Responses to 22 messages
So Matt Stopera from Buzzfeed went to the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate and asked 44 people, 22 from each side, to write a question or message to the other side. He posted them in two separate articles on the website.
First, to be fair, let's examine the messages to the creationists. There were a few that had valid points:
A couple of them were pretty unassailable:
A couple engaged in a minor form of ad hominem attack:
And the rest were just utterly baffling:
Yes, he is. He is encouraging people (not just children, but children especially) to be curious, to investigate, to wonder, to experiment, and to never be satisfied with answers that are simply given to them. I'd say that's a very positive thing.
Now, often when someone asks a question like this, they seem to be implying that without religion, a person cannot have morality. That is an enormous topic, which I will not cover here. I will simply say that religion is neither the source nor the measure or morality. If we were to chart all humans by religious affiliation compared to morality, we would find that the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. There will be exactly as many moral atheists as there are moral theists (percentage-wise), and exactly as many immoral theists as there are immoral atheists.2. Are you scared of a Divine Creator?
No, I'm not. I simply don't have any evidence for the existence of a divine creator.3. Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings... Adam created as an adult...
Yes, it is. Granted, we cannot prove that a being capable of creating the universe in its 'mature form' does not exist. But we have plenty of evidence that the universe came into being in a 'raw form' (so to speak) and has developed into its present form over billions of years. Until we have evidence otherwise, there is no good reason to believe otherwise. If we find evidence that it was created, then we will change our minds. But such evidence has yet to be uncovered.4. Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?
No, it does not. The laws of thermodynamics describe how closed systems work. Evolution did not take place in a closed system.5. How do you explain a sunset if their [sic] is no God?
Easy: As the sun appears to descend in the western sky as a result of the earth's rotation, the light from the sun passes through the atmosphere at an oblique angle, travelling through a higher quantity of atmospheric matter than when the sun appears higher in the sky. This causes a higher dispersion of photons, altering the colour of the light that we perceive. Combine this with the presence of clouds and other disturbances and obstacles in the air, and we have the rich array of hues and gradients that we call a sunset.
Oh, wait, you were asking how we could find something to be beautiful without a god to make things beautiful, weren't you? Well, that's a stupid question. We find things beautiful because it was, in some fundamental way, instrumental to our survival. It happened in the same way that people who found poisonous foods to be delicious did not survive to pass on their genes in the same way as people who found safe and nutritious foods to be tasty. Delicious foods are a sort of gustatory beauty, and visual beauty appeals to humans in the same sort of way. Those who found safe and sustaining places to be beautiful survived over those who prefered to live in dangerous places (that's why we've discovered that almost all humans tend to find fertile fields with a moderate abundance of trees and the presence of fresh water as beautiful; such places were highly conducive to human survival). Beauty, like flavour and tactile perception, was conducive to survival.
Of course, some elements of beauty bled over into less survival-related fields. There may not be any direct survival benefit to finding sunsets visually alluring (though it might be argued that sunsets of the type described as beautiful are more likely in beneficial places), it can easily be described as a side effect of the evolutionary advantages of other aspects of the beauty phenomenon.
That wasn't so hard, was it?6. If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
They don't. This has already been discussed. Moving on.7. What about noetics?
I had to look up 'noetics.' It seems to be a vaguely defined term, with people disagreeing on exactly what it means. From what I can tell, it seems that there are two main branches of thought: 1. Noetics is the study of how consciousness came into existence. 2. Noetics is the study of how consciousness affects the world around it. So, my first response to the question, 'What about noetics?' would be, 'What about it?'
I guess they're trying to say that noetics proves the creationists' viewpoint. Except that it doesn't. Assuming that the question is asking, 'How do you explain the existence of consciousness?' the answer is that consciousness is an emergent property. I like to say, 'Consciousness is the illusion of unity arising from the harmonious interaction of many disparate entities to form a single being.'
Let me explain that in a bit more detail. Ants are not very intelligent creatures, right? A single ant cannot accomplish much by itself, despite its impressive physical strength. But if you examine an entire ant colony, you find they are capable of designing and creating architectural wonders. Scientists have found evidence that trees can display signs of intelligent behaviour, and have determined that this thought results from the interaction of the root tips, despite the fact that these tips are not directly connected to one another. The golden shiner fish tend to cluster together in shadowed areas of a body of water, but when a single fish (or a small number) is alone, they show no preference for either shadowed or unshadowed areas. These data all suggest that intellect, consciousness, or sentience is not the result of a single entity, but the synergy of many small and discrete parts working together to create a whole that is, as the saying goes, greater than the sum of its parts.
The same thing can be said of humans. It was recently discovered that the part of the brain that controls and governs human male sexual drive is, to a great extent, immune to override by other parts of the brain. That indicates that there are separate sections of the human mind that do not all exist directly as part of the conscious mind. We are, it turns out, actually a writhing mass of different pieces that have managed to mesh together as a single mostly cohesive being, over which we have layered the veneer of a single conscious entity. So in that sense, noetics tells us nothing about the existence of a supreme being.
Secondly, if we look at noetics as the influence of consciousness on the world around us, we're talking about the sort of nonsense spouted by Deepak Chopra. The idea that our thoughts alter the world around us (just as one example of the way that some people think this actually works is Rhonda Byrne, the author of the pathetic book entitled The Secret, who was once asked about the tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people in 2004, and answered that disasters like tsunamis can happen only to people who are 'on the same frequency as the event') has been debunked many times over.
So no, noetics does not have anything to do with this discussion.8. Where do you derive objective meaning in life?
There is no such thing as objective meaning. All life is subjective. I create my own meaning for my life (specifically, to enjoy life as much as I can whilst simultaneously doing what I am capable of doing to reduce the misery and suffering of other beings, and also being cognizant of how my enjoyment can sometimes reduce the enjoyment of life for others, and trying to minimise that effect). Others create different meanings. The insistence by theists that there is an objective meaning to life is a red herring. There's no need for an objective meaning. Life is so much more worthwhile if everyone's meaning is subjective.9. If God did not create everything, how did the first single celled organism originate? By chance?
No. The first building blocks of life happened by chance, but after that, the first single-celled organism was pretty much guaranteed.
See, the problem here is that many people mistakenly believe that the first sign of life was a single-celled organism. In fact, what probably happened was that somewhere that there was sufficient matter and energy (carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, mostly, along with heat and movement; likely at a hydrothermal vent on the ocean floor), some of those molecules happened to arrange themselves into a series of self-replicating proteins. Of course, proteins aren't life. So we don't have life yet. But these proteins replicated themselves, and eventually some of them bond with some lipids. These are better protected from the rigors of undersea existence, and so propagate more efficiently. Those that didn't bond with lipids eventually 'die off' (so to speak; you can't really die if you're not alive to begin with) whilst the others continue. Then some that are bonded to lipids manage to arrange the lipids in a more effective manner, and so on... so that eventually, over time, these proteins pick up more and more improvements until eventually, they can be called 'single-celled organisms.'
But it's a gradient. You cannot point to a single entity and say, 'That is the first single-celled organism,' in exactly the same way that you cannot point to a specific place on the spectrum of colours and say, 'This point right here is the exact spot where it stops being red and has now become orange. And more importantly even than that, scientists are willing to admit that they don't know exactly how it happened. What I have described above is merely a hypothesis (not a theory!), and they are constantly striving to improve their knowledge. Theists, however, when confronted with a mystery, choose to say 'God did it!' instead of investigating to find out what really happened.
And, as mentioned before, if a scientist finds evidence that a god does exist and did create the universe, they will accept that evidence and become a believer.10. I believe in the Big Bang Theory... God said it and BANG it happened!
That's great. Bully for you. Why should I care what you believe?
Look, not all atheists are rational people. The word 'atheist' simply means 'not a believer.' All it means is that the person does not believe in a god or gods. It doesn't automatically mean the person is intelligent, or rational, or accepts scientific conclusions (as one example, Bill Maher, who is a very outspoken atheist, does not accept germ theory).
Which is why I refer to scientists more than to atheists. But for those atheists who do accept the findings of scientific enquiry, belief is simply a non-issue. I, for example, have entirely removed the idea of belief from my world view. I accept those ideas for which there is sufficient evidence. I cautiously and tentatively accept those ideas for which there is some evidence, but the evidence is not conclusive. I remain skeptical towards those ideas for which there is no evidence, and I reject those ideas which the evidence disproves. Belief has nothing to do with it.
