, Beastt. A good layman's introduction to the process and constraints.
As has been noted before, faith is at the core of all religions. Logic is not necessary for belief. It always appears odd to me when people who believe in a higher being feel a need to resort to logic in order to justify their belief. A belief is a belief - it does not require justifying to anyone as it is your own, not someone else's. I very much doubt if anyone here is going to change their beliefs because of some of the fuzzy logic that Wired issues at an almost spam-like frequency.