Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[RandFan]

Then why do you support abiogenesis?

There are only two options.

• Life could have always existed.
• Life could have emerged from non-life.

I don't have a dogmatic position on either but given what we know about the universe the former seems far less likely than the latter..

[swikix=abiogenesis]Abiogenesis:[/swikix] In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from non-life.

If god created life he created it from non-life. God is entirely irrelevant. If we say "God did it" we have not solved any mystery or added any information to our understanding. Nothing. Nada. Zip. If you still say "God did it" then you are left with a question, How did God do it?

 

[Worm]

Magic beans. It's the only possible answer.

 

[Hokulele]

Magic beans. It's the only possible answer.

Or magic 'shrooms.

 

[Paulhoff]

In the 1800’s anybody doing real geology had problems with the idea that the earth was only a few thousand years old, all the evidence pointed to a world millions of years old. Astronomers had the same problem, because has they started to get a fair idea about how far the distances stars where, once again a few thousands years didn’t work, not for the 10’s of thousand of years needed for light to get to the earth. And good old Darwin, once again there just wasn’t the time needed for evolution to work. And that damn fossil record, once again there wasn’t the time needed if the earth was only that 6,000 years old. And on and on it goes, one thing after another shows that the earth was much, much older then the bible told them. So what was the so-called nail in the coffin for them, it was the Sun. All things pointed out the that sun could not be millions of years old, because there was not enough energy in whatever the sun was made of to last that long, if it was coal it would last only about 10,000 years or so. So all these different scientific disciples must be error and everything should be thrown out the window, right. Wrong, it is called nuclear fusion,hydrogen to helium, the mass of 4 hydrogen atoms is a little more than 1 helium atom and the difference is energy and that is millions of time more energy then just burning coal, the time that was needed was found.

So now we have the Big Bang Theory, and almost all the parts fit, well gee, let’s just throw it away, there is no way some other detail will show up later.

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/fusion/nuclearfusion.html

Paul

 

[articulett]

Or magic 'shrooms.

according to Dr. A those explain the origins of intelligence and humor... not life...

or maybe they explain life too... his story didn't go back that far.

 

[Prometheus]

Or magic 'shrooms.

Perhaps they may help 'explain' an awful lot, but on pizza they're just plain awful.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

HAHAHAHA! Congratulations. You did not read the next paragraph, you are a creationist, or you are losing it (not mutually exclusive categories).

Thanks, JdG. I needed the laugh.

CT

Your argument boils down to name-calling.

You honestly believe this is logic and reason?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Better folks than I have given more articulate responses and better evidence. So I will simply leave you with the one piece of evidence you have a chance of understanding.

CT

Your story does not fit the question.

Your insults present that you are unable to examine your own dogma.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There are only two options.

• Life could have always existed.
• Life could have emerged from non-life.

I don't have a dogmatic position on either but given what we know about the universe the former seems far less likely than the latter..

[swikix=abiogenesis]Abiogenesis:[/swikix] In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from non-life.

If god created life he created it from non-life. God is entirely irrelevant. If we say "God did it" we have not solved any mystery or added any information to our understanding. Nothing. Nada. Zip. If you still say "God did it" then you are left with a question, How did God do it?

I agree with your options, yet you ignore your own first option in favor of arguing against a possible explanation for option 2.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You have no idea what that word means.

Paul

dogma: something held as an established opinion

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Let me ask you a question, how do you know that the Heliocentric model is correct and the Geocentric one is not?"

Evidence.

 

[Prometheus]

Evidence.

Why do you trust that evidence?

 

[RandFan]

I agree with your options, yet you ignore your own first option in favor of arguing against a possible explanation for option 2.

What? Please to explain? What "possible explanation"? God did it ISN'T an explanation as it tells us absolutely nothing. I can say leprachauns did it or fairies did it or the flying spagheti monster did it but that tells us nothing.

It's not an explantion because it DOESN'T explain anything.

 

[RandFan]

Evidence.

What evidence?

 

[X]

dogma: something held as an established opinion

That's somewhat broader a definition than is normally given.
Dogma is a set of beliefs that are held as authoritative, that is,they are not to be questioned.

Nobody is stopping you from questioning scientific conclusions based upon clear evidences. We just want you to acknowledge the evidence and provide a reason as to why we should accept an alternative to theories which explain what is known.

Being the loyal opposition is all well and good, but endlessly nitpicking details which have already been explained and handwaving away evidence and theoriues that point to one conclusion without providing evidence or even stating an alternative that accounts for the evidence will get you nowhere, and only result in raised blood pressure.

 

[wollery]

Still not actually giving any answers based on the evidence I see.

I'm starting to believe that JEROME is the ultimate agnostic. He won't believe anything until it can be proved 100% to be absolute fact. Non of this preponderence of evidence faffing about for him, oh no. What really puzzles me is why he eats. I mean, it's never been 100% proven that he'll die without food!

 

[ArmillarySphere]

No. Jerome is a passive-aggressive troll, nothing more. And he also likes to pretend that we can't see that this is what he's doing.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

No. Jerome is a passive-aggressive troll, nothing more. And he also likes to pretend that we can't see that this is what he's doing.

I can't. Not because it's not obvious to me, but because:

This message is hidden because JEROME DA GNOME is on your ignore list.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

No. Jerome is a passive-aggressive troll, nothing more. And he also likes to pretend that we can't see that this is what he's doing.

I’m leaning towards that interpretation too. One can basically question anything using such a debate tactic, without actually having anything meaningful to say about the subject at hands (like an alternative explanation based on evidence that would fit the data better).

This thread is however funny because when he actually tried to make a case about natural rights (in another thread) he had no supporting evidence at all. Perfect irony!

 

[DOC]

Anyways, explain the energy needed and where it was when the Big Bang created matter.

Well if you believe in the Big Bang, then there would have to be enough energy in existence "before" the Big Bang to create the 10 billion trillion stars that are estimated to be in our universe. The question then becomes where the heck did that mind boggling amount of energy come from?