Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[joobz]

Well I'm tellin' you Doc, when I sold them, they told us to push the fact that they were encyclopedias designed to be accessible to children. Hell I grew up with World Book in my house and my mom used to tell us to "look it up in the encyclopedia" when we had a technical question. It is a very good encyclopedia, but if you go to a library and look at World Book versus Encyclopedia Britannica or other college-level encyclopedias, you will note how much more information is in the bigger encyclopedias.

World Book is very good, but it is aimed at pre-college kids.

Most 7th graders aren't allowed to use the encyclopedia as a reference for class reports. I would instantly fail any college kid in my class who used one as a primary source. It's simply too general and does not provide any depth for understanding. As a stepping stone to get started, they're great. But to treat one as a final source is rather embarrassing.

As I say, Bruto was taking poetic license. Others may be making off-the-cuff or joking comments about the source of viruses. It is likely that there are some few scientists who think it is possible that life on earth was seeded by viruses, but I assure you they are in the vast minority. Viruses prey on living cells. If there were no living cells, they would have had nothing on which to prey. They could not have arisen unless the host was there first.

Well, I think what DOC is confused by is that some people have argued that it is possible viruses and cells emerged simultaneously. Although all of this is mere intellectual speculation, since we have no firm footing on the exact steps just yet. It is these grey areas that IDers will retreat to and pretend knowledge that just isn't there.

It is the reason why I pose my 18 point explanation. I am simply hoping to hear a simple self-consistent theory that fits the data as well as evolution and is testable.

That's not too much to ask, is it?

 

[Tricky]

Most 7th graders aren't allowed to use the encyclopedia as a reference for class reports. I would instantly fail any college kid in my class who used one as a primary source. It's simply too general and does not provide any depth for understanding. As a stepping stone to get started, they're great. But to treat one as a final source is rather embarrassing.

I can't remember ever using an encyclopedia as the soul source for a report, but it sure was helpful. Mostly what I did was just read it for fun. Of course, things were different then. I can't even remember being asked for references in the seventh grade. If you could find out on your own, that was good enough. Now in the Google Age, I wonder how teachers manage to control cheating.

As it so happens, I am in the process of scanning our old family photo albums for posterity. Only just five minutes ago I came across this photo of me with our brand new shiny World Books, complete with World Book Dictionaries. I loved those things. Used to read them for hours.

Oh, and I could add a few more to your 18-point list. Like homologous and analogous structures, ontogeny of embryos... many many more. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that there are whole libraries of data on it. It takes a supreme act of denial to ignore all that evidence. It is a testimony to the power of religion that they are able to convince so many people to shut their eyes so tightly.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Did anyone else find it ironic that DOC cited Wikipedia to support his assertion about World Book? I wonder why he didn't just go to the website itself. And trust DOC to derail his own zombie thread... again.

I doubt he'll take the link but Viruses are listed seperately on the Tree of Life, but if he clicks on the link he'll see that, because they have DNA, a phylogenetic tree can be constructed for them as well. He'll also see that eubacteria, eukaryotes and archaea have an unknown precourser from which all three lines developed.
http://www.tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1

 

[godless dave]

The origin of life is a crucial part (if not the most important question) of the Theist/Atheist debate.

I couldn't disagree more. I don't think it's relevant at all. Even if we had no scientific hypotheses for the origin of life, that would not be evidence for the existence of a god.

 

[six7s]

The origin of life is a crucial part (if not the most important question) of the Theist/Atheist debate

The first (i.e. most important) question that I ask theists is "how do you know that your theism is right?"

To date, not one theist has been forthcoming with anything other than obviously fallacious reasoning

Consequently, the idea of asking such people for their views on the origin of life seems absurd

 

[ChaoticLimbs]

Since humans and pumpkin plants share about 70-80% of the same code in their DNA, I'm willing to accept that even though a scientific theory conflicts with my preconceived notions of the ways of the universe, it may still be correct and I may simply be wrong.
The evidence lies firmly on the side of Science and the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. I don't like it, but there is no immutable law which prevents that which displeases me from being true.

