a question for atheists

It's funny, just today I stood outside in a storm thinking this:

How could anyone not believe that there is a great deal more to this thing we call life?

Please explain what evidence you see as being contradictory to the idea of natural selection.

Go here: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/ and http://www.changinglives.org.au/evolution.html

The Saint wrote: ... I have yet not seen that mountain of evidence but I do wish to do first things first.

You have only to look, as there are plenty of sources from the beginner level to very advanced without having to even leave your computer.

On this note, I think one of the most dramatic and compelling single item I have ever encountered was in the Smithsonian Institute Natural History Museum (Washington DC.)

(At one time) On entering there were 3 skeletons:  A chimpanzee, a gorilla, and a human.

Nothing so simple could make it so obvious. (Evolution that is, since remember that evolution is an almost infinite set of FACTS that were best explained by The Theory of Natural Selection.)

The Saint wrote: You have to first deal with the truth of the assumption that the universe created itself.

This is largely unrelated to Natural Selection.  Natural Selection doesn't deal with the creation of the universe or even with the creation of life in much detail (it may one day to this latter.)

Natural Selection only explains the "origin of species", that is, the diversity and connected of all all life (on earth)  from simple principles and mechanisms.

The Saint wrote: Here's a quote and counter quote regarding the question. The universe could NOT have created itself In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that �because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.� Think about that. Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking�s assertion that �the universe can and will create itself from nothing� with; �That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it�s not science!�11 Lennox explains by saying; "If I say �X creates X,� I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."12 Or put simply; �From nothing, nothing comes!� or �No-thing cannot do anything!�13 In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".14 The universe cannot have created itself!

The above has little or nothing to do with natural selection.

If you wish to understand this subject then it's best not to try to learn it from a physicist or cosmologist but instead choose a biologist or even a non-scientist who is an expert as explaining science and has studied the subject in detail to explain it to other laymen.

The Saint wrote: It's obvious simplicity and lack of any need for external interferance to explain the divergence of life forms and the constant appearance of new species makes it very robust.

This however is quite true.

The robustness of the explanation is quite astounding.

The Saint wrote: ... Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

How would you (or anyone) know that? 

"Never" is one of those words almost never allowing for proof while a single counter-example (it only has to happen once) offers disproof.

Distrust any supposedly scientific claim that includes words like "never".

And again, this is largely unrelated to Natural Selection which does NOT attempt to explain the literal origin of the FIRST living thing(s ).

The Saint wrote: Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

The above sentence is a critical misunderstanding of both the facts of evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection which explains these facts.

Once of Darwin's brilliant strategies was to study "articificial selection" during the develop of "Origin of Species".

We studies pigeon breeding in detail and other human selected evolution such as dogs (and chickens I believe) to show examples of evolution in human time (i.e., not over millenia.)

You can easily see EVOLUTION by tracking such breeding programs but of course the mechanism is (at least slightly) different.

Humans make the decisions about which traits are "fittest" by choosing the ones they prefer, e.g., in dogs it might be hunting ability, beauty (as judged by humans), size, etc.

In nature, 'Natural Selection' operates by the genes which the best survival making it on to the next generations over what to humans are extremely long time spans and many, many generations.

To 'see' natural selection operated ('in real time') it is necessary to study life forms with very short generational life spans.  (Which of course has been done as well.).

This latter actually includes evidence "proving" (in the pure sense of the word) some aspects of natural selection by moving them from Theory into facts that are observed and documented.

But it is still most useful to remind yourself that "Evolution is the body of facts, and Natural Selection is the Theory which best and well explains those facts."

The Saint: The theory of evolution is more and more proven due to the mountain of evidence to support it and the absolute lack of evidence to refute it. I have yet not seen that mountain of evidence

Sure, whenever you get it you never read it (Did you have a look at 'Science' and 'Nature' searching for "Evolution" as I suggested ? I guess not).
Do a simple exercise: Google a picture of a human skeleton and google for the skeleton of a Chimpanzee or a Bonobo.

Compare !

What do you see ?

----------------------------------------------------

Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

Admittedly there is no concluding theory about abiogenesis, but this is also not the subject of ET. ET gives an explanation on how life[-forms] evolve(s) and not on how it came into existence.

It's like saying: Einstein is wrong because his theory of relativity does not explain Magnetism.

Ah, BTW. since you seem to know a lot about this subject: Is a virus dead or alive ? Why ?
------------------------------------------------------

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Correct, but his statement didn't finish there, he added:
"...if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Why don't you mention this part of his statement ?

It also clearly shows that Darwin was very critical even to his own theory. This is what makes a good scientist.
But again, it also shows your unwillingness to even look for information (is it really so difficult to type "eye + evolution" and then hit return ?), Today we know much more than Darwin could know about this subject.

Last not least: The human eye is actually rather badly constructed (Thanks Creator !) compared to the one of other species (Blood vessels in front(!) of the retina, wow !). That we didn't get all eaten by roaming predators is only because our brain reconstructs a decent image.

------------------------------------------------------

Airmano (about religious fundamentalism): In some aspects 'yes', but not but not when it comes to the denial of reality. The Saint: Yeah, they both deny your reality! That nothing came out of nothing and so on.....blah....blah......blah! Tell me Airmano have you ever come across in the material world which created itself?

I did reply to your question about "nothing from nothing" but you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it or you ignored it.

None of the three is a good sign.
-----------------------------------------------------

The Saint: ...Like a fan or a car or a piece of jewellery made exquisitely

Still stuck with the Watchmakers analogy ?
Jesus, This has been rebutted already more than a 100 years ago.


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 17 June 2016 at 12:41am