The proof there is no god

Rex Wilkinson's picture
Submitted by Rex Wilkinson on Fri, 2006-05-12 16:22

I believe the proof is all around us.Our history is full of proof there is no god and no proof there is.How long can we never find god for,before we have to conclude that there is nothing to find.Every test we want to perform will have the same result ,no god appeared,no god appeared and never has.There have been a few claims of seeing god but people claim some amazing things and one individuals account is never proof and they can never reproduce this god they said appeared.So I say it,s time to confront society with the obvious,there is no god and we can proove it ,with the right people we can demonstrate that it is impossible for the things in the bible to be true.Both the quran and the bible have Adam and Eve and then a whole lot of incest,the dna studies proove this wrong.

( categories: )

OK there seems to be some

michael fasher's picture

OK there seems to be some confusion here with the whole Most Recent Common Ancestor(MRCA).This term doesnt imply that there was just one ancestor just that it was the date of the last common ancestor to alll of humannity living in a population of humans.
There are two mothods of finding this out which leads to the two confusing phrases which are misleading.
One is mitochondrial eve and the other is y chromosome adam.
When trying to determine the time to a common ancestor using differences in dna there are two stumbling blocks ,one is mitosis which is the mixing of genes in every generation assosiated with sexual reproduction and the other is natural selection of genes that are active producing phenotypic effects by producing protiens.
The way to measure rate of change not affected by natural selection is to campare junk DNA or psuidio genes which dont produce protiens
The way to measure time to common ancestor is to compare DNA that dosent undergo mitosis such as mitichondrial DNA passed down through the female liniage and the Y chromosome which is passed throgh the male lineage
In each cell there are organelles called mitochondria which are the decendants od bacteia which have formed into a sybiotic relationship with the ecaroitic cell which retain their own original DNA and reproduce assexualy.Mitichondria are not passed down the male liniage throgh sperm since sperm are stripped of all imeddeitly neecarry organelles so they can be mass produced but are passed down throgh a females eggs.By comparing the difference in non functioning DNA between different individuals mitochondrial DNA you can find the rate of change per generation and find the date of the last common anccestor along that liniage(obviously female)hence mitochondrial eve.
Y chromosomes in males are also passed only through the male liniage and are also unaffected by crossing over in mitosis and finding the rate of change in sections of Y chromosome not affected by natural selection (junk DNA) you get the last common ancestor along that lineage hence Y chromosome adam.
I might point out that the Y chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve are just nicknames and actualy lived at different times because each of these two methods can only determine the the last common ancestor for the liniages of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes respectively not for the whole genome.
The next issue is that of genetic bottlenecks,each individual has two copies of any givin gene since you have twosets of 23 chromosomes from each parent,variants of any given gene on the same loci(location) are called alles so two individuals can potentualy have four alles of the same gene and three individuales could ppotentialy have six alles.Even though there are six billion peaple the number of aalles of different genes is such that a genetic bottleneck 70000 years ago must have reduced the human population down to between 1000 and 15000 individuals,studies of cheetahs genetic diversity show the same event.
The prime candidate for causing this near extinction is the Toba super vocano in indonesia.
How this fits in with human evolution is that various homonoids evolved in east africa and dispalced earlier homonoids.
Homo Erectus was the first homoniod to be adaptive enough to move out of east africa and across asia,Homo sapians evolved from east african homo erectus and moved across asia displacing the homo erectus that had radiated out into asia earlier.

my 10 cents worth

xsryder's picture

When I was young, I tried to imagine what lay beyond the visible universe. I asked my parents about the existance of god and found that my father was an atheist and that my mother believed in god, although her lifestyle would suggest otherwise.
I started looking for the answers myself, reading vast amounts of books about Earth history and geology, dating techniques, the age of the dinosaurs, human origins and biology, evolution, space exploration and Hubble images, the "evolution" of religion, and even books which disputed the "theory" of evolution.
One thing became clear very quickly; Charles Darwin didn't quite have it right. It seemed to me that survival was not based on "fitness", but rather an ability to adapt quickly to environmental change.
Eventually I read a book called "The Aquatic Ape" by Elaine Morgan. This book is extremely well researched and written, and left me with no doubt that our human ancestors went through a semi-aquatic phase, after which they ventured out from thier Rift Valley home as large brained bipedal hominds, eventually populating the entire planet. I also beleive that Morgan has put forward an un-refutable explaination for what is refered to as the "missing link", an issue often raised by creationists.
Later books by Morgan include "the Decent of the Woman" and "Decent of the Child", both delving more deeply into the biology of our origins, and giving further evidence of our earlier semi-aquatic adaptations.
Where did god fit into all this?
The sad thing is that although our global society in the most part behaves outside what is prescribed in religion to be moral and good, the large majority beleive in god. And the more that beleive in god, the less likely it is that the "truth" of our origins will be treated with the respect it deserves. I have bothered to read hundreds of books to find answers, but I am often rediculed and taunted by those who have read just one.

You gotta say yes to another excess

You can't deny that which you cannot discern

Ed's picture

Be sure, I'm not being religio-sympathetic -- I'm outlining the absurdity of theology.


"Man is a hero and worthy of worship."

It's impossible to have a concept of God

Ed's picture

While it's possible to have an anti-concept "God" -- it's impossible to have an objective concept of God.

The "notion" of God is -- ultimately -- arbitrary (like a tooth fairy is).


"Man is a hero and worthy of worship."

Question gods wisdumb

Rex Wilkinson's picture

I aggree if there is a god it,s a complete dickhead and not worth knowing,the reason I,m on the band wagon about the non existant dickhead is society is going backwards towards fundementalism,America is slidding backwards into fundementalism and we tend to follow,with the likes of dickhead Brian Tamaki pumping his form of madness and the system refusing me the same opurtunity to brainwash the people I have to take every outlet I can get to spread the word that religion isn,t the only game in town,which is what the government seems to be trying to create,so go for it mate spread the word and the word is there aint no god no way no how,so grow up wake up and face the real world,Rex

"God"? Yeah, r-i-g-h-t: "Benevolent", she ain't.

Rowlf's picture


~~ Make a personally 'empirical' check (if you dare) of American (nm elsewhere) hospital-pediatric-cancer-wards (or worse: 'burn-centers' which include 5-yr-olds).

~~ 'Nuff said.

~~ If anyone's running THIS railroad, man, even considering the philosophical prob of 'Unintended Consequences', *I*'d do a better job than what's going on! And I ain't no Einstein/Fischer! --- I'd start with the way the whole 'chain-of-life' (predator-prey thingee) idea, and work on the 'pain-when-dying' prob.

~~ Ishtar/Allah clearly has more important things to deal with than us common folk. 'Scuse me while I say "...whatever the fuck THEY are."

~~ I got a D-S kid, with Diabetes which he ain't too happy with. His diabetes is worse than his retardation and his retardation-level is L-O-W. --- If there's a 'god', she's a real S&M bitch.

~~ O-t-o-h, if he were all that bad, we'd know. He'd make earth as bad as hell, no (sadist he's supposed to be)? But it's not.

~~ It's all as if...'IT' never existed.

~~ So, why the quandry over her, the clam-shell product of Pegasus and a Square-Circle?


It's fun to stay at the

Ross Elliot's picture

It's fun to stay at the y-m-R-c-a!
It's fun to stay at the y-m-R-c-a!

They have everything for you men to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys ...

Is someone here contending that we're all descended from the Village People? If so, then I think I've got the cowboy's genes Smiling


Marnee's picture

Okay that makes more sense, Utility Belt.

"The MRCA of everyone alive today co-existed with a large human population, most of whom either have no living descendants today or else are ancestors of almost everyone alive today."

MRCA == most recent commonn ancestor

>>To say that we are

Utility Belt's picture

>>To say that we are decended from one man 70,000 years ago prooves and says not much,what does that mean to you,are you a closet christian and think it gives hope to the idea that life began a fairly short time ago?

No, of course not.

Rex, the real problem ain't

Ross Elliot's picture

Rex, the real problem ain't God, per se.

The problem is collectivism & faith, which are two sides of the same coin.

A focus on the atheistic deductions of Objectivism is as misleading--as Rand said--as the focus on capitalism is when advocating rational thought & man's rights. One follows another. The big picture is where it's at.

One man

Rex Wilkinson's picture

I often see people claiming one way,one answer,one truth,knowledge is made from seeing the whole picture,any one bit does in it,self not explain much,we need to be able to say what it means.To say that we are decended from one man 70,000 years ago prooves and says not much,what does that mean to you,are you a closet christian and think it gives hope to the idea that life began a fairly short time ago?because it doesn,t man is about 4 million years old which to my mind is far more relevant.I believe monkey invented god and we still show the traces today of the original god ,the natural forces as percieved by the monkeys,a god,an entity in the sky beyond their comprehension.


Rex Wilkinson's picture

I believe the Cheetah is the only animal with a limited dna makeup,caused by a near extinction in our recent past,if stories like noah,s ark were true there would be a similar dna profile in us as thats a fairly short time ago,the mountain of proof that we can use to discredit the stories in the bible is huge and I wonder how it can be taken serriously by government.And please answer me this if noah and his family were the only people on the ark ,doesn,t that mean we have another few generations of incest to get the population up,what is it with these christians and incest?

Adam and Eve it

Rex Wilkinson's picture

I have a few problems with the women in Africa 150,000 years ago,Peking man is thought to be as old as 800,000,Neanderthal man is about 250,000 years old,and then there,s the hobit,my suspicions are that Neanderthal man is the missing link but the christian scientists,managed to persuade the public it wasn,t,the christian public that is,getting back to the proof there is no god,I call Hiroshima and Nagasaki proof there is no god,there are countless accounts of madness on this planet and there is no rational explanation as to why so many inocent people should suffer so.When do we find the courage to say it like it is,Rex

Would you adam and eve it?

Utility Belt's picture

We are indeed all descended from one man, but there's nothing special about him. There were plenty of other men around at the time, but none of their descendents have survived to the present day. Given any population of sexually reproducing animals, if you go far enough back in time then you will find one male from which they are all descended, and if you take the whole population of the world today, you need to go back 60-90,000 years. (There's a female equivalent, and she lived about 150,000 years ago.)


Greg Mullen's picture

I really don't know much about it. You're probably right.

One Man 70,000 HUH?

Marnee's picture

There is a certain genetic marker common to most races (I think maybe even all but I dont remember). This does not mean we are all descendants of ONE MAN. Let alone one man only 70,000 years ago. That's impossible.

I agree but

Greg Mullen's picture

I remember reading somewhere that all humans are genetic descendants of one man who live around 70,000 years ago. Not to say that has anything to do with the story of Adam and Eve.

I agree but

Greg Mullen's picture

I remember reading somewhere that all humans are genetic descendants of one man who live around 70,000 years ago. Not to say that has anything to do with the story of Adam and Eve.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.