Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[JEROME DA GNOME]

As such, faith in mechanistic abiogenesis is similar to faith in the sun rising.

But faith in a creationism is faith without any evidence and remains a religious argument.

You are not making an equation.

Please reword your thoughts here.


Unless,
Are you honestly stating that the evidence of the rotation of the Earth about the Sun is equal to abiogenesis?

 

[joobz]

Please explain how a "creator" could not be defined as a mechanism.

obviously I was refering to self-directed mechanisms.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What is wrong with the initial premise?

That there is no evidence of a beginning. This idea of a beginning comes from religion, it has been ingrained in humanity for thousands of years. I understand why this premise is presumed known as fact, yet there is no evidence.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Please explain how a "creator" could not be defined as a mechanism.

You're doing it again:

"Oh no, I only use scientific definitions, but let's call the initial singularity/abiogenesis event 'the creator' just because."

 

[wollery]

I see, so the initial premise that there is a beginning is wrong, so you don't see any point in critiquing the evidence or logic that leads to the conclusion that there was a beginning.

And you say my logic's faulty?

 

[joobz]

You are not making an equation.

Please reword your thoughts here.

I do not understand this statement.

Unless,
Are you honestly stating that the evidence of the rotation of the Earth about the Sun is equal to abiogenesis?

I'm honestly saying that natural processes, including the diversification of life, have all been based upon self-directed mechanisms.
To suggest that a natural mechanism for life would also be self-directed is a reasonable inference.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

obviously I was refering to self-directed mechanisms.

We have continually seen mechanisms to exist for everything in nature.

I do agree with you second statement here, but it is not apparent that you are referring to self-directed mechanisms.

If I were to evidence occurrences in nature that are not self-directed where does this take the conversation?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I see, so the initial premise that there is a beginning is wrong, so you don't see any point in critiquing the evidence or logic that leads to the conclusion that there was a beginning.

And you say my logic's faulty?

Please evidence that there was a beginning. Please understand that if there is no evidence for a beginning then your premise that there was a beginning is unevidenced.

This is pure logic.

 

[articulett]

you keep making this statement, and it continues to be wrong.

But he's right in his head... and that's all that matters to someone values faith over truth. Jerome would rather believe he's right than to find out what is actually true.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'm honestly saying that natural processes, including the diversification of life, have all been based upon self-directed mechanisms.
To suggest that a natural mechanism for life would also be self-directed is a reasonable inference.

The theory of evolution is not based upon self-directed mechanisms.

It is based upon changes occurring randomly and being "chosen" based upon the environment. In addition you are completely discounting symbiotic relationships.

 

[six7s]

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.

Laptop: $800
Connection: $40
Splurting my coffee over the screen: Priceless

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But he's right in his head... and that's all that matters to someone values faith over truth. Jerome would rather believe he's right than to find out what is actually true.

Nope, I have faith that I am right because there is a reasonable expectation based on the evidence of such.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Laptop: $800
Connection: $40
Splurting my coffee over the screen: Priceless
[qimg]http://hotimg5.fotki.com/b/203_114/170_127/masterp4wn.png[/qimg]

This would be an appropriate point to repeat the below.

The OP seems to be constantly validated by the posters in this thread as many seem to be able to do nothing more than lie and name call.



Children in a sandbox.

 

[joobz]

I do agree with you second statement here, but it is not apparent that you are referring to self-directed mechanisms.

If I were to evidence occurrences in nature that are not self-directed where does this take the conversation?

depends on the quality of the evidence. Do you have independantly verifiable proof of an entity which could fullfill the roll of a creator of life?

Remember, Increased complexity in living systems is a self-directed (independant) mechanism. So examples such as the watchmaker is illogical
as
1.) watches don't self replicate
2.) we have independantly verifiable evidence of the makers

 

[joobz]

The theory of evolution is not based upon self-directed mechanisms.

It is based upon changes occurring randomly and being "chosen" based upon the environment. In addition you are completely discounting symbiotic relationships.

self-directed mechanisms simply means a mechanism that doesn't require outside intervention to occur.

Diffusion, crystallization, gravity.. are self-directed mechanisms.

Evolution is self-directed in that it occurs without the need of an external intelligent activator to determine the outcomes.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

depends on the quality of the evidence. Do you have independantly verifiable proof of an entity which could fullfill the roll of a creator of life?

For me to do as you ask then you would need to evidence increasing complex progeny.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

self-directed mechanisms simply means a mechanism that doesn't require outside intervention to occur.

Diffusion, crystallization, gravity.. are self-directed mechanisms.

Evolution is self-directed in that it occurs without the need of an external intelligent activator to determine the outcomes.

Man's cloning of a sheep, is this self-directed or...?

 

[joobz]

For me to do as you ask then you would need to evidence increasing complex progeny.

fossil records do a nice job of this.
As does genetic verification of common ancestry,including ERVs and human chormosome 2 fusion.
http://talkorigins.org/

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

self-directed mechanisms simply means a mechanism that doesn't require outside intervention to occur.

Diffusion, crystallization, gravity.. are self-directed mechanisms.

Evolution is self-directed in that it occurs without the need of an external intelligent activator to determine the outcomes.

You are basically defining self-directed as having any influence which we currently understand.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

fossil records do a nice job of this.
As does genetic verification of common ancestry,including ERVs and human chormosome 2 fusion.
http://talkorigins.org/

Fossil records do not evidence progeny. This is assumed in the theory.