Evolution is "right"?

Question

I have seen how SOME atheists answer when they are asked, how did things began?

They will say "go and read some books, it looks like you dont know anything."

Science contradict itself, for example The Big Bang theory says that one day there was nothing. Matter did not exist, and then came to exist. However, some scientist claim that matter was always there. Hmm?

Were transition species inmortal? It looks like. still no evidence, even if they atheist say "there are many example in the labs" that is a lie.

Laws of science tell me that biotic organism are the only ones that can create life, however, evolution tell me the contrary.

Evolution contradicts :2nd law of thermodinamics.

Also, how can no life create life? How did the scientific laws create themself? How did matter come to existence? This is the explanation some scientifics can give "what we cant see, does not exist."

Last, an example of a atheist based regim that has not kill over a million people?

Answer 1

Well you need to read a grammar book.

Answer 2

The Big Bang theory does not say that one day there was nothing. It says that matter always existed, but that the space and time dimensions it moves through were compressed into a point. The Big Bang was the expansion of the space and time dimensions from that point.

Why do you think I'm lying when I say there are transitional fossils? Is the list at the link below a lie too? On what do you base that claim?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#fish

What law of science tells you that only biotic organisms can create life? Do you have a source? There is no such law.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics applies to a closed system. Earth is an open system that received energy from the sun, so the 2nd law doesn't apply.

There are various hypotheses about how life could come from inorganic matter. Look up the RNA world hypothesis.

Scientific laws didn't create themselves. The fact that nature behaves according to a set of rules doesn't mean that there needs to be a creator.

Matter didn't need to come into existence, because it always existed. Remember the first law of thermodynamics? Matter can't be created or destroyed. The universe was never empty.

Denmark.

Answer 3

Here goes, 5th of these today...

"Evolution is "right"?"

-If you say so, I prefer to think of it as the best theory. But I guess it's "right" in the sense that there's no serious competition.

"I have seen how SOME atheists answer when they are asked, how did things began?

They will say "go and read some books, it looks like you dont know anything.""

-Sounds a bit harsh, I'm sure you know something... at least you appear to be able to type and use a mouse. But yes, I've also seen that answer style when people are either rude or tired of answering the same question over and over.

"Science contradict itself,"

-contradictS... and, true, different points of view do tend to look like contradictions, and if there are competing theories they will disagree untill one is proven false.

"for example The Big Bang theory says that one day there was nothing. Matter did not exist, and then came to exist."

-A bit simplified, but basically true. That's how I'd explain it to a 4 year old.

"However, some scientist claim that matter was always there. Hmm?"

-Hmm indeed, I can't seem to find anyone claiming that. Unless you're reading 16th century french pshysics books.. or greek philosophy? Without going to too much detail, the idea is that energy and matter are interchangeable and indestructable. So the energy would have existed, and was convreted to matter. E=mc^2 sound familiar?

"Were transition species inmortal?"

-IMmortal, no. I don't think anyone has claimed that any species is immortal...except maybe from some sort of..what was it, polyp? that can age back to the egg stage and grow to adulthood again.

"still no evidence, even if they atheist say "there are many example in the labs" that is a lie."

-the atheistS. I don't think we've said that. I personally use ring species as partial evidence... I don't know what you would have in the labs, unless you mean viral evolution?

"Laws of science tell me that biotic organism are the only ones that can create life, however, evolution tell me the contrary."

-evolution tellS. Here's one of the point of view problems I mentioned. Biology does seem to believe that organisms come from other organism. That's not unversally true, there are replicators in nature that are not in a sense live, but can still create copies of themselves, and there ae organisms that need other organisms to do the work for them. You should look at chemistry here, most lower level interactions are based on chemistry, not biology. There's (relatively) simple rules for molecular folding and combination. I think at this point we've been able to spontaneously create 20 amino acids and 2 of the 4 bases for DNA. That's without intervention, just chemical processes and time. Give it 4 billion years and you might just get life :)

"Evolution contradicts :2nd law of thermodinamics."

-2nd law of Thermodynamics deals with entropy. In a closed system entropy can only grow. You're assuming that the earth is a closed system. We have a huge nuclear explosion (sun) in our vicinity pumping extra energy in the system, so the earth isn't a closed system, and it doesn't follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

"Also, how can no life create life?"

-Did this one already.

"How did the scientific laws create themself?"

-You're falsely assuming a creator. The laws exist, the best explanation at the moment would fall to superstrings or m theory. I vote strings. The fundamental forces seem to work because they can work, think of it as a universal evolutive principle. If they did not work the way they do, we wouldn't be here to observe them.

"How did matter come to existence?"

-also adressed already E=mc^2

"This is the explanation some scientifics can give "what we cant see, does not exist.""

-Scientists. No, that's a strawman argument theists throw around. No scientist says that. There are several things that can't be seen but can be observed in other ways. Radio waves come to mind. Anything that's close to the planck scale in size... The claim is how you think scientists think, the fault lies with you on this one.

"Last, an example of a atheist based regim that has not kill over a million people?"

-Regime. I'm assuming you're talking about the soviet union? They were communists, not atheists. There simply hasn't been an atheist regime, ever. You're mistaken. Also, I have to point out that Stalin is reputed to have been quite religious... and a pedophile.. but that's besides the point. No such thing. Would you like me to point out the few hundred million people that have died under officially christian regimes? I thought not.

Now, it seems like you're just a bit misinformed on many issues here, and outdated on more... also I feel like I have to point out that you barely touched evolution in your rant. You were talking about orgins of the universe, origin of life, and political theory. I suggest you DO read some books, so you'd at least know what you're opposing.

You're welcome.

Answer 4

I don't see what you are asking.

Thermodynamics, what does that have to do with evolution?

You know, Evolution gets a lot of unfounded bashing here, and it seems that there are quite a few people that will not question their so called "faith", even when logical thought shows the books not to be literally true.

Now, Atheism is not a killer, people are! I can say Adolph Hitler was a Christian (which he was), so there is a quick 7 million on that side. Remember "manifest destiny"? Well, that was the excuse used for the Genocide of the American Indians.

The Big Bang Theory says that all matter of our universe was compressed into one spot, and blew out from there. It has been shown that all matter has millions of times more empty space than actual matter, really just showing the Buddhists are right that everything is an illusion. True, it is a theory, and I would bet even 100 years from now the theories will be a bit better refined.

Answer 5

Well the theory of the Big Bang is pretty well established. We will not know exactly what caused the Big Bang or how matter did or did not exist for a long time. Science is an ongoing project and doesn't pretend to know everything.

Both considerations are plausible at this time.

Even religious people have come to understand the truth about micro evolution in the lab.

"This is a sequence of similar genera or families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and the fossils occur roughly (but often not exactly) in the expected order. Usually there are still gaps between each of the groups -- few or none of the speciation events are preserved. Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly ancestral to the next-youngest fossils (i.e., they may be "cousins" or "uncles" rather than "parents"). However, they are assumed to be closely related to the actual ancestor, since they have intermediate morphology compared to the next-oldest and next-youngest "links". The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible. General lineages are known for almost all modern groups of vertebrates, and make up the bulk of this FAQ."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran

The carbon molecule is a very versatile atom which combines in many many ways creating all sorts of molecules. In this continuous pattern of forming and reforming with other atoms and molecules eventually proteins were developed. Eventually some of these proteins gained the ability to reproduce themselves. We still have proteins like this around today. One type of these reproducing proteins causes Mad Cow Disease. Eventually a reproducing protein called RNA came about. This is the reproductive consistency protein in viruses. Viruses are not considered alive.

The next big step was the DNA protein which exists in the of our cells in our body. With this protein came the beginning of life. Single celled organisms became able to reproduce. These were the first of life on our Earth.

Our Earth is and was a very energetic planet. Energy is always bombarding of Earth. This is not a situation of entropy.

We don't know how everything happens but I can assure you I'm not silly enough to sit back and claim God did it because the reality escapes me for the time being.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Answer 6

Normally I too would answer "you need to go read or study more" or that you "are ignorant" because quite frankly you have demonstrated such. But since you won't accept such an answer I will go ahead and answer (though I doubt you will take what I say into consideration let alone read it).

1) "Science contradict (sic) itself, for example The Big Bang theory says that one day there was nothing. Matter did not exist, and then came to exist. However, some scientist claim (sic) that matter was always there. Hmm?"

WRONG: The Big Bang Theory says no such thing rather the Big Bang states that EVERYTHING originally existed as a singularity of immense mass and immense density (so a really really really heavy but really really really really small piece of matter) and the "bang" resulted in the EXPANSION of the space time continuum. Indeed matter has always existed and from the Law of the Conservation of Matter (derived from the 1st law of thermodynamics) we know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. You see? No contradiction here.

2) "Were transition species inmortal (sic)? It looks like. still no evidence, even if they (sic) atheist say "there are many example in the labs" that is a lie."

Nothing living (or once living) is immortal. Science has never made this claim and never will. As this is absolutely false, anything else that follows from your argument from such is moot.

3) Laws of science tell me that biotic organism are the only ones that can create life, however, evolution tell me the contrary.

I think you're thinking of "Cell Theory" that states cells come from previous cells. "Life" however is just a collection of emergent properties (i.e. ability to reproduce, respond to stimuli, homeostasis, etc.) When, where, and how these emergent properties arose are unknown and are irrelevant to the issue of HOW life evolves. Something tells me you may be referring to Abiogenesis (which I will get into later).

4) "Evolution contradicts :2nd law of thermodinamics (sic)"

WRONG: The 2nd law states that for every exchange of energy the entropy (measure of disorder) of the universe will increase. Evolution does not violate this law. Highly organized (and thus low entropy) organisms GIVE UP entropy to their surroundings usually as heat.

5) "Also, how can no life create life? How did the scientific laws create themself? How did matter come to existence? This is the explanation some scientifics (sic) can give "what we cant see, does not exist."

Evolution in NO WAY speculates on the origin of LIFE, rather it explains the adaptation and origin of SPECIES. The theory that states organic compounds (carbon containing compounds formed by living organisms) arose from inorganic ones is called Abiogenesis. Considering your obvious lack of knowledge in physics, chemistry, biology (not to mention grammar and spelling) I'm not even going to delve into this as it is guaranteed to go flying over your head.

6) "Last, an example of a atheist based regim (sic) that has not kill over a million people?"

Even IF this statement were true (which is arguable) it has NO bearing on the validity or invalidity of evolution (or even atheism for that matter) since this is the most obvious and immature of logical fallacies. This fallacy is called "Argumentum ad Hominem", Latin for "Argument at the Human". The character of the person (or people) making a claim is irrelevant to the claim itself. An atheist (or evolutionist for that matter) can be a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, a sexist, a murderer, a thief, etc and NONE OF THAT has any bearing on whether what (s)he says about evolution is true.

Now that we have the fallacy out of the way, I'd still like to argue against your purported claim as I feel it flies in the face of history. The majority of murders without a doubt has been at the hands of theists. How do I know this? By simple probability. 90 something percent of the world believes in a deity so even if every single atheist was a murderer (which is a silly assumption) and only one out of every 8 theists are murderers, the number of theist murderers would still outweigh the number of atheist murderers.

I don't think I have to even go into Adolf Hitler, the Jihadists, George Bush Jr., etc to demonstrate that your last claim is utterly false.

Answer 7

The difference between science and religion is that science will continue to seek the answers, will admit contradictions, and is not afraid to say "we just don't know that yet."
Religion deals in absolutes--and I fail to see how the idea of a god "with no beginning and no end" that simply created everything makes any kind of sense. THAT'S what you call a logical explanation?
As for "atheist regimes" (I assume that's what you mean, but your poor spelling is rather confusing): the main difference is that the atrocities committed by someone like Stalin, who, yes, was an atheist although he started out as a seminary student, is that he was not doing those things in the name of atheism. This is the difference between people like him and things like the Inquisition, the Crusades and the Holocaust is that those WERE done specifically because of religion.

Answer 8

First of all -- The Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are completely separate. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Second of all -- Evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That law applies to closed systems only, and refers more to the chemical make-up and stability of substances.

Thirdly -- Will you please explain that "immortal transitional species" thing? Because I don't understand what you are saying.

Fourthly -- More people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else.

Answer 9

I dont know, I'm an atheist not a scientist.

Let me think what sounds more plausible though - that lifeforms gradually changed and evolved through a process of mutation and natural selection or that everything was waved into existence by an invisible sky man 6000 years ago.

My money is on the former.

Answer 10

You can't contradict a theory, two scientist saying different theories is a disagreement. The bible saying one thing and then another is a contradiction. Just because we don't have the answer for everything does not make the default "God".

Answer 11

You obviously have no knowledge of science, but are spouting what you have heard by others who have no knowledge of science. Why not read a few books. You dismiss science because of contradictions, but you accept religion even though it is nothing but contradictions. No wonder you avoid learning about science.