Could you specify what misinformation creationists like to use in their "debates"? - Saename
The explanation is a bit technical but here is the explanation by Jerry Coyne.
By the way if you believe in the FLOOD - then you believe in the most gigantic explosion of Evolutionary power ever!
Going from a room full of pairs of animals to over 9 million species from Noah to say Abraham.
The bible is so silly.
People vary in their responses. See how two atheists look at DNA.
Richard Dwakins writes in dispassion: “A monkey is a machine that preserves genes up trees, a fish is a machine that preserves genes in the water; there is even a small worm that preserves genes in German beer mats. DNA works in mysterious ways.” (Selfish Gene)
But Antony Flew who was a great champion of atheism for over 50 years changed his view on DNA when he revisited it with an open mind: “What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.” (There is a God, Antony Flew, page 75)
There is a reason why responses vary. In The Design of Life, William Dembski and Jonathon Wells write: “Many of the systems inside the cell represent nanotechnology at a scale and sophistication that dwarfs human engineering. Moreover, our ability to understand the structure and function of these systems depends directly on our facility with engineering principles.”
But good news is that God is not concerned about your beliefs—whether you are atheists or member of a religion. He is concerned whether you were altruistic when you were living on earth. (Mathew 25:31-46) Interestingly, this is what something even Richard Dwakins stresses: “If there is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we cannot expect it to be part of their biological nature.” (Selfish Gene)
Interestingly, altruism is the very basis of God. (Mark 10:18)
Anthony Flew was senile. William Dembski and Jonathan Wells have no such excuse.
Stop cherry-picking out of context quotes from the internet and read some actual books.
Venus, I don't understand what any of this has to do with anything? This thread is about evolution and you've hardly even talked about evolution. You've just quoted biologists talking mostly about other things.
This thread isn't about how atheists feel, to which there is no answer as they are all individuals and are arguably the most varied bunch on the planet. I've literally met fellow atheists with whom the only thing I agree on is the non-existence of god.
Moreover, the complexity of DNA isn't due to evolution, it was already complex before evolution got started, and altruism is so far off from the OP I don't even know how you got there.
The guy's surname is Dawkins not Dwakins.
Also, we know for a certainty there was not global flood so the rest of your assertions that are based from the position that there is a biblical god are baseless...
Thank you for correcting my spelling mistake.
You said: “that there is a biblical god are baseless...”
I was showing how Bible writers were evolving which has nothing to do with God of the Universe.
Even if Noah’s ark is scientifically possible with a bigger vessel that takes care of 8.7 million species, theologically it is not possible for God to handle a situation that puts greater hardship on the righteous than on the wicked who died in a few minutes after getting drowned in the water.
If Noah’s flood never happened it doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. If God doesn’t exist, then it would mean materialism is the truth. But you cannot say materialism is truth because truth is not material. Moreover, materialism cannot explain what defines our basis human nature, our every desire and human flourishing, and things such as wisdom, truth, love, joy, hope, destiny, purpose, compassion, tolerance, morality, art, music, ingenuity, ability to conceive abstract concepts and to communicate them …which are all non-quantifiable.
Such things make sense only when we take God into account as implied in the following statement: “As we conquer peak after peak we see in front of us regions full of interest and beauty, but we do not see our goal, we do not see the horizon; in the distance tower still higher peaks, which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects, and deepen the feeling, the truth of which is emphasized by every advance in science, that ‘Great are the Works of the Lord’.”—Sir Joseph J. Thomson, Nobel Laureate, discoverer of the electron, who is also recognized as the founder of atomic physics.
Antony Flew describes an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages—but not a single word even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the twenty-six letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter word is 30 times 30 times 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance out of 27,000.—There is a God, Antony Flew, page 100.
Now imagine the chance of universe creating itself, life evolving, consciousness evolving …
Venus this monkey argument was beat into the ground in the book: The Blind Watchmaker'.
As for the universe creating itself I would suggest two experts:
A universe from nothing- Lawrence Krauss
Parallel World- Micheo Kaku
Monkeys and typewriters - The trademark of somebody who nothing about science.
Funny how people BASH science while using their computer on the internet.