 

[ChaoticLimbs]

I've always found it amazing that people can plainly see that their children are not identical to them, but cannot extrapolate those small changes to figure out how millions of years can really make small cumulative changes into big differences.

 

[DOC]

Nothing much, except that DOC still doesn't (or refuse to) understand that

a) The theory of evolution and the theory of abiogenesis has -nothing- to do with atheism.

Of course, it does. Atheism needs abiogenesis and evolution to be true. On the other hand Christianity doesn't need evolution or abiogenesis to be false. The Catholic stance on evolution will show this.

 

[Tricky]

Of course, it does. Atheism needs abiogenesis and evolution to be true.

No it doesn't. It is quite possible to be an atheist without having any knowledge of science whatsoever.

And besides, any system that explained our presence without invoking God or gods would be okay. It so happens, evolution is is the best that we've found so far... by a wide margin.

On the other hand Christianity doesn't need evolution or abiogenesis to be false. The Catholic stance on evolution will show this.

It depends on which Christians you talk to. While Catholics are okay with accepting evolution, fundamentalists are overwhelmingly against it. I find that it is best not to pigeonhole Christians, atheists or anyone else until you have talked to them and found out what they believe.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Of course, it does. Atheism needs abiogenesis and evolution to be true.

If life came about due to panspermia or is the result of a hyperdimensional science experiment, then no, it does not. Your claims is falsified. Whatever the source of life, whether abiogenesis or fiat creation by a deity, evolution is undeniably true so it has no bearing on atheism one way or the other. Your claim is falsified.

On the other hand Christianity doesn't need evolution or abiogenesis to be false. The Catholic stance on evolution will show this.

Actually, since Creationism, which I'm differentiating from Christianity, does require abiogenesis and evolution to be false, your statement doesn't apply to many sects and strains. Biogenesis via God and evolution and evolution in and of itself is certainly no issue for the majority (it seems) of Abrahamic theists and for scientists who come from Eastern religions either. Your claim is falsified.

 

[Stitch]

Of course, it does. Atheism needs abiogenesis and evolution to be true. On the other hand Christianity doesn't need evolution or abiogenesis to be false. The Catholic stance on evolution will show this.

Athesim requires one thing and one thing only, the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.

 

[H3LL]

Experience ... actually I believe it ... estimate.

Do we have to add your experiences, your beliefs and estimates to your constant logical fallacies?

Logical fallacies, experience, beliefs and estimates do not constitute evidence for anything and do not help your Lies For Jesus crusade.

Personal experiences do not constitute valid scientific evidence for anything.

Personal beliefs do not constitute valid scientific evidence for anything.

Estimates pulled out of your fundamental do not constitute valid scientific evidence for anything.

Logical fallacies do not constitute valid scientific evidence for anything.

If it is a logical fallacy... It in nonesense... Not worth anything... Not an argument... Useless... Wrong... Faulty... Incorrect...

DOC, you have been repeatedly asked to read up on what constitutes valid scientific evidence.

You have been repeatedly asked to read up on logical fallacies.

Most people here are very familiar with most, if not all logical fallacies.

You have been given links to concise definitions and explanations of logical fallacies.

You are not going to slip a logical fallacy past anyone here.

You use a logical fallacy and it destroys your argument..immediately.

Repeating logical fallacies doesn't make them true...however many times you repeat them.

You keep on using logical fallacies in almost every post.

Why is that?

Why have you never answered?

.

 

[six7s]

Of course, it does. Atheism needs abiogenesis and evolution to be true. On the other hand Christianity doesn't need evolution or abiogenesis to be false. The Catholic stance on evolution will show this.

No DOC, you are (still) wrong

You were born an atheist

For some reason, you chose to accept the myth of creationism and chances are that - at the time you did so - you had never heard of evolution. You didn't understand evolution then and you certainly don't want to understand it now - for fear that it will shatter your trust in your myth

 

[Dancing David]

Of course, it does. Atheism needs abiogenesis and evolution to be true. On the other hand Christianity doesn't need evolution or abiogenesis to be false. The Catholic stance on evolution will show this.

