Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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

Just WOW!!!



Is it so difficult to understand that the OP was about athiests not understanding the science concerning the origin of life that you are claiming that the premise that atheists lack an understanding of the science concerning the origin of life is evolution?


This is utterly amazing!

 

[Fitter]

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

And your's presents that you can't wrap your brain around a concept being presented without specific words. If a newspaper article reports on an election without using the word vote do you assume that no one did?

 

[joobz]

Just WOW!!!


Is it so difficult to understand that the OP was about athiests not understanding the science concerning the origin of life that you are claiming that the premise that atheists lack an understanding of the science concerning the origin of life is evolution?


This is utterly amazing!

You have two faulty premise in your statement.

1.) That I'm an athiest
2.) that you are right.

If you wish to pretend I'm wrong, feel free. I do not want to waste any more electrons on something so absurd. I can only listen to someone trying to convince me the sky isn't blue, but is pink poka dots on a purple background for so long.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You have two faulty premise in your statement.

1.) That I'm an athiest
2.) that you are right.

You believe a deity of some sort initiated life on Earth?

 

[joobz]

You believe a deity of some sort initiated life on Earth?

I'm not opposed to the idea, I just haven't seen physical evidence suggesting it. I'm some line in diest/agnostic.

 

[six7s]

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.

I, for one, am rather confused

Are you implying that "the point presented in the OP" was that 90% of atheists confuse abiogenesis with evolution?

If not, please state plainly and simply

• how you interpret "the point presented in the OP"

Either way, please state plainly and simply

• what relevance this has to the discussion at this point

Thank you

 

[Prometheus]

I'm not opposed to the idea, I just haven't seen physical evidence suggesting it. I'm some line in diest/agnostic.

Huh?

 

[joobz]

Huh?

I hover between diesm, agnostisim and weak athiesm. It all depends on my mode. I know the position is defendable, but it's where I'm at.

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

I hover between diesm, agnostisim and weak athiesm. It all depends on my mode. I know the position is defendable, but it's where I'm at.

So, you actually believe in dieting? I always thought it was better to simply make healthier food choices and add some physical exercise.

But I'm no heretic.

 

[The Man]

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

Actually they are your quotes not mine, except of course for the middle quote from JJ that was specifically included to give your second quote appropriate context. If you are saying that my use of those quotes is not contextual, then you should note the quote from JJ providing the context of your second quote, the fact that all quotes are linked to their original posts, providing the original context, and finally my statement which provided the context I was using the quotes in (which is in fact dependent on the original context of those quotes). The fact that you may not agree with the context in which I was using the quotes does not make that use non-contextual.

As exemplified by some of your more recent posts, you seem to think that context is only what you choose it to be.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

As exemplified by some of your more recent posts, you seem to think that context is only what you choose it to be.

That is how it works. The writer is choosing the context of his statements.

 

[jj]

That is how it works. The writer is choosing the context of his statements.

In fact, you choose to move peoples' comments into contexts removed from the original.

Removing others' comments from context and manipulating quotes from others is a disrespectful, unethical behavior, and one that usually shows that the one doing such things has no interest in actual dialog.

You still have no evidence for anything but natural abiogenesis, as far as I can tell. If you wish to make an extraordinary claim, it is past time for you to produce solid, testable evidence.

Until then, you concede the entire science and debate to the natural-abiogenesis side.

So, got evidence? The cards are dealt, and you're called at the final round of betting. Show your hand or lose.

 

[skeptical]

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

I try, but am not above my own moments of unreasonableness.

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

Depends on what you mean by "invalid". If you mean "no true", then explanations can certainly be true even if they cannot be tested. If you mean "not scientific", then again it depends on whether the explanation is _possible_ of being tested. There are explanations that are not currently testable, but could in theory be tested if we could solve some basic problems (enough money, better equipment, more energy, etc). On the other hand, there are explanations that are not even in principle testable.

Teleological explanations are not testable using mechanistic methods. Since science relies entirely on mechanics to test theories, it cannot, in principle, test teleological explanations. ID is a teleological explanation as far as I can tell since it deals exclusively with a "who" behind the mechanics and by admission of its own adherents is not at all interested in mechanics. Therefore, I cannot see, and no one has ever proposed, any way for it to be tested even in theory.

As far as I can tell after having studied this matter with some diligence, this is true for all teleological explanations. If you can point to any argument that explains how teleological explanations can be tested using mechanistic methods I will be more than willing to look at it.

 

[The Man]

That is how it works. The writer is choosing the context of his statements.

So why not follow the context of the OP instead of focusing on the first four words of the OP and ignoring its contextual application to the rest of that post, which is clearly discussing all life descending or evolving from a common ancestor. But why take my interpretation of that context (or your's for that matter) when the author provides his own clear context by the issue he is focusing on in the subsequent posts.

Yes it does. This scientist calls it the "Ancestral Organism".

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

So your saying that this scientist is wrong and all life (plants and animals) did not come from the same organism.

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

And I'm saying he was referring to one organism. You'll notice he didn't say (plural) organism's'.

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

Experience -- actually I believe it is much lower than 10%. I was being conservative.

I'm not saying this in a condescending way -- its just that I believe it. What percentage of atheists do you estimate (from your experience) know that all of the millions of plant and animal species descended from the same single organism.

The link he repeatedly cites does not describe the origins of life but graphically illustrates the evolution of different classifications of life from a single "Ancestral Organism", which is also the direction of the discussion that he maintains.

 

[skeptical]

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.

We have more than just speculation though. We have an incomplete trail of evidence, and a large number of examples where the scientific methods have discovered mechanistic explanations in similar areas of research. At worst, we have a reasonable expectation that we will fill in missing evidence based on ongoing research based on past success.

But again, that is my view. I am much more interested in your view. Of the available explanations, which do _you_ think is the best explanation to fill the gap between molecules and simple life, and what is your reasoning. I would like to know what explanation _you_ favor and why and not just keep repeating my own view.

 

[joobz]

So, you actually believe in dieting?

Well, communion IS high in carbs. I'd prefer a more adkins friendly sacrament.

 

[six7s]

Well, communion IS high in carbs

For a more balanced diet, I can recommend adding a pinch of salt

 

[joobz]

For a more balanced diet, I can recommend adding a pinch of salt

By most recommendations I've heard, you only need a grain of it.

 

[DOC]

So, just for the sake of argument, suppose we are talking about that{all life coming from one individual one celled organism}. What then?

If some atheists knew that science says all the millions of plant and animal species along with their family and friends all came from the same single cell they might not be so confident in their beliefs. Right now a lot of atheists think "OK we're descendant from the apes" and they stop there because that can be somewhat believable. But they don't go back any further in time. If they did go all the way back it would be more difficult to believe and their faith in atheism might not be as strong.

 

[Hokulele]

If some atheists knew that science says all the millions of plant and animal species along with their family and friends all came from the same single cell they might not be so confident in their beliefs. Right now a lot of atheists think "OK we're descendant from the apes" and they stop there because that can be somewhat believable. But they don't go back any further in time. If they did go all the way back it would be more difficult to believe and their faith in atheism might not be as strong.

Do you have any evidence for this, or is it all just wishful thinking on your part?