Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[wollery]

Nope, and I have stated that I do not know. Your list seemed a good starting point. I am consistently amazed; not necessarily by you, by the confidence presented and the vitriol spewed when one does not agree to the assertions based upon speculation concerning the origin of life on Earth.

I agree that there is no need for vitriol, but there is some cause for a reasonable level of confidence. The only alternatives to abiogenesis involve the invocation of magic or infinite regression. Magic is seriously lacking in evidence, and infinite regression is just silly.

No. I am no discounting that it may be correct, but there are many things that may be correct based upon the data we have. The human tends to come to conclusions.

Yes, based on evidence, and the evidence we have so far all points to the Big Bang as the origin of the Universe.

Should we never attempt to draw conclusions from the evidence?

If not, then what is the point of gathering evidence?

Why bother asking questions if we never attempt to answer them?

The Big Bang is, far and away, the best explanation for the evidence at hand, and over the past century, as more and more evidence has been gathered, it has all pointed to the Big Bang.

If all you have to offer is, "well it might be wrong", then I'm afraid that you're adding nothing to the debate. Yes, it might be wrong, but saying that without offering an alternative is unproductive, and repeating it over and over is (no vitriol intended) just silly.

 

[qayak]

You want to know what was "before" the Big Bang, right?

Science just keeps pecking away at these problems.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

 

[Upchurch]

I am saying that Wiki is not science.

Okay:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0105/02bigbang/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Or we can spend years going over the fundamentals of cosmology if you really want to dig into the details. The point is, that it's there for you to learn if you really want to.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I am providing you with evidence that life came from non-life.

Where is your Nobel Prize?

 

[qayak]

After being corrected on the misspelling of my name and your acknowledgment based upon your quoting of said correction you are evidencing that you have no respect for those in disagreement with you or the rules of the forum.

Is that what I was evidencing? Sorry, my mistake! I was trying to show that I have no respect for dishonesty.

 

[qayak]

Where is your Nobel Prize?

I don't accept silly awards, but thanks.

ETA: Besides, the award goes to the person who does the work, not the guy who pastes a link to the article.

 

[six7s]

Why are you declining to answer the question?

I see no reason to provide answers to one so ignorant

Are you concerned that some of your writings may be in contridiction with which ever answer you give?

No

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

I take it that you don't notice the irony in your continuing evasion of my request (for evidence to support your claim) combined with your persistent demand for an answer to a question that is a non-sequitur (to what has been implied, as opposed to what you have inferred)

I have a hunch that you don't notice because you are overwhelmingly ignorant. If you prove me wrong on this count and provide evidence for your claim, I'll answer your question

Fairy nuff?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have a hunch that you don't notice because you are overwhelmingly ignorant. If you prove me wrong on this count and provide evidence for your claim, I'll answer your question

Fairy nuff?

My claim is that you refuse to state a position based upon scientifically derived evidence as to whether life on Earth initiated from life or non-life.


You have proven my assertion correct with the above quoted post.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't accept silly awards, but thanks.

ETA: Besides, the award goes to the person who does the work, not the guy who pastes a link to the article.

Do you have the name of the scientist who won the Nobel Prize when he scientifically evidenced life coming from non-life as you assert has occurred?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Is that what I was evidencing? Sorry, my mistake! I was trying to show that I have no respect for dishonesty.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Dishonest: characterized by lack of truth

Disagree: to differ in opinion



I suggest that you use the above link as a resource when choosing the words you use. The skills in human interaction you are presenting here will fail you in the real word.

 

[six7s]

My claim is that you refuse to state a position based upon scientifically derived evidence as to whether life on Earth initiated from life or non-life.


You have proven my assertion correct with the above quoted post.

Indeed... for the time being, your assertion has no evidence to the contrary

However, it does seem a rather inane assertion to make, considering that I have plainly stated that I will answer your question when:

1. you prove that you're not too stupid to understand an answer
   and
2. you provide evidence for your claim

Until then, I will refrain from feeding your troll habit

 

[qayak]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Dishonest: characterized by lack of truth

Disagree: to differ in opinion



I suggest that you use the above link as a resource when choosing the words you use. The skills in human interaction you are presenting here will fail you in the real word.

Why do you always try to put words in my mouth. Do you see the differences in the two definitions you provided? Well, I do too and your actions are not disagree they are dishonest.

 

[qayak]

Do you have the name of the scientist who won the Nobel Prize when he scientifically evidenced life coming from non-life as you assert has occurred?

Are you saying that a Nobel Prize is evidence? Wouldn't this mean that all the work of all the scientists in a particular field, in any given year, with the exception of the one that won the Nobel Prize, is in doubt?

Are you freaking serious?

