Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

Status
Not open for further replies.
-Fran- said:
Oh my, in that case, such a transparent attempt, you really would have to be rather stupid to fall for. It honestly didn't occur to me that he would attempt that :D (I'm getting tired I think :o)
Click to expand...

And, probably you're an honest and innocent person, who doesn't assume that others are liars and cheats because YOU aren't a liar or a cheat. Me, I'm honest but not a bit innocent. :cool:
 
JoeEllison said:
And, probably you're an honest and innocent person, who doesn't assume that others are liars and cheats because YOU aren't a liar or a cheat. Me, I'm honest but not a bit innocent. :cool:
Click to expand...

I don't know :) I just thought he really was that stupid I guess :D Most things he has said thus far seems to indicate that :p
 
-Fran- said:
I don't know :) I just thought he really was that stupid I guess :D Most things he has said thus far seems to indicate that :p
Click to expand...
There's a craftiness to it that has little to do with intellect, I think.
 
DOC said:
So your theory is that something that can't replicate without the presence of life as we know it (viruses), is the cause of life as we know it.

Then how did these viruses replicate "before" producing the life they created that allows them to replicate.
Click to expand...
The more you say things like this, the more it is obvious you have no clue what you are talking about.
Please help us establish what you know
1.) Please define organism
3.) Please define Multicellular

By the way, science does not recognize anyting called a "life Force"
 
DOC said:
So your theory is that something that can't replicate without the presence of life as we know it (viruses), is the cause of life as we know it.

Then how did these viruses replicate "before" producing the life they created that allows them to replicate.
Click to expand...


It isn't MY theory--but I'll take the credit if you insist. Don't you think you ought to read the links provided before asking me to re-explain them to you? Oh, and what is YOUR hypothesis again? And where, praytell, is the evidence for it? Or is your entire conjecture that because the science (or at least as much as you've allowed yourself to understand) is so unfathomable to you-- your even more unfathomable invisible friend must have poofed stuff into existence fully formed and ready to evolve complete with genetic info. that made it LOOK like it has been evolving all along?

And you keep avoiding the question. Are you a YEC? Do you understand Common Descent? Do you accept it like the very theistic Behe and Francis Collins do? Or are you like a first grader asking trying to tell the big kids the truth about calculus?
 
Last edited:
DOC - Are you hear for any reason other than to preach at us?

Do you think that anyone has been persuaded by anything that you have said?
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, DOC. Firstly, she claimed that all eukaryotes descended from a common multi-cellular ancestor. Secondly, "organism" often refers to one type of organism, not one specific, individual organism.
 
JoeEllison said:
It isn't kidding or missing the point. He's intentionally misrepresenting your position in order to "trap" you, so that he can pretend that his point is valid.
Click to expand...


Once again we get into the attack the messenger mode. But that's par for the course. I'll be happy if people read all the posts in here that are relevant to the topic. Especially this one where science says all plants and animals originally came from bacteria.

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/f...aboratory/History of Life/History of Life.htm


And as I often said, I'm just putting info (scientific, religious and historical) out there. What you do with it is your business. I have to believe if someone was really interested in the truth, they would thank me for putting out info they didn't know about before instead of getting irritated and cynical about it.

Yea I know now its time for everyone to come in and trash the hundreds of informational posts I've put out there. But what I'm glad about is that you are reading them.
 
here doc... let me give you a little info. you can verify for yourself so you can see how the lines as to what a cell is is a little more complicated that you seem to understand.

You started your life as a single cell called a zygote. It was formed when the sperm of your father fertilized the egg of your mother. Now are sperm and egg cells? Neither of them can self replicate. An egg has all the organelles associated with a cell-- a sperm doesn't-- it's more like a DNA delivery system... not completely different than a virus. It cannot self replicate and is made from spermatocytes which have the organelles associated with cells. A male makes about 2 trillion spermatozoa in his life. If "designed" this certainly shows tremendous waste as an average of two actually go on to successfully fertilize an egg (though others are useful in disintegrating the outer shell of the egg so that one gets in and delivers a slight electrical jolt which begins the division process). So we all start as single cells-- but sexual reproduction is not the only way reproduction occurs-- and Eukaryotes are not single cells the way prokaryotes are-- they have a membrane bound nucleus and organelles-- some organelles, like mitochondria, appear to be their own organisms or replicators-- their DNA is slightly different than the ones in nuclear bound membranes and their LUCA is different than the LUCA of eukaryotes for obvious reasons. But the code in both is what evolves through time and accounts for the changes we see through generations and allows us to understand what DNA existed in the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) and what has changed since then.