So you can believe whatever you want. You can believe that god said it and 'BANG it happened.' You can believe that a giant space monkey defecated into the void, and that the urine became the nebulae whilst the faeces became the stars and the planets and the moons and the other celestial bodies. And for that matter, I wouldn't even care what you believed, if you didn't insist on passing your inane notions to younger generations, or try to pass legislation based on your delusions. But most importantly of all, just because you believe it doesn't make it true.11. Why do evolutionists/secularists/huminists [sic]/non-God believing people reject the idea of their [sic] being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terestrial [sic] sources?
I don't know who you've been talking to, but most atheists (or whatever other synonym you want to throw into that alphabet soup you created there) don't accept intelligent design from any source. I'm sure there are a few crazy people out there who do accept such bizarre ideas, but the majority of us, certainly the ones with whom I'm familiar, reject the idea of 'intelligent design' from aliens, extra-terrestrials, and any other source.
Ok, now I'm depressed. On to the next one.12. There is no inbetween... the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an "official proof"
I'm going to hazard a guess that this person is speaking of the transitional form between what she calls 'apes' and what she calls 'humans' (never mind the fact that humans are apes). She insists that 'Lucy' (the australopithecus afarensis fossil that shows evidence of smaller brain size with bipedal locomotion) is the only evidence we have that humans evolved from apes, and that because it's not a full skeleton that was recovered, it's insufficient on its own merits anyway.
I don't understand what she thinks is necessary for 'official proof.' How does one define 'official' in this context? Does it get a seal of approval? Does a committee vote on its authenticity? Is it accepted into an 'official' hall of fame?
Look, the fact that we have one fossil is evidence. You don't reject evidence because there's 'not enough' of it. The fossil supports the theory of evolution, and does not disprove any part of it. The reverse is also true. The theory of evolution is capable of explaining the fossil. There are plenty of other bits of evidence which support the theory, and none of which disputes it. However, the fossil does undermine the theory of intelligent design, which is incapable of explaining the existence of this fossil. Nothing 'official' is necessary.
And there are many stages of 'inbetween,' of which Lucy is only one. We have lots of fossils of other 'inbetween' stages. Homo Habilis is an 'inbetween.' Ardipithecus ramidus is an 'inbetween.' Sahelanthropus tchadensis may well be an 'inbetween.' But she chooses to focus on a single 'inbetween' stage, and claim that we don't have enough evidence, whilst steadfastly ignoring all the other evidence that exists, and claiming that this proves a god.
Sorry. It doesn't work like that.13. Does metamorphosis help support evolution?
I'm guessing here that this individual doesn't understand biology very well at all. Metamorphosis is the transitioning of a life from from one stage of life to another. It is primarily observed in insects, as the larvae metamorphose into pupae, which then in turn metamorphose into adults. This has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. Evolution deals with how the infinitesimal variation between parent and offspring compounds, over thousands (or perhaps even millions) of generations until the descendants are so far removed from their ancestors as to be considered a different species. And again, keep in mind the gradient concept. You can't point to a single individual and say, 'This is the exact point at which it stops being the ancestors' species and becomes the new species.'
So to answer your question, no, metamorphosis does not help support evolution. But neither does it it disprove it. The two have nothing to do with one another.14. If evolution is a theory (like creationism or the Bible) why then is evolution taught as fact.
Because creationism is not a theory, nor is the bible. Despite what you think, the term 'theory' does not mean the same thing as 'hypothesis.' A hypothesis is a prediction, a 'guess,' if you will. Hypotheses have not been proven, and require testing. A theory is a set of rules that explains a natural phenomenon. They have been tested, and found to be valid. Some theories are later overturned when new evidence becomes available. But evolution, just as the atomic, gravity, and germ theories, does an admirable job of explaining the observed phenomena (in the case of the theory of evolution, how life came to have such diversity and why). The laws that go together to form the theory of evolution (such as heredity and genetic variation) reconcile with one another. And there has not yet been any evidence to disprove the theory.
By contrast, intelligent design is only a hypothesis. It has not been tested, it does not describe the diversity of life that we see, and it conflicts with what we know about the world.
The bible, on the other hand, is not even a hypothesis. It's a book. A demonstrably false book, no less.
So the reason evolution is taught as fact is because it is fact. Despite what you think, the word 'theory' is not the opposite of fact.15. Because science by definition is a "theory" -- not testable, observable, nor repeatable -- why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?
Again, we have a massive misunderstanding of what the word 'theory' means. Science is not a theory. It's a method of looking at the world. It's a system used to learn how the universe works. There are theories within the field of science, reached through the discipline of scientific inquiry. And, as mentioned before, 'theory' is not the opposite of fact.
And even more disturbingly egregious is the suggestion that science is not testable, observable, or repeatable. Those things are the exact opposite of what science is all about. Everything we know has been tested, observed, and repeated.
And that's why we're offended by creationism and intelligent design being taught in school: because they are, unlike science, not testable, observable, or repeatable.16. What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?
And here we have the mistaken idea that genetics are a form of information.
DNA is a chemical. Nothing more. It can be replicated in a way that most other chemicals cannot, but it's still just a chemical. There's no 'information' there to be added (or removed, for that matter). But the process of replicating this chemical is not perfect. Changes occur (just as one example is the fact that human DNA shows evidence that two of our genes fused together into a single gene at some point in the past, which is why humans have one less gene pair than other apes). And it is as a result of these changes that speciation occurs.
Scientists will often talk about genetic 'information' as a linguistic shorthand to make it easier to discuss the mechanism of heredity and reproduction. But there's no actual 'information' present in genetic material. So the concept of 'an increase in genetic information' is a false concept.17. What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?
As I mentioned earlier, I'm here for the purpose of enjoying life with a minimum of negative impact on other beings, whilst simultaneously lessening the suffering of other beings.
Why do you need a purpose assigned to you from an outside agency? I found my own purpose. I didn't need a god to give it to me.18. Why have we found only 1 "Lucy," when we have found more than 1 of everything else?
Firstly, it's not true that we've only found one 'Lucy.' We have a number of Australopithecus afarensis fossils. Besides, there are other species which we have in small numbers. There have only a handful of examples of fossils of Sahelanthropus tchadensis. We have only a handful of Ardipithecus ramidus fossils. But as mentioned before, not having 'enough' evidence does not mean that the evidence is invalid.
And secondly, the reason that we've found so few is because the older a fossil is, the less likely it is to have survived. Especially given how few members of the species there were, and the fact that they only lived in Africa (most likely), it's amazing that we've even been able to find even one specimen. More prolific species, such as most of the commonly known dinosaurs, have survived in greater numbers. More recent species, such as homo habilis, have also survived in greater numbers.
So it's neither surprising, nor damaging to any scientific theory, that we only have one Australopithecus afarensis fossil. However, the existence of even this single fossil is not explained by intelligent design nor creationist hypotheses. 19. Can you believe in "the big bang" without "faith?"
Yes. Because there's evidence for it. Faith is only required when there's no evidence, such as whether a god exists.20. How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It's AMAZING!!!
It is amazing. That doesn't mean it was created (or 'thought of,' which you felt the need to include, for some reason). My lack of belief in a god does not lessen my awe or wonder at the majesty, the harmony, the beauty, the impressive nature of the universe. The only difference is that I don't believe that the universe was created just for me, as you apparently do.21. Relating to the big bang theory... where did the exploding star come from?
Another example of someone who has no clue what he's talking about. There is no exploding star in the big bang theory.
You know, I'm bored of explaining things by this point, and I'll bet you're tired of reading them. If you don't know what the big bang really is, then go research it.22. If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?
I think this may be the creationist argument that I most despise hearing. It amazes me that people actually think this is a reasonable argument.
You might as well ask, 'Since America came from Britain, why is there still a Britain?' Or, 'If my wife descends from the Smith family, but married into the Davis family, why are there still Smiths?'
Not all monkeys evolved into humans. Some of them had offspring that are still monkeys.
Not to mention the fact that humans are still monkeys. We're just an exceptionally advanced, intelligent, fully bipedal, lacking in body hair, capable of swimming, tailless monkey.
And that's all I've got. Who know when I'll talk again, or about what.
First, to be fair, let's examine the messages to the creationists. There were a few that had valid points:
- How do you explain the fossil record and the established science of geology?
- If there is no such thing as evolution, how come snakes have no legs, but evidence of once having legs?
- Does God get bored with the finches of Galapagos every few generations? Mix it up?
- What is your explanation of the human genome that was found dating back 40,000 years?
- Explain rock layers, and plate tectonics?
- How do you explain fossils that are millions of years old?
A couple of them were pretty unassailable:
- Why do you believe carbon dating is so unreliable?
- SHOW ME THE FACTS! How can you possibly find evidence that an omniscient being created everything?
