Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[DOC]

Yet I contend that most atheists are not aware that all life (the blue whales, the insects, the elephants, the octopuses, the trees in the redwood forests, the butterflies, the cactus, the humans, all the dinosaurs, and the multi-millions of other plant and animal species) that have ever existed are descended from the "same" one celled organism. (according to modern science)

Ridiculous, and an inaccurate, insulting claim about modern science...

Articulett will tell you your mistaken about this.

 

[joobz]

And to clarify, you are talking about one individual organism (that for example can be given a name like Fred or Judy or LUCA, and not a group of similar one celled organisms)

No, I'm not. We can't claim that it wasn't a community of cells vs. one single cell.
My view is not unique.

The universal ancestor is not a discrete entity. It is, rather, a diverse community of cells that survives and evolves as a biological unit. This communal ancestor has a physical history but not a genealogical one.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854

To clarify, Do you believe you must drink human-god blood to be purified?

No

To clarify, you don't believe in the sacrement of communion?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

• You didn't answer the question. It's an important question.

• 
  
  I thought I had, but to be more succinct my answer is both.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Therefore... ?

...your argument is a fallacy.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Oh my God, that must mean that Jesus was the son of God and he died for our sins!

An example of logical thinking at it's finest!

 

[joobz]

No, you ignored my pointing out of the illogical extrapolations of your evidences.

really? evidence please.

Jerome, Your claim remains unsubstantiated.

 

[Hokulele]

Aha! We need to clear up a possible misconception. Do you see, DOC, that there are but two choices here: either evolution or god?

false dichotomy

In other words, is it your view that if one believes evolution is true that person must reject your god

Never said this.

Then why did you say this?

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

First, you are still confusing evolution with abiogensis. Have you really forgotten this discussion so quickly? Second, I would think that the most crucial part of any theist/atheist debate would be proof of the existence of god, but if you can't see that, oh well.

 

[RandFan]

...your argument is a fallacy.

Based on what theory?

Jerome: Science has disregarded and ignored this line of thought despite reasonable queries into this possibility.

RandFan: Science works that way. Until you come up with the evidence then you are running head long into science.

How on earth is this a fallacy? We are talking about the scientific method. Please, enlighten me.

 

[RandFan]

I thought I had, but to be more succinct my answer is both.

Could you give us an example of the prediction that could have been made that would have predicted junk DNA and transcription errors based on the god hypothesis?

 

[RandFan]

• Yes, it is relevant. Why can evolutionary scientists make predictions and creations scientists can't.
• No one said otherwise. Did he manipulate it to have junk DNA and transcription errors, before, after, anytime?
• No, it presumes A.) that there is junk DNA and Transcription errors in DNA. B.) That these are common to close relatives. C.) The only conclusion I know of is that god is trying to confuse us or evolution is correct, do you have any other explanation?

Jerome,

You are ignoring a lot of points and questions.

 

[articulett]

Articulett will tell you your mistaken about this.

No need to give your interpretation of what I said. It's there for anyone to read... and I don't think JJ and I are in conflict. It's you who is having a problem with communication and understanding.

And Jerome. 2 people whom I believe have been made unable to reason and prone to lies and errors due to too much immersion in faith based thinking.

You ignore some of the coolest information that humans have come to discover to pretend that you know a better answer that is so inane that most children would recognize it as a "tall tale". Even the first cell.... or the last common ancestor is a continuum as multiply explained before... that is why we can only say that eukaryotes come from a single cell... But they have "proto cells" running them... they are a community of organelles.

Although you can't follow-- I'm sure others can: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2439,n,n

You need to spend all your brain power convincing yourself that evolution can't possibly be true.

 

[SezMe]

Do you see, DOC, that there are but two choices here: either evolution or god?

false dichotomy

In other words, is it your view that if one believes evolution is true that person must reject your god??

Never said this.

DOC those were QUESTIONS, not statements. Sheesh. Now that I've helped with your reading comprehension problem, would you please answer the QUESTIONS.

 

[Fitter]

Jerome, Your claim remains unsubstantiated.

They usually do.

 

[articulett]

They usually do.

Usually? I thought it was closer to always.

 

[joobz]

Could you give us an example of the prediction that could have been made that would have predicted junk DNA and transcription errors based on the god hypothesis?

He's a lousy programmer?

 

[articulett]

He's a lousy programmer?

He had to rush to meet the release date and figured he could fix the bugs later?

 

[RandFan]

He's a lousy programmer?

He had to rush to meet the release date and figured he could fix the bugs later?

Doesn't account for why the errors show up the same in closely related species but not ones that are not.

That's damn good evidence of evolution. It makes sense from an evolution POV.

If you throw in god then he/she must have done it so that it would look like evolution.

 

[jj]

As I am not an acceded scientist, no.



Are you sure? Does accreditation not matter to the presentation of evidence in "science"?

Perhaps what you need to do is to provide evidence.

Accreditation is not the issue.

Evidence is.

 

[jj]

Sure, the evidence does not preclude some original mover.

Do I understand that you are asking for proof of an untestable negative?

Anyone can propose a tautological kind of "creationism" wherein we were just now made, with all memories, faked-up history, etc, all created a mere instant before I wrote this message.

This is politely called "untestable" and is therefore not science, nor in the domain of science.

Evolution is quite falsifiable, and to date experiments have done nothing, rather, than confirm it.

Nothing whatsoever in evolutionary theory (modern) requires, in any fashion, a hypothesis of a deity.

Adding in the supposition of a deity is nothing but multiplying unnecessary entities.

 

[jj]

No need to give your interpretation of what I said. It's there for anyone to read... and I don't think JJ and I are in conflict. It's you who is having a problem with communication and understanding.

And Jerome. 2 people whom I believe have been made unable to reason and prone to lies and errors due to too much immersion in faith based thinking.

You ignore some of the coolest information that humans have come to discover to pretend that you know a better answer that is so inane that most children would recognize it as a "tall tale". Even the first cell.... or the last common ancestor is a continuum as multiply explained before... that is why we can only say that eukaryotes come from a single cell... But they have "proto cells" running them... they are a community of organelles.

Although you can't follow-- I'm sure others can: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2439,n,n

You need to spend all your brain power convincing yourself that evolution can't possibly be true.

What's he complaining about, Articulette, I smell the "let's you and him fight" kind of false rhetoric from Jerome here?