• 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:
How are those theories about the origin of life working out? When will you disregard abiogenesis?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "working out". There are numerous theories that are active areas of research. Some of them have shown interesting results, but much more testing needs to be done. That's why its interesting. If we already knew the answer, there wouldn't be much more point in the research.

I'm curious though as to what you mean by "disregard abiogenesis". Unless you are proposing that life has always existed, abiogenesis is a fact, because life must have come from non-life at some point in time. The question is, what are the mechanics behind it. It seems like your question amounts to asking when scientists will despair of solving the riddle of abiogenesis, or asking when scientists will abandon mechanical explanations in favor of teleological ones. Can you clarify what it is that you are saying?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
How are those theories about the origin of life working out? When will you disregard abiogenesis?
Click to expand...

I suppose it's time to disregard gravity as well? You do realize that we don't have an answer as to the mechanism behind gravity as yet. Many scientific breakthroughs take decades, even generations to work out. To suggest that because we don't have an answer yet that it is time to quit searching is ludicrous.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
How are those theories about the origin of life working out? When will you disregard abiogenesis?
Click to expand...
Steady State theory was disproved when cosmic background radiation was found. The Aether theory of light propagation was disproved with the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Abiogenesis will be disregarded when evidence is found that shows it to be impossible.

Biology is not my field. I won't pretend to understand the details of how abiogenesis might work or how it might be disproved. The fact of the matter is that we know that the universe was incapable of supporting life and now it does. Something must have happened between those two points.
 
Most christains do not know what their bible says about slavery.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
All of it, I just see you extracting conclusions from the data which are not there.
Click to expand...
This is the part that I just don't understand. How does data that specifically contradicts the Steady State theory "extracting conclusions from the data which are not there"? What are you basing this statement on?

We can literally look back in time and see the Big Bang in cosmic background radiation through the lense of cosmic expansion. What more could you ask?



No, seriously: what more are you asking for?
 
Upchurch said:
This is the part that I just don't understand. How does data that specifically contradicts the Steady State theory "extracting conclusions from the data which are not there"? What are you basing this statement on?

We can literally look back in time and see the Big Bang in cosmic background radiation through the lense of cosmic expansion. What more could you ask?



No, seriously: what more are you asking for?
Click to expand...

I think he wants a picture of the actual Big Bang taking place.
 
Upchurch said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

Left? :)



You didn't understand a word I was saying, then. Whether that is because of stubbornness on your part or an inability to explain how science works on my part, I don't know. Please consider the possibility that you might be wrong about the Big Bang and take it as an opportunity to educate yourself more about it.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and you are doing an admirable job of presenting your beliefs. I just disagree that the premise, the lens with which we are looking at the data, is correct. I have already admitted that I may be wrong, this of course is not relevant to our talk.

If you think the Big Bang is some conspiracy of physicists to push some agenda, just consider this: Every physicist wants to be the next Newton or Einstein. Every physicist wants to be the first one to figure out that the currently accepted theory is flawed and that they are the ones to have the break through that will revolutionize our understanding of the universe. If there is a flaw in the Big Bang theory that can topple it, thousands of physicists with intimate understanding of the minutiae of it are looking for that flaw
Click to expand...

The above quote is a wooden dummy argument.
 
Last edited:
skeptical said:
Organic molecules spontaneously form from non-organic molecules. If you want to call that a "poof", then so be it. From there all that is needed is various self-organizing chemistry and scaffolding to organize RNA such as a clay substrate, no further "poofing" needed.
Click to expand...

That is backwards, is it not?



Its not ingenious, its a vexing problem that permits no easy answer. Viruses exhibit nearly every aspect of "life" except that they cannot propagate on their own. Yet, they are nearly universally considered as "not life". Conversely, some microbes which arguable exhibit less complex behavior are "life" because they can reproduce. It all depends on the characteristics that one chooses to focus on. This is why it is an interesting area of research.
Click to expand...

It is ingenious to speak with great authority and not be tied down by definitions of the words one is using.




So, is this your way of saying you have absolutely no idea or opinion on how life began on Earth? Forgive me, but it seem difficult to believe you have no opinion at all on the subject as there are a very limited number of explanations available. Therefore, I assume it is just that you are not willing to share your opinion, in which case I wish you would just say so explicitly.
Click to expand...


You may find it difficult to believe, yet is true.
 
skeptical said:
I only bring this up because I often see multiple meanings of "faith" conjoined together, typically when a religious person wants to claim that science is just another "faith", so its no better than "faith" in their holy book. This of course obscures the difference between faith in the "reasonable expectation" sense and faith in the "belief without evidence or in the face of contrary evidence" sense.

If you meant faith as "reasonable expectation based on evidence" when referring to Phil, then I have no quarrel with it other than I dislike the use of the term "faith" in general outside of a religious context as it tends to obscure the discussion.
Click to expand...


You point is well taken. I would submit that the use of the word theory is used to equate ideas which are not equal.
 
skeptical said:
I'm curious though as to what you mean by "disregard abiogenesis". Unless you are proposing that life has always existed, abiogenesis is a fact, because life must have come from non-life at some point in time. The question is, what are the mechanics behind it. It seems like your question amounts to asking when scientists will despair of solving the riddle of abiogenesis, or asking when scientists will abandon mechanical explanations in favor of teleological ones. Can you clarify what it is that you are saying?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that life has ever not existed.
 
Upchurch said:
Steady State theory was disproved when cosmic background radiation was found.
Click to expand...

No it was not. The Big Bang was accepted because it predicted BGR. This is very different than BGR disproves Steady State. You do know of course that theories are massaged into new forms based upon new data?
 
I don't know how I ended up in this thread...but general relativity actually predicted the big bang.

glenn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom