Bill Maher and Brian Levin Discuss Islam

[TitanTiger 20,499]

And how are those cultures fairing today? Are they growing/expanding or receding?

So if a culture had such an ingrained sense of altruism that they sacrificed their own chances at survival to allow another culture almost completely unlike them, would that dead culture have been doing something "good" or "right", or because that culture didn't fare so well in the end and died out, their example would be one of "bad" or "wrong?"

Sorry. I don't really get that. Anyone who observes traditional rules of behavior feels they are doing what they "ought" to be doing by definition.

You are more than willing to cast aside traditional rules of behavior you don't like, so that can't be any measure of what one "ought" to do.

Again, this is hard for me to understand. The terms "right" and "wrong" are simply terms humans use to differentiate appropriate behavior (which they have learned culturally) from inappropriate behavior.

No, the terms "right" and "wrong" have been and are still used to point to things that we don't just do because it will garner approval from other as "appropriate", or that are merely utilitarian in nature (they benefit us in some way), but things that are "right" and "wrong", period. Something that is objectively right is right even if no one else agrees. Majority opinion is not the deciding factor in the rightness of an action.

Of course is does (well to be more accurate, it explains why altruism exists). Altruism presents a selective advantage to those cultures who have developed the practice. That's all the reason that is needed.

Altruism can present a selective disadvantage as well. This isn't an accurate measuring stick. A culture could literally be altruistic to its own disadvantage or even demise. The altruism shouldn't be viewed as good or bad, right or wrong merely on whether it accomplishes a goal of giving selective advantage. Maybe it would actually be better if another culture unlike the more altruistic one to survive. What does that do to altruism as an unquestioned "good?"

The idea that we were handed a set of rules by some authority and if you don't believe that, you have no interest in observing those rules is demonstrably false by simple observation.

Sorry but I didn't mean you specifically. I was referring to the often heard argument that there are can be no morals without a religious code to define them. I apologize of giving the impression you felt that way.

Well, I apologize that some people hurl accusations that because you are not a theist, you cannot be moral or have morals. That's not accurate at all.

[Weegle777 78]

Some of the variations are quite wide, from culture to culture, from era to era.

I agree with this. Different civilizations certainly have very protean ideas of normalcy. Within our own the variation isn't very broad, but this is a good point.

What I'm getting at is that what you're calling "good" or "altruistic" isn't rooted in anything other than your opinion. There's nothing inherent in your position that makes it any different or better than "might makes right."

Isn't there? What about the compass of civilization at large? Wouldn't what we consider right, wrong, morally ambiguous, or even the concept of "natural rights" ultimately be fictional constructs of human invention brought about by our unique ability to think logically and show empathy to others?

If you assume that the human perspective somehow inherently should take precedence over other perspectives. To what would you reference to show this should be the case?

We're human. Reason enough for myself and most virtuous atheists, I suppose.

Why shouldn't they? Who or what says they're wrong?

Society at large, I would guess.

Sorry, I'm new to philosophy, so I'm fishing a bit. Try to bear with me. ;-)

This is how a debate should be. Well done fellows.

[AUDub 11,158]

This is sort of like using a word in its own definition. It's also heavily dependent upon a group of people who supposedly constructed morality out of a "survival of the fittest" mindset, when what is considered truly "good" or altruistic usually asks the exact opposite of them.

You're correct. I agree.

Is there nothing outside of ourselves we can anchor that belief in?

I can consider myself a part of a larger whole as a human being and a member of a society even without my religious beliefs. Atheists' rationale is likely enough for them, and I really can't fault them for that. Compassion is universal and not an original concept of any religion.

What about this doesn't just end up as "might makes right?" Whoever has the power makes the rules. The rules aren't inherently good or better than anyone else's rules, they just have the power to enforce theirs. If things change and enough people can wrest the power from the former group, then their rules become what's "right." So "right" really is devoid of meaning...at least the meaning that we seem to believe that it has. It's just merely an expression of whatever preferences those in power at the moment have and can change on a whim.

I think you're correct here and it is very well put. I agree that the concept of what is right or good is dependent of the observer and the accepted norms of the time. There are no morally neutral frames of reference. It's on the individual.

While I have come to realize that, depending on perspective, any action, even an altruistic one, is at it's heart based in self-interest, I still disagree with DKW's original assertion that atheism is "Neitzscheanism," (?) or that it suggests immoral behavior can be acceptable to an individual with no religious moral basis. I think atheism is neither positive or negative. Atheism is pragmatic.

[homersapien 11,393]

And how are those cultures fairing today? Are they growing/expanding or receding?

So if a culture had such an ingrained sense of altruism that they sacrificed their own chances at survival to allow another culture almost completely unlike them, would that dead culture have been doing something "good" or "right", or because that culture didn't fare so well in the end and died out, their example would be one of "bad" or "wrong?"

Well, it would certainly be "bad" for the culture who didn't survive and "good" for the culture that did. More importantly, if the surviving culture was "fitter" than the deceased one (and one could argue that it is, since their concepts of altruism are apparently more "balanced" or rational than the extinct culture) it would be better for the species as a whole (by improving their fitness to survive).

I think you are too focused on the concepts of "good" or "bad" which are obviously relevant and have no real scientific meaning outside of the context of describing who benefits the most.

Sorry. I don't really get that. Anyone who observes traditional rules of behavior feels they are doing what they "ought" to be doing by definition.

You are more than willing to cast aside traditional rules of behavior you don't like, so that can't be any measure of what one "ought" to do.

Sorry but you need to rephrase this. I don't understand it.

But to repeat what I said, the concept of "ought" (duty to conform to a given tradition of behavior) already exists in someone who feels they are obligated to conform to that behavior, by definition.

To someone who doesn't agree with the standard of behavior, that feeling of duty may or may not exist. They may not agree but still bend to the concept of duty or they may refuse to conform on the basis of their disagreement (conscience if you prefer). In the latter case they are choosing to follow a "duty" that is derived from their own sense of values or decency.

Does that make sense?

Again, this is hard for me to understand. The terms "right" and "wrong" are simply terms humans use to differentiate appropriate behavior (which they have learned culturally) from inappropriate behavior.

No, the terms "right" and "wrong" have been and are still used to point to things that we don't just do because it will garner approval from other as "appropriate", or that are merely utilitarian in nature (they benefit us in some way), but things that are "right" and "wrong", period. Something that is objectively right is right even if no one else agrees. Majority opinion is not the deciding factor in the rightness of an action.

You misunderstand my post. I am not restricting the idea of "right or wrong" to the concepts of material benefit. It is just as possible, and often is, that "right or wrong" can equally apply to altruistic concepts that are designed to help one's neighbor (for example). Such attitudes of what is "right" or "wrong" are nevertheless inculcated as a matter of culture or tradition.

And again, the 'rightness" or "wrongness" are relevant to the context and situation. If you help your neighbor and everyone benefits, it was "right" for everyone. But if you help your neighbor to murder innocent people (for example) it is wrong, not only in respect to the murdered people but likely with respect to the (naturalistic) cultural standard of helping your community.

Of course is does (well to be more accurate, it explains why altruism exists). Altruism presents a selective advantage to those cultures who have developed the practice. That's all the reason that is needed.

Altruism can present a selective disadvantage as well. This isn't an accurate measuring stick. A culture could literally be altruistic to its own disadvantage or even demise.

Agreed. But if a form of altruism presents a selective disadvantage, then the culture that is practicing it will either die out or they will cease to practice it.

I don't understand what you mean by an "accurate measuring stick".

The altruism shouldn't be viewed as good or bad, right or wrong merely on whether it accomplishes a goal of giving selective advantage.

Well, in terms of evolution it does. At least if you consider survival of a species or culture to be good (for that species). If the altruism in question presents a selective disadvantage, then it's bad (respecting that culture's survivability).

Maybe it would actually be better if another culture unlike the more altruistic one to survive.

Better to whom? Nature doesn't really care which one survives.

What does that do to altruism as an unquestioned "good?"

I never proposed that altruism is an "unquestioned good". see above.

The idea that we were handed a set of rules by some authority and if you don't believe that, you have no interest in observing those rules is demonstrably false by simple observation.

Sorry but I didn't mean you specifically. I was referring to the often heard argument that there are can be no morals without a religious code to define them. I apologize of giving the impression you felt that way.

Well, I apologize that some people hurl accusations that because you are not a theist, you cannot be moral or have morals. That's not accurate at all.

Thanks for appreciating that.

I do find it someone surprising coming from someone who is so opposed to homosexual marriage for religious reasons. But I don't want to hijack a good discussion.

[AUDub 11,158]

This is how a debate should be. Well done fellows.

If this is a debate, I'm losing.

It helps me to think of it as a learning exercise. I can appreciate the fact that there's a lot I can learn from TT and everyone else.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

"Survival of the fittest" is commonly misunderstood by detractors of Darwin and evolutionary theory in general. Fitness is a biological term describing an organism's ability to survive and reproduce; not how strong or fast or whatever it is. In that regard, Arnold Schwarzenegger is no more fit than the scrawny Duggar guy in terms of a basic ability to reproduce and survive.

Biologically, the Duggar is right now more fit because he has a ton of offspring with his gene, while Arnold only has a few. Thus the Duggar gene is more likely to be spread. If it is a "weak" gene and leads to his children being weaker than their peers and thus dying or being unable to reproduce, it will be phased out over time. Likewise, if Arnold's gene is "strong" and his children are physically fit and continue to reproduce, his gene may gain more relative expression over time.

As for biological altruism, it is not "good" or "bad". Altruism is simply an animal doing something which benefits another animal's ability to reproduce at a detriment to its own ability to reproduce. Standard altruism is just consciously doing good for another person. Some psychologists argue if there is such a thing as true altruism, as everybody gets some sort of reward from helping another, whether it be monetary or emotional.

Compassion and empathy are higher level functions not found in most other animals, and are not derived by some heavenly being. Chimpanzees and gorillas, as well as several birds, have been shown to exhibit limited ranges of these traits. I am an atheist and I don't find a single need to do right because I feel "God" said to. I do it because bringing happiness to others brings happiness to me. I like to see others happy.

What stops me from murdering people, or raping, or whatever is bad in this world? I don't want to. It's that simple. I suppose if I did want to do those things, I would. But that's no different than the countless Christian, Muslim, or other religious people who do bad things everyday. I choose not to do wrong on my own, not out of fear of an ethereal punishment. To me, saying that one doesn't do those things because "god said don't" is more scary than just admitting you don't want to do those things. You guys can argue where "good" or "bad" comes from, but even most basic animals have figured it out- don't start a problem and you won't have a problem.

[DKW 86 7,431]

You know, somewhere a long time ago, we debated this very issue.

Essentially those that that pray and see astounding things happen thru praying are seeing what they believe to be a 1-1 correlation.

They see a God that is loving and cares for us and is THE ultimate word in "Justice" in a crazy world.

The Atheist view is a lot harder to defend. I present you with the fact that YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN ATHEISM.

1. If you believe in the crap that is Darwinism, that the fittest survive. The next step is...

2. Neitzscheanism: The fittest SHOULD survive, that the survival of the fittest is BEST for everyone and that would make sense, IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT. It is my contention that you really dont.

Let's see if you really do believe it.

Answer these questions:

Why do good?

Why do good to another human?

Why do good in business?

Why do you not actually engage in and encourage others to activities that would actually show and demonstrate that you believe in "Survival of the Fittest.?"

What you will find is some namby pamby BS answer that will sound something like: "Well, if i dont act "good" or do "good" then society will punish me..."

That is THE SINGLE BIGGEST COPEOUT POSITION EVER PUT FORTH BY MAN.

If you actually believe that there is no god. Then what the hell, act like it.

If you actually believe the things you have shown your ass with on here saying, then PLEASE DEMONSTATE that you have the nerve and the gall to stand up to Judeao-Christian norms of society and act like what you say you believe.

If there is no god, then act like it. Lead your life in such a way where you are cowed by the rest of us lesser beings. Societal norms are just an imposition on your ultimately living like you say you should. If the concept of god is just us imposing our weaker than your glorious intellect ways upon you, please feel free to form up a group and go and lead your life like you say you believe.

If there is no god:

Live like it.

Take what you want from the rest of us and live that "Survival of the Fittest" thing.

Get a big gun and live like a King.

Form up a new civilization.

Thow off the chains of us lesser beings.

Dont give me any of this "we as a society have agreed to live this way bs."

Look, we have debated this ad nauseum here.

At the end of the day, i fully believe that your position is 100% total BS.

If you actually believe one word of this crapola you would not be here on a message board.

You would be out living your life on your terms. You dont because you KNOW that your life is complete BS.

You are just a troll on a message board slinging crap against the wall to see what sticks....GOTCHA.

I'm sorry, DKW. You're not making any sense. As a former self-proclaimed atheist myself, I can tell you that morality, decency, understanding, and love for your fellow man are not traits exclusive to the religious. That's a ridiculous notion that only shows your lack of understanding toward atheists.

It shows that you totally evaded my thesis which is my question: Why do good?

Look i made this as simple as i could. i asked one simple three word question.

You answer is?

Remember, i can explain it to you, i cant comprehend it for you...

[DKW 86 7,431]

I'm sorry, DKW. You're not making any sense. As a former self-proclaimed atheist myself, I can tell you that morality, decency, understanding, and love for your fellow man are not traits exclusive to the religious. That's a ridiculous notion that only shows your lack of understanding toward atheists.

I don't think I read that DKW was asserting that morality and so on don't exist among atheists. It is evident that it does from just the people I've known in my life. The question for me (and him I presume) would be, from where is that morality derived? Is it anchored in anything objective? If you truly believe that the universe is just a fortunate (for us) cosmic accident of enough time and the right collision of whatever to somehow result in all that we observe, from where do you get the concept of "ought" or "should"? How do you know that what you say is "good" is actually good and what is "evil" is actually evil?

Bullseye!

[DKW 86 7,431]

I'm sorry, DKW. You're not making any sense. As a former self-proclaimed atheist myself, I can tell you that morality, decency, understanding, and love for your fellow man are not traits exclusive to the religious. That's a ridiculous notion that only shows your lack of understanding toward atheists.

I don't think I read that DKW was asserting that morality and so on don't exist among atheists. It is evident that it does from just the people I've known in my life. The question for me (and him I presume) would be, from where is that morality derived? Is it anchored in anything objective? If you truly believe that the universe is just a fortunate (for us) cosmic accident of enough time and the right collision of whatever to somehow result in all that we observe, from where do you get the concept of "ought" or "should"? How do you know that what you say is "good" is actually good and what is "evil" is actually evil?

Is it not fair to think these concepts could be self-determined? That the anchor could be the determined by individual in question and a moral compass of his own design? What if the happiness and suffering of other humans matters enough to the individual in question that they would seek to decrease the suffering of others just as a matter of course? I believe we form a society to protect ourselves and each other and ward off "survival of the fittest."

I don't believe much of what DKW implied was valid. His tone, in particular the last sentence, lead me to believe he wasn't entering this discussion in good faith. I'm sorry, to both you and he, if you feel I misunderstood him.

Sorry, you are bending to the copout conclusion.

If you dont believe in god, why do good?

Good is a schmaltzy, corny, "restriction on your right to be all you can be" as a god-free individual.

Answer the question: Why do good?

Your final answer will set you free.

[DKW 86 7,431]

[quote name='Bigbens42' timestamp='1366983925' post='1840260'}

What if the happiness and suffering of other humans matters enough to the individual in question that they would seek to decrease the suffering of others just as a matter of course?

How do you decide that decreasing suffering is an unqualified good or that it's a good that supercedes other "goods"? In other words, how do you know that this is truly a "good" end rather than just one of many personal preferences?

I believe we form a society to protect ourselves and each other and ward off "survival of the fittest."

How do we know in the grand scheme of things that our survival is a good to be aimed for? What if our extinction would be better on a grand scale? Should we work toward that instead?

Bingo, WHO decided that? If you are a truly god-free individual, then WHY DO GOOD AT ALL?

Doing good to others does not benefit your economy at all.

It is counterproductive, a waste of time, it is against what should be your logic and reason...

[DKW 86 7,431]

Seriously. I don't understand how people can insist the concept of moral values and compassion must arise from a particular religious faith.

First, they are universal human values regardless of culture or specific religious beliefs.

They are? Some cultures used to sacrifice innocent children or virgin women on beds of fire to appease their gods. At various times in history people didn't just own slaves, but believed they were justified in treating them horribly.

So far, you're merely describing things that seems to just be, not why they ought to be that way.

Secondly, it is certainly not difficult to imagine that as people evolved as social groups, such traits emerged as a beneficial selective advantage.

So right and wrong isn't really "right" and "wrong", it's merely things which certain groups deemed to be beneficial to them?

Thirdly, there is a large and growing body of scientific research demonstrating practices such as altruism serving as a selective advantage of other social animals, including insects.

This still doesn't account for why altruism should be followed. Just that for some beings or in some situations, it increases chances of survival...another thing that hasn't been accounted for as to why it is the best end we should strive for.

The idea that we were handed a set of rules by some authority and if you don't believe that, you have no interest in observing those rules is demonstrably false by simple observation.

I didn't say you have no interest in observing them. In fact, I said quite the opposite.

Titan, wow, you are writing the script for this thread. Exactly, if they actually believed one word of this crapola. They wouldnt even bother to be here.

1) They wont answer the question of Why do good?

2) They are seeing that they actually think the highest order of the food chain, ie Educated Man, IS IN ACTUALITY NOTHING BUT A LEMMING FOR SOCIALLY IMPOSED NORMALITY. They really arent thinking men at all. they are nothing more than social lemmings at the top of the food chain.

Wow, the ultimate goal of the random universe is to be...a social lemming.

[Weegle777 78]

This is how a debate should be. Well done fellows.

If this is a debate, I'm losing.

It helps me to think of it as a learning exercise. I can appreciate the fact that there's a lot I can learn from TT and everyone else.

You aren't losing. Debates should be about hearing both sides of an argument, and genuinely considering what the other person has to say instead of just arrogantly laughing someone's opinions or beliefs off like a couple of people on this board do. You, though we might differ on our views, are one that I like to discuss and debate with because of the respect. Many here could learn from that example including myself.

[DKW 86 7,431]

"Survival of the fittest" is commonly misunderstood by detractors of Darwin and evolutionary theory in general. Fitness is a biological term describing an organism's ability to survive and reproduce; not how strong or fast or whatever it is. In that regard, Arnold Schwarzenegger is no more fit than the scrawny Duggar guy in terms of a basic ability to reproduce and survive.

Biologically, the Duggar is right now more fit because he has a ton of offspring with his gene, while Arnold only has a few. Thus the Duggar gene is more likely to be spread. If it is a "weak" gene and leads to his children being weaker than their peers and thus dying or being unable to reproduce, it will be phased out over time. Likewise, if Arnold's gene is "strong" and his children are physically fit and continue to reproduce, his gene may gain more relative expression over time.

As for biological altruism, it is not "good" or "bad". Altruism is simply an animal doing something which benefits another animal's ability to reproduce at a detriment to its own ability to reproduce. Standard altruism is just consciously doing good for another person. Some psychologists argue if there is such a thing as true altruism, as everybody gets some sort of reward from helping another, whether it be monetary or emotional.

Compassion and empathy are higher level functions not found in most other animals, and are not derived by some heavenly being. Chimpanzees and gorillas, as well as several birds, have been shown to exhibit limited ranges of these traits. I am an atheist and I don't find a single need to do right because I feel "God" said to. I do it because bringing happiness to others brings happiness to me. I like to see others happy.

What stops me from murdering people, or raping, or whatever is bad in this world? I don't want to. It's that simple. I suppose if I did want to do those things, I would. But that's no different than the countless Christian, Muslim, or other religious people who do bad things everyday. I choose not to do wrong on my own, not out of fear of an ethereal punishment. To me, saying that one doesn't do those things because "god said don't" is more scary than just admitting you don't want to do those things. You guys can argue where "good" or "bad" comes from, but even most basic animals have figured it out- don't start a problem and you won't have a problem.

No one was talking about "fitness" here, please pay attention...

Hey we finally have one of these guys actually reading and answering the question.

SO, clarify for me, you do good because why?????

[AUDub 11,158]

I've already apologized to you indirectly and a post earlier to TitanTiger. In the interest of civility, I'll do so again.

Sorry about that ;-)

However, what got me was this portion of your post, in which you asked atheists to live up to the amoral standard that you set up for them:

"If there is no god, then act like it. Lead your life in such a way where you are cowed by the rest of us lesser beings. Societal norms are just an imposition on your ultimately living like you say you should. If the concept of god is just us imposing our weaker than your glorious intellect ways upon you, please feel free to form up a group and go and lead your life like you say you believe."

If we're on the subject of reading comprehension, please explain to me how I misinterpreted that.

My answer is that doing right isn't dependent on the belief in God or a lack thereof, or do you consider virtuous pagans like Buddhists amoral as well?

And frankly, your tone when I read your posts aloud (it helps, I've learned) bothers me. Please dial it down a notch, brother.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

"Survival of the fittest" is commonly misunderstood by detractors of Darwin and evolutionary theory in general. Fitness is a biological term describing an organism's ability to survive and reproduce; not how strong or fast or whatever it is. In that regard, Arnold Schwarzenegger is no more fit than the scrawny Duggar guy in terms of a basic ability to reproduce and survive.

Biologically, the Duggar is right now more fit because he has a ton of offspring with his gene, while Arnold only has a few. Thus the Duggar gene is more likely to be spread. If it is a "weak" gene and leads to his children being weaker than their peers and thus dying or being unable to reproduce, it will be phased out over time. Likewise, if Arnold's gene is "strong" and his children are physically fit and continue to reproduce, his gene may gain more relative expression over time.

As for biological altruism, it is not "good" or "bad". Altruism is simply an animal doing something which benefits another animal's ability to reproduce at a detriment to its own ability to reproduce. Standard altruism is just consciously doing good for another person. Some psychologists argue if there is such a thing as true altruism, as everybody gets some sort of reward from helping another, whether it be monetary or emotional.

Compassion and empathy are higher level functions not found in most other animals, and are not derived by some heavenly being. Chimpanzees and gorillas, as well as several birds, have been shown to exhibit limited ranges of these traits. I am an atheist and I don't find a single need to do right because I feel "God" said to. I do it because bringing happiness to others brings happiness to me. I like to see others happy.

What stops me from murdering people, or raping, or whatever is bad in this world? I don't want to. It's that simple. I suppose if I did want to do those things, I would. But that's no different than the countless Christian, Muslim, or other religious people who do bad things everyday. I choose not to do wrong on my own, not out of fear of an ethereal punishment. To me, saying that one doesn't do those things because "god said don't" is more scary than just admitting you don't want to do those things. You guys can argue where "good" or "bad" comes from, but even most basic animals have figured it out- don't start a problem and you won't have a problem.

No one was talking about "fitness" here, please pay attention...

Hey we finally have one of these guys actually reading and answering the question.

SO, clarify for me, you do good because why?????

I do good because I want to. It's a corollary to my earlier point that I don't do bad because I don't want to.

On a more philosophical level, I do good because it benefits me. The concept that seems to get thrown around a lot is that if there was no god you could get all of your satisfaction by stealing for money and murdering for fun. But that's an insane concept. Doing bad would mean you are constantly putting yourself in danger of death, incarceration, and social isolation. Doing good garners you social networks through friends, money through opportunities, and all the things associated with that.

To whoever said, "well if you don't believe in god then act like it"...I am. Every atheist is. We don't believe in god. It's not a joke where we just say we don't and then secretly live doing good in fear of offending him. We live our lives like god doesn't exist every moment.

[japantiger 4,051]

how species suddenly appear; fully formed;

Science does not say that.

That was my point...the fossil record shows they do....the majority of animal species that exist today mostly just "appeared" during the Cambrian explosion...Evolution as posited says they don't spring fully formed...Darwin claimed there would/should be transitional species in the fossil record...it was the part of his theory that troubled him since he hadn't found any...nor has the intervening years....many have been posited; but dis-proven based on carbon dating and further study.

the lack of transitional species..

The scientific record is full of "transitional" species (as if that term was meaningful, since pretty much all species are, by definition, "transitional") including many for Homo sapiens

You just can't help being snarky can you. Transitional fossils was Darwin's terms...take it up with him....No, there isn't any fossil record of transitional species. You see a lot listed as transitional species; but they are just dead ends...related even; but not one has been proven to be the direct ancestor...that is, not something that became something else. For 130 years, Archaeopteryx (not sure if I got the spelling right) was held up as "the" transitional fossil that "proved" dino's became birds....in 2011, that finally fell by the way side as it was re-dated and shown to be a contemporary of dino's; it was also proven not to even be the 1st bird as long held (earlier bird found in China; Xiaotingia zhengi)..it wasn't even a bird...even good old Wikipedia still touts Archaeopteryx as a transition fossil and the 1st bird; neglecting this new information (after all, it's only been 2 years).

etc., .I could go on....

Well I suppose you could go on citing erroneous information....

Then show me where "evolution" explains how proteins formed? Evolution explains how an already fully formed species changes over time due to natural selection...there are 6 "explanations" that I have been able to find for how it all somehow began; none that have held up to scrutiny. At present, there really isn't a generally accepted scientific explanation for it. Let me be clear, how proteins came into being...not what they now consist of (20 amino acids, etc.). I'll hold RNA, DNA instruction set, reproduction,etc., for later

using some examples of micro evolution to infer the origin of the cosmos or life on this planet (or any other)doesn't even make sense.

Who exactly, suggested one should infer the origin of the universe from observations of microbial evolution

I don't think you did...the discussion went back and forth over several posters between evolution, origins, etc. It got mixed..somehow; not fully believing in all aspects of evolution meant "my kind" were backwards ass country bumpkins who didn't believe in science, etc....and thus the big bang and evolution, etc..

Neither Darwin; nor any other biologist to date, has put together a plausible case for a "randomly" created universe

I am not aware of any scientist that has seriously proposed that the universe was created "randomly". However, random change is a part of evolutionary theory.

This was the prevailing theory for nearly 100 years....you put enough elements in the "primordial soup", expose to the right atmosphere, add lightening and a few billion years and viola'; you get life...it would all just randomly sequence itself ..

....only the laws that explain how how an already created and miraculous universe operates.

So who has claimed otherwise (as a scientific claim)?

by inference

Titan said it very well...They are not the same. Explaining what a protein does (science); is not the same as explaining how a protein came into being.

No, but they are both equally valid scientific questions which have been explored.

Natural selection makes sense....the other doesn't and I haven't found a supported/accepted explanation that does.

If you don't have a belief in how it all started...just say so...

OK, I say so.

but you can't (logically at least) use an unrelated, partially proven theory to refute someones belief in intelligent design or a God designed existence.

You are wrong. A scientifically valid explanation (such as evolution) may not necessarily rule out God's involvement but it clearly shows how things occurred as a natural process. So called "intelligent design" is a a rather pitiful (IMO) effort to assign a supernatural explanation for things that can be explained by natural evolution. "ID" is political and religious. It is not science. It's basis is applying supernatural reasons for any gaps in the existing evidence base. Many of the examples used by proponents of ID are simply false to begin with.

No, it's a logical explanation. It doesn't require require religious or political belief. It just requires intellectual rigor and consistency. I think Titan represented this well. Whatever begins to exists, has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Pretty straightforward, logical, scientifically rigorous thought process. You can't use science; which is built on logic; to explain what you think you know; and then abandon logic when that same process comes into sharp contradiction to what you thought you just understood. You seemed awfully eager to argue your points until logic didn't support your suppositions; and then you said; time out.

And it doesn't follow that because one does believe in Intelligent Design or a God Designed existence; that they don't believe in science or evolution....

I grant you someone can believe in evolution and still believe in God (see the Catholic Church). But obviously , they cannot also believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

So? Don't believe I've gone there...and I see no contradiction.

And as I said, the theory of "Intelligent Design" is not really a scientific theory at all (after all, if you believe God did something, how do you do you falsify it). ID is a religion-motivated scam. One cannot accept evolution and ID at the sam

Really? I see no contradiction and certainly don't see the alleged "scam". Of course you can accept ID and evolution. Again, evolution explains only what happens to species once created. Evolution does not explain how species came into being; ID does. If you can show how evolution explains how proteins, RNA, DNA, etc., all came into being; go ahead. No one else can, so this would get you on the Nobel podium next to Obama.

micro evolution is pretty easy to see...that doesn't mean it explains our species or the universes existence.

No one claimed that it did. I brought it up solely as an exception to the rule that speciation takes a long time. That is true for most things, less so for microbes.

And before you scream "charlatan, evolution, partially proven?"...yes, partially proven by Darwin's own admission.

Maybe Darwin felt it was only partially proven, which was an accurate statement at the time. But 154 years later, there is no scientific doubt about the general validity of the theory. The only thing being debated now are the details.

No change here...points above...natural selection explains what it explains...nothing more.

It's no different than Einstein's theories that work well in some cases and are just wrong in others (Gravity; but not in the Quantum space)...

While various versions of physics have shown not to be universal, that is not the case with evolution. Not to say it can't happen, it just hasn't.

Ever heard of mutations as chance events. Random genetic drift is, of course, random. Accidents and contingency abound in the history of life (meteors, volcanoes, etc.). Not consistent or predicted in Evolution...but significant to speciation. Postulated by many scientists now as more significant than natural selection in speciation. I'll try not to be snarky; but you should read more.

Darwin was bright..he just made too many leaps of faith (no pun intended) with his observations to what he couldn't observe.

First, one cannot observe what can't be observed so I think you are referring to predictions. The fact is, many if not most of Darwin's predictions have been correct. On of the important characteristics of a valid scientific theory is that it is predictive. That has certainly been the case with evolution, which has been very predictive.

Within the bounds that it explains it is predictive. It does not explain how things got started...again, it does nothing to explain how a protein came into being....it does not explain beyond when natural selection is allowed to act (that is, it does not explain what happens if a meteor hits earth and wipes out 80% of the species, it does not explain random genetic drift (Darwin didn't know what genes were).

[Aufan59 71]

You later said "I never said someone was silly for praying." But in your quote above, you flatly said what praying was to you: "Talking to yourself and pretending this helps other people."

Exactly, I said talking to yourself and pretending this helps other people is crazy. I'm glad we got this settled.

I have no faith in any explanation for our origins. Please explain to me how a lack of faith requires a leap of faith?

You have faith that it's completely naturalistic (no supernatural beings involved). That requires a leap of faith because you don't and can't know how nothing could become something or alternately explain how there just always 'was' something that had no beginning. But you still believe that. If that's not faith what it is?

I do not have faith. I have a belief.

I believe the Patriots will win the Super Bowl next year, but I don't have faith that they will. It is a belief based on the evidence, currently unknowable and subject to change based on the evidence.

[DKW 86 7,431]

"Survival of the fittest" is commonly misunderstood by detractors of Darwin and evolutionary theory in general. Fitness is a biological term describing an organism's ability to survive and reproduce; not how strong or fast or whatever it is. In that regard, Arnold Schwarzenegger is no more fit than the scrawny Duggar guy in terms of a basic ability to reproduce and survive.

Biologically, the Duggar is right now more fit because he has a ton of offspring with his gene, while Arnold only has a few. Thus the Duggar gene is more likely to be spread. If it is a "weak" gene and leads to his children being weaker than their peers and thus dying or being unable to reproduce, it will be phased out over time. Likewise, if Arnold's gene is "strong" and his children are physically fit and continue to reproduce, his gene may gain more relative expression over time.

As for biological altruism, it is not "good" or "bad". Altruism is simply an animal doing something which benefits another animal's ability to reproduce at a detriment to its own ability to reproduce. Standard altruism is just consciously doing good for another person. Some psychologists argue if there is such a thing as true altruism, as everybody gets some sort of reward from helping another, whether it be monetary or emotional.

Compassion and empathy are higher level functions not found in most other animals, and are not derived by some heavenly being. Chimpanzees and gorillas, as well as several birds, have been shown to exhibit limited ranges of these traits. I am an atheist and I don't find a single need to do right because I feel "God" said to. I do it because bringing happiness to others brings happiness to me. I like to see others happy.

What stops me from murdering people, or raping, or whatever is bad in this world? I don't want to. It's that simple. I suppose if I did want to do those things, I would. But that's no different than the countless Christian, Muslim, or other religious people who do bad things everyday. I choose not to do wrong on my own, not out of fear of an ethereal punishment. To me, saying that one doesn't do those things because "god said don't" is more scary than just admitting you don't want to do those things. You guys can argue where "good" or "bad" comes from, but even most basic animals have figured it out- don't start a problem and you won't have a problem.

No one was talking about "fitness" here, please pay attention...

Hey we finally have one of these guys actually reading and answering the question.

SO, clarify for me, you do good because why?????

I do good because I want to. It's a corollary to my earlier point that I don't do bad because I don't want to.

On a more philosophical level, I do good because it benefits me. The concept that seems to get thrown around a lot is that if there was no god you could get all of your satisfaction by stealing for money and murdering for fun. But that's an insane concept. Doing bad would mean you are constantly putting yourself in danger of death, incarceration, and social isolation. Doing good garners you social networks through friends, money through opportunities, and all the things associated with that.

To whoever said, "well if you don't believe in god then act like it"...I am. Every atheist is. We don't believe in god. It's not a joke where we just say we don't and then secretly live doing good in fear of offending him. We live our lives like god doesn't exist every moment.

HOME RUN...almost...

So, you do good because you have made the financial or better the "ECONOMIC MAN" decision that it benefits you more to do so?

Well at least we are getting somewhere with this guy. He openly admits that the real reason he doesnt go all Darwin or Neitzsche on folks is that he made the "Economic Man" exchange or deal if you will that Doing Good to others benefits HIM more than going full tilt with Darwin & Neitzsche.

Congrats whoever you are, you have exactly admitted the thing you tried to deny.

You have just admitted here on a public forum that you have accepted the Imposed Social Normative Argument and embraced it.

Kudos on your honesty. And if the New Social Norm was to morph into something different, you would of course do that too because you have ceded the overall guidance of your life to a monolithic unintelligent system guided by the whims and lusts of the crowd. Way to go. You havent achieved man-hood, you have achieved ant-hood in your social structures. You do only what benefits yourself as imposed by the non-thinking collective of social norms. YOU ARE THE BORG.

WTG on the honesty tho... ;-) Sarcasm/off

My whole postulate here is that i do not for one second believe you actually believe one shred of any of this crapola. You can and do hide your deeper meaning of life THAT IS DERIVED FROM HIGHER INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT...IE: FROM GOD. It just makes you seem "hipper" to your social circle if you hide or clothe it in some bogus intellectual hobby that lowers the social embarrassment for you. Remember YOU already established that you will do and act in accordance with what benefits you socially and financially, ;-)

I am not speaking here of RELIGION. I reject religion and the silly IMPOSED rules that benefit the leaders of that religion.

i am speaking of a lifetime of searching that has lead me to a RELATIONSHIP with God where:

i freely admit that i do not have all the answers.

i freely admit that MAN does not have all the answers.

i freely admit that SOCIETY does not have all the answers.

i freely admit that GOVERNMENT does not have all the answers.

i freely admit that EDUCATION does not have all the answers.

i freely admit that MAN'S PHILOSOPHIES do not have all the answers.

ETC...

At age 28, and trying to find something worth believing in, for the rest of my life, i decided to quit trying to reinvent the wheel and started to role model truly happy people. In role modeling those folks, i came to believe that MAN is not the be-all end-all of civilization. In fact mankind is really the antithesis of any real imagined good, left up to his own devices. We wage war, murder, enslave, denigrate, slander, lie, steal, etc and that being Educated Men doesnt stop that at all.(i want you to remember that Nazism was supported by large segments of the Intellectual Elite in America before the war.)

At age 51, i find that my relationship with God strengthens when i die a little more everyday.

i find that as i lifted up my Brothers and Sisters more and more each day, it made better the world better and me better too.

The more i gave to others THRU GOD AND FOR GOD, the happier i was and the better the world was. When i do it that way, it benefits God more, not ME.

Now, sacrificial living is not found outside of a relationship with God. You dont find Mother Theresa's out there giving themselves sacrificially more then the rest of us will ever imagine if they do not have an active relationship outside of themselves. It just doesnt happen on any real scale for any lengthy period of time.

i truly do not think that Man can be happy without realizing his relationship TO THE WORLD, & ITS CREATOR.

Many great thinkers over the years have taught that man is born wanting to know why? We are born wanting to know the reason for our lives, why we are here?

If you REALLY believe that hokus pokus that we are all just the punchline to a cosmic joke that was totally unintended and totally random, then i submit your life cant really have any deeper meaning that consumption and intercourse. Congratulations you are an educated dog.

My thesis is that you really do not believe one word of that crapola. That for the sake of imagined intellectual vanity you are here espousing this silliness and are little more than a Internet Troll.

Have a nice day...really.

[Aufan59 71]

Bingo, WHO decided that? If you are a truly god-free individual, then WHY DO GOOD AT ALL?

Doing good to others does not benefit your economy at all.

It is counterproductive, a waste of time, it is against what should be your logic and reason...

Atheists have emotions too. Helping someone feels good and allows us develop relationships. Atheists are not emotionless robots who base all decisions on logic and reason.

If someone actually believes there is no reason to do good beside god, then I truly feel sorry for them as they are emotionally crippled and intellectually brainwashed.

I don't think you actually believe that. You just use it as a lazy argument against atheism.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

Bingo, WHO decided that? If you are a truly god-free individual, then WHY DO GOOD AT ALL?

Doing good to others does not benefit your economy at all.

It is counterproductive, a waste of time, it is against what should be your logic and reason...

Atheists have emotions too. Helping someone feels good and allows us develop relationships. Atheists are not emotionless robots who base all decisions on logic and reason.

If someone actually believes there is no reason to do good beside god, then I truly feel sorry for them as they are emotionally crippled and intellectually brainwashed.

I don't think you actually believe that. You just use it as a lazy argument against atheism.

WOW! Strong comeback 59. You could not be more wrong. Try this: Pray to God. Ask Him to open your eyes to the truth, His truth. Embrace Him. If you do so with a pure heart, open to changing your secular based belief, your life will change, and you will become a great ambassador for God. The fear and anger in your life comes through in your posts. God can change all that if you just give Him a chance.

[Aufan59 71]

I have prayed to god plenty. I prayed thanking him for my great life, and asked him to help those that needed to be helped. I prayed with great faith and belief.

After all, everything in my life is because of god, and I pray for him to extend these same blessings to those who aren't blessed. So every night I prayed, every night slowly realizing that the same god who is completely responsible for my great life must also be responsible for everyone else's life. The poor souls I am praying for also have god to thank for their misery.

Then one day you realize you are thanking a god because he made your life great, but he is taking a collective crap on millions of people at the same time. It is like worshiping a king because he spared you from being a slave. You are thankful to the king, yet the king is still an awful person whom you fear but do not respect.

Thanks for the advice, but it is prayer that separated me from god.

[homersapien 11,393]

This is how a debate should be. Well done fellows.

If this is a debate, I'm losing.

It helps me to think of it as a learning exercise. I can appreciate the fact that there's a lot I can learn from TT and everyone else.

You aren't losing. Debates should be about hearing both sides of an argument, and genuinely considering what the other person has to say instead of just arrogantly laughing someone's opinions or beliefs off like a couple of people on this board do. You, though we might differ on our views, are one that I like to discuss and debate with because of the respect. Many here could learn from that example including myself.

OK, I slept on this last night and as EMT would say, "its a new day"...

First, I want to point out you implied that a belief in evolution, as well as "Big Bang", is "crazy" in post #15.

I then tried a respectful line of questions in posts #42, 43, 45, 49, 50, 52 and (especially) 54 and all I got in return was snark. To your credit, you became a little more serious in post #61 and 62 where you stated simple opinion (though woefully wrong) which I pointed out in post .#66.

I admit, I "turned bad" in post #68, which was extremely arrogant (and snarky), even if honest. I even respectfully admitted that in post #76.

I still maintain I have no duty to explain such a complex and significant theory on the internet when the person asking for proof is not willing to do their own homework. I am perfectly willing to address specific questions regarding evolution, but I can't really "teach" you the subject in a discussion forum, even if I wanted to. I would take the same position to anyone asked me to "prove" the validity of the elecromagnetic theory or quantum mechanics, etc. At any rate, you used this reasonable position as an excuse to pile on more snark.

So we have now arrived at the above post, where all of a sudden I am the one guilty of not "genuinely considering what others have to say".

I am tired of being accused of exhibiting a pattern of thoughtless responses after I have made repeated tries to confirm or clarify your positions in a respectful thoughtful manner.

Maybe I should not lose my temper but I have spent most of my life being polite to people who don't deserve it and figured it's time to live a little. People like you and Titan are clearly playing by a double standard. My biggest problem is I don't have enough self-control to just allow you to keep exhibiting this hypocrisy. I should take some lessons from BigBen.