 

[DOC]

Given that several people have stated that they were aware, from public media and school, that they knew that evolution says that we all evolved from primordial single-celled organisms, and that that information is taught in schools and readily available in popular science books, I can only think that the reason you "have to believe" is that if you were to accept that people can happily assimilate this fact without it undermining their atheism it would seriously damage your world-view.

Well then why did one regular non-theist in here say that the idea that all life came from one single cell is laughingly absurd. And this is a person who has done scientific research in the past. This person has since come to accept that this is a part of science, but the fact that early in the thread he believed it was laughingly absurd (and has done scientific work) tells me that less educated atheists will likely also find it very hard to believe. And this fact has to have somewhat of an effect on their overall philosophical beliefs.

 

[Hokulele]

Well then why did one regular non-theist in here say that the idea that all life came from one single cell is laughingly absurd. And this is a person who has done scientific research in the past. This person has since come to accept that this is a part of science, but the fact that early in the thread he believed it was laughingly absurd (and has done scientific work) tells me that less educated atheists will likely also find it very hard to believe. And this fact has to have somewhat of an effect on their overall philosophical beliefs.

Did you stop reading at the phrase "laughingly absurd"? Can you describe what exactly that means in context? If not, it would suggest that you still have poor research skills.

 

[bruto]

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






Please present scientific evidence that life derives from non-life.

You are sure to win the Nobel!



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

Why should someone present evidence to counteract your assertion of what "science does teach." It's your assertion that requires evidence.

 

[DOC]

Did you stop reading at the phrase "laughingly absurd"? Can you describe what exactly that means in context? If not, it would suggest that you still have poor research skills.

My research skills were good enough to find this published article, where a Phd. says all life came from one cell, and gives the reasons why this is so according to science.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html

Nobody else in the last 5 months brought in a article like this. If you really cared about science you should thank me for bringing this info to your attention, instead of being antagonistic.

 

[Hokulele]

My research skills were good enough to find this published article, where a Phd. says all life came from one cell, and gives the reasons why this is so according to science.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html

Nobody else in the last 5 months brought in a article like this. If you really cared about science you should thank me for bringing this info to your attention, instead of being antagonistic.

Yep, definitely poor research. From your article (bolding mine):

The jury is still out as to how to reconstruct LUCA, and whether horizontal gene transfer will turn this task into a futile one. However, if not all genes are equal in the game of horizontal gene transfer, biologists stand an outside chance. Either way, there are plenty of exciting challenges, and many unknowns for those trying to build the tree of life and reconstruct our origins. For instance, just this year a member of a new group of microscopic archaea has been identified from a deep-sea trench.15 To give you some sense of perspective as to the significance of this discovery, it is roughly equivalent to discovering the first plant! Whether there was one or many LUCAs, these are definitely exciting times.

Even he is not completely convinced there was only one LUCA. Did you bother to read the article, or did you just google LUCA?

Pop quiz time, what does horizontal gene transfer mean?

 

[joobz]

Well according to this PHD and Articulett earlier I was right . They say all life (according to science) did come from one cell.


What is the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)?
Anthony M. Poole
An ActionBioscience.org original article


"So how do we know that all life has evolved from a single cell? The answer is written in the language of the genetic code (image A).
The genetic code spells out DNA.

* The genetic code is the language in which most genes are written into DNA.
* Such genes are recipes for making proteins.
* Proteins are what make the cell tick, doing everything from making DNA to digesting the food we eat and extracting the nutrients.
* Incredibly, the exact same code is used in humans and bacteria, so a gene from a human being can be put into a bacterium, and the bacterium will make the human protein — this is how insulin is made.

The genetic code is universal for all life.

That the genetic code is universal to all life tells us that everything is related."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html

Perhaps you'll explain to me what your point is in this? Would it be that scientists tend to be pendantic and debate the minutiae of a theory?
Or, do you believe that when scientists disagree on the specifics of a theory that it some how shows a limitation to science?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well then why did one regular non-theist in here say that the idea that all life came from one single cell is laughingly absurd. And this is a person who has done scientific research in the past. This person has since come to accept that this is a part of science, but the fact that early in the thread he believed it was laughingly absurd (and has done scientific work)

Who are you referring to? Link please.

...tells me that less educated atheists will likely also find it very hard to believe. And this fact has to have somewhat of an effect on their overall philosophical beliefs.

And yet every one of us who has commented on this thread have stated that we already knew about the LCA/LUCA aspect of evolution and most of us had known it for 20 or more years. It's laughable for you to suggest that any of the atheists posting in this thread are "less-educated" because off of us, either forumally in the classroom or informally via our own study of the issue knew about UCA all along.