That just shows a lack of imagination.

You could have a really advanced recursive spieces. Do advanced that like god they can violate TLOP and go back in time. Then they forget a sandwich on the beach (thank you Terry Prachett) and it seeds the planet that leads to them (the advanced beings).

So god is not needed in the least, you can posit impossible technology or magical powers that do not belong to a diety and still get the same result.

 

[Beerina]

So what?

Nope. Viruses, bacteria, plants, fungi and animals, in fact all living things, evolved from something that may or may not have been virus-like, or bacteria-like.

I wouldn't exclude "virus-like" from "virus", for the purpose of this discussion. It has shades of "humans didn't evolve from apes, but humans and apes from an ape-like being" pedantry.

I had always thought some complex chemicals gathered together and bootstrapped into creating copies of themselves. It would make sense, then, that said reproductive chemicals operated in an effluvia of chemicals of non-biological origin, adding the production of same at some point later on, and a cell wall still later than that. If you want to to label these original chemicals, containing self-reproductive code, but no cell/nuclear wall or ability to produce the supporting chemicals a "virus", well, it probably preceeds that point.

Viruses do not fill all of the criteria that are classically assigned to "life", but they do procreate, and they do contain DNA or RNA. They are "sort of" alive. Which is absolutely no problem for evolution.

Indeed, the dividing line between "life" and "non-life" is more an anachronism from religion and early/pre-scientific philosophy. A wise man once wrote, "After all, biologists no longer argue about whether a virus or a seed is 'alive'." They don't have to, they know too much about the detailed processes that the question is irrelevant.

 

[joobz]

Of course, it does. Atheism needs abiogenesis and evolution to be true.

NO
evolution doesn't make any claim on the mechanism of abiogenesis. Just like how you make a cotton shirt doesn't rely on understanding how you farm cotton.

On the other hand Christianity doesn't need evolution or abiogenesis to be false. The Catholic stance on evolution will show this.

But the pope has also said that all other christians aren't TRUE christians. So who am I to believe.

Religion has no business messing with science. If a faith made claims about reality that science finds (after careful scrutiny and research) to be untrue, faith must adapt or accept being wrong.

 

[arthwollipot]

There were atheists before Darwin.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
Of course, it does. Atheism needs abiogenesis and evolution to be true.

If life came about due to panspermia or is the result of a hyperdimensional science experiment, then no, it does not.

If life on earth came about by panspermia that wouldn't mean that atheists don't need abiogenesis or evolution to be true. It just means the abiogenesis would have had to occurred somewhere else in the universe before the life form came here.

And the same goes for the hype. science experiment. Whoever conducted the experiment would of had to either evolved from lifeforms that over time came about by abiogenesis or the experimenter would have to part of a life form that existed eternally. And if you can believe in eternal life forms, why can't you believe in God.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by DOC
Of course, it does. Atheism needs abiogenesis and evolution to be true.

{very selective quote of what I wrote above}

If life on earth came about by panspermia that wouldn't mean that atheists don't need abiogenesis or evolution to be true. It just means the abiogenesis would have had to occurred somewhere else in the universe before the life form came here.

And the same goes for the hype. science experiment. Whoever conducted the experiment would of had to either evolved from lifeforms that over time came about by abiogenesis or the experimenter would have to part of a life form that existed eternally. And if you can believe in eternal life forms, why can't you believe in God.

Nice dishonest chop job there DOC. My point was that evolution is true because we have so much evidence for it regardless of whatever source the original lifeform came from.

As far as abiogenesis goes, you need to keep up with the scientific liturature and avoid Creationist sites.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102618

 

[Hokulele]

As far as abiogenesis goes, you need to keep up with the scientific liturature and avoid Creationist sites.

Oh look, UnrepentantSinner made a funny!