Do you feel this a weakness of the Atheist argument?

Question

(Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this)

Why do so many start with evolution as their ' scientific ' proof that there is no God?

The earth had been here for some time before life showed up. Even in the Bible 'life' isn't created till Genisis 1:11 with vegetation............

Why not start your argument from the beginning...Genisis 1:1.

I know many people won't agree, but I feel like using the evolution argument is cherry picking. Explain to me how the whole earth came to be the perfect situation for life and I will listen, to the facts.

Answer 1

Evolution has nothing to say on the formation of the earth.

Answer 2

Science does not prove or disprove that God exist. There is no proof either way so its all up in the air as far that is concern. What science does is disproof some inconsistenccies in the bible. The reason evolution is used is because beleivers fight this one to the death. First off we have to give some definitions.

A theory is not a law. There are laws in science. One law is the laws of gravity. When something is a law it means that there is no way to disprove it. A theory is not a law. A theory says that with the knowledge we have to this point and all the experimentation we have done so far, it seems that the answer we have is the correct one until some one comes along and prove it wrong. Many theories have fallen off the side because of new evidence. Others have not. The fact that it is possible to disprove a theory is what makes scince so beutiful. there is no hidden agenda or stuberness. Ok, there is some stuberness but the point is that if you show your evidence then you can disprove another person. It is not base on a person whims or convenience.

Here is another point to think about. Politics play a big role in data presentation. This is not to be confuse with the actual findings. For example, it has been knowned for years that ciggarets are bad for you. Tobacco compannies have done anything in their power to hide this thruth. The evidence was there all along so yes, you can slip a few bucks under the table to someone to say things so that they are convenient for you. This is not science however. Mishandling the data is not the same as actually finding the truth.

There are many arguments that disprove SOME aspect of the bible. You have to remember that there is Some historical thruth to the bible. Did Moses exist? The evidence points to yes. Did Moses part the red sea in half? well, thats arguable. There are no pictures of it and we all know that eye witness are accounts are extremely unreliable.

The belief that evolution does not hold water comes from another belief. This other belief says that we humans are not animals. We are different than animals and we are superior to animlas. Well, this is a lie. We are animals, and the only thing that makes us superior is our big brain. Put yourself in the middle of a pack of hungry lions without a gun and we will see who the real superior being is. Its all amatter of content. Because people have this superior than animal belief, they think that we could not had evolve from something more animalistic. However, the vidence is al around you. Notice that the way people look is greatly due to their enviroment. Black people come from africa because it is a desirable trait to be black in such a climate. White people come from the north and cold climate. Is a survival thing. There where also different types of humans back in the day. Neandethals are not the same as homosepiens. They are similar but they are diferent. Different body types and they look diferent. It was an evolutionary thing for them to become that way. Yet they were humanoids. So, if in the begining there where only two (Adam and Eve) what did they look like. Did they look like us or like neandentals. If they loked like us then where did the neandenthals come from then? I mean the list of things go on and on.

The thing I find funy about believers is the double standard they use. If a believer where to pick up a book. Any book that is not the bible and read it and then some one says "hey, the information in that book is wrong and here is the evidence to prove it" the beliver would have no problems accepting the evidence. Now do the same thing whit the bible and its a different story all together. The logic however is very faulty. All the belivers have is a book. Someone came to you and said to you that this book contains the absolute thruth. It is an infalible thruth. You as a beliver decided to accept what that person said well, by faith. The assumption is that what is in the book is true but, have you put it to the test. Are you completely and absolutely sure that what is in the book is true? How do you know? I bet you have not put it to the test. Yes, there is some thruth in the book. There is a lot of philosophy in it. If you love your neighbor you will live a healthier life than somebody who hates everybody. There is no arguing that. But, have you tried to verify that everything in the bible is true. For example, the concept of hell is not new. However, the concept of hell as we know it today comes from medieval times. The bible talks about how satan disguise as a snaked to seduced Eve into eating from the forbidden fruit. However, this also comes from medieval times. In other scriptures the snake was just a snake. The bible also talks about the story of Noah. God created a great flood and killed everybody except Noah and his family. So this means everybody is directly decendant from Noah right. When exactly did this hapened and was this enough time to repopulate the earth as it is today? Maybe maybe not. Another question is out of all the species in the worlds how are you able to put a pair of each in a single boat? Remember you not only need the animlas you also need the food. And what about all the insects, and birds. Not all bitd can fly for 40 days. Not all birds are acuatic. And what about penguins. Penguins need cold climate so how did they survive for 40 days? You can argue that maybe the water was cold enough or the temperature but then you run into the problem of the animals that need heat. So, what exactly happened there. The logistics are mind boggling. We are also talking about old technology. I could go on and on thinking about how many of the stories (Not all) have inconsistencies if you just sit down and analyse them.

Also, the bible is very general. Most of the time it does not speaks in specifics. This is why there are many rdifferent types of one religions. Mormoms view things diferent than Catholics or protestants. This is because every church gives the bible different interpretations. The moment you give anything a diferent interpretation than other people it means that it is not absolute. By this argument alone you can prove that the bibledes not speak the absolute thruth because it sems that this absolute thruth is diffeent for everybody.

Answer 3

I have never heard evolution used as scientific proof that there is no God.

Ever.