- If you accept religion as truth, why is your religion "more true" than all of the others?
A couple engaged in a minor form of ad hominem attack:
- What's with all the raping and pillaging, God?
- I require my textbooks to be newer than 4,000 years old.
- Do you really believe in a talking snake?
- Read more than 1 book.
- How can you ignore evolution as a theory if there are entire disciplines dedicated to it?
- How can you deny micro-evolution (i.e., evolution in action)?
- How did Noah's Ark stay afloat even with termites on the Ark?
- Keep religion out of my science class
And the rest were just utterly baffling:
- If my great great grandpa rode bareback on a T-rex... why can't I?
- SCIENCE RULES
- Assuming "The Flintstones" was a documentary, what was Jesus's role in having dinosaurs in the workplace? They seem like a safety hazard for Mr. Slate.
- Creationists and Pastafarians -- we've got to stick TOGETHER!! Won't you support our religious right to have our Pastafarian story in science classrooms as well??
- Jesus riding a dinosaur..?? 'NUFF SAID.
Yes, he is. He is encouraging people (not just children, but children especially) to be curious, to investigate, to wonder, to experiment, and to never be satisfied with answers that are simply given to them. I'd say that's a very positive thing.
Now, often when someone asks a question like this, they seem to be implying that without religion, a person cannot have morality. That is an enormous topic, which I will not cover here. I will simply say that religion is neither the source nor the measure or morality. If we were to chart all humans by religious affiliation compared to morality, we would find that the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. There will be exactly as many moral atheists as there are moral theists (percentage-wise), and exactly as many immoral theists as there are immoral atheists.2. Are you scared of a Divine Creator?
No, I'm not. I simply don't have any evidence for the existence of a divine creator.3. Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings... Adam created as an adult...
Yes, it is. Granted, we cannot prove that a being capable of creating the universe in its 'mature form' does not exist. But we have plenty of evidence that the universe came into being in a 'raw form' (so to speak) and has developed into its present form over billions of years. Until we have evidence otherwise, there is no good reason to believe otherwise. If we find evidence that it was created, then we will change our minds. But such evidence has yet to be uncovered.4. Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?
No, it does not. The laws of thermodynamics describe how closed systems work. Evolution did not take place in a closed system.5. How do you explain a sunset if their [sic] is no God?
Easy: As the sun appears to descend in the western sky as a result of the earth's rotation, the light from the sun passes through the atmosphere at an oblique angle, travelling through a higher quantity of atmospheric matter than when the sun appears higher in the sky. This causes a higher dispersion of photons, altering the colour of the light that we perceive. Combine this with the presence of clouds and other disturbances and obstacles in the air, and we have the rich array of hues and gradients that we call a sunset.
Oh, wait, you were asking how we could find something to be beautiful without a god to make things beautiful, weren't you? Well, that's a stupid question. We find things beautiful because it was, in some fundamental way, instrumental to our survival. It happened in the same way that people who found poisonous foods to be delicious did not survive to pass on their genes in the same way as people who found safe and nutritious foods to be tasty. Delicious foods are a sort of gustatory beauty, and visual beauty appeals to humans in the same sort of way. Those who found safe and sustaining places to be beautiful survived over those who prefered to live in dangerous places (that's why we've discovered that almost all humans tend to find fertile fields with a moderate abundance of trees and the presence of fresh water as beautiful; such places were highly conducive to human survival). Beauty, like flavour and tactile perception, was conducive to survival.
Of course, some elements of beauty bled over into less survival-related fields. There may not be any direct survival benefit to finding sunsets visually alluring (though it might be argued that sunsets of the type described as beautiful are more likely in beneficial places), it can easily be described as a side effect of the evolutionary advantages of other aspects of the beauty phenomenon.
That wasn't so hard, was it?6. If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
They don't. This has already been discussed. Moving on.7. What about noetics?
I had to look up 'noetics.' It seems to be a vaguely defined term, with people disagreeing on exactly what it means. From what I can tell, it seems that there are two main branches of thought: 1. Noetics is the study of how consciousness came into existence. 2. Noetics is the study of how consciousness affects the world around it. So, my first response to the question, 'What about noetics?' would be, 'What about it?'
I guess they're trying to say that noetics proves the creationists' viewpoint. Except that it doesn't. Assuming that the question is asking, 'How do you explain the existence of consciousness?' the answer is that consciousness is an emergent property. I like to say, 'Consciousness is the illusion of unity arising from the harmonious interaction of many disparate entities to form a single being.'
