Is there proof for...

Originally posted by josephw
But what about the disparity of life? Why the enormous difference between humans and animals? Why would there not be other life forms between human and animal? I've never heard of there being any in the fossil record either. And a few bones of dubious archaeological discovery is not enough evidence.

What 'enormous' difference? Humans are animals. The difference
between you and a neanderthal is small. The difference between
neanderthal and austrolopithicus is small. The difference between
austrolopithicus and chimps is small.

What two animals are you comparing? Humans and fish? Jellyfish
and spiders?

What 'few' bones in what 'dubious' archeological discovery are you
talking about?

Did you read my long post on page 2?

Nemesio

Originally posted by josephw
But what about the disparity of life? Why the enormous difference between humans and animals? Why would there not be other life forms between human and animal? I've never heard of there being any in the fossil record either. And a few bones of dubious archaeological discovery is not enough evidence.

Humans are animals.

There are many excellent fossils of early humans and our predecessors - for example, Lucy, a 3 million year old Australopithecus skeleton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

Lucy was about 40% complete, and shows a definite transitory phase between the evolution of chimps, which diverged in one group, and humans, in another group.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Understanding how the brain works and what self-awarness is is a very hot area of research in many fields, biochem, biophysics, mathematics, psychology. There are thousands of people that would be interested to know exactly how it all works, including me. The short answer is we don't understand it all yet.

I don't know why you think consciousnes ...[text shortened]... hing from the library just to get a feel for how things like nerves work and are connected.

I didn't mean to sound incredulous, although I can see why it looked that way. And I wish you did know why I think consciousness is more than chemistry and physics. But there's no way to prove it, and you've heard it all before, so I'm not trying to go there.

I do have some understanding of how neurons function in the brain from psychology courses I took years ago. The brain is an amazing thing.

I hate the idea that my sense or awareness of God is a delusion.
So I have a question. If evolution is the reason for our existence, and there is no God, how could such an idea or concept have evolved?

Originally posted by josephw
But what about the disparity of life? Why the enormous difference between humans and animals? Why would there not be other life forms between human and animal? I've never heard of there being any in the fossil record either. And a few bones of dubious archaeological discovery is not enough evidence.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean - humans are animals, so your statement is a bit strange. As for the differences between humans and other animals?
There's less difference between us and chimpanzees, than there is between chimpanzees and ants.
Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by josephw
I didn't mean to sound incredulous, although I can see why it looked that way. And I wish you did know why I think consciousness is more than chemistry and physics. But there's no way to prove it, and you've heard it all before, so I'm not trying to go there.

I do have some understanding of how neurons function in the brain from psychology courses I took ...[text shortened]... ason for our existence, and there is no God, how could such an idea or concept have evolved?

Unlike many of the atheists that post here, I don't think your notion of god is a delusion. I think we all have the sort of experiences that you attribute to your sense of god to some degree or another.
The difference is in how we label those experiences - how we explain them.
I use an explanation very different to yours.
No delusion.

As for the evolution of religious thought, there have been some studies of this done in recent times. My guess is that it's a formalisation of the myth and story telling that humans - being social animals - love to indulge in and probably have ever since we've been around.
We tell stories to explain aspects of our lives.
Once small groups of humans became bigger societies these stories took on formalised structures and the notion of the supernatural is an easy one to cling to - we all do as children for example. Adding supernatural elements to stories makes sense if you have no better way to explain things (such as scientific explanations for example.)
As societies get bigger the stories get more fixed and we develop rituals and ceremonies to go along with the telling of them - part of the theatre of stories if you like.
Eventually these become religions.
Of course, I could be entirely wrong. It's just a thought.

Originally posted by amannion
Unlike many of the atheists that post here, I don't think your notion of god is a delusion. I think we all have the sort of experiences that you attribute to your sense of god to some degree or another.
The difference is in how we label those experiences - how we explain them.

You raise the question of what is reality. I lose an arm but I have feelings of an itchy arm. Artificial stimulation of the brain creates sensations of sight, sound, taste or even memories.
Some people see ghosts, others have different spiritual experiences. For us, these are real. But they can't be seen by others. In this sense, how do we truly know WE are real? I think I think, I think I feel, I think Descartes existed, but is this real? Can I even trust my memories?

Originally posted by josephw
If evolution is the reason for our existence, and there is no God, how could such an idea or concept have evolved?

How could the idea of God evolved? How could the idea of
monsters under my bed, unicorns, or aliens evolved? Just because
their is an idea of something, doesn't prove or disprove its
existence, or even comment upon the probability of its existence.

The idea of God -- a just God, a punishing God -- came about as a
means of enforcing a group's concept of moral action when group size
became to large for social pressures to enforce it alone. Read 'The
Science of Good and Evil' by Shermer for an introduction to this
anthropological line of thought.

Nemesio

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I could go into the similarities of DNA sequence, gene homologies, cellular biochemical similarities, I could show cladistic analyses; I could present all manner of data, and you'd sweep it under the carpet with your favourite excuse for everything - "magic man done it".

Why not prove that this magic man exists? I can prove all my data.

Your data proves nothing of descent.

Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen 'beetle' car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'😉. Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer!

Originally posted by dj2becker
Your data proves nothing of descent.

You analogy fails on one supremely important aspect: DNA is the
means by which information is passed from parent to child. DNA is
the code which defines morphology. That your DNA is highly related to
your mother's is not a coincidence. However, your mother is not your
'creator' in a strict sense, as she did not form you with any volition.
You were the serindipitous result of some random egg that got
fertilized by the fastest sperm of your father.

So, that the DNA of a chimp and a human are very, very, closely related
is in fact relevant, because DNA is the means by which hereditary
information is transmitted; just like you have your father's eyes, but
your mother's nose (or whatever), this is the result of DNA. That we
share 99.6% of genetic information of with a chimp is, in fact, of
profound evidentiary value.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You analogy fails on one supremely important aspect: DNA is the
means by which information is passed from parent to child. DNA is
the code which defines morphology. That your DNA is highly related to
your mother's is not a coincidence. However, your mother is not your
'creator' in a strict sense, as she did not form you with any volition.
You were enetic information of with a chimp is, in fact, of
profound evidentiary value.

Nemesio

The evidence does not exclusively prove evolution. In fact, all living organism use the same DNA base pairs, and therefore it is not surprising at all to find similarities in the DNA structures for the perspective of the Creationist.

Similarity ('homology'😉 is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (Creation).

Evolution would have required all 100,000-plus nucleotides to have shown up at exactly the right time in exactly the right way- all right handed- to form a functioning DNA molecule.

In other words just to get all 100,000-plus correctly orientated nucleotides together in the first place, would be like flipping a coin and getting 100,000 heads in a row.

Of course there are other problems with random assembly, but I'm not going to go beyond the chirality problem to make the point.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Your data proves nothing of descent.

Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen 'beetle' car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'😉. Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer!

This is a stupid and meaningless analogy and the kind so beloved of creationists.

Originally posted by buffalobill
This is a stupid and meaningless analogy and the kind so beloved of creationists.

Of course. But always the smart evolutionist fails to point out why...

Originally posted by dj2becker
Of course. But always the smart evolutionist fails to point out why...

Because we're not debating the origins of the motor car. Which makes the analogy irrelevant, meaningless, garbage, immaterial, inapplicable, inapt, inconsequential, pointless, trivial, unimportant, unrelated, absurd, aimless, empty, inane, inconsequential, insignificant, insubstantial, nonsensical, pointless, purposeless, senseless, trifling, trivial, unimportant, unmeaning, useless, vacant, vague, valueless, vapid and worthless.

That's why.

Originally posted by buffalobill
Because we're not debating the origins of the motor car. Which makes the analogy irrelevant, meaningless, garbage, immaterial, inapplicable, inapt, inconsequential, pointless, trivial, unimportant, unrelated, absurd, aimless, empty, inane, inconsequential, insignificant, insubstantial, nonsensical, pointless, purposeless, senseless, trifling, trivial, unimportant, unmeaning, useless, vacant, vague, valueless, vapid and worthless.

That's why.

***APPLAUSE****

What a genius you are, you can even use a thesaurus!

Next time use a dictionary, and look up the word 'analogy'.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The evidence does not exclusively prove evolution. In fact, all living organism use the same DNA base pairs, and therefore it is not surprising at all to find similarities in the DNA structures for the perspective of the Creationist.

Similarity ('homology'😉 is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common de ...[text shortened]... with random assembly, but I'm not going to go beyond the chirality problem to make the point.

This is clearly rubbish. I don't know where you get the figure of 100,000 bases from, but that's not the way that evolution works in any case.