Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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

Nothing in that cartoon resembles evidence. It is just statements.

 

[skeptical]

According to our current scientific understanding, life can only be derived from life, as such I am inclined to think that life has not occured spontaneously in the past.

Actually that's not quite an accurate description of spontaneous generation, which is what I assume you are talking about. Current understanding simply says that complex life cannot simply "poof" into existence from non living materials. i.e. flies don't spontaneously appear from dead animal tissue. SG doesn't specifically address the question of abiogenesis, its focus is much more narrow.

The critical questions are how one defines life, e.g. what is the simplest organism that can be characterized as "life", and what one means by "spontaneous". I would not characterize a slow progression from organic molecules to the simplest entity that could be characterized as life over numerous steps as "spontaneous".

But again, I am explaining my position. I am much more interested in yours. I will repeat my question: What is your preferred explanation for the processes that bridged the gap from simple organic molecules (which we know arise naturally) to the simplest life forms? Or perhaps just give your explanation for the origin of life on Earth and your evidence. I am interested in your preferred explanation and not just repeating my own over and over.

 

[skeptical]

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

Pluto takes 247.7 years to orbit the Sun. Pluto was discovered in 1930, so we do not have direct evidence that Pluto has in fact, ever orbited the Sun.

Would you say that believing that Pluto will in fact complete an orbit around the Sun is:

1) a reasonable expectation based on evidence
2) faith
3) both
4) neither

If your answer is anything other than 1, please explain.

 

[JCL]

Correct.


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

You finally made a positive statement of fact.

Please present some evidence for the above statement, and include what you mean by “western concept of time”.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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

Would this be before or after the Julian calendar, which is still used by businesses, or the AUC and Olympic calendars which are still valid were created?

JDG, most of your posts to this thread have had nothing to do with the OP so I'm going to have to report you and ask that a split thread be created. The adoption of the Gregorian calendar (see silly, atheists here do know what you're talking about) has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[wollery]

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.

What initial premise would that be?

See, you're still not actually providing a critique, just saying, "No, it's wrong". You've gone from saying, "the elephant isn't there", to saying, "the room isn't there", but you still don't actually say why.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Again, trying to get this thread back on the topic of the OP...

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

...it's particularly ironic that DOC would try and claim that 6th graders know this or that about evolution when Cosmos first aired since I was a regular church goer in 1980 and in the 6th grade at that time. I also fully understood that all life had evolved from a primordial common ancestor, even if it wasn't until years later that I comprehended the specifics about mutation and natural selection instead of my misunderstanding about hybridization.

In the 28 years since I first watched Cosmos, I have become an atheist and have come to embrace further that humans, apes, whales, iguanas, ducks, salamanders, trout, lampreys, elms, strawberries, peanuts, squids, anemones, jellyfish, shrimp, cockroaches, planarians, amoebas and even bacteria and viruses share some sort of common ancestry with me and all of humanity.

I embrace my inner sea cucumber...

 

[CriticalThanking]

Jarmoe - I really tried to reread the entire thread. I gave up after the first 600 posts (the stupid - it burns).

I found one post by Rufo saying he did not know much about abiogenisis at all. He makes no statement as to his stance on (a)theism.

After that, the only thing that could be interpreted as knowing "what science says about abiogenisis" has to do with the discussions of science's current areas of investigations. Was it a single cell, multiple cells, etc. This was nicely summarized by Meadmaker in several posts.

The first post mentioning the big bang happened around post 491. You pop up to try to claim evolution is not a well-established theory in post 658.

Many people are not as up to date as Articulett, Dr. A, UnrepentantSinner, et al on the latest discussions of archea, the latest findings of of how viruses fit into the tree of life, etc., myself included. But nowhere except in the first post I referenced did anyone, atheist or otherwise, claim to not know or explicitly show they did not know that the scientific consensus is that we share a common ancestor back to a single type, perhaps single (entity) of organism.

So your claim that this thread is evidence that of such lack of knowledge is unsupported by the evidence.

CT

 

[DOC]

DOC,
I think the reason people are going off topic is, at least in part, that you seem to be having an issue with responding to the posts that are on topic.

There are two basic claims in your OP. First, science claims we are all descended from a single bacterium. Second, most atheists are unaware of this.