Let me explain that in a bit more detail. Ants are not very intelligent creatures, right? A single ant cannot accomplish much by itself, despite its impressive physical strength. But if you examine an entire ant colony, you find they are capable of designing and creating architectural wonders. Scientists have found evidence that trees can display signs of intelligent behaviour, and have determined that this thought results from the interaction of the root tips, despite the fact that these tips are not directly connected to one another. The golden shiner fish tend to cluster together in shadowed areas of a body of water, but when a single fish (or a small number) is alone, they show no preference for either shadowed or unshadowed areas. These data all suggest that intellect, consciousness, or sentience is not the result of a single entity, but the synergy of many small and discrete parts working together to create a whole that is, as the saying goes, greater than the sum of its parts.
The same thing can be said of humans. It was recently discovered that the part of the brain that controls and governs human male sexual drive is, to a great extent, immune to override by other parts of the brain. That indicates that there are separate sections of the human mind that do not all exist directly as part of the conscious mind. We are, it turns out, actually a writhing mass of different pieces that have managed to mesh together as a single mostly cohesive being, over which we have layered the veneer of a single conscious entity. So in that sense, noetics tells us nothing about the existence of a supreme being.
Secondly, if we look at noetics as the influence of consciousness on the world around us, we're talking about the sort of nonsense spouted by Deepak Chopra. The idea that our thoughts alter the world around us (just as one example of the way that some people think this actually works is Rhonda Byrne, the author of the pathetic book entitled The Secret, who was once asked about the tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people in 2004, and answered that disasters like tsunamis can happen only to people who are 'on the same frequency as the event') has been debunked many times over.
So no, noetics does not have anything to do with this discussion.8. Where do you derive objective meaning in life?
There is no such thing as objective meaning. All life is subjective. I create my own meaning for my life (specifically, to enjoy life as much as I can whilst simultaneously doing what I am capable of doing to reduce the misery and suffering of other beings, and also being cognizant of how my enjoyment can sometimes reduce the enjoyment of life for others, and trying to minimise that effect). Others create different meanings. The insistence by theists that there is an objective meaning to life is a red herring. There's no need for an objective meaning. Life is so much more worthwhile if everyone's meaning is subjective.9. If God did not create everything, how did the first single celled organism originate? By chance?
No. The first building blocks of life happened by chance, but after that, the first single-celled organism was pretty much guaranteed.
See, the problem here is that many people mistakenly believe that the first sign of life was a single-celled organism. In fact, what probably happened was that somewhere that there was sufficient matter and energy (carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, mostly, along with heat and movement; likely at a hydrothermal vent on the ocean floor), some of those molecules happened to arrange themselves into a series of self-replicating proteins. Of course, proteins aren't life. So we don't have life yet. But these proteins replicated themselves, and eventually some of them bond with some lipids. These are better protected from the rigors of undersea existence, and so propagate more efficiently. Those that didn't bond with lipids eventually 'die off' (so to speak; you can't really die if you're not alive to begin with) whilst the others continue. Then some that are bonded to lipids manage to arrange the lipids in a more effective manner, and so on... so that eventually, over time, these proteins pick up more and more improvements until eventually, they can be called 'single-celled organisms.'
But it's a gradient. You cannot point to a single entity and say, 'That is the first single-celled organism,' in exactly the same way that you cannot point to a specific place on the spectrum of colours and say, 'This point right here is the exact spot where it stops being red and has now become orange. And more importantly even than that, scientists are willing to admit that they don't know exactly how it happened. What I have described above is merely a hypothesis (not a theory!), and they are constantly striving to improve their knowledge. Theists, however, when confronted with a mystery, choose to say 'God did it!' instead of investigating to find out what really happened.
And, as mentioned before, if a scientist finds evidence that a god does exist and did create the universe, they will accept that evidence and become a believer.10. I believe in the Big Bang Theory... God said it and BANG it happened!
That's great. Bully for you. Why should I care what you believe?
Look, not all atheists are rational people. The word 'atheist' simply means 'not a believer.' All it means is that the person does not believe in a god or gods. It doesn't automatically mean the person is intelligent, or rational, or accepts scientific conclusions (as one example, Bill Maher, who is a very outspoken atheist, does not accept germ theory).