Regardless, I apologize to you and everyone else for losing my temper and resorting to snark. I take responsibility of the jabs I have thrown. In hindsight, it was at least counterproductive if not just dumb on my part.

I will try to do better.

In that regard, I have some questions for you if you are willing to entertain them. How about it?

[homersapien 11,393]

how species suddenly appear; fully formed;

Science does not say that.

That was my point...the fossil record shows they do....the majority of animal species that exist today mostly just "appeared" during the Cambrian explosion...Evolution as posited says they don't spring fully formed...Darwin claimed there would/should be transitional species in the fossil record...it was the part of his theory that troubled him since he hadn't found any...nor has the intervening years....many have been posited; but dis-proven based on carbon dating and further study.

the lack of transitional species..

The scientific record is full of "transitional" species (as if that term was meaningful, since pretty much all species are, by definition, "transitional") including many for Homo sapiens

You just can't help being snarky can you. Transitional fossils was Darwin's terms...take it up with him....No, there isn't any fossil record of transitional species. You see a lot listed as transitional species; but they are just dead ends...related even; but not one has been proven to be the direct ancestor...that is, not something that became something else. For 130 years, Archaeopteryx (not sure if I got the spelling right) was held up as "the" transitional fossil that "proved" dino's became birds....in 2011, that finally fell by the way side as it was re-dated and shown to be a contemporary of dino's; it was also proven not to even be the 1st bird as long held (earlier bird found in China; Xiaotingia zhengi)..it wasn't even a bird...even good old Wikipedia still touts Archaeopteryx as a transition fossil and the 1st bird; neglecting this new information (after all, it's only been 2 years).

etc., .I could go on....

Well I suppose you could go on citing erroneous information....

Then show me where "evolution" explains how proteins formed? Evolution explains how an already fully formed species changes over time due to natural selection...there are 6 "explanations" that I have been able to find for how it all somehow began; none that have held up to scrutiny. At present, there really isn't a generally accepted scientific explanation for it. Let me be clear, how proteins came into being...not what they now consist of (20 amino acids, etc.). I'll hold RNA, DNA instruction set, reproduction,etc., for later

using some examples of micro evolution to infer the origin of the cosmos or life on this planet (or any other)doesn't even make sense.

Who exactly, suggested one should infer the origin of the universe from observations of microbial evolution

I don't think you did...the discussion went back and forth over several posters between evolution, origins, etc. It got mixed..somehow; not fully believing in all aspects of evolution meant "my kind" were backwards ass country bumpkins who didn't believe in science, etc....and thus the big bang and evolution, etc..

Neither Darwin; nor any other biologist to date, has put together a plausible case for a "randomly" created universe

I am not aware of any scientist that has seriously proposed that the universe was created "randomly". However, random change is a part of evolutionary theory.

This was the prevailing theory for nearly 100 years....you put enough elements in the "primordial soup", expose to the right atmosphere, add lightening and a few billion years and viola'; you get life...it would all just randomly sequence itself ..

....only the laws that explain how how an already created and miraculous universe operates.

So who has claimed otherwise (as a scientific claim)?

by inference

Titan said it very well...They are not the same. Explaining what a protein does (science); is not the same as explaining how a protein came into being.

No, but they are both equally valid scientific questions which have been explored.

Natural selection makes sense....the other doesn't and I haven't found a supported/accepted explanation that does.

If you don't have a belief in how it all started...just say so...

OK, I say so.

but you can't (logically at least) use an unrelated, partially proven theory to refute someones belief in intelligent design or a God designed existence.

You are wrong. A scientifically valid explanation (such as evolution) may not necessarily rule out God's involvement but it clearly shows how things occurred as a natural process. So called "intelligent design" is a a rather pitiful (IMO) effort to assign a supernatural explanation for things that can be explained by natural evolution. "ID" is political and religious. It is not science. It's basis is applying supernatural reasons for any gaps in the existing evidence base. Many of the examples used by proponents of ID are simply false to begin with.

No, it's a logical explanation. It doesn't require require religious or political belief. It just requires intellectual rigor and consistency. I think Titan represented this well. Whatever begins to exists, has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Pretty straightforward, logical, scientifically rigorous thought process. You can't use science; which is built on logic; to explain what you think you know; and then abandon logic when that same process comes into sharp contradiction to what you thought you just understood. You seemed awfully eager to argue your points until logic didn't support your suppositions; and then you said; time out.

And it doesn't follow that because one does believe in Intelligent Design or a God Designed existence; that they don't believe in science or evolution....

I grant you someone can believe in evolution and still believe in God (see the Catholic Church). But obviously , they cannot also believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

So? Don't believe I've gone there...and I see no contradiction.

And as I said, the theory of "Intelligent Design" is not really a scientific theory at all (after all, if you believe God did something, how do you do you falsify it). ID is a religion-motivated scam. One cannot accept evolution and ID at the sam

Really? I see no contradiction and certainly don't see the alleged "scam". Of course you can accept ID and evolution. Again, evolution explains only what happens to species once created. Evolution does not explain how species came into being; ID does. If you can show how evolution explains how proteins, RNA, DNA, etc., all came into being; go ahead. No one else can, so this would get you on the Nobel podium next to Obama.

micro evolution is pretty easy to see...that doesn't mean it explains our species or the universes existence.

No one claimed that it did. I brought it up solely as an exception to the rule that speciation takes a long time. That is true for most things, less so for microbes.

And before you scream "charlatan, evolution, partially proven?"...yes, partially proven by Darwin's own admission.

Maybe Darwin felt it was only partially proven, which was an accurate statement at the time. But 154 years later, there is no scientific doubt about the general validity of the theory. The only thing being debated now are the details.

No change here...points above...natural selection explains what it explains...nothing more.

It's no different than Einstein's theories that work well in some cases and are just wrong in others (Gravity; but not in the Quantum space)...

While various versions of physics have shown not to be universal, that is not the case with evolution. Not to say it can't happen, it just hasn't.

Ever heard of mutations as chance events. Random genetic drift is, of course, random. Accidents and contingency abound in the history of life (meteors, volcanoes, etc.). Not consistent or predicted in Evolution...but significant to speciation. Postulated by many scientists now as more significant than natural selection in speciation. I'll try not to be snarky; but you should read more.

Darwin was bright..he just made too many leaps of faith (no pun intended) with his observations to what he couldn't observe.

First, one cannot observe what can't be observed so I think you are referring to predictions. The fact is, many if not most of Darwin's predictions have been correct. On of the important characteristics of a valid scientific theory is that it is predictive. That has certainly been the case with evolution, which has been very predictive.

Within the bounds that it explains it is predictive. It does not explain how things got started...again, it does nothing to explain how a protein came into being....it does not explain beyond when natural selection is allowed to act (that is, it does not explain what happens if a meteor hits earth and wipes out 80% of the species, it does not explain random genetic drift (Darwin didn't know what genes were).

