Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[joobz]

Plainly, I am quoting the Bible. Or is the mindless, time wasting, screen cluttering, mocking mode coming gradually into play now?

but then, why does that ID story more scientific than other ID stories?

What?

Let me ask in a better way... Why is the Biblical ID story any more valid or scientific than any other ID story(e.g., aboriginal, greek mythology...) THere is no way to scientifically decide between the stories and therefore are all equal under the eyes of ID.

I don't trust your analysis.

You are accusing me of dishonesty and I do not appreciate that accusation. Feel free to critique my analysis based upon the merits of the science, but do not make such blanket statements without proof that my analysis is universally and consistently wrong.

The Bible doesn't use the word "dirt".

fine, how does that make your explanation better?

It is common knowledge that all the elements essential for constructing the human body can be found in soil.

You just said it wasn't dirt, so why are you saying that god could have made us from dirt(aka soil). You are contradicting yourself.

So your surprize that the creator should extract his material from the soil is a bit weird. As is your astonishment that the creator could take genetic material from one human's body in order to create another.
Cloning is done by humans today and they aren't almighty.

Cloning yes, changing gender, no. And again, You are adding mechanisms that are discussed. ID isn't concerned with mechanisms. If you are so willing to loosely interpret the bible to mean what you want it to mean and shoe horn science into it, why are you so bothered by evolutionary theory? It explains all observed data and you can easily say, "god started it and used it to create us." Scientists won't say that, becuase it isn't a scientifically justifiable statement, but people are open to make any religious claims they want. I don't see the conflict here except for religion trying to pass itself off as science.

[/quote]That's your unsolicited opinion as opposed to millions who disagree with you, an opinion which is very common among atheists and an opinion which should be irrelevant to the discussion and one which I am really not interested in. [/quote]appeal to numbers.
Islamic states would disagree with you. As would buddist states and hindu states. Now, how do we determine which system is right in the explanation of life's origins?
[/quote]However, you should know that if biblically-garbled statements are made I will be forced to contiunue to set the matter straight. So if you really don't wish to talk about the biblical God, or anything else biblical-then I suggest that you try to refrain from the constant biblical misrepresentations which keep cropping up in your arguments.[/quote]
I have not once missrepresented the bible and I would hope you would be honest enough with yourself and with me that you would stop such accusations.

 

[zooterkin]

Soil is dirt.

Just as an aside, I've noticed that in the US 'dirt' is used as a synonym for 'soil' or 'earth', but it's not commonly used that way in the UK. However, as Radrook appears to be in the US, that's probably not at the root of his/her disagreement.

 

[joobz]

UNfortuantely, my previous post was messed up and i didn't have a chance too edit it.

So, Radrook, please allow me to clarify my points here;

1.) You say, "I don't trust your analysis" which is an illogical statement for multiple reasons.
No one has asked you to trust me, simply review my analysis* and critique the claims. If you can't, then your statement of trust is nothing more than a value judgement. A scientist becomes untrustworthy when they have been shown to lie, cheat, and/or falsify data. An accusation that I take most seriously. If you wish to debate openly, I am always willing to. But do not insult me by acting as though my analyses are, as a matter of course, suspect.

2.) The bible says "dust" not dirt or soil, but it amounts to the same thing. Interestingly, you make the claim that the soil contains all elements which could be used to create man. Sure. I'll allow that. But Also, the soil, dirt and dust contains single celled organisms. So, another interpretation is that god claims that man came from single celled organisms and thereby doesn't contradict the modern theory of evolution.
Remember, evolutionary theory discusses the mechanism by which life can diversify and increase in complexity through natural selection and mutation. modern science has hypothesized that similar mechanisms extend prior to the first life forms, but this is merely hypothesis. No one claims to have any single mechanism which proves non-intelligent abiogenesis. I personally believe that this hypothesis is reasonable since we have not seen anything in nature which requires the intervention of a creator, but that is a provisional hypothesis.

3.) You leveed my "opinion" against me, when your entire position has been nothing but opinions. You claim ID is science, it isn't. and I simply went one step further to explain that it wasn't just the christian ID that isn't science, but all IDs. There is no reason to assume one is better than another other than religious faith and that is merely opinion.

4.) You accused me of garbling and missrepresenting the bible. In all of our discussions, I have never once did such a thing. You are merely projecting your interpretation of the bible as the one true interpretation, which is an exercise of arrogance. It isn't my fault the bible isn't a perfect source of information and contains errors. I hold it no ill will as it is the work of man and therefore likely to contain errors. Unlike science, the bible contains no external means of verifing proper interpretation. I mean, we can't ask god which interpretation he really meant for us to have. So, I choose to be a bit more literal in the reading.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just as an aside, I've noticed that in the US 'dirt' is used as a synonym for 'soil' or 'earth', but it's not commonly used that way in the UK. However, as Radrook appears to be in the US, that's probably not at the root of his/her disagreement.

The issue is sadly an emotionally semantic one in the U.S. I'm guessing dirt has all the same connotations in the U.K. (dirty, unclean, secrets you have about someone, etc.), but it's the synonistic conflation of soil, loam, earth, etc. with filth, uncleanliness, etc. that gets Creationists all up in arms over the suggestion that a literal interpretation of Genesis suggests humans come from dirt.

Ironically, I've seen the bizarro world expression of this indignation in Creationist literature. I had a book, long since sent to the recycler which had a drawing of a cherubic, perfect, white baby* with the caption something akin to "evolution says this baby came from dirt". I wrote in the margins "no stupid that's what Creationism says" and decided I wouldn't send those idiots any of more of my money and stopped purchasing Creationist literature (this was before the Internet allowed me unfettered access to their inanity).

And again I point out that Radrook, were he not a Creationist, is towing the TE line. Though TEs don't just think humans were made from the chemicals of the Earth, but all life was. They don't quite take his Adam's rib=cloning metaphor so literally though, at least the one's I've encountered.

* Ironic since the author and illustrator was the brother of a missionary who spent time with Indians in South America (so claimed) - why not have an African, Asian or Amerind baby?

 

[Upchurch]

You have evidence that time is linear and not circular? Please present this so as to impart new knowledge! I do enjoy new information!

Actually, it's neither. Time, or rather spacetime, is best described by a multidimensional manifold on which we perceive a local metric that breaks down to three space dimensions and one time dimension.

Insofar as the local metric goes, and assuming one does not encounter some rather extreme gravitational conditions, "time" can be approximated as being linear.

What does "circular time" mean anyway?

You have evidence that life on Earth was initiated spontaneously?

What do you mean by "spontaneously"? I don't think anyone is claiming that life "initiated" without a preceding series of causes and effects.

 

[skeptical]

You have evidence that life on Earth was initiated spontaneously?

If you mean do we have a complete explanation for the pathway from simple organic chemistry to the first entity that could be called "life", then the answer is no. However, we do have lots of evidence that tends to indicate that such a pathway occurred and a reasonable expectation that it will be found through currently active research programs.

A _very_ brief list of some of the evidence is:

1) A progression of fossils, with the simplest organisms found in the earliest rocks and more diversity and complexity found as rocks get more recent. The oldest fossils found currently are stomatolites: http://www.wmnh.com/wmel0000.htm

2) Good evidence that primitive bacteria formed together to create the first eukaryotic cells, leading to more complex life as these formed colonies. For example, mitochondria have their own DNA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Origin

3) We have seen amino acids form in the laboratory under conditions similar to the early earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Origin_of_organic_molecules as well as finding amino acids in meteors: http://www.astrobio.net/cgi-bin/mobileCatalog.cgi?sid=19&ext=.html

4) We have several plausible theories regarding how self replication could have begun using Zeolites, clay minerals or self-replicating non-organic structures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Self-organization_and_replication
(among other theories)

None of this is a smoking gun for abiogenesis, and the exact pathway is still unknown, which is why this is a fascinating area of research. The answers will likely be found in the study of the microbial world such as the lifeforms found in black smokers on the ocean bottom that feed on hydrogen sulfide, or thermoplasma, or tricholplax (the simplest animals), etc. The world of microbes is a fascinating topic. I would recommend "What is life?" by Margulis, which you can probably find in your local library, as a start if you are at all interested in this subject.

But back to your query, the short answer is that we have lots of evidence regarding very simple life forms. We have organic molecules forming spontaneously on earth and in meteors and plausible mechanisms for the beginning of self-replication. There is a gap between the simple molecules and the simplest "life", which is an area of active research. Based on this, it is a reasonable expectation that one day this research will have a complete picture of how we got from the raw organic molecules to the very simplest "life", which will be simpler than any existing microbes we have found thus far.

The only reason not to think that the gap will not be bridged is if we have a good reason to think that microbes operate by some means other than chemistry and physics. That is, that there is something "more" required other than the laws of chemistry and physics for microbes to "live", i.e. a soul or some "vitalist" principle at work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

To this point, there does not seem to be any reason to believe that is necessary, and since we have good examples of matter self-organizing, including organic matter, there does not seem to be any reason for doubting that such self-organization in combination with other chemical and physical processes could create primitive "life" given enough time and the right mixture of raw materials and a suitable environment.

