Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[The Man]

Nope, most people on this thread have drawn conclusions twisted beyond the logic in the data learned from science so as to be able to fulfill their faith.

In science conclusions are verified by the data, faith or the lack there of is not relevant. Your desire to ascribe faith to those conclusions is not scientific. It is your faith in your own logic and conclusions (if any) in spite of the data that continues to befuddle you.

 

[joobz]

Nope, most people on this thread have drawn conclusions twisted beyond the logic in the data learned from science so as to be able to fulfill their faith.

Not to be foolish, but does the icon symbolize that you made an intentionally trolling statement?

Just wondering.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Not to be foolish, but does the icon symbolize that you made an intentionally trolling statement?

Just wondering.

It is a gnome, like my name. It is labeled as a gnome in the index.


ETA: How could it be considered trolling if I answered honest questions presented by CriticalThanking with honest answers?

 

[joobz]

It is a gnome, like my name. It is labeled as a gnome in the index.

I saw that name, but wasn't cetrain. thanks.

ETA: How could it be considered trolling if I answered honest questions presented by CriticalThanking with honest answers?

Im assuming you meant critical thinking. In any case, I assumed you were intentionally trolling since your comment was in such opposition to reality.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Im assuming you meant critical thinking. In any case, I assumed you were intentionally trolling since your comment was in such opposition to reality.

No, the poster's name is CriticalThanking.

Jarome,

I am really trying to figure out your position. But I can't see where you are putting forth some claim/proposition. I would like to understand 2 points.

1) Is it your position that most atheists do not understand the current state of scientific thought on abiogenisis? If so, do you have any data to support that?

2) Do you believe that Phil Plait thinks the evidence is poor that the big bang happened?

Thanks,

CT

 

[CriticalThanking]

J
1) Is it your position that most atheists do not understand the current state of scientific thought on abiogenisis? If so, do you have any data to support that?

Yes.

This thread.

Heh - I almost asked if you felt this thread was your evidence based upon one of your previous posts. I can't say I agree with your interpretation. The folks who have posted here seem to uniformly state that there was a point in the past where there was no life and there is now - hence abiogenisis has occurred. The details of whether there was a single ancestor cell, multiple cells, or multiple "pre-cells" undergoing genetic swapping is being investigated and debated. I will see if I can count the posts in the thread where anyone (self-identified atheist or not) said "I was unaware we had a common ancestor all the way back to single cell(s)" or similar.

2) Do you believe that Phil Plait thinks the evidence is poor that the big bang happened?

No, but he is blinded by his faith as to the meaning of the scientific data which he presents.

Ok. You believe that Phil is incorrectly interpreting the data. I will ignore your atrributing it to faith (aka Bad Science ) as for the purpose of this discussion, the motive you assign is irrelevant. You are not disputing the evidence, but instead feel conclusion does not follow from the evidence. I assume you realize that you are arguing against a rather well established set of observations leading to fulfilled predictions. Wollery and others have tried to point this out. If you wish to disagree and persuade others, you will have to either discredit the evidence (cite observations that conflict with an inflationary universe, CMB, etc), or provide an alternative explanation that better fits the data. I will re-read the thread (grumble), but all I can recall you having an issue with was what the big bang (or the equations describing it) looked like at or before time=0. Several people tried to point out that was an unsupported position and an argument from incredulity.

As an aside, I vaguely remember a discussion from Brian Green's book The Elegant Universe about string/M-theory that the mathematics describing what happened when the size of the universe was smaller than the Plank length (effectively time<=0) was the same as if the the universe were expanding from that point rather than continuing to shrink. My apologies if I have misremembered or mangled the description. My point is that it is our mathematical description/modeling that is growing and changing, not the "laws of the universe." String/M-theory may turn out to be a dead-end, but it has no bearing on the evidence that the universe underwent the expansion from the big bang.

CT

 

[CriticalThanking]

Im assuming you meant critical thinking.

Oy. I thought my forum name would be a cute southern drawl joke on Critical Thinking. But no one ever sees it. And my abbreviation stands for Conspiracy Theory.

CT

 

[NavyPack]

I have also read his books, as well as a lot of Hawking, and Shrodinger's Cat, etc. Upon learning what science has currently discerned in regards to the quantum world, one has to totally disassociate intuition and reality.

Ultimately, Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle has proven that our notions and understanding of matter/time/energy, at the smallest scales, completely lacking. Time is actually 'grainy', discussing a moment shorter than a Planck second is non-sensical.

Brian Green's book did mention that at the distance scales of the singularity, (curled up dimensions), the math describing expansion & contraction become indistinguishable. I am not advocating that string theory is the answer, only as an example how our universe operates in ways that are currently beyond our 'primate'-ive brains to wrap around 'visceraly'.

We have come so astoundingly far in the last century, we can describe the life of the cosmos back to 10 ^-45th second, with unprecedented accuracy. To make the claim that, because we do not have the Theory of Everything already worked out and have answered every question, we cannot 'know' anything is absurd & intellectually dishonest.

My .02 cents (not worth much w/ the falling dollar)

 

[joobz]

No, the poster's name is CriticalThanking.

My apologies.

However, I was responding to a post you made towards The man.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

My apologies.

However, I was responding to a post you made towards The man.

Now he might be a troll. His responses to me on a variety of subjects have the same tenor. Kinda': Your wrong because everybody else sees the facts that you can't see because your wrong.


Same soup, different bowl.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Heh - I almost asked if you felt this thread was your evidence based upon one of your previous posts. I can't say I agree with your interpretation. The folks who have posted here seem to uniformly state that there was a point in the past where there was no life and there is now - hence abiogenisis has occurred. The details of whether there was a single ancestor cell, multiple cells, or multiple "pre-cells" undergoing genetic swapping is being investigated and debated. I will see if I can count the posts in the thread where anyone (self-identified atheist or not) said "I was unaware we had a common ancestor all the way back to single cell(s)" or similar.

Well, there being a point in the past when life did not exist is not evidenced by science. This is the premise from which scientifically derived data is interpreted. Why the presumption that there was an origin? See, atheists and creationists presume a beginning and argue over the cause. Where is the science which evidences a beginning?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ok. You believe that Phil is incorrectly interpreting the data. I will ignore your atrributing it to faith (aka Bad Science ) as for the purpose of this discussion, the motive you assign is irrelevant. You are not disputing the evidence, but instead feel conclusion does not follow from the evidence. I assume you realize that you are arguing against a rather well established set of observations leading to fulfilled predictions. Wollery and others have tried to point this out. If you wish to disagree and persuade others, you will have to either discredit the evidence (cite observations that conflict with an inflationary universe, CMB, etc), or provide an alternative explanation that better fits the data. I will re-read the thread (grumble), but all I can recall you having an issue with was what the big bang (or the equations describing it) looked like at or before time=0. Several people tried to point out that was an unsupported position and an argument from incredulity.

Well established on the unfounded foundation that there was a beginning. I am sure we need no analogies of houses being built of foundations of sawdust; opps, I guess I just did. Where is the science that evidences a beginning?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What issues have I avoided that deal with the topic of this thread?

Back in post 643 I provided you with this. You never replied to it.

DOC, I don't know how old you are, but in I was in the 6th grade in 1980. The same year Cosmos first aired and I watched this animation on the series.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EYzx6C4irsI

 

[six7s]

Thanks for reposting that link, US, I missed it the first time...

@DOC... if you can be bothered waiting for 7mins and 20 seconds, you'll see an animation that compresses 4 billion years of evolution into 40 seconds... hopefully you can concentrate that long

 

[jj]

Well established on the unfounded foundation that there was a beginning.

Again, you state something without evidence. The evidence shows the "big bang" back to a specific point. If you wish to disingeniously try to argue that the point before that is not the beginning, and then use that to argue for no big bang, you're simply ignoring all the evidence in favor of a deceptive, obviously malicious rhetorical argument.

The evidence back to the "big bag" is fine. It's established, and unless you have extraordinary evidence to counter it, that part we need to accept.

Since we can accept that, then, whatever happened before is the beginning, be whatever it may be.

We don't have to know, or care, what it was, since we have the evidence for what comes after.

If you wish to call it a razziframizibledingdong rather than a "beginning" that has no effect on the part we have evidence for.

You would dismiss the hard, cold evidence in favor of a semantic folly. It is clear, at least to me, that your folly is intentional, as well.

I am sure we need no analogies of houses being built of foundations of sawdust; opps, I guess I just did. Where is the science that evidences a beginning?

The quote directly above is a classical example of assuming something not in evidence.

Show your evidence for both your hypotheses, that there is no "science that evidences a beginning", and for your folly that a lack of same overcomes all the cold, hard evidence for what happened later.

What is your position, in any case? How did we get here? Why?

 

[wollery]

Well, there being a point in the past when life did not exist is not evidenced by science. This is the premise from which scientifically derived data is interpreted. Why the presumption that there was an origin? See, atheists and creationists presume a beginning and argue over the cause. Where is the science which evidences a beginning?

There are only so many times you can have the elephant in the room shown to you only for you to ignore it and repeat your mantra "there's no elephant" before people come to the conclusion that you're either so blinkered that you actually can't see the elephant, or are simply doing it to be annoying.

It's an elephant. It's big and grey and it has tusks and a trunk, it has an E on its pyjamas, and it never forgets.

I posted a simple explanation of the evidence and its logical conclusions, yet you completely failed to address that post. If my logic was lacking, as you suggest, then show where and how. Instead of just saying "But, but, but, there's no evidence and the logic's wrong", critique the presented evidence and logic. Otherwise, stfu.

 

[Mashuna]

Well, there being a point in the past when life did not exist is not evidenced by science. This is the premise from which scientifically derived data is interpreted. Why the presumption that there was an origin? See, atheists and creationists presume a beginning and argue over the cause. Where is the science which evidences a beginning?

Just so I don't misrepresent you, is the bolded section above really what you meant to say? That there is no evidence that at some point in time life did not exist?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Show your evidence for both your hypotheses, that there is no "science that evidences a beginning", and for your folly that a lack of same overcomes all the cold, hard evidence for what happened later.

You want me to evidence that something does not exist?

I will as soon as you evidence that unicorns do not exist.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I posted a simple explanation of the evidence and its logical conclusions, yet you completely failed to address that post. If my logic was lacking, as you suggest, then show where and how. Instead of just saying "But, but, but, there's no evidence and the logic's wrong", critique the presented evidence and logic. Otherwise, stfu.

No matter what logic and evidence one uses in his argument if the initial premise is false than the entirety of the argument can be discounted. If there is no evidence for the room and the room does not exist than there is no elephant in the room.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just so I don't misrepresent you, is the bolded section above really what you meant to say? That there is no evidence that at some point in time life did not exist?

Correct.


I wonder how many atheists here know that our western concept of time was created by the catholic church about 500 years ago.