As for the first claim, it's a matter of interpretation and some speculation. According to the prevailing theories of modern science, we are all indeed descended from a single bacterium, although it is not clear that there is a single ancestral cell that included every single molecule of our ancestral DNA. There may have been some mixing up of DNA fragments, assimilation of free-living cells as organelles, that sort of thing. No one knows, or likely ever will know, the exact mechanism. However, the basic part of your assertion, that there was one sort of organism at one time that is a common ancestor for all current organisms, including all plants, all animals, and all fungi, is generally accepted. Indeed, it is quite possible that there was one specific cell that could be a common ancestor of all multicellular, and most unicellular, life today.

Now, on to claim number two. You claim that very few atheists are aware of that claim. Your assertion is that atheists are ignorant of the claim of modern science, that we are all descended from some extremely simple form of life. On that claim I take issue. I think most people know that. All the ones who have given it any significant thought know that. What's the alternative? There is none, from a scientific standpoint...

Above I have put in bold some points. First of all you agree with me that prevailing science says all plant and animals are descendant from a single bacterium. I still maintain that at least 90 percent of all atheists do not know that all "plants and animals" are descendant from the "same" single bacterium cell.

Yes, I know most atheists believe life came from vague primitive life forms. But my contention is that a large majority do not know that prevailing science states that all the millions of plant and animal species, including the dinosaurs as well as their family and friends came from the "same" "single" microscopic cell.

And if they knew that, I contend that many atheists belief in atheism would not be as strong as it is now.

 

[Mashuna]

Yes, I know most atheists believe life came from vague primitive life forms. But my contention is that a large majority do not know that prevailing science states that all the millions of plant and animal species, including the dinosaurs as well as their family and friends came from the "same" "single" microscopic cell.

And if they knew that, I contend that many atheists belief in atheism would not be as strong as it is now.

What are your contentions worth? They're not backed by what you've found in this thread, so why do you still hold them?

 

[six7s]

And if they knew that, I contend that many atheists belief in atheism would not be as strong as it is now.

This is fascinating... almost as rewarding as watching paint dry

To raise it up a notch, towards interesting, try explaining:

• HOW you arrived at the 90% figure

• WHY you contend/think/believe/hope that atheism can/will be undermined by an increase in the depth of and breadth of knowledge pertaining to reality

 

[Meadmaker]

Above I have put in bold some points. First of all you agree with me that prevailing science says all plant and animals are descendant from a single bacterium. I still maintain that at least 90 percent of all atheists do not know that all "plants and animals" are descendant from the "same" single bacterium cell.

Yes, I know most atheists believe life came from vague primitive life forms. But my contention is that a large majority do not know that prevailing science states that all the millions of plant and animal species, including the dinosaurs as well as their family and friends came from the "same" "single" microscopic cell.

And if they knew that, I contend that many atheists belief in atheism would not be as strong as it is now.

So, we basically have two points. First, there's the fact that science says we are all descended from one, single, microscopic, cell. Before we go on, we have to acknowledge that science doesn't exactly say that. That's one possibility, but not quite the only possibility. It's also possible that there was so much swapping of proto-genetic material in a small number of cells that it would be impossible to find just one cell that could be pointed to as an ancestor. However, that's really a minor point. I happen to think that at one point, one of the cells (we'll call it ADAM) was very good at reproducing, and was so good that it and its descendants multiplied and, cue the awesome music, Pond Scum was born.

Well, primitive pond scum. Mats of cyanobacteria, or something somewhat more primitive. And all plants and animals and bacteria are descendants of that little ADAM feller, with one cell. That's what science says, and I think most atheists who have given it any thought know that.

And there's some uncertainty about viruses. And maybe those weird archae things, whatever they are. However, everything we can see, and most of the things we can't, certainly had one, single, cell as a common ancestor.

What I'm curious is why you think that this is significant. You contend that many atheists would not be such strong atheists if they understood that. That's what I don't get. What's the issue? What is it about that teaching that would push people away from atheism?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

What I'm curious is why you think that this is significant.

Because, I'd wager, he fails to see that to most people, in most countries, evolution isn't such a big deal. We don't fall over ourselves yelling 'OMG I'm descended from a monkey!!?' the first time we hear about it. We don't lose or gain self-esteem or change our morals over it. We know that we and chimps have a common ancestor, that we possibly all came from the same cell, and so on. It's a fact, and we treat it as one, much the same way we treat it as a fact that our planet orbits the Sun, not the other way around. It's one of those things that's not a big deal until someone, in this case the fundamentalists, make it a big deal.

Oh, and DOC, you can get over the 'Theory of Evolution=Atheism' deal, too. Again, most people in most countries have no problem at all being Christians despite knowing that they evolved from 'lower' forms of life. Much like the way you hopefully have no problem being Christian and believing in a round Earth at the same time.

Oh, and:

To raise it up a notch, towards interesting, try explaining:

• HOW you arrived at the 90% figure

 

[six7s]

... in most countries, evolution isn't such a big deal. We don't fall over ourselves yelling 'OMG I'm descended from a monkey!!?'

Indeed

In this country, recognition that we are related to every living thing and every extinct thing is being 'exploited' by teachers to get the message to kids that dominion over the planet ain't a god-given right... if/when we really screw things up, we'll become extinct, leaving the planet to whatever survives

Kids don't seem to have a problem with this idea

 

[joobz]

DOC, I see no reason to challenge your assertions, as youhave no evidence to support it. This merely becomes another example of you makinig claims that are in direct opposition with reality.

However, this statement is just bizarre

And if they knew that, I contend that many atheists belief in atheism would not be as strong as it is now.

What's a belief in atheism and why do you believe that atheism and evolution are interrelated?

You do know that evolution is a sceintific theory and the majority of scientists are religious? Right?

It's a lot like someone claiming "And if they knew that magic isn't real, their belief in christianity wouldn't be as strong as it is now."

 

[RandFan]

But my contention is that a large majority do not know that prevailing science states that all the millions of plant and animal species, including the dinosaurs as well as their family and friends came from the "same" "single" microscopic cell.

What is the basis for your contention?

And if they knew that, I contend that many atheists belief in atheism would not be as strong as it is now.

What is the basis for your contention?

DOC: I contend that leprechauns hide their gold in large pots at the end of the rainbow.

It's clear to us that your beliefs are sacrosanct to you and that's all well and good DOC but is there a reason for anyone else to agree?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I see that DOC decided, even after Ocelot and I went back to find some posts of ours he hadn't addressed regards the OP - and chose once again to not address them.

Shocking!

Oh, and DOC, you can get over the 'Theory of Evolution=Atheism' deal, too. Again, most people in most countries have no problem at all being Christians despite knowing that they evolved from 'lower' forms of life. Much like the way you hopefully have no problem being Christian and believing in a round Earth at the same time.

This is a good point. Most if not all TEs I know are fully comfortable with a primordial organism being the LUCA of life on Earth... they just think God was reasonsible for it - and even then, not all of them think it was poofed into existance - quite a few accept abiogenesis and consider it to be part of the Creative process.

So DOCs hypothesis fails not only when applied to atheists (as CT showed above) but when applied to Christians who accept evolution too!

 

[RandFan]

Would Jesus be offended at the thought of being a descendant of a primate/ape/monkey?

"Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." --God.

"Decended from ewoks are you" --Yoda.

Why care?

 

[articulett]

I think it's weird to imagine that human just poofed into existence some recent time ago... I think it is much more ennobling to understand that it's was a very long, long process that is still going on... and we finally got to a point in our collective and accumulated intelligence where we could piece the story together and confirm it with DNA.

The truth is so much more comprehensible and satisfying than the assorted myths humans have been proffered over the years. I feel that it's especially cruel when the myth contains the notion that you must "believe" this story if you are to "live happily ever after". How much better could DOCs energies be spent if he wasn't so busy trying to prove that his delusion is true to himself so that he can "live happily ever after" for his "faith".

 

[AkuManiMani]

Would Jesus be offended at the thought of being a descendant of a primate/ape/monkey?

"Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." --God.

"Decended from ewoks are you" --Yoda.

Why care?

Because people many like to use religion as a prop for their own pride -- regardless of whether or not their religion supports their pet views. The bible itself says that man and beast are of "one breath" and that man does not have preeminence over beasts.