• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

Status
Not open for further replies.
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The true believers are having a hard time correlating their thoughts on the topic of the origin of life it seems. The premise set forth in the OP is consistently being validated in this thread.
Click to expand...
Since the premise in the OP is that most atheists don't know what evolution says about the origin of life, i.e. that it all comes from one or several single celled organisms, and pretty much every atheist who has posted in this thread has confirmed that they do know this and accept it without any hesitation or problem, I fail to see how that premise has been validated in any way, shape or form.

Perhaps you could elucidate us.
 
Last edited:
wollery said:
Since the premise in the OP is that most atheists don't know what evolution says about the origin of life
Click to expand...

I understand why you want to change to premise of the OP as you think this will give you better standing. Unfortunately for your attempted reassignment the title of the thread is Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I understand why you want to change to premise of the OP as you think this will give you better standing. Unfortunately for your attempted reassignment the title of the thread is Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins.
Click to expand...
Jerome, wollery is correct in stating what this thread is about.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I understand why you want to change to premise of the OP as you think this will give you better standing. Unfortunately for your attempted reassignment the title of the thread is Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins.
Click to expand...
No, that's the thread title.

Here's the OP, which quite clearly states that DOC is referring to evolution from single celled organisms. Nowhere is any other origin mentioned.
DOC said:
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).
Click to expand...

Care to try again?
 
wollery said:
No, that's the thread title.

Here's the OP, which quite clearly states that DOC is referring to evolution from single celled organisms. Nowhere is any other origin mentioned.


Care to try again?
Click to expand...

None of which is concerning evolution directly. What he presented was exactly the title of the OP. You attempted to make this an evolution question when it is not.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
None of which is concerning evolution directly. What he presented was exactly the title of the OP. You attempted to make this an evolution question when it is not.
Click to expand...
Wow! Just WOW!!!!!

I've highlighted relevant phrases.
DOC said:
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).
Click to expand...
What part of this isn't about evolution?

What else is it about?
 
Do you honestly believe that anyone reading that OP and then reading your statement (above) will have any respect for your debating tactics?

Try to change the premise of the OP all you want, but it's a blatantly transparent attempt to move the goalposts, and stunningly dishonest. Unless you actually believe what you're saying, in which case you're either incapable of comprehending simple English, or you're not all there.
 
Wow. That's actually the first time I've seen a creationist actually make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis and use that distinction to make a point. Usually it's the other way around. Creationists say things like "evolution is impossible without abiogenesis, so it's all part of the same thing".

The OP specifically refers to life evolving from a hypothetical ancestor. It says nothing about how that hypothetical ancestor appeared.
 
arthwollipot said:
Wow. That's actually the first time I've seen a creationist actually make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis and use that distinction to make a point. Usually it's the other way around. Creationists say things like "evolution is impossible without abiogenesis, so it's all part of the same thing".

The OP specifically refers to life evolving from a hypothetical ancestor. It says nothing about how that hypothetical ancestor appeared.
Click to expand...

You garnered the point of this line!!! BTW, I am not a creationist.
 
wollery said:
Do you honestly believe that anyone reading that OP and then reading your statement (above) will have any respect for your debating tactics?

Try to change the premise of the OP all you want, but it's a blatantly transparent attempt to move the goalposts, and stunningly dishonest. Unless you actually believe what you're saying, in which case you're either incapable of comprehending simple English, or you're not all there.
Click to expand...

You can use all the catch phrases you want, it will not change the fact that you are attempting to redefine Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins as something else.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You can use all the catch phrases you want, it will not change the fact that you are attempting to redefine Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins as something else.
Click to expand...
Jerome, I seriously don't understand your point.
1.) Perhaps you are correct that the title could be interpreted as meaning abiogenesis, but it is clear from all of DOC's posts that he is refering to LUCA. I suggest reading his posts to see this.

2.) If this thread was about abiogenesis, I'm not certain what your point is. There is no proven scientific consensus regarding abiogenesis. There are various hypotheses, but that's it. So, if you were right, the thread would make even less sense.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You can use all the catch phrases you want, it will not change the fact that you are attempting to redefine Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins as something else.
Click to expand...
That's the thread title, not the OP. You said, "The OP". Besides, it says "our origins", not the origins of life. Our origins. That would be us, human beings, people, men and women, homo sapiens.

You can continue with this line of argument all you want, but it's pretty clear to me, and probably anyone who reads this exchange that you have a problem either with honesty, reading comprehension, or admitting to your own errors.
 
wollery said:
That's the thread title, not the OP. You said, "The OP". Besides, it says "our origins", not the origins of life. Our origins. That would be us, human beings, people, men and women, homo sapiens.

You can continue with this line of argument all you want, but it's pretty clear to me, and probably anyone who reads this exchange that you have a problem either with honesty, reading comprehension, or admitting to your own errors.
Click to expand...

We are not going to agree here. I am looking at the title and reading the OP in that context. You are searching for snippets from the OP to justify your position.

We should move on.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am arguing against the confidence and vitriol that is expelled based on the less than confident interpretations of data.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that you're arguing about abiogenesis, or evolution, or the big bang, or something. Otherwise you would just be arguing about arguing, for the sake of arguing. You wouldn't waste peoples' time like that would you?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
We are not going to agree here. I am looking at the title and reading the OP in that context. You are searching for snippets from the OP to justify your position.

We should move on.
Click to expand...

Snippets? Like, the first word, and the last word, and all the words in between? Read in order?


In all seriousness, it seems as if your interpretation of the OP differs from everyone else's. It seems to me, and everyone else, that the OP is talking about evolution from a single, one celled organism. How that one cell got there is a different issue.

If DOC agrees with you, I'm sure he will comment to that effect, but I don't think he will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom