Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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.

Yet I am not the one making the claim in an arrogant and disjointed manner. How exactly is the burden of proof on me?

 

[joobz]

Yet I am not the one making the claim in an arrogant and disjointed manner. How exactly is the burden of proof on me?

I am sorry Jerome, but it is not Randfan's posts which read disjointedly.
The burden of proof lays at the feet of the person making the claim.

Evolution is well supported.

Abiogenesis mechanisms have no proof, and are only theoretical. Yet, the mechanisms can be tested and be confirmed or denied.

ID has no proof, and no way of testing. If ID is true, the question regarding mechanisms remain unanswered.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I am sorry Jerome, but it is not Randfan's posts which read disjointedly.
The burden of proof lays at the feet of the person making the claim.

I was not referring to Randfan's posts being either arrogant or disjointed. I was referring to the demand from jj which was nothing more than a feeble attempt to establish a false premise, namely that I am making an assertion as to the origins of life.

Evolution is well supported.

Unfortunately for you this thread is not about evolution, and the fact that bring it up goes to the point of the OP.

Abiogenesis mechanisms have no proof, and are only theoretical. Yet, the mechanisms can be tested and be confirmed or denied.

ID has no proof, and no way of testing. If ID is true, the question regarding mechanisms remain unanswered.

Are you contending that if man has yet to devise a test for certain potential explanations for phenomenon that said explanation can not be possible?

 

[arthwollipot]

 

[joobz]

I was not referring to Randfan's posts being either arrogant or disjointed. I was referring to the demand from jj which was nothing more than a feeble attempt to establish a false premise, namely that I am making an assertion as to the origins of life.

This was not clear from your post.

Unfortunately for you this thread is not about evolution, and the fact that bring it up goes to the point of the OP.

This statement is so bizarre and out of wack with reality that I find it difficult to believe that you actually read the posts you respond to.

from the OP

I would estimate that no more than 10 percent of all atheists know that modern science believes that all the millions of "plant and animal" species that have ever existed came from the "same" organism (and that first organism that we all came from was a one celled bacteria).

Diversity of life of developing from other life forms through a process of random mutation and natural seection is EXACTLY what this thread is about. This thread is EXACTLY about evolution.

Are you contending that if man has yet to devise a test for certain potential explanations for phenomenon that said explanation can not be possible?

I'm saying that there is no way to test that phenomenon as it does not describe a mechanism. The most that can be hoped for is the discovery of a lack of a mechanism. That was the hypothesis of irreducible complexity. As it stands, each example of irreducible complexity has reducible components, which highlighted the evolutionary mechanism.

 

[jj]

I was not referring to Randfan's posts being either arrogant or disjointed. I was referring to the demand from jj which was nothing more than a feeble attempt to establish a false premise, namely that I am making an assertion as to the origins of life.

Jerome, it is rude, offensive, and insulting to claim that others have claimed things that they have not claimed. You have repeatedly demanded evidence from me for things i have not asserted, and since it appears that you've been sufficientily outed in that behavior, now you're telling people that I am asking for things that I am not actually asking for.

Your words are false and misrepresent the facts.

 

[jj]

Not at all, I admit I do not know the correct answer.

In that case, why not examine the evidence rather than creating straw men to argue against evolution.

Your behavior demonstrably denies the theory that is best supported by evidence. As such, you have completely taken a position, and are actively advocating it, despite your claim above.

In short, you are shilling for a particular answer, regardless of how much you do or do not think it is the correct answer.

If you want to know the most likely answer, then go study the evidence rather than deny it and respond with straw man after straw man.

One can cure ignorance. One can not cure deliberate ignorance.

 

[skeptical]

Are you contending that if man has yet to devise a test for certain potential explanations for phenomenon that said explanation can not be possible?

Whether an explanation is possible or not is hardly the question. The question is what sorts of explanations we can test and which ones we cannot. Mechanistic explanations are testable, at least in theory. Teleological explanations are not testable, even in theory. ID is a completely teleological explanation, it does not attempt to explain mechanics, as its proponents are quick to point out. This means whether it is true or not is quite besides the point. As Judge Jones pointed out in his Dover decision, ID may be true, but it is not science.

Now, back to your abiogenesis query, let's unpack the only question that matters. We know that organic molecules like amino acids and nucleic acids can form spontaneously, and we know that simple life forms are found in the early history of life (but no complex ones). What we have is a gap between the simple organic molecules and the simplest known life forms. This gap can be filled in a couple of ways:

1) The "designer" intervened directly, i.e. God or aliens if you prefer
2) Some sort of vitalist substance, as yet undiscovered, bridged the gap
3) Naturally occurring, self organizing processes of chemistry and physics

We do not _know_ for certain which of these explanations is true. What we do know is that for every phenomenon we have discovered to this point, a natural, mechanistic explanation has been found. Given the weight of the evidence in favor of natural, mechanistic explanations, it would seem that the third explanation is more likely than the others to be correct based on current knowledge.

So the question is not if we know the answer, the question is which is more likely. So, which one do you think is more likely and why? (if you have a different candidate explanation, I'd like to hear that as well)

Note I am not asking if you _know_ the answer, I am asking which of the available possible answers you think is most likely to be correct and why.

 

[The Man]

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

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.

It seems, for some, time may indeed appear to be circular.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, it is rude, offensive, and insulting to claim that others have claimed things that they have not claimed. You have repeatedly demanded evidence from me for things i have not asserted, and since it appears that you've been sufficientily outed in that behavior, now you're telling people that I am asking for things that I am not actually asking for.

You are traveling the same path from which I attempted to dissuade you. Why when you are called out and the explanation of your error is apparent do you persist?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This was not clear from your post.

I assumed it was clear to those following the conversation. I understand how others not following the conversation could find it a confusion, for this I apologize.

This statement is so bizarre and out of wack with reality that I find it difficult to believe that you actually read the posts you respond to.

The origination of life is the idea found in the OP, nothing about evolution. I am truly amazed that this is not understood. Apparently the premise behind the OP is correct based upon your statement here despite your being corrected.

I'm saying that there is no way to test that phenomenon as it does not describe a mechanism. The most that can be hoped for is the discovery of a lack of a mechanism. That was the hypothesis of irreducible complexity. As it stands, each example of irreducible complexity has reducible components, which highlighted the evolutionary mechanism.

Loits of words sans a coherent thought. Please try again.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In that case, why not examine the evidence rather than creating straw men to argue against evolution.

Evolution is not on topic.

Please read the OP.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Whether an explanation is possible or not is hardly the question.

I will ask you, as you have always presented yourself as reasonable.


If man has not devised a test for a potential explanation of a phenomenon does this make the potential explanation invalid?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So the question is not if we know the answer, the question is which is more likely. So, which one do you think is more likely and why? (if you have a different candidate explanation, I'd like to hear that as well)

Note I am not asking if you _know_ the answer, I am asking which of the available possible answers you think is most likely to be correct and why.

I understand all of what you have written, and I can also understand why people have faith in that direction. The problem I am having is that the evidences presented are nothing more than; when one examines it, speculation when attempting a conclusion.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It seems, for some, time may indeed appear to be circular.

Your quotes are not contextual. You are either an inferior reader or you are dishonest.

 

[joobz]

I assumed it was clear to those following the conversation. I understand how others not following the conversation could find it a confusion, for this I apologize.

Thank you for your apology.

The origination of life is the idea found in the OP, nothing about evolution. I am truly amazed that this is not understood. Apparently the premise behind the OP is correct based upon your statement here despite your being corrected.

Jerome. No.

DOC clearly started this thread stating the "amazing" thought that all the diversity of life came from LUCA.

Loits of words sans a coherent thought. Please try again.

Considering your inability to know the subject of the OP, your critique on coherence is not credible.

However, I will try to reexplain myself in simple terms.

Science is concerned about how things happen.
ID only says there is a who who made it happen.
These are completely different issues.

I'll leave you to read Skeptical's very nice explanation of this point.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Considering your inability to know the subject of the OP, your critique on coherence is not credible.

Nope, the OP was definitely about the origin of life and not evolution.

Here it is for your perusal:

Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins
The origin of life is a crucial part (if not the most important question) of the Theist/Atheist debate. 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)

I would estimate that no more than 10 percent of all atheists know that modern science believes that all the millions of "plant and animal" species that have ever existed came from the "same" organism (and that first organism that we all came from was a one celled bacteria).

 

[Fitter]

Evolution is not on topic.

Please read the OP.

Jerome here is the OP. Do you see that word "descended"? Doesn't it bear a very close resemblance to the word "Descent" in Darwin's Descent of Man? Surprisingly both DOC and Darwin are referring to life forms descending from other life forms. Do you really think anyone reading this thread is stupid enough to buy your claim that evolution is not on topic?

 

[joobz]

Nope, the OP was definitely about the origin of life and not evolution.

Here it is for your perusal:

Yes, and did you read past the title? Actually did you READ the title?
The title says:

Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

It doesn't say the origins of life. It says, quite clearly, OUR origins. That being the origins of man.

We learn a bit more about the OP's intent for this thread when we read further on.

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)

Now, Here's a Pop quiz, What scientific theory describes the concept that all species of life are descended from the same common ancestor?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome ... Do you really think anyone reading this thread is stupid enough to buy your claim that evolution is not on topic?

Your writing presents that you are stupid enough to not understand that you are making the point presented in the OP.