Moreover, as pointed out--much of evolution is based on the development of our immune system which has been driven by viruses... and our DNA contains remenants of viruses and other microbial insertions which use us to copy themselves, but just appear as junk DNA in our genomes. We have a lot of information about the start of life--but we don't have all the pieces and it's a complicated puzzle and there aren't really the clear definitions between DNA/RNA and the ways in which they've evolved like you imagine. If all but a hundred people died out... and one of those people was a direct ancestor of a Neanderthal (as a small percentage of the population is thought to be)--then a thousand years hence this information would appear in the genomes of the descendants...but it would be tricky to decode.

We understand a lot. You understand just a tad... We use our understanding to figure out more and fill in the missing puzzles-- you use your lack of understanding to make room for your imagination and faith and a simplistic story that makes some sort of sense to you, but isn't reflected in the evidence we see. You could understand what is known. But quit pretending you DO understand. It just makes you look very ignorant and both unwilling and unable to learn from those who could really put you on the right path if you actually wanted to understand.

The stuff the people here can teach you and link you too is far more interesting, useful, and fascinating than anything your preacher men have inserted in your head, and your cagey preaching arrogance and ignorance is unbecoming and transparent. If your goal is to convince yourself or others, you are at the wrong forum and woefully ignorant. Moreover, you are dishonest. That kind of stuff just doesn't go over well--as I'm sure you might imagine.
 
You have put no useful or new info. out there. You are not the messenger of anything valid. You are a messenger of a message you don't understand. You a preaching at people who understand more than you and would take the time to educate you if you weren't clearly so self-righteous and impervious.

Your misunderstanding and lack of clarity on the topic is glaring. Your willingness to learn more is non-existent. Your arrogance in light of your ignorance makes me embarrassed for you. Your own alternative view has not been presented--nor have any facts or evidence to support this view. You just say inane things with an inference that don't really say anything at all and expect people to drink it in while ignoring those who actually understand the topic much better than you imagine yourself to. You aren't saying anything. You aren't hearing anyone but the voices in your head. You are as buffoonish as any door to door preacher you might find buffoonish. And you are clueless while imagining yourself the "keeper of a clue".
 
quixotecoyote said:
<snort>

Read your link again.
Click to expand...

He can only absorb the parts that he can extrapolate to mean what he wants it to mean so he can infer that it's incomprehensible while offering not an iota of alternative on the subject. What else is new?

This is why it's dangerous to tell the kiddies that faith is a good way to know stuff or that it's necessary for morality. It just makes people feel knowledgeable and moral without being either. It's so prone to error and not amenable to correction.
 
articulett said:
He can only absorb the parts that he can extrapolate to mean what he wants it to mean so he can infer that it's incomprehensible while offering not an iota of alternative on the subject. What else is new?

This is why it's dangerous to tell the kiddies that faith is a good way to know stuff or that it's necessary for morality. It just makes people feel knowledgeable and moral without being either. It's so prone to error and not amenable to correction.
Click to expand...

That's sort of the point, isn't it? To make stupid and ignorant believers feel smart and well-informed?
 
He avoids putting his own view on the table while inferring implausibility on a very strong evidenced based view he's clueless about.

So Doc, are you a young earth creationist?

Have you read fellow Christians Behe and Francis Collins? Do you understand and share their view on common descent (humans and apes sharing a common ancestor).

Your not answering these questions makes it clear that discussing this issue with you would be on par with attempting to discuss "chemical imbalances" with Tom Cruise (who asserts that there are no such things) or the possibility that the hijackers are having sex with virgins in the afterlife with Taliban family members. It would be nice to know exactly what level of delusion we are dealing with here. See, honesty is as important as evidence in science-- you appear to have neither while inferring that you have both. How about integrity? Do you have any of that? Or is faith all you've got?

Here's another cool tidbit to ignore--but it is important to understanding how we know what we know. All life forms on earth have DNA which they inherited... every DNA code is composed of 4 basic chemicals-- just like all music is composed of 8 basic notes. these 4 chemicals code for all of life as we know it... just like the letters of the alphabet code for all writings that we know know of--from the simple to the amazing. Understanding these four chemicals and how they code for genes which make proteins which catalyze matter into life forms is the code we use to "read" genomes and understand evolution and the relatedness of various life forms. Prior to this we had to use external clues. Now we have the "source code". It's a fabulous tool for understanding. No god clued us in--just years of mortals amassing information and creating new technology and eons of life evolving as per the most successful replicators and the information they pass on.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom