Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[articulett]

Where did I tell you I put you on ignore. And even though you supplied the website, I've seen a similar origin graph in a book. So I knew of this information before.

When I used the word vulva.

And you may have thought you knew the information before, but you are still incorrect in your attempts to sum up what is known.

 

[joobz]

Where did I tell you I put you on ignore. And even though you supplied the website, I've seen a similar origin graph in a book. So I knew of this information before.

Possibly, but I would hope you are starting to see the mistake you are making in your interpretation of what "science" says.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
Where did I tell you I put you on ignore. And even though you supplied the website, I've seen a similar origin graph in a book. So I knew of this information before.

When I used the word vulva.

And you may have thought you knew the information before, but you are still incorrect in your attempts to sum up what is known.

You must have me confused with someone else concerning the vulva thing.

And where am I incorrect in saying all plant and animals are descended from the same single organism.(according to science)

 

[joobz]

And where am I incorrect in saying all plant and animals are descended from the same single organism.(according to science)

from the Wiki Page that Articulett had already posted explaining why your interpretations were incorrect.

It is possible that all of LUA's contemporaries would have since become extinct with only the LUA's genetic heritage living on to this day. However, this suggestion ignores the possibility of horizontal gene transfer. Carl Woese has proposed that there was no individual organism which could be considered a LUA, but rather that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derives from an ancient community of organisms.[2]

bolding mine.

 

[DOC]

What's your point?

Why don't your threads ever have a valid, useful, and obvious point?

One point could be that many atheists put their faith in a scientific explanation of the origins of life, even though they know very little about it.

 

[articulett]

from the Wiki Page that Articulett had already posted explaining why your interpretations were incorrect.



bolding mine.

Thanks... but I don't think it will sink in. I've explained this at least 3 times along with multiple links. Faith makes the brain impervious to such things, I guess.

 

[mijopaalmc]

One point could be that many atheists put their faith in a scientific explanation of the origins of life, even though they know very little about it.

Do you actually have any evidence for this assertion?

The idea that all livings things are descended from common ancestral organism(s) in commonly taught in most high school and college biology classes. In fact, the source you sight as proof of the assertion in your OP is hand-out from one such college level course.

 

[DOC]

from the Wiki Page that Articulett had already posted explaining why your interpretations were incorrect.

But even Articulett said all plant and animals came from the "same" organism. But he said that the first organism was multicellular, not a single cell.

 

[articulett]

Originally Posted by DOC

You must have me confused with someone else concerning the vulva thing.

Yes... I'm sorry. I looked back and checked-- it was rttjc. I get you two confused... since he is no longer posting, I think I thought you were a sock puppet of him. But you are more likable, and I apologize for the error. Are you a young earth creationist like him? Laying aside the single celled ancestor, do you accept the evidence showing that humans and apes have a common ancestor? Are you aware of the chromosome 2 fusion? Of the the fossil vitamin C pseudogene? How are the theists explaining that away these days--or do they just divert themselves with the single cell extrapolation and the "gee whiz how could this be?" dismissal?

 

[joobz]

But even Articulett said all plant and animals came from the "same" organism. But he said that the first organism was multicellular, not a single cell.

In order for this conversation to progress, I need to know that you understand what you are talking about. So let's start:
Who is "he"?
Define Organism.
Define Multicellular

 

[articulett]

But even Articulett said all plant and animals came from the "same" organism. But he said that the first organism was multicellular, not a single cell.

Yes... Eukaryotes. Learn the difference. But Eukaryotes are themselves colonies of cells and cell like things... mitochondria for example... But we have just recently discovered a whole new branch of life --archaea.... and there is life everywhere-- in the air we breathe-- it's everywhere... and most of it is microscopic.

Yes--but suffice to say that all that you see in regards to life is related and shares a common ancestor if you go back far enough in time. Whether one would define that common ancestor as a single cell depends on a number of things. But your simplification shows confusion... not clarity--and a profound lack of understanding regarding how we know what we know.

(I'm a she)

 

[mijopaalmc]

But even Articulett said all plant and animals came from the "same" organism. But he said that the first organism was multicellular, not a single cell.

You're equivocating between "organism" and "individual". This especially true since unicellular organisms clone themselves when they reproduce. There was probably no one, single "Adamic" organism whose existence your are trying to surmise with your ham-handed and deliberate misinterpretations of biology hand-outs.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

One point could be that many atheists put their faith in a scientific explanation of the origins of life, even though they know very little about it.

The above is so incredibly flawed in reasoning that I'm not even going to try to narrow it down to a single fallacy. Important counter-points:
1) One does not have to be atheistic or agnostic to agree with the Theory of Evolution
2) One does not have to be atheistic or agnostic to agree with any given hypothesis regarding abiogenesis
3) One's understanding of Evolutionary Theory or abiogenesis does not need to have any bearing on that individual's decision to become atheistic/agnostic
4) That any given percentage of atheists/agnostics may not understand Evolutionary Theory or abiogenesis has no bearing whatsoever of the validity of the Theory of Evolution or abiogenesis
5) Your statements are intentionally misleading and you are using language that is clearly meant to spin things in such a manner as to fall in to the usual Creationist drek of "atheism is just a faith"

 

[articulett]

In order for this conversation to progress, I need to know that you understand what you are talking about. So let's start:
Who is "he"?
Define Organism.
Define Multicellular

I think we ought to start a little nearer in time and see if he understands common descent and how we know what we know-- what the evidence is--before we go backwards in time involving this discussion. The gaps are too huge--and he's doing the Behe mumbo jumbo where he's using words to infer a position but not say anything at all. I'd like to hear his opposing theory and what the evidence is for it. Does he presume his god made apes and humans with non functional genes that function in other mammals--does he have an explanation for the chromosome 2 fusion other than common descent? He's leaping in order to pretend that what science knows is "impossible" to understand the roots of the tree of life when he doesn't seem to be able to explain the latest branches and how they connect.

 

[articulett]

T
5) Your statements are intentionally misleading and you are using language that is clearly meant to spin things in such a manner as to fall in to the usual Creationist drek of "atheism is just a faith"

But what else are you going to do when you have no facts in support of your own non-existent hypothesis?

 

[joobz]

I think we ought to start a little nearer in time and see if he understands common descent and how we know what we know-- what the evidence is--before we go backwards in time involving this discussion. The gaps are too huge--and he's doing the Behe mumbo jumbo where he's using words to infer a position but not say anything at all. I'd like to hear his opposing theory and what the evidence is for it. Does he presume his god made apes and humans with non functional genes that function in other mammals--does he have an explanation for the chromosome 2 fusion other than common descent? He's leaping in order to pretend that what science knows is "impossible" to understand the roots of the tree of life when he doesn't seem to be able to explain the latest branches and how they connect.

True. But I get the sense that DOC doesn't really understand the terms he's using. (Like Mijopaalmc pointed out) It's hard for me to continue until I'm confident he knows what we mean when we say that
no one claims life came from "one single cell". Such a view is laughably absurd and it must be explained why no scienctist is currently saying such things.

 

[Foster Zygote]

One point could be that many atheists put their faith in a scientific explanation of the origins of life, even though they know very little about it.

The irony being that you know so little about that scientific explanation yourself.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I might point out that most ( at least 10%, anyway ) scientists and atheists have no problem saying " We don't know ... "
Something that never occurs to theists, and particularly Christians...

 

[DOC]

But what else are you going to do when you have no facts in support of your own non-existent hypothesis?

You are the one who claims all plant and animals came from the "same" single multicellular organism. Whereas I believe (modern science) says it was a one celled organism. But we do both agree that all plant and animals came from the same single organism. We just disagree on whether this first "single" organism was a one celled organism or a multicellular organism.

 

[articulett]

True. But I get the sense that DOC doesn't really understand the terms he's using. (Like Mijopaalmc pointed out) It's hard for me to continue until I'm confident he knows what we mean when we say that
no one claims life came from "one single cell". Such a view is laughably absurd and it must be explained why no scienctist is currently saying such things.

It's a lot less absurd than saying women came from a single rib from the first guy who was poofed into existence. Especially when both sexes have the same number of ribs. But until we clear the common descent hurdle between apes and humans-- I think the gaps are just too huge to discuss. It may be that the common ancestor was more like a community of cells--like a Portuguese man-o-war rather than a single entity... but eukaryote cells themselves are like organisms--some are individuals and some are part of communities, but they all have specialized "parts" within them. (It's kind of interesting, because eggs are cells like this, which is how we can trace ancestral DNA) whereas sperm are pretty much streamlined to be nuclear DNA implanters-- and that's it (there is some mitochondrial power cells at the flagellum...).

It's a cool thing to discuss, that's for sure. But not with people who haven't got a clue and are just trying to make it all sound unlikely because then their god seems more real.

Doc, you really should read Francis Collins--because most theists (YES MOST) accept evolution. There is no evidence for any alternate theories although people have been proffering creation stories for eons told to them by supposed omniscient invisible dudes.