Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[qayak]

Did too.

Are you handicapped or did you not read the opening paragraph that I linked to?

I did not state that abiogenesis was a theory. I stated that science has a theory of how life started and I linked you to an article on it. That the article is entitled "Abiogenesis" means nothing.

Your ignorance can only be corrected if you are honest in your arguments and actually read the links you demand from others.

And while we are on the subject. If the theory in the article is wrong, what do you suggest in its place and where is your evidence?

 

[qayak]

Yes, and you presented agreement.

Jerome, have you been drinking? I made one response to your post on the Big Bang Theory and the others on the subject of abiogenesis. Why do you think one post on one subject supports another post on another subject?

 

[qayak]

Are you contending that there is no potential scientific explanation for cosmic microwave background radiation other than the Big Bang?

Well, no other theory predicted it. The prediction was made long before background radiation was discovered by the Big Bang Theory. That is a very important little piece of evidence right there.

So, you can make up another theory of what caused the background radiation, then you can make predictions using the theory and then you can go looking for evidence that those predictions are true.

Dreaming up an explanation for one isolated piece of evidence is easy, having all the other evidence fit into the idea is much, much harder. Good luck.

 

[qayak]

What we learn from this science is that ALL life of Earth was derived from a single source. The source of said initiation is up for debate.

No, it's not.

 

[wollery]

Big bang evidence;

Cosmic Microwave Background, predicted by Big Bang Cosmology (also, the inhomogeneities in the CMB also agree with BB Cosmology).
Expansion of the Universe, as evidenced by galactic recession velocity increasing with redshift/distance, as predicted by Big Bang Cosmology.
Current ratios of elements, as predicted by Big Bang Cosmology and stellar Nucleosynthesis models.
Evolution of galaxies with distance, i.e. bluer galaxies (more star formation, younger stars) at higher redshift/distance, as predicted by Big Bang Cosmology.

Jerome, if you can explain all of the above in another simple, monolithic framework then please do.

 

[six7s]

Jerome wrote:
Science does teach us that life has never come from non-life

Really?

From which cherry farm did you harvest that evidence?

Please present scientific evidence that life derives from non-life

Please note:

1. I am not making a claim
2. You are making a claim, that "Science does teach us that life has never come from non-life".
   
   Please, do cite evidence in support of this 'absolute' claim for 'never'

Do you realize you are making the point presented in the OP?

Erm... no... I don't realise that... simply because I know that no individual can make 'the point presented in the OP'

Get those absolutes sorted and then get back to me with evidence for your claim

Cheers!

 

[Upchurch]

Are you contending that there is no potential scientific explanation for cosmic microwave background radiation other than the Big Bang?

Wow, you're really stretching. You said you wanted evidence.

Cosmic microwave background radiation fits the predictions of the Big Bang theory perfectly. Of course, there is other evidence as well. All of which points to the same thing.

Do you have something else that fits all this data just as well or better?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Are you handicapped or did you not read the opening paragraph that I linked to?

Nope, are you unaware of what you wrote?

I did not state that abiogenesis was a theory. I stated that science has a theory of how life started and I linked you to an article on it. That the article is entitled "Biogenesis" means nothing.

You stated it was a scientific theory.

Science indeed has a theory of how life sprung from non-life.

Maybe you are confused as the proper usage of the words in the English language to express your thoughts?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, have you been drinking? I made one response to your post on the Big Bang Theory and the others on the subject of abiogenesis. Why do you think one post on one subject supports another post on another subject?

I have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time in addition to holding multiple conversation within the same thread.. When I quote someone that means that I am responding to that quote. I am not understanding how you are confused.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, it's not.

Now you are contending that life on Earth has been derived from multiple sources.

Please present evidence.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Big bang evidence;

Cosmic Microwave Background, predicted by Big Bang Cosmology (also, the inhomogeneities in the CMB also agree with BB Cosmology).
Expansion of the Universe, as evidenced by galactic recession velocity increasing with redshift/distance, as predicted by Big Bang Cosmology.
Current ratios of elements, as predicted by Big Bang Cosmology and stellar Nucleosynthesis models.
Evolution of galaxies with distance, i.e. bluer galaxies (more star formation, younger stars) at higher redshift/distance, as predicted by Big Bang Cosmology.

Jerome, if you can explain all of the above in another simple, monolithic framework then please do.

Please explain what was before nothing.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Get those absolutes sorted and then get back to me with evidence for your claim

Cheers!

So, which is it? Life from non-life or life from life.

TAKE A STAND MAN! STOP HIDING YOUR BELIEFS!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Cosmic microwave background radiation fits the predictions of the Big Bang theory perfectly. Of course, there is other evidence as well. All of which points to the same thing.

Do you have science to present or just an anonymously written article from Wiki?

 

[wollery]

Please explain what was before nothing.

No idea, our knowledge of physics breaks down at singularities, but there are a number of possibilities;

Some sort of quantum fluctuation, similar to vacuum energy set off the Big Bang.

We are just one in a series of Big Bang - Big Crunch Universes.

Our Universe budded off from another Universe.

God did it.

Take your pick, or dream up another, but unless you have an alternative explanation for all the observed evidence for the Big bang, all you are doing is picking nits and obfuscating.

 

[six7s]

So, which is it? Life from non-life or life from life.

TAKE A STAND MAN! STOP HIDING YOUR BELIEFS!

Oooh! Wow! Shouting! You must be right!

Anyhoo... are you any closer to comprehending what your use of absolutes implies?

Hope so... cos I sure am looking forward to the evidence to support your claim

N.B. In the context of this forum, I do not have beliefs, so suggesting that I can hide from them is about as nonsensical as accepting the big sky-daddy and his talking snake

 

[qayak]

Now you are contending that life on Earth has been derived from multiple sources.

Please present evidence.

Okay, Gerome, let me lay this out so even you can understand it.

First, you posted this: "What we learn from this science is that ALL life of Earth was derived from a single source. The source of said initiation is up for debate"

And I posted this: "No, it isn't."

I am not contending that life has derived from multiple sources. I am stating that the source of initiation is not up for debate. It is not up for debate because you have not offered any alternatives to the currently accepted models of how life started in the article I linked to.

You will notice that all the models there claim the same source for life but argue over the exact mechanism.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No idea, our knowledge of physics breaks down at singularities, but there are a number of possibilities;

Some sort of quantum fluctuation, similar to vacuum energy set off the Big Bang.

We are just one in a series of Big Bang - Big Crunch Universes.

Our Universe budded off from another Universe.

God did it.

Take your pick, or dream up another, but unless you have an alternative explanation for all the observed evidence for the Big bang, all you are doing is picking nits and obfuscating.

I think you have hit the correct answer.

The point was presented that because we know that the Big Bang happened therefore life must have come from non-life despite science having no evidence of such an occurrence. Speculation built upon speculation is not science.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Oooh! Wow! Shouting! You must be right!

Anyhoo... are you any closer to comprehending what your use of absolutes implies?

Hope so... cos I sure am looking forward to the evidence to support your claim

N.B. In the context of this forum, I do not have beliefs, so suggesting that I can hide from them is about as nonsensical as accepting the big sky-daddy and his talking snake

Why are you declining to answer the question? Are you concerned that some of your writings may be in contridiction with which ever answer you give?

So, which is it? Life from non-life or life from life.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I am not contending that life has derived from multiple sources. I am stating that the source of initiation is not up for debate. It is not up for debate because you have not offered any alternatives to the currently accepted models of how life started in the article I linked to.

Please present scientific evidence for the origin of life on Earth. As you have stated the source is not up for debate, so please educate the world and present the source.

 

[qayak]

I have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time in addition to holding multiple conversation within the same thread.. When I quote someone that means that I am responding to that quote. I am not understanding how you are confused.

I think you overstate your abilities. You stated that I made a post in support of my post on the Big Bang Theory. In fact, this is either a mistake or a deliberate falesehood on your part.

The post you said supports my post on the Big Bang Theory was actually about abiogenesis and in no way supports my post on the Big Bang.

Now, I suspect that this was not a mistake on your part because you quoted both posts in the same post of your own (Post #999 if you are honest.)

The reason you don't understand myu confusion is because I am not confused, you are. Please try to understand your error instead.