Which is why I refer to scientists more than to atheists. But for those atheists who do accept the findings of scientific enquiry, belief is simply a non-issue. I, for example, have entirely removed the idea of belief from my world view. I accept those ideas for which there is sufficient evidence. I cautiously and tentatively accept those ideas for which there is some evidence, but the evidence is not conclusive. I remain skeptical towards those ideas for which there is no evidence, and I reject those ideas which the evidence disproves. Belief has nothing to do with it.
So you can believe whatever you want. You can believe that god said it and 'BANG it happened.' You can believe that a giant space monkey defecated into the void, and that the urine became the nebulae whilst the faeces became the stars and the planets and the moons and the other celestial bodies. And for that matter, I wouldn't even care what you believed, if you didn't insist on passing your inane notions to younger generations, or try to pass legislation based on your delusions. But most importantly of all, just because you believe it doesn't make it true.11. Why do evolutionists/secularists/huminists [sic]/non-God believing people reject the idea of their [sic] being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terestrial [sic] sources?
I don't know who you've been talking to, but most atheists (or whatever other synonym you want to throw into that alphabet soup you created there) don't accept intelligent design from any source. I'm sure there are a few crazy people out there who do accept such bizarre ideas, but the majority of us, certainly the ones with whom I'm familiar, reject the idea of 'intelligent design' from aliens, extra-terrestrials, and any other source.
Ok, now I'm depressed. On to the next one.12. There is no inbetween... the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an "official proof"
I'm going to hazard a guess that this person is speaking of the transitional form between what she calls 'apes' and what she calls 'humans' (never mind the fact that humans are apes). She insists that 'Lucy' (the australopithecus afarensis fossil that shows evidence of smaller brain size with bipedal locomotion) is the only evidence we have that humans evolved from apes, and that because it's not a full skeleton that was recovered, it's insufficient on its own merits anyway.
I don't understand what she thinks is necessary for 'official proof.' How does one define 'official' in this context? Does it get a seal of approval? Does a committee vote on its authenticity? Is it accepted into an 'official' hall of fame?
Look, the fact that we have one fossil is evidence. You don't reject evidence because there's 'not enough' of it. The fossil supports the theory of evolution, and does not disprove any part of it. The reverse is also true. The theory of evolution is capable of explaining the fossil. There are plenty of other bits of evidence which support the theory, and none of which disputes it. However, the fossil does undermine the theory of intelligent design, which is incapable of explaining the existence of this fossil. Nothing 'official' is necessary.
And there are many stages of 'inbetween,' of which Lucy is only one. We have lots of fossils of other 'inbetween' stages. Homo Habilis is an 'inbetween.' Ardipithecus ramidus is an 'inbetween.' Sahelanthropus tchadensis may well be an 'inbetween.' But she chooses to focus on a single 'inbetween' stage, and claim that we don't have enough evidence, whilst steadfastly ignoring all the other evidence that exists, and claiming that this proves a god.
Sorry. It doesn't work like that.13. Does metamorphosis help support evolution?
I'm guessing here that this individual doesn't understand biology very well at all. Metamorphosis is the transitioning of a life from from one stage of life to another. It is primarily observed in insects, as the larvae metamorphose into pupae, which then in turn metamorphose into adults. This has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. Evolution deals with how the infinitesimal variation between parent and offspring compounds, over thousands (or perhaps even millions) of generations until the descendants are so far removed from their ancestors as to be considered a different species. And again, keep in mind the gradient concept. You can't point to a single individual and say, 'This is the exact point at which it stops being the ancestors' species and becomes the new species.'
So to answer your question, no, metamorphosis does not help support evolution. But neither does it it disprove it. The two have nothing to do with one another.14. If evolution is a theory (like creationism or the Bible) why then is evolution taught as fact.
Because creationism is not a theory, nor is the bible. Despite what you think, the term 'theory' does not mean the same thing as 'hypothesis.' A hypothesis is a prediction, a 'guess,' if you will. Hypotheses have not been proven, and require testing. A theory is a set of rules that explains a natural phenomenon. They have been tested, and found to be valid. Some theories are later overturned when new evidence becomes available. But evolution, just as the atomic, gravity, and germ theories, does an admirable job of explaining the observed phenomena (in the case of the theory of evolution, how life came to have such diversity and why). The laws that go together to form the theory of evolution (such as heredity and genetic variation) reconcile with one another. And there has not yet been any evidence to disprove the theory.