 

[joobz]

No one has asked you to trust me, simply review my analysis* and critique the claims.

I starred the word, analysis, because I wanted to present what I was referring to. I had given you in the past a list 18 of significant evidences, all of which are explained cleanly by the theory of evolution.

1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques
11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell
19.) No irreducible complexity found

It would be strange for all bits of evidence to point to evolution and have it not be true. What alternate, mechanistic explanation exists?

 

[RandFan]

Actually, it's neither. Time, or rather spacetime, is best described by a multidimensional manifold on which we perceive a local metric that breaks down to three space dimensions and one time dimension.

Showoff.

RandFan: Would you like some fries?

You know, I'm going to start hanging out at a new forum.

 

[Fitter]

I see, the argument can not be dealt with so the lies against the presenter begin.

This is a common tactic of a weak mind presenting to other weak minds.

Jerome, all I can do is present evidence that you have made up things which you then attribute to other posters. As you are the one who has been proven to be a liar will you now provide evidence of this weak mind you claim to have?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If you mean do we have a complete explanation for the pathway from simple organic chemistry to the first entity that could be called "life", then the answer is no.

Please example that the "simple chemistry" occurred which would allow for life.



The rest of what you presented was an attempt to diffuse the fact that you do not know.

 

[Upchurch]

Showoff.

Sorry. He did ask.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry. He did ask.

Fair point.

It would be nice to be young, attractive and rich but if I had my choice of all of those things or to understand the natural world better than I'm capable of I would chose the later. I mean that seriously.

I guess I've got to read "A Brief History of Time" again.

Then again, maybe I should just read the bible?

 

[jj]

Please example that the "simple chemistry" occurred which would allow for life.

Jerome, you are making the claim, we are not. Your claim is extraordinary and unsupported.

You have repeatedly demanded evidence for things that your opponents have not asserted.

It is obvious, therefore, that your words intend to mislead.

The rest of what you presented was an attempt to diffuse the fact that you do not know.

You demand evidence for something that was not asserted.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, you are making the claim, we are not. Your claim is extraordinary and unsupported.

You have repeatedly demanded evidence for things that your opponents have not asserted.

It is obvious, therefore, that your words intend to mislead.


You demand evidence for something that was not asserted.

I have seen this tired come-back hundreds of times.


Get a new line.

 

[Upchurch]

Jerome, I have to apologize. You asked for evidence that time is linear and not circular. All I did was explain that it was neither.

Cosmic microwave background radiation is evidence that time is not circular. If you could physically see it, you would be literally looking at the Big Bang, the origin point of spacetime. While spacetime may not be strictly linear, it does have a starting point. Circles, on the other hand, do not have starting points.

I hope you've enjoyed this new* information as much as you said you would.


* if can refer to something 60+ years old as "new", that is.

 

[RandFan]

I have seen this tired come-back hundreds of times.

And you will see it again. That's just the way things work.

If you say you can fly just by flapping your arms we will ask you to prove it. That is a reasonable request and simply dismissing the request as a tired "come-back" won't change the problem you face.

 

[skeptical]

Please example that the "simple chemistry" occurred which would allow for life.

Umm, what? What exactly are you asking for? I said the exact path is unknown, even though we do know we can get amino acids and nucleic acids spontaneously, which are the building blocks of life as we know it.

Not sure what you are asking for.

The rest of what you presented was an attempt to diffuse the fact that you do not know.

So this: "None of this is a smoking gun for abiogenesis, and the exact pathway is still unknown, which is why this is a fascinating area of research" is an attempt to diffuse. Interesting.

You asked for evidence, you got some. The exact pathway is not known yet, I thought I was pretty clear about that. If it was, we would hardly be having this conversation. However, given what we do know, given the history of scientific success and given the failure of vitalism, it seems very reasonable to believe we will find the pathway eventually. If you have a specific disagreement, please be specific about it.

 

[jj]

I have seen this tired come-back hundreds of times.


Get a new line.

So, you're preaching something without a whit of evidence?

Please admit, then, that you have nothing to support the utterly mistaken OP, and that in fact your words constitute dissembling.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So, you're preaching something without a whit of evidence?

Not at all, I admit I do not know the correct answer. That is why your attempt to change the burden of proof is laughable in addition to being a tired and boring tactic. Try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating others absence of thought retorts. This will make for a much richer life.

 

[six7s]

Not at all, I admit I do not know the correct answer. That is why your attempt to change the burden of proof is laughable in addition to being a tired and boring tactic.

Try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating others absence of thought
retorts. This will make for a much richer life.

Fixed that for you