Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

Question for Atheists.

Now, i'm not religious, but i am an agnostic. i don't exactly believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean i believe in some singular magical sky being like the christians do.
my question is, why are humans the only species on this planet who are this intelligent, and can create civilisations like we do?, why are we so more advanced than other animals?

Report as

We evolved to be this way. Every other evolutionary divergence was exhausted as well, given the time allotted, but when we stated to compete for survival not only against other species but our own, things we were accelerated. As you can see, when intellect competes the results can be... explosive. Other animals depend on things like strength and cunning or stealth where as intelligence, language and fingers are where our ancestors found a niche. Its clear that, at least on earth, language, intelligence and fingers are a sound evolutionary fitness to which great feats can be accomplished. I think you are discounting the fact that if we dropped you into a cage with a tiger, it would probably kick your @$$. We still have our faults, are not perfect and even among the world as it is could be defeated by a virus or even our own strength in scientific understanding. Consider all the faults of intellect and also that we are not as smart as we'd like to think. Religious indoctrination and nuclear weapons on the same planet- ya, we are real smart.

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Ask yourself why your asking that question. And then you might change your mind.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
It's you're, not your.
Report as
Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
Report as
Add a comment...

I'm sure an ant would ask why is it such a powerless and tiny thing. I don't think the answer is known.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

I am not an atheist, but many of them believe that our brains evolved in a quick process of "punctuated evolution", which means a mutation caused one organism (they believe a monkey) to logically think, and this monkey reproduced and created humans. However, this theory has been nearly proven impossible. I'm not saying it is... but it is very unlikely

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (21)
Report as
It would have been easier if you had just typed "I don't understand how science works, so I don't believe it"
Report as
You are correct, Random. The process of human evolution that you stated has been proven wrong by the worldwide scientific community. What you described is not even close to Darwinian evolution. Caluvox is correct. No wonder Christians are trying to keep evolution out of our schools if your description is any indication of their grasp of the subject.
Report as
Define evolution. There are numerous types. Micro, Macro, Punctuated, Neo-Darwinian, Darwinian, Cosmic... The list goes on. I believe in some and not in others. That was simply a type of evolution I have learned, that some people believe in. When did I ever say this is Darwinian evolution? It is defined as punctuated evolution.
Report as
All evolution is Darwinian evolution, which is by natural selection. There is no such thing as cosmic evolution. That isn't what science believes at all. Humans evolved by natural selection over millions of years from an apelike common ancestor, not a modern monkey.
Report as
youre wrong. Microevolution is not Darwinian evolution. My worldview does not subscribe to Darwinian, but it does subscribe to microevolution. If our brains and thoughts are just evolved from an "apelike common ancestor", and our thoughts are just brain cells reacting to one another... How can we trust that they are true? Maybe we just havent evolved far enough yet to see the real truth? Whatever that may be
Report as
As a biologist I'd like to point out that microevolution and microevolution are nonsense terms created by creationists when they could no longer deny adaption.

Saying there is a difference is like saying you can run a mile, but no matter how many one mile runs you do consecutively it can never add up to a marathon.
Report as
*macroevolution
Report as
And Caluvox was correct- it would have been far simpler of you had refrained from speaking about biology since you are clearly not versed in it.
Report as
Well you are the first person, atheist or theist, to say there is no difference between the two! You believe in the existence of species, correct?
Report as
First person that I have heard* excuse me
Report as
Most certainly I am not. Evolution is evolution. The only difference between what you call "micro" and "macro" is time.

I'm a biologist, kiddo. Don't think you can quite keep up with me here. I am not sure what you are trying to get at with the species question, but there are many different classifications on what constitutes species differentiation, and we have witnessed speciation in both the lab and the wild.
Report as
@Random: I noticed you keep using the term "believe" regarding evolution. Evolution is not a belief. It is proven scientific fact. It has been at the foundation of the science of biology for 100 years. Anything other than Darwinian evolution is simply hope against hope that the house of cards built on a literal interpretation of the Bible will not come crumbling down those who deny science.
Report as
@CalTex Science has not been "proven" to be right. It has been theorized, but not proven.
And @Skeptikitten, can you explain to me "irreducible complexity" and "spontaneous generation" since you know so much about this topic? I dont want the definition. I want how these were achieved in your worldview.
You can use a flagellum motor as an example for irreducible complexity if you like
Report as
A theory is a proven fact.
Report as
Irreducible complexity is a ridiculous creationist belief. Spontaneous generation was a disproven model for biology hundreds of years ago. Neither are valid scientific models.
Report as
There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity". It has been debunked for years. It was the invented term of a chemist (not an actual biologist), wherein he claimed that certain structures could not be broken down by evolution. Behe was full of it of course- it was basically and argument from ignorance, an "I don't get it therefore it's impossible". Every structure he claimed irreducible has been debunked, from the structure of hemoglobin to bacterial flagellum.

You need to stop getting your information from creationists and get it from actual, credible science.
Report as
In fact, it is rather hilarious that the creationist crowd continues to use flagellar structure as a model of "irreducible complexity", since research disproved that almost as soon as they claimed it!

Here are some references for you, biologists and biochemists that dismantled the unscientific claims for the impossibility of cellular machinery evolution:

Coyne(1996), Miller(1996), Depew (1998), Thornhill and Ussery (2000). And since the debunking of such silly claims actually requires both more space than I have here and more knowledge than you probably have of genetics and cellular mechanisms, I will give you a link to an article on the subject that is fairly easy to read.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Actual scientists find claims of irreducible complexity nonsensical and unsupported by evidence- one of the reasons Behe has lost all credibility.
Report as
The article by the way is penned by renowned molecular biologist Ken Miller of Brown University. Not only is he a top notch biologist, but is now well known for his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial as an expert- a Christian biologist who testified to just how unscientific and debunked creationism/ID is.
Report as
@Random: You are way out of your league here. I am too except I have listened and learned from those who aren't. One of the things I have learned is that the definition of theory in science is much different that in the vernacular. Scientific theory explains how a particular phenomena works, is based on proven facts, and all other competing views as to how this particular phenomena works have been ruled out based on the facts. It is not the educated guess that creationist like to think it is.
Report as
Report as
@Skepti: Thank you for the link to Dr. Miller's article. I've added that to my archives. Having read it, that information will be quite useful in the future I am sure.

@Cal: Due to your posting of that article previously, it has been in my archive for awhile. It is excellent, and I highly recommend that Random read it to get a better idea of what he is debating against.
Report as
Add a comment...

It has to do with the amount of folds a creature has in its brain ... I am trying to be religious but it's hard to do with science

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (17)
Report as
Who created those folds my friend.
Report as
genetics and evolution
Report as
The beauty of it is that you can merge religion and science together. Maybe there was evolution and maybe God guided it and if we say that then that means he also created dna and everything involved with it. I simply refuse to try and think I know something if I was never told by God how can an ant understand what we think and why we thought that way. I'm not saying I believe that but I'm not saying I don't I'm saying I believe in God and that he is not limited to what we think of him.
Report as
No one created it. Theists need to get this false presumption out of their heads.
Report as
And I could say that you assuming your right and I'm wrong is false.
Report as
I don't assume anything like theists do.
Report as
Perhaps, but tell me all theories started out as either accidents, or assumptions they have now turned into scientific fact. Is the entire scientific method not a hit and miss game is it not something based on a persons assumption and then proven.
Report as
No. A hypothesis is based on observations and limited evidence. It is always and falsifiable. The difference between this what christians assume is that christians start out with the assumption "god absolutely exists and the bible is 100% true". None of this is based on evidence and the first isn't even verifiable. Trying to make all of science fit into a presumption like this doesn't work.
Report as
*always testable and.....
Report as
Which in turn had to come from somewhere you don't just start out with limited evidence.....
Report as
Actually yes you do. As a scientist I can assure you that at no point do we pull hypotheses out of the air.
Report as
No you don't but you have to investigate something and have some basis of data which was not pulled out of thin air but someone thought of it and proved it. And originally there was no real data available so it was speculation that turned into the basis of fact.
Report as
Bunk. There is always data and observation, and always has been. Just looking at the world around you provides you with data. Humans have never lived in a vacuum.
Report as
What if there is a god, and he created all of this thinks to have a scientific reason, so we might he doesn't exist but the strong ones find there faith and go to heaven
Report as
Then that god would be a maniacal tyrant not worthy of worship.

Not that your claim is anything but nonsensical.
Report as
Why so narrow mind?
Report as
It is not narrow minded to reject a ridiculous claim.

Open minded ness refers to the ability to change one's mind given evidence to the contrary of existing belief. It does not include believing any claim that comes down the pike without question.

You have no evidence for your assertion, and it is a basic fact that a deity that would intentionally deceive humans by planting false evidence then choose to reward those humans that completely ignored their brains and believed in something the opposite of the evidence would be malevolent.
Report as
Add a comment...

1, we have posable thumbs. 2, we have great mental capacities because of brain folds. 3, we are bipeds. 4, we have had the greatest need to evolve

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

It's a result of natural selection and is primarily due to being bipedal. Walking upright freed us to use our hands to manipulate the world around us, over a very long period of time this caused the slow process of brain growth. And we are only the first, we see the same type of development in other primates, it's just that we're 3.5 million years ahead of them.

www.nas.edu/evolution/

There's a good site to learn more.

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Daniel 12::::::
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
MY BIBLE SAYS GREAT KNOWLEDGE WOULD INCREASE. WE CAN BEARLY KEEP UP BEFORE MORE KNOWLEDGE SHOWS UP DAILY.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
no
Report as
Add a comment...

First, atheism doesn't necessarily address your question since it simply the rejection of belief in god or gods. However, atheists do tend to gravitate toward a natural cause to things of the universe rather than a supernatural cause.

But I want to take a bit of a different tact since others are addressing the issue of Darwinian evolution. My question is, how do you know we are the supreme species? Aren't we just a tad bit biased regarding that determination? All we know is that we do things that we think are deserving of great praise, and other life-forms appear not to be able to accomplish those things. Perhaps dolphins or chimpanzees think they are the master species since they are able to take care of their own without engaging in the destruction of the planet like those lower life-forms: humans.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Because we killed off all the competition. And given time and our noninterference many more will spring up.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Evolution is a proven fact, and i am Atheist

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Again, like I said, im an agnostic. I'm not some stupid creationist or christian. Maybe evolution has truth behind it, but still, anything is possible. I know that spiritual beliefs have no moral evidence behind them, but belief isn't based on evidence, it's based on faith. You simply believe it without the evidence. I give any faith a chance, even without its evidence.

Now, you can judge me for wanting to believe i will live on after death, but I can't respect your opinion if you won't respect what i believe.

I wasn't raised into any religion, I've never chosen a religion, i've just simply come to believe that anything is possible.
Report as
Add a comment...

Because we are able to choose and reason our problems that makes humans advance. Animals only use instincts.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Look at the size of our brains, relative to the size of our heads. We are at the top of the food chain, due to the evolution of our intelligence. Our whole head is nothing more than one huge brain.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches