Why are geeks often atheists?

What is this a comedy routine? i said that human babies grow into adults when you claimed that nothing is fact, everything is just 'most likely' to occur or something along those lines:sleep:. Now your arguing with me about that. Your methods are just more abstract whereas i prefer linear form of reasoning.

Simply miscommunication on the other point. No big deal. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99137.htm
 
And it is a fact that more and more scientists are questioning evolution as it relates to an all encompassing methodology.
 
John99, No fossilized modern humans can be found that are older than 200,000 years. We do find fossils of species with both ape and human traits that are older. In fact, there is a sequence of fossils that show a transition from more ape-like characteristics to more human ones. It's no great leap of faith to conclude that modern humans evolved from apes. A comparison of human and ape DNA confirms our relation, and even dates the time since we separated from a common ancestor.
 
spidergoat said:
A comparison of human and ape DNA confirms our relation, and even dates the time since we separated from a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

There are similarities but that is also indicative of design and still the DNA has differences. What i think or believe is not important but can you see why this is not going to go away? The fact is that the uncertainty is there and if my questions cannot be answered then how will that ever change?
 
I read it, and I don't know what point you are making about it. If anything, it proves that humans evolved from a common vertibrate ancestor of human and fish.
 
Neither you, SnakeLord or Spidergoat came close to achieving that.
Click to expand...

I have learnt that there is not a great deal of point in discussing with someone that declares to the world that he "has won" after his statement is shown as false. I find it quite amusing personally, but let's just highlight it once again in the hopes that maybe you'lll pull your head out from wherever it is currently stuck.

You said, (and I quote): "one species to another entirely different species is faith based. Sorry but it is true."

This is an absolute declaration of truth. That one species to another species is 'faith based'. I went on to show you that your statement is in fact wrong. One species to another species has been observed, (tragopogon to cite one such example).

At this stage you are supposed to say something along the lines of:

"Oh right, my mistake. Clearly my statement was flawed. I would like to resubmit it in amended form to say that it is faith with concerns to... [insert specifics here]"

But one can seemingly expect no such honesty or self respect from you. "And? It's a plant".

1) Look at your statement and show me where something being a plant had any bearing. Well? Hmm?

2) Why would it being a plant have any bearing?

Another round i won and anyone reading this can see that
Click to expand...

Dont ever underestimate John99. I will not reveal the conclusion just yet
Click to expand...

Well well, aren't you the humble type... Wait no, I meant pompous ass.
 
Your example is an embarrassment to your cause. I will not debate your example (a plant) the reason is obvious and has already been stated. The truth is there are a number of reasons why it is just dumb but everyone has seen fake fossils and other BS so why push these emotional buttons any longer.

"Dont ever underestimate John99. I will not reveal the conclusion just yet"

Well well, aren't you the humble type... Wait no, I meant pompous ass.
Click to expand...

Forget about that dumb post. You guys take this so seriously that you cannot even spot a joke when you see it. Whats his name started with the arrogant responses and there really is no need for this. I have seen far too many people on the internet defending evolution who make mistakes that indicate a rudimentary understanding of biology.

So now you came back with an insult and provide nothing new to refute a simple observation i made stating that Evolution requires a degree of faith. That is all, what is the big deal?

There are many more observations i can make but honestly my intention is not to upset the faithful but you have some nerve making a statement like this:

Well well, aren't you the humble type... Wait no, I meant pompous ass.
Click to expand...

:mad:
 
I will not debate your example (a plant) the reason is obvious and has already been stated.
Click to expand...

Once more for the hard of hearing:

1) Look at your statement and show me where something being a plant had any bearing. Well? Hmm? Helloooo?

2) Why would it being a plant have any bearing?

The truth is there are a number of reasons why it is just dumb but everyone has seen fake fossils and other BS
Click to expand...

Umm.. fossils, (fake or otherwise), are of what relevance to your fallacious declaration and my debunking of it?

I have seen far too many people on the internet defending evolution who make mistakes that indicate a rudimentary understanding of biology.
Click to expand...

Oh right. well please, cite your qualifications.

So now you came back with an insult and provide nothing new to refute a simple observation i made stating that Evolution requires a degree of faith. That is all, what is the big deal?
Click to expand...

The big deal is that you made an inaccurate, erroneous statement but do not have the self respect or balls to acknowledge it. Now, where exactly does evolution require 'faith'?
 
Debating evolution again? Oh, goody!

Evolution only requires faith if you are too lazy to study at least the extent of supporting evidence for it. If you've grasped the extent of the evidence and still don't accept it, then you're running on faith my friend.
 
I think geeks/nerds tend to be atheist because they tend to be very logical and linear thinkers. Skills like this is what makes them exceptional in the fields of math and the physical sciences. If you do not think in a strictly logical fashion these subjects probably will not make as much sense to you. When one logically questions the existance of God or any other deity it does not logically fit. God like Santa Clause or a 6 foot tall talking cookie does not make logical sense, but that does not mean that they don't exist.
 
CutsieMarie89 said:
I think geeks/nerds tend to be atheist because they tend to be very logical and linear thinkers. Skills like this is what makes them exceptional in the fields of math and the physical sciences. If you do not think in a strictly logical fashion these subjects probably will not make as much sense to you. When one logically questions the existance of God or any other deity it does not logically fit. God like Santa Clause or a 6 foot tall talking cookie does not make logical sense, but that does not mean that they don't exist.
Click to expand...
Right. But how can a person who does not think logically even estimate the likelyhood that they exist? I've always thought the terms Geek and Nerd were applied to smart people by stupid people as a selfconscious attempt to strengthen their own self esteem. It seems this is true. Therefore, smart people would tend to be atheists. Whereas stupid people would tend to be theists. Mainly, by your logic, by not being able to think logically. This fits well with my experience. However there are smart, logical people (I call them rational theists) who still believe but exhibit a strong mental dichotomy that arises (in my opinion) from an overriding emotional need for the comfort of something like a god. Again, completely understandable.
 
Part of John's problem can be illustrated this way. For legal purposes, you are either a minor or an adult. If you look at the population, no one is transitional between minor and adult, you are either one or the other. In reality, we know the growth towards adulthood happens gradually. In the same way, taxonomists like to classify something as belonging to one species or the other. This means no fossil is ever in transition from one species to another. But this says nothing about the real world, only about our classification systems.

In fact, there are numerous transitional fossils between the larger taxonomical groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top