Sorry, but can you go back and please highlight your current responses in the above post?

It's difficult for me to sort them out.

[japantiger 4,051]

Without God, their is no good or bad. There's just what you think vs what someone else thinks.

[japantiger 4,051]

how species suddenly appear; fully formed;

Science does not say that.

That was my point...the fossil record shows they do....the majority of animal species that exist today mostly just "appeared" during the Cambrian explosion...Evolution as posited says they don't spring fully formed...Darwin claimed there would/should be transitional species in the fossil record...it was the part of his theory that troubled him since he hadn't found any...nor has the intervening years....many have been posited; but dis-proven based on carbon dating and further study.

the lack of transitional species..

The scientific record is full of "transitional" species (as if that term was meaningful, since pretty much all species are, by definition, "transitional") including many for Homo sapiens

You just can't help being snarky can you. Transitional fossils was Darwin's terms...take it up with him....No, there isn't any fossil record of transitional species. You see a lot listed as transitional species; but they are just dead ends...related even; but not one has been proven to be the direct ancestor...that is, not something that became something else. For 130 years, Archaeopteryx (not sure if I got the spelling right) was held up as "the" transitional fossil that "proved" dino's became birds....in 2011, that finally fell by the way side as it was re-dated and shown to be a contemporary of dino's; it was also proven not to even be the 1st bird as long held (earlier bird found in China; Xiaotingia zhengi)..it wasn't even a bird...even good old Wikipedia still touts Archaeopteryx as a transition fossil and the 1st bird; neglecting this new information (after all, it's only been 2 years).

etc., .I could go on....

Well I suppose you could go on citing erroneous information....

Then show me where "evolution" explains how proteins formed? Evolution explains how an already fully formed species changes over time due to natural selection...there are 6 "explanations" that I have been able to find for how it all somehow began; none that have held up to scrutiny. At present, there really isn't a generally accepted scientific explanation for it. Let me be clear, how proteins came into being...not what they now consist of (20 amino acids, etc.). I'll hold RNA, DNA instruction set, reproduction,etc., for later

using some examples of micro evolution to infer the origin of the cosmos or life on this planet (or any other)doesn't even make sense.

Who exactly, suggested one should infer the origin of the universe from observations of microbial evolution

I don't think you did...the discussion went back and forth over several posters between evolution, origins, etc. It got mixed..somehow; not fully believing in all aspects of evolution meant "my kind" were backwards ass country bumpkins who didn't believe in science, etc....and thus the big bang and evolution, etc..

Neither Darwin; nor any other biologist to date, has put together a plausible case for a "randomly" created universe

I am not aware of any scientist that has seriously proposed that the universe was created "randomly". However, random change is a part of evolutionary theory.

This was the prevailing theory for nearly 100 years....you put enough elements in the "primordial soup", expose to the right atmosphere, add lightening and a few billion years and viola'; you get life...it would all just randomly sequence itself ..

....only the laws that explain how how an already created and miraculous universe operates.

So who has claimed otherwise (as a scientific claim)?

by inference

Titan said it very well...They are not the same. Explaining what a protein does (science); is not the same as explaining how a protein came into being.

No, but they are both equally valid scientific questions which have been explored.

Natural selection makes sense....the other doesn't and I haven't found a supported/accepted explanation that does.

If you don't have a belief in how it all started...just say so...

OK, I say so.

but you can't (logically at least) use an unrelated, partially proven theory to refute someones belief in intelligent design or a God designed existence.

You are wrong. A scientifically valid explanation (such as evolution) may not necessarily rule out God's involvement but it clearly shows how things occurred as a natural process. So called "intelligent design" is a a rather pitiful (IMO) effort to assign a supernatural explanation for things that can be explained by natural evolution. "ID" is political and religious. It is not science. It's basis is applying supernatural reasons for any gaps in the existing evidence base. Many of the examples used by proponents of ID are simply false to begin with.

No, it's a logical explanation. It doesn't require require religious or political belief. It just requires intellectual rigor and consistency. I think Titan represented this well. Whatever begins to exists, has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Pretty straightforward, logical, scientifically rigorous thought process. You can't use science; which is built on logic; to explain what you think you know; and then abandon logic when that same process comes into sharp contradiction to what you thought you just understood. You seemed awfully eager to argue your points until logic didn't support your suppositions; and then you said; time out.

And it doesn't follow that because one does believe in Intelligent Design or a God Designed existence; that they don't believe in science or evolution....

I grant you someone can believe in evolution and still believe in God (see the Catholic Church). But obviously , they cannot also believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

So? Don't believe I've gone there...and I see no contradiction.

And as I said, the theory of "Intelligent Design" is not really a scientific theory at all (after all, if you believe God did something, how do you do you falsify it). ID is a religion-motivated scam. One cannot accept evolution and ID at the sam

Really? I see no contradiction and certainly don't see the alleged "scam". Of course you can accept ID and evolution. Again, evolution explains only what happens to species once created. Evolution does not explain how species came into being; ID does. If you can show how evolution explains how proteins, RNA, DNA, etc., all came into being; go ahead. No one else can, so this would get you on the Nobel podium next to Obama.

micro evolution is pretty easy to see...that doesn't mean it explains our species or the universes existence.

No one claimed that it did. I brought it up solely as an exception to the rule that speciation takes a long time. That is true for most things, less so for microbes.

And before you scream "charlatan, evolution, partially proven?"...yes, partially proven by Darwin's own admission.

Maybe Darwin felt it was only partially proven, which was an accurate statement at the time. But 154 years later, there is no scientific doubt about the general validity of the theory. The only thing being debated now are the details.

No change here...points above...natural selection explains what it explains...nothing more.

It's no different than Einstein's theories that work well in some cases and are just wrong in others (Gravity; but not in the Quantum space)...

While various versions of physics have shown not to be universal, that is not the case with evolution. Not to say it can't happen, it just hasn't.

Ever heard of mutations as chance events. Random genetic drift is, of course, random. Accidents and contingency abound in the history of life (meteors, volcanoes, etc.). Not consistent or predicted in Evolution...but significant to speciation. Postulated by many scientists now as more significant than natural selection in speciation. I'll try not to be snarky; but you should read more.

Darwin was bright..he just made too many leaps of faith (no pun intended) with his observations to what he couldn't observe.

First, one cannot observe what can't be observed so I think you are referring to predictions. The fact is, many if not most of Darwin's predictions have been correct. On of the important characteristics of a valid scientific theory is that it is predictive. That has certainly been the case with evolution, which has been very predictive.

Within the bounds that it explains it is predictive. It does not explain how things got started...again, it does nothing to explain how a protein came into being....it does not explain beyond when natural selection is allowed to act (that is, it does not explain what happens if a meteor hits earth and wipes out 80% of the species, it does not explain random genetic drift (Darwin didn't know what genes were).

Sorry, but can you go back and please highlight your current responses in the above post?

It's difficult for me to sort them out.

All the ones in green below your red ones....