We do start our argument from the beginning... The Big Bang

How did the whole earth come to be perfect for life. Chance. Luck. Physics. It all boils down to the anthropic principle, if the earth was not suitable for life, then you wouldn't know because you wouldn't be here to ask the question why not. The fact that you are here implies that you must be on a planet which can sustain life.

Answer 4

The idea of evolution can be applied to inanimate objects as well as living things. Athiests believe that everything has come about by way of natural laws of matter, including gravity, atomic and chemical reactions, vulcanism, plate tectonics, erosion, electricity, etc., etc. They believe that the situation on the Earth is the result of lucky coincidences, that given enough time, there had to be a planet that would produce living things and intelligent life. They rely more on probability than on organism Evolution to support this claim.

That being said, one has to ask, "Okay, where did matter and energy and the laws of nature come from?" Athiests would say that they are inherent in the nature of the universe. It is very difficult to persuade non-believers otherwise. but they do get stuck on the question "Where did the universe come from?" They will tell you that it has always been here, or it started with the Big Bang, and that's as far as they can go.

Scientists have produced amino acids, the building blocks of life, by discharging high voltage electricity through mixtures of elements and simple compounds they believe were present in the early atmosphere of Earth - to replicate the effects of lightning. They have also made great strides in showing that very complex components of plant and animal cells could have "evolved" over a long period of time by spontaneous and chance chemical combinations. But they haven't proven that everything happened naturally along the lines of evolution. There are still many unanswered questions.

I like to believe in a combination, not an "either-or" scenario. I believe that evolution - of both the living and the non-living - is a real phenomenon, but that a Supreme Being has, from time to time, "interfered" with the natural progression of events to produce a new situation, such as the appearance of human beings. Aren't you glad He/She/It did so?

Answer 5

I'll just paraphrase out of some Discovery Channel program I once saw (you can fact check me on any of this if you want)

The earth started off as a molten ball of rock
It cooled
Much of the H20 that was just in the general area condensed during this cooling process and filled the oceans.

For a while, earth was a watery hellhole with no atmosphere or life.

Atoms, molecules, macromolecules and all kinds of other chemical units bump into each other for 10 billion years.

They get lucky; life is formed.

The rest is history (kinda')

Just realize that 10 billion years is a LONG time for trial and error.

Answer 6

I've never seen that used by any atheist as "proof that there is no god."

There is no proof of god, getting proof to show you that there is no proof of something that doesn't exist is ludicrous. You show me proof, then we'll have an actual debate. Until then, pray to your sky god, but know it can never be concluded logically.

The "perfect" situation for life is subjective. The fact that most species have died off shows you how "perfect" it is. You also don't seem to understand what life is. Life occurs when molecules react inside a membrane, metabolize energy, and replicate. Scientists produce life within test tubes easily, it's nothing special or supernatural.

I don't believe you can listen to the facts until you understand basic science.

Answer 7

Evolution and the existence of God are in no way contradictory to eachother. God could have always created the ooze with the ultimate plan of sitting back and watching what it turned into... Maybe god's an experimental scientist! The whole "he made us in his image, so god looks like meeee!" obsession is purely a fundamentalists' ego speaking.

If anything, evolution seems to indicte an existence of at least a premeditated blueprint of some higher power. Everything starts as single celled, then multi-celled, then microscopic, then aquatic, then it grows a spine and fins which turn into feet and lungs, the being walks on land with one mouth, one nose, two eyes, two lungs, 4 legs, then 2 legs... etc...

Why would a god make a wholley unadaptable species? That would be imperfection on his part if he didn't create something that could develop. I see evolution of species much like the growth process of the fetus in the womb, just on a much longer and slower scale.

Now maybe this upsets some who think only humans have souls, and that god MUST look human and be human.. but again, that's all human arrogance. Such people should not dare be so blasphemous as to tell other people what God thinks, they should leave that up to God to say and quit peddling their opinions as "ULTIMATE TRUTH". Unless God himself talks in your brain, telling others that GOD said "XYZ" is all just speculation and ultimately disrespectful to the diety at large. Most often its just an excuse for people to mistreat the "soulless" animals; God's other creations. Ultimately I think God judges us by the way we treat our neighboring lesser lifeforms.

Answer 8

I'm not sure I've heard anyone argue that evolution is proof that there is no God....One can believe in God and still believe in evolution. Evolution is defined as: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Out of curiosity though...at one point, during the existence of dinosaurs, humans did not exist. So when did the dinosaurs come in? Are we to assume God created dinosaurs? And after Adam and Eve? I've always wondered this...

Answer 9

This is a worthy question but it's badly formed.
Evolution is a way of addressing one of the more common arguments for God, namely the argument from design.

The reasons for disbelief are more complicated than just the evolution argument. To put it way too simply, appeal to the existence of a God requires belief in an entity more complex than the problem being explained. An entity for which no observable, empical evidence can be offered.

Answer 10

The fact that Christians say that God was there first because there is no way that the Big Bang and evolution could have happened without something to make them happen also has a weakness, how come God came to be there? Somehow he had to be made or evolved too...

Answer 11

"Why do so many start with evolution as their ' scientific ' proof that there is no God?"

They don't. I'll bet you can't find a single example of this.

"Why not start your argument from the beginning...Genisis 1:1"

If you really can't figure out why... then it's pointless to even try to explain this to you.