I Am An Atheist
I don't believe in something if there isn't proof of it. I was raised in an Atheist family and brought up a logical thinker. My family never tried to make me believe in Santa or God or anything else unless there was proof of it.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
gregloa · 61-69, M
Science is extremely unreliable and is absolutely not proof. You require proof but believe the myth of science. According to science bacteria is our father. Evolution started with bacteria and ultimately evolved into modern man and each and every other creature that has ever existed on earth from one cell life froms to dinosaurs to man. Where’s the proof? Truth is there is none. Only assumptions. Scientists admit that carbon dating is completely unreliable as it only is able to date the rock that a given fossil is embedded into and that certainly doesn’t prove how old the fossil itself is. Even the rock carbon dating results are give or take a hundred million years. Carbon dating is accurate only to 50,000 year old fossil according to scientists. Truth is scientists admitt even with carbon dating they have no idea how old any fossil is. Yet mostly because of the media only assumptions are made and it is broadcasted to the public like it is the gospel. So you are no different than a Christian believing in something because you have faith in it. There are way too many coincidences on earth for all of this just to have evolved. Scientists agree you would more likely win the powerball jackpot 1000 times in a row. That’s way beyond luck. As you know you’re more likely to get struck by lightning, bitten by a shark, and hit a hole in one all on the same day than winning the jackpot just once. Christian scientists make way more sense than atheists scientists.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Sparkinmyhead · 22-25, M
You see two to other girls think I’m a moron for believing in god , but I will like to believe in a god I would want one to exist, you think my faith is not being tested though, but I still have faith in something I can’t see and through theological or scientific speculation my faith is being tested in theologic my dilemmas consists of this imgredients hell, eternal suffering, people dying. In scientific sense is my struggle with god is for the same logical questions atheist ask themselves. @MalteseFalconPunch
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
@Serena just the way you express yourself
Bushranger · 70-79, M
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@gregloa [quote] Scientists admit that carbon dating is completely unreliable as it only is able to date the rock that a given fossil is embedded into and that certainly doesn’t prove how old the fossil itself is. Even the rock carbon dating results are give or take a hundred million years. Carbon dating is accurate only to 50,000 year old fossil according to scientists.[/quote]
If a fossil is found inside a rock that is x years old, it could be assumed that the fossils is at least x years old as well.
You are right about carbon dating, it is only useful for artifacts up to about 50,000 years old. It is NOT used in the dating of rocks. There is not one definitive dating method used for rocks, rather, there are several and the results are checked against each other to test their validity.
Yes, there are some things that science doesn't know the answer to. But that is why they continue to do research. Also, "I don't know" is a valid answer to a question and provides the opportunity to explore the subject. "God created everything" limits the opportunity for exploration of a subject.
If a fossil is found inside a rock that is x years old, it could be assumed that the fossils is at least x years old as well.
You are right about carbon dating, it is only useful for artifacts up to about 50,000 years old. It is NOT used in the dating of rocks. There is not one definitive dating method used for rocks, rather, there are several and the results are checked against each other to test their validity.
Yes, there are some things that science doesn't know the answer to. But that is why they continue to do research. Also, "I don't know" is a valid answer to a question and provides the opportunity to explore the subject. "God created everything" limits the opportunity for exploration of a subject.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@gregloa[quote]Science is extremely unreliable and is absolutely not proof[/quote]
The scientific method is extremely reliable, and seeks to prove nothing
[quote]According to science bacteria is our father[/quote]
According to the [b]evidence[/b], the last universal common ancestor was not the first living organism on Earth. It probably existed before bacteria arose, and was only one of many early organisms (the others became extinct).
[quote]Only assumptions[/quote]
The evidence doesn’t require assumptions… the evidence requires [i]explanation[/i]
[quote]Carbon dating is accurate only to 50,000 year[/quote]
Which is why it isn’t use for dating fossils (radiometic dating, among several other methods, is much more useful)
[quote]There are way too many coincidences on earth for all of this just to have evolved[/quote]
For example?
[quote]Scientists agree you would more likely win the powerball jackpot 1000 times in a row. That’s way beyond luck [/quote]
To what are you referring? If you’re tying to regurgitate the tired old creationist argument against cellular life spontaneously appearing, then you need to be aware that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection makes no such claim (ironically, it’s creationism that makes that claim!)
Incidentally, it's irrelevant whether a scientist is a creationist or an atheist or French or Azerbaijani or American or vegetarian or omnivorous or... there's just science.
The scientific method is extremely reliable, and seeks to prove nothing
[quote]According to science bacteria is our father[/quote]
According to the [b]evidence[/b], the last universal common ancestor was not the first living organism on Earth. It probably existed before bacteria arose, and was only one of many early organisms (the others became extinct).
[quote]Only assumptions[/quote]
The evidence doesn’t require assumptions… the evidence requires [i]explanation[/i]
[quote]Carbon dating is accurate only to 50,000 year[/quote]
Which is why it isn’t use for dating fossils (radiometic dating, among several other methods, is much more useful)
[quote]There are way too many coincidences on earth for all of this just to have evolved[/quote]
For example?
[quote]Scientists agree you would more likely win the powerball jackpot 1000 times in a row. That’s way beyond luck [/quote]
To what are you referring? If you’re tying to regurgitate the tired old creationist argument against cellular life spontaneously appearing, then you need to be aware that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection makes no such claim (ironically, it’s creationism that makes that claim!)
Incidentally, it's irrelevant whether a scientist is a creationist or an atheist or French or Azerbaijani or American or vegetarian or omnivorous or... there's just science.
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@newjaninev2 [quote]According to the evidence, the last universal common ancestor was not the first living organism on Earth. It probably existed before bacteria arose, and was only one of many early organisms (the others became extinct).[/quote]
Thanks. That goes some way to answering my question here -
https://similarworlds.com/26-Science-Technology/2403506-Is-there-life-on-other-planets-Considering-the
Even if all currently existing life on this planet had a common ancestor, evidence of unrelated life makes abiogenesis a bit more common than I thought so there is an increased probability that life has evolved elsewhere.
Thanks. That goes some way to answering my question here -
https://similarworlds.com/26-Science-Technology/2403506-Is-there-life-on-other-planets-Considering-the
Even if all currently existing life on this planet had a common ancestor, evidence of unrelated life makes abiogenesis a bit more common than I thought so there is an increased probability that life has evolved elsewhere.