We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4188
Latest Activity: yesterday

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

Cancer Now Detectable from One Drop of Blood

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Loren Miller Nov 14. 4 Replies

Happy birthday Carl Sagan

Started by Gerald Payne. Last reply by Dr. Terence Meaden Nov 9. 2 Replies

Vatican Arrests 2 for Leaking Documents

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Wayne Davison Nov 2. 1 Reply

Did dark matter kill the dinosaurs.

Started by Gerald Payne. Last reply by Wayne Davison Nov 2. 6 Replies

Antibiotic-Resistant Genes Found in Mummy

Started by Steph S.. Last reply by John Jubinsky Oct 20. 2 Replies

Part Ape Part Human

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Gerald Payne Oct 8. 4 Replies

Researchers May Have Detected More to Stonehenge

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Madhukar Kulkarni Oct 7. 6 Replies

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Quinton Llewellyn on February 15, 2015 at 8:07pm


I do know of one argument not really for a god but could kind of as a consequence go there, it's by the philosopher Nick Bostrom, who when asked many moons ago in an interview replied that he was agnostic, which we all known is an atheist that thinks the word agnostic will minimize the amount they have to talk to religious people :)
Anyway his thought experiment went something like this: Simulations of the world and humans in it continuously get more complex, it is fair to assume that given enough time (be it 1,000 or 100,000 years) that our simulations will become indistinguishable from reality, right down to the actually conscious human simulations. The entities in this simulation will of course naturally end up working on their own simulations, and then those, and then those etc. If this is accepted then there would be a potential for a vast number of simulated worlds which is constantly growing, but only one real world. The chances that we are in the real world and not just a simulation is miniscule. If this is accepted then those more than likely simulations themselves that made our simulation would be our god/s.
Clearly no one believes this, but it a good argument right :)

Comment by Joseph P on February 15, 2015 at 6:30pm

I like the objection but I feel it only works up to a point. A creationist could (probably never would but...) say "Yes from my position everything is designed, luckily I'm not trying to convince me ...

Well, yeah, there's always the issue of the inherent dishonesty of Christian apologetics.  Nothing we can do about that.  This is assuming that we're having a discussion in front of a bunch of undecided observers.  You're almost always doing things for the observers who are on the fence.

With any logical argument for the existence of a god, if you're arguing one-on-one, and you're actually trying to convince the person you're arguing with, you need to bypass the logical arguments entirely.  The hosts of The Atheist Experience do it best, with their theistic callers:

"Tell me what you believe and why."

The person you're arguing with almost certainly believes in their religious nonsense because of childhood indoctrination.  Any supposed logical proofs that they hold up as reasons are only post hoc rationalization of what they accepted for anything but rational reasons.  You can't get from any of the logical arguments for the existence of a god to a belief in any specific god.  That's assuming that there was actually an argument for the existence of a god which was both valid and sound, which there isn't.

"So, that's really the reason you became a Christian?  Really?  Really?!?!?"

Comment by Quinton Llewellyn on February 15, 2015 at 6:09pm

I like the objection but I feel it only works up to a point. A creationist could (probably never would but...) say "Yes from my position everything is designed, luckily I'm not trying to convince me. The thought experiment is entirely for your benefit, and I am judging that you would find a watch too complex to not have been designed. Once the idea that something can be 'too complex to not have been designed' is established I can then refer you to the complexity of the universe..."
Of course the counter is, if complexity necessarily infers design, then "the designer" in turn would need to be designed, and "the designer's designer" ad infinitum, and if you're going to claim that "the designer" isn't designed you need to provide a reason why the loophole it slips though can't be applied to the universe (or I guess a watch ;) ).

Comment by Joseph P on February 15, 2015 at 8:33am

That's why I've been reacting how I have been, lately, Quinton.  He has no papers, published or not, which even come close to outlining his proposed alternate model.  Hell, he doesn't even have any writing which clearly outlines his objections, just badly mangled metaphors and emotional appeals to eugenics and supernaturalism.  He has no experimental data.

For a supposedly science-oriented atheist, he doesn't understand the first thing about the scientific method.  I think it's fair to categorize him more as a science fetishist, with a method similar to a 9/11 Truther or a Christian apologist.  That's why I initially thought he was one of the stealth theists that we occasionally get on the site, when he first showed up.

I don't know how he expects anyone to take this shit seriously.

On your other subject: one of the best responses I've heard to the watchmaker argument is pretty concise, actually.  If someone literally starts telling the watch-found-on-the-forest-path narrative, as I've seen many creationists do, there's a simple objection.

You think that we're looking at a watch, which you found lying in a field of watches.  You think that everything is designed.  How did you determine that the watch is designed, when you claim that everything in the universe is designed?  What's your undesigned point of reference?

It's so bad that I've taken to making the watchmaker argument for the creationists, if they make some other construction of an argument from design, since the matchmaker argument more clearly demonstrates why what they're engaging in is so silly.

Comment by Quinton Llewellyn on February 15, 2015 at 4:12am

In the meantime some fun evo stuff. I teaching tool

And a reply to the "if you found a watch lying on the ground" argument used by ID proponents (I love this one!)

Comment by Quinton Llewellyn on February 15, 2015 at 4:06am

I think it is more that he is projecting himself as an authority in an area where he is at best an interested amateur (I would also be an interested amateur) while disregarding the weight of skill and knowledge of those who actually have legitimate authority in the subject. This is what I meant I told him that his tone comes across as arrogant. I don't think his point can't be disproven. At the same time I understand with all the exasperated comments I see it might be a fool's errand. Possibly thinking that I can point out to him what no one else has managed to (especially when I can see they know much more about evolutionary biology than me e.g. Joseph P), I am being a bit arrogant myself.

Comment by Lemual Poot on February 15, 2015 at 2:27am


I just don't see the point in hypothesizing for the sake of hypothesizing.  I have a term I call: "Jailhouse genius."  A jailhouse genius is someone who's professing knowledge and arguing about a subject that has no relevance and can't be proven or disproven at that point in time.

A theist says, “I believe because I believe.”  A scientist says, “I believe because…” and cites laws, facts, and figures.  That bozo may think he’s appeasing the first by emulating the second but he’s actually “none of the above.”

Comment by Quinton Llewellyn on February 14, 2015 at 12:28pm

I don't think anyone sees it as disloyal, but your tone does come across as arrogant, this is what makes people angry with you.

Maybe it's worth simplifying things. Let's imagine a self-replicating organism, whenever this organism eats 1x it creates another of itself, after replicating 10 times it dies.
Let's start with 1.
To begin with it consumes and replicates 10 times giving us 10.
7 are just like their parent.
1 has a mutation that means it needs to eat 2x to reproduce.
1 has a mutation that slows down the rate at which they can consume to half the speed.
1 has a mutation that means that they only need 0.5x to reproduce.
With every 10 reproductions that a single organism creates this pattern continues.
Over time does the average rate of reproduction of the organism increase or decrease? What happens when we say there is a limited amount of x available in any given cycle? What happens when we introduce predators?

You say you think your Fisher review is clear, but it needs to be clear to other people or it's pointless. I gave my response to it previously, I thought it was mistaken.

Comment by Shaun Johnston on February 14, 2015 at 9:22am

Quinton, I appreciate your close reading in this thread. I am pursuing two lines of argument at once, that I keep separate but you've brought together. Of course that's confusing. Summary, I'm a science - oriented atheist, who suspects the modern synthesis is faulty, the fault originating in Fisher's statistics. At the same time I am exploring other ways of thinking about evolution, such as my 'genies.' I recommend keeping them separate, because free speculation can't be defended as criticism of statistics can be. I think my Fisher review is clear. He doesn't include consideration, in his statistics, of the much greater number of harmful mutations. This is a statistical gaffe, I think. By the way, he thinks there are no neutral muations, because natural selection is so sensitive all mutations will register.
Some people think it's disloyal to question tthe basis for the modern syntheses. I think it's ok. What do you think?

Comment by Shaun Johnston on February 14, 2015 at 8:58am

Quinton, I appreciate that you reproduced my ideas accurately. We differ about the potency of different populations of mutations, and so arrive at different conclusions. 


Members (4188)


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service