Evolution, a myth for non-theists

The FSM's true identity revealed!

If one is a non-theist, what acceptable explanations would be available for the abundant life forms on Earth? The only one currently is evolution.

If one is a theist one can have more options, leaving the option of Evolution in place as a viable possibility should the evidence appear.

A theist can accept evolutionism, creationism or Intelligent Design, and isn't bound to only one possibility.

My point is the non-theist can't even study the possibility of a creator.

If there is a creator, and we assume that, we may learn to read the codes found in life. But if we reject any possibility of a creator we limit our horizons.

That is why I say it's a myth for non-theists, they must have an answer for the question "From where did we come?".

Macro-evolution isn't re-creatable. It can't be tested. There is no evidence DNA from simple organisms added new functions though mutations until we came to be.

While it's true that the origins of life life often fall into the category of Myth , it's a fallacy to assume that a non-theist "must" have an answer for that question. I don't have an answer --nor is it my most important question.

That being said the Theory of Evolution isn't an "answer", it's a series of answers and questions.

Only a fool would claim they have "The Answer".

This thread is still going?

That's not really true, Kevn. The only reason it can't be studied is because there's no evidence to support the notion of a creator. If evidence emerges then of course it should be investigated. In the meantime I don't think evolution is a complete answer to the question but unlike creationists I don't feel compelled to make up an answer that has no supporting evidence just because I'm uncomforable with "I don't know" or because I have an emotional attachment to an idea that I'd like to be true. Evolution is the best explanation of the evidence we do have so I consider it the most likely explanation until something better comes along. Creationism isn't it.

A non-theist can have have any opinion they want. They can even have no opinion at all and simply claim that they don't care.

One doesn't *have* to have an answer, but as curious beings, we certianly are more satified to have one.
Of course using the term 'myth' is tricky, since its a loaded word. For many, the common useage of 'myth' implies falsehood. While in a broader sense it is more 'a popularly held collection of stories or beliefs'. In this sense of myth we can talk about 'the myth of progress' or 'christian mythology'. In this sense we are not speaking of true/false. I assume this is the meaning you are using?
A non-theist can also study the possibility of other origins. However, if one wants to study life on earth in any systematic way, evolution provides the most credible and reliable methodology to do so.

Now, you still haven't shown how evolution is a religious belief. This is where it gets tricky, since not only are there non-theists who accept "the myth of evolution" but there are also theists (including those who belive in a creator god) that accpet it. How it it a religious belief for non-theists? What is your "definition" of a religious belief and how does it apply here?

These statements do not address the question of demonstrating: "The myth of evolution is clearly a religious belief for those who reject the notion of a creator"

However:
This was discussed at length in this thread: /112/06/83430/8.html
I know you don't accept any of the arguments presented there, but if anyone else is interested in a pretty thurough refution of you statement.

In short, the fossil record shows evidence of species descending from other species. DNA testing shows evidence of the herditary lineage of species. There is scientific evidence of "Macro" evolution, but you do not accept it.

That's kind of like saying a non-theist must accept that electricity is what powers light bulbs and not the hand of god. Or that it is a gravitational force that keeps us anchored to the earth and not the will of god.

You cannot simply discard some science when it becomes inconvenient to Christian Mythology yet accept others. Either its all or nothing. Non-theists and even many theists accept scientific fact. When I turn on the light switch I know that I am receiving electricity produced at a coal- hydro- or nuclear-based plant. That I don't sit and wonder if it might possibly be the hand of god that is powering that lightbulb is not because I am a non-theist (I'm not btw) -- its because I'm not an idiot. If one sits and ponders whether established scientific fact might not be science but the hand of god, I don't question their beliefs -- I question their intelligence. Many others do too. Which could be, btw, why even the University of Kansas has rejected intelligent design as a scientific course of study.

Now I'll grant you Intelligent Design has its place. In a mythology course of study. In a religious course of study. But it is not science. It does not have any supporting evidence other than relgious (Christian or otherwise) mythology. But acceptance of science and/or intelligent design has nothing to do with being a theist or not.

What is electricity? Do you know?

Theists don't throw way evolution. In fact, many theists believe evolution is the correct answer to the question "From where did we come?".

That's the point, theists can believe several possible options. Non-theists can only believe one option, evolution.

Macro-evolution should also join the same myth class.

It's not a "BELIEF".

I don't believe anything, of course, since there isn't anything to believe in, none of this exists.

However, non-theists really aren't believing anything either. They are looking at the possible answers and going with what, to them, is the most plausible given what is known. This doesn't eliminate the possibility that, with new information, the most plausible answer will be different in the future.

What will not be change is the asinine nature of the some of these arguments. It isn't worth discussing at all since none of you even exist. I'm not even posting this right now.

Will you please answer that dang phone? Oh, never mind, it doesn't exist.

There was this creature in a very excellent book (Startide Rising) called the Episiarch. It was a powerful psychic that rejected reality. It was capable of not believing to such a degree that it could shape existence to its will.

I loved that book! All of the Uplift series was great but Startide Rising was the best of the bunch.

Thank you, Donny

Electricity is the rejection and attraction of oppositely charged electrons and protons. You may have studied this in high school if you bothered to take a physics class. If you didn't, well that would explain the whole thinking things are the hand of god thing.

However, way to ignore the totality of my points and throw out a few straw men. Nice attempt at deflection.

As far as beliefs go -- this is why I say those who 'believe' in intelligent design are not intelligent. It has nothing to do with belief. I don't 'believe' the sun or the earth exists. I don't 'believe' electricity exists. There is proof that I don't need to believe. I don't 'believe' in evolution either -- there is enough proof that I don't have to.

I DO believe in gods. Many, as a matter of fact. But my belief in gods, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with evolution or any other science. Neither should anyone else's and its a damn shame it does. Its a further shame that there are those people who feel their religious beliefs should dictate what is taught as science.

That defintion is wrong and I will post the explaination....


"What is electricity? This question is impossible to answer because the word "Electricity" has several contradictory meanings. These different meanings are incompatible, and the contradictions confuse everyone. If you don't understand electricity, you're not alone. Even teachers, engineers, and scientists have a hard time grasping the concept.


Obviously "electricity" cannot be several different things at the same time. Unfortunately we have defined the word Electricity in a crazy way. Because the word "electricity" lacks a distinct meaning, we can never pin down the nature of electricity. In the end we are forced to declare that there's no such stuff as "electricity" at all! Here's a quick example to illustrate the problem.


Do generators make electricity? To answer this question, consider the household light bulb. In a lamp cord the charges (electrons) sit in one place and wiggle back and forth. That's AC or alternating current. At the same time, the waves of electromagnetic field move rapidly forward. The wave energy does not wiggle, instead it races along the wires as it flows from the distant generators and into the light bulb. OK, now ask yourself this: is an electric current a flow of "electricity?" If so, then we MUST say that the "electricity" sits inside the wires and vibrates back and forth. It does not flow forward. Next, ask yourself if electricity is a form of energy. If it's energy, then "the electricity" DOESN'T wiggle back and forth within the wires, instead it's made of EM fields and it races forward at high speed. But it cannot do both! Which one is "the electricity", the wiggling electrons, or the high-speed EM field energy? The reference books give conflicting answers, so there *is* no answer.

If someone asks whether generators make electricity, it exposes a great flaw in the way we talk about "electricity". If we can repair this flaw, perhaps our explanations will finally make sense.

Below are the most common meanings of the word Electricity. Which one do you think is right? Think about it carefully. If one of these meanings is correct, all the others must be wrong! After all, no "science term" must ever have several conflicting definitions. Unfortunately dictionaries and encyclopedias have all of these contradictions. (Click the links to find out more about each one.)


1. The scientist's definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: it's the electrons and protons, the electric charge.
Examples: CURRENT OF ELECTRICITY. QUANTITY OF ELECTRICITY. COULOMBS OF ELECTRICITY.
2. The everyday definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: the electromagnetic field energy sent out by batteries and generators.
Examples: PRICE OF ELECTRICITY. KILOWATT-HOURS OF ELECTRICITY.
3. The grade-school definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: it refers to the flowing motion of electric charge.
Examples: "CURRENT" ELECTRICITY. AMPERES OF ELECTRICITY.
4. "Electricity" means only one thing: it refers to the amount of imbalance between quantities of electrons and protons.
Example: "STATIC" ELECTRICITY. DISCHARGE OF ELECTRICITY.
5. "Electricity" is nothing other than the classes of phenomena involving electric charges.
Examples: BIOELECTRICITY, PIEZOELECTRICITY, TRIBOELECTRICITY, THERMOELECTRICITY, ATMOSPHERIC ELECTRICITY ...ETC.
6. Other less common definitions:
"Electricity" refers to the flowing motion of electrical energy (electric power, Watts of electricity)
"Electricity" really means the electric potential or e-field (Volts of electricity)
"Electricity" only means the glowing nitrogen/oxygen plasma (sparks of electricity)
"Electricity" is nothing but a field of science (Basic Electricity, Advanced Electricity)


If we wish to agree on a single correct definition of "electricity," which definition should we choose? Well, maybe we don't need to choose just one. Suppose we ignore all these contradictions and instead pretend that ALL of the above definitions are true. Below is the "clear" and "simple" description of electricity that results:

Electricity is a mysterious incomprehensible entity which is invisible AND visible BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. Also, it's both matter and energy. It's a type of low-frequency radio wave which is made of protons. It is a mysterious force which looks like blue-white fire, and yet cannot be seen. It moves forward at the speed of light... yet it vibrates in the AC cord without flowing forwards at all. It's totally weightless, yet it has a small weight. When electricity flows through a light bulb's filament, it gets changed entirely into light. Yet no electricity is ever used up by the light bulb, and every bit of it flows out of the filament and back down the other wire. College textbooks are full of electricity, yet they have no electric charge! Electricity is a class of phenomena which can be stored in batteries! If you want to measure a quantity of electricity, what units should you use? Why Volts of electricity, of course. And also Coulombs of electricity, Amperes, Watts, and Joules, all at the same time. Yet "electricity" is a class of phenomena; it's a type of event. Since we can't have an AMOUNT of an event, we can't really measure the quantity of electricity at all... right?
Heh heh.
Does my description above sound stupid and impossible? You're right. It is. The word "electricity" has contradictory meanings, and I'm trying to show what happens when we accept more than one meaning. Electricity is not both slow and fast at the same time. It is not both visible and invisible.

Instead, approximately ten separate things have the name "electricity." There is no single stuff called "electricity." ELECTRICITY DOES NOT EXIST. Franklin, Edison, Thompson, and millions of science teachers should've had a long talk with Mrs. McCave before they decided to give a variety of independent science concepts just one single name.


Mrs. McCave was invented by Dr. Seuss. She had twenty three sons. She named them all "Dave."


Whenever we ask "WHAT IS ELECTRICITY," that's just like asking Mrs. McCave "WHO IS DAVE?" How can she describe her son? There can be no answer since the question itself is wrong. It's wrong to ask "who is Dave?" because we are assuming that there is only one Dave, when actually there are many different people. They all just happen to be named Dave. Who is Dave? Mrs. McCave cannot answer us until she first corrects our misunderstanding.


For the same reason, we will never find a simple answer to the question "what is electricity?" because the question itself is wrong. First we must realize that "electricity" does not exist. There is no single thing named "electricity." We must learn that, while several different things exist in wires, people wrongly all of them by a single name.


So never ask "WHAT IS ELECTRICITY". Instead, discard the word "electricity" and instead use the correct names for all the separate phenomena. Here are a few of them:



What is electric charge?
What is electrical energy?
What are electrons?
What is electric current?
What is an imbalance of charge?
What is an electric field?
What is voltage?
What is electric power?
What is a spark?
What is electromagnetism?
What is electrical science?
What is electrodynamics?
What is electrostatics?
What are electrical phenomena?
The above questions all have sensible answers. But if you ask WHAT IS ELECTRICITY?, then all of the answers you'll find will just confuse you, and you'll never stop asking that question. "

Taco you are my personal hero for today

After reading this you still can't understand the meaning intended from the context that it was used in? The word "myth" is even worse in this regard, yet I didn't launch into a tirade about it. I simply stated what i thought the correct interpertation was and asked for clarification.

Do you still not understand what was meant by "electricity powers lightbulbs"? Or because the term "electicity" is confusing to you that it must be the hand of god?

Alah be merciful.

Electricty does not exist because it refers to a complex and possibly abstract (doesn't seem so to me) interaction of subatomic particles with their surroundings? I'm going to cry at the shear obtuseness.

You realize of course that god is an even harder to define concept, therefore god doesn't exist .

In case anyone misses the meaning of this statement, it's an ironic way of stating that you can't disprove somethings existance because it's hard to define or it refers to a set of related principals. Yes, this includes God. No, the fact that disproving it this way isn't possible does not automatically mean God or electricity exists. Both the comments on electricty and my witty repart about god are essentially meaningless.

Hey, why is the sky blue? I mean since we are leaving the topic of macroevolution, thought I might toss in another useless question.

The question of belief itself is one I find fascinating. More particularly, what is the difference between knowing and believing? I would assert that it is more a difference of certainty rather than a qualitative difference. In other words, knowing is absolute, but belief admits to a degree of uncertainty or lack of agreement on reality.

Subjectively, one can actually disbelieve things to the extent that they cease to exist for that person. I've done perception experiments like that even with something as "real" as a wall. Go one way with it, the wall gets more solid, more massive, more REAL. Go the other way and the wall feels less and less substantial to the point it's not even there for you and you can perceive right past it. It's a very weird experience. Unfortunately it's peculiar to you as a being because the moment you walk your body forward the wall reasserts its existence rather painfully.

i hate it when walls get assertive

The sky isn't blue.

Oh good grief. I think this thread has outlived it's usefulness...