By contrast, intelligent design is only a hypothesis. It has not been tested, it does not describe the diversity of life that we see, and it conflicts with what we know about the world.
The bible, on the other hand, is not even a hypothesis. It's a book. A demonstrably false book, no less.
So the reason evolution is taught as fact is because it is fact. Despite what you think, the word 'theory' is not the opposite of fact.15. Because science by definition is a "theory" -- not testable, observable, nor repeatable -- why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?
Again, we have a massive misunderstanding of what the word 'theory' means. Science is not a theory. It's a method of looking at the world. It's a system used to learn how the universe works. There are theories within the field of science, reached through the discipline of scientific inquiry. And, as mentioned before, 'theory' is not the opposite of fact.
And even more disturbingly egregious is the suggestion that science is not testable, observable, or repeatable. Those things are the exact opposite of what science is all about. Everything we know has been tested, observed, and repeated.
And that's why we're offended by creationism and intelligent design being taught in school: because they are, unlike science, not testable, observable, or repeatable.16. What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?
And here we have the mistaken idea that genetics are a form of information.
DNA is a chemical. Nothing more. It can be replicated in a way that most other chemicals cannot, but it's still just a chemical. There's no 'information' there to be added (or removed, for that matter). But the process of replicating this chemical is not perfect. Changes occur (just as one example is the fact that human DNA shows evidence that two of our genes fused together into a single gene at some point in the past, which is why humans have one less gene pair than other apes). And it is as a result of these changes that speciation occurs.
Scientists will often talk about genetic 'information' as a linguistic shorthand to make it easier to discuss the mechanism of heredity and reproduction. But there's no actual 'information' present in genetic material. So the concept of 'an increase in genetic information' is a false concept.17. What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?
As I mentioned earlier, I'm here for the purpose of enjoying life with a minimum of negative impact on other beings, whilst simultaneously lessening the suffering of other beings.
Why do you need a purpose assigned to you from an outside agency? I found my own purpose. I didn't need a god to give it to me.18. Why have we found only 1 "Lucy," when we have found more than 1 of everything else?
Firstly, it's not true that we've only found one 'Lucy.' We have a number of Australopithecus afarensis fossils. Besides, there are other species which we have in small numbers. There have only a handful of examples of fossils of Sahelanthropus tchadensis. We have only a handful of Ardipithecus ramidus fossils. But as mentioned before, not having 'enough' evidence does not mean that the evidence is invalid.
And secondly, the reason that we've found so few is because the older a fossil is, the less likely it is to have survived. Especially given how few members of the species there were, and the fact that they only lived in Africa (most likely), it's amazing that we've even been able to find even one specimen. More prolific species, such as most of the commonly known dinosaurs, have survived in greater numbers. More recent species, such as homo habilis, have also survived in greater numbers.
So it's neither surprising, nor damaging to any scientific theory, that we only have one Australopithecus afarensis fossil. However, the existence of even this single fossil is not explained by intelligent design nor creationist hypotheses. 19. Can you believe in "the big bang" without "faith?"
Yes. Because there's evidence for it. Faith is only required when there's no evidence, such as whether a god exists.20. How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It's AMAZING!!!
It is amazing. That doesn't mean it was created (or 'thought of,' which you felt the need to include, for some reason). My lack of belief in a god does not lessen my awe or wonder at the majesty, the harmony, the beauty, the impressive nature of the universe. The only difference is that I don't believe that the universe was created just for me, as you apparently do.21. Relating to the big bang theory... where did the exploding star come from?
Another example of someone who has no clue what he's talking about. There is no exploding star in the big bang theory.
You know, I'm bored of explaining things by this point, and I'll bet you're tired of reading them. If you don't know what the big bang really is, then go research it.22. If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?
I think this may be the creationist argument that I most despise hearing. It amazes me that people actually think this is a reasonable argument.
You might as well ask, 'Since America came from Britain, why is there still a Britain?' Or, 'If my wife descends from the Smith family, but married into the Davis family, why are there still Smiths?'
Not all monkeys evolved into humans. Some of them had offspring that are still monkeys.
Not to mention the fact that humans are still monkeys. We're just an exceptionally advanced, intelligent, fully bipedal, lacking in body hair, capable of swimming, tailless monkey.
And that's all I've got. Who know when I'll talk again, or about what.