Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[JEROME DA GNOME]

(emphasis mine) I honestly don't know what this means. Could you please clarify?

Sorry that I am not being clear. Below is the original post that I am referencing.

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?

You give two options.

You are ignoring your first options and arguing over the cause of the second option.

I am stating that the first option is as likely as the second with no argument as to the cause of the second option outside of examining the evidences which are presented to foster the beliefs of the opposing sides.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

We know that the Big Bang happened. Well, technically we don't know that, even. We know that the universe as it appears today is completely consistent with the Big Bang, and is not consistent with any other theory that has been presented. What we do not know, and science can never tell us, is whether the universe has a beginning.

Really?

Then why does matter clump? Should it not spread evenly?

Why is the "expansion" accelerating? Should it not be slowing?

Why the need for fictional Dark Matter? Is this because the data is inconsistent with the theory?

 

[RandFan]

You are ignoring your first options and arguing over the cause of the second option.

Why do you say this? Going back over my posts I can find no justification for such a statement.

I am stating that the first option is as likely as the second with no argument as to the cause of the second option outside of examining the evidences which are presented to foster the beliefs of the opposing sides.

Why do you think that both are as likely? Do you think the Big Bang is as likely as not likely? If you believe that the Big Bang is more likely then are there any scholars or philosophy that postulates that life existed prior and survived the event?

Absent a viable theory for life always existing it's difficult to place it on equal footing as life arising from non-life.

It's not personal bias. It's simple induction.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why do you say this? Going back over my posts I can find no justification for such a statement.

I have not seen you address the possibility of life having always existed.

Why do you think that both are as likely? Do you think the Big Bang is as likely as not likely? If you believe that the Big Bang is more likely then are there any scholars or philosophy that postulates that life existed prior and survived the event?

Absent a viable theory for life always existing it's difficult to place it on equal footing as life arising from non-life.

It's not personal bias. It's simple induction.

I think the Big Bang is the currently accepted explanation because it is the only way to evidence that life, at some point, did not exist. The idea that all matter and all energy in the universe was contained in an undefined and incomprehensibly small space in violation of the laws of physics and math is as silly a believing any number of religious creation myths. All available scientific data concerning life evidences that life does not come from non-life.

 

[Paulhoff]

Why would I, there is no evidence for that assertion.

Simple, where is your answer to the big bang, please give us proofs to back up you answer.

Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

Really?

Then why does matter clump? Should it not spread evenly?

Why is the "expansion" accelerating? Should it not be slowing?

Why the need for fictional Dark Matter? Is this because the data is inconsistent with the theory?

I only know the answer to the first one. Quantum fluctuations.

As for the others, you'll have to ask a physicist. Really, you should ask a physicist for the first one, too, but I've already read a book about that one, and I understood and remember the answer.

And, maybe you are onto something and have recognized something that all those high-fallutin professors with their fancy schmancy PhDs missed. It could happen. However, it seems to me that they've done the math a whole bunch of different ways and none of them seem to disagree about the really important stuff. I could be wrong to believe them, but until something better comes along, I will

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I only know the answer to the first one. Quantum fluctuations.

As for the others, you'll have to ask a physicist. Really, you should ask a physicist for the first one, too, but I've already read a book about that one, and I understood and remember the answer.

And, maybe you are onto something and have recognized something that all those high-fallutin professors with their fancy schmancy PhDs missed. It could happen. However, it seems to me that they've done the math a whole bunch of different ways and none of them seem to disagree about the really important stuff. I could be wrong to believe them, but until something better comes along, I will

I see, so you are admitting that you were wrong when you stated "We know that the universe as it appears today is completely consistent with the Big Bang"?

Just that those inconsistencies are ...what? Explainable by the priests of the religion? You do understand that these are inconsistencies that are not currently understood by science?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Simple, where is your answer to the big bang, please give us proofs to back up you answer.

Paul

I do not understand what you are asking here.

 

[Paulhoff]

Really?

Then why does matter clump? Should it not spread evenly?

Why is the "expansion" accelerating? Should it not be slowing?

Why the need for fictional Dark Matter? Is this because the data is inconsistent with the theory?

Dark matter and dark energy have nothing to do with the big bang (The Big Band was a name given to the theory by someone who BELIEVED in the Steady StateTheory, which has been shown to be wrong by the evidence and not an expanding universe was has evidence) but it does explain the formation of galaxies and then speeding up of the universe that has been observed, and they are looking for what they are. They are not sitting around going we don't know end of story.

So again what is you idea, and what is the proof for it.

Paul

 

[RandFan]

I have not seen you address the possibility of life having always existed.

What basis would I have for addressing the possibility? Until someone much smarter than I comes up with a plausible theory there doesn't seem to be much point.

I think the Big Bang is the currently accepted explanation because it is the only way to evidence that life, at some point, did not exist.

No. Demonstrably not so. The Big Bang was at first not popular with materialists who largely took for granted that life emerged from non-life. The Big Bang was the result of evidence and simple mathematics.

The idea that all matter and all energy in the universe was contained in an undefined and incomprehensibly small space in violation of the laws of physics and math is as silly a believing any number of religious creation myths.

"Eliminate all that is impossible, whatever remains is the explanation, however improbable." --Sherlock Holmes

I realize that you don't like it and that it is counter intuitive to you but that is where the evidence leads. Like I said before, The Big Bang didn't start out as a popular theory. It only became accepted because the evidence so strongly supports it. Those who were against the Big Bang could not come up with competing theories that explained the evidence as elegantly and as thoroughly.

All available scientific data concerning life evidences that life does not come from non-life.

You can assert this but it doesn't make it true. And you are far less likely to provide us with this supposed evidence than you are to supply us with the evidence for Heliocentrism and that evidence is just a Google click away.

I honestly think you understand the evidence for and or against abiogenesis far less than you understand the evidence for heliocentrism yet you simply accept heliocentrism because over the years that model has come to be the accepted one by science.

You accuse me of giving short shrift to the concept that life has always existed but where is your attention to geocentricism? Why do you accept heliocentrism over geocentricism? You state that it is because of "evidence" but ignore me when I ask you to provide this evidence. I think it is because you've never actually taken the time to examine the evidence and you don't really care.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Dark matter and dark energy have nothing to do with the big bang (The Big Band was a name given to the theory by someone who BELIEVED in the Steady StateTheory, which has been shown to be wrong by the evidence and not an expanding universe was has evidence) but it does explain the formation of galaxies and then speeding up of the universe that has been observed, and they are looking for what they are. They are not sitting around going we don't know end of story.

So again what is you idea, and what is the proof for it.

Paul

Your nugget of trivia; which by the way is well known, concerning the origin of the phrase Big Bang does in no way evidence the theory.

I think you misunderstand science. One does not have to have a better explanation to discard a failed explanation.

 

[Meadmaker]

I see, so you are admitting that you were wrong when you stated "We know that the universe as it appears today is completely consistent with the Big Bang"?

Just that those inconsistencies are ...what? Explainable by the priests of the religion? You do understand that these are inconsistencies that are not currently understood by science?

To the best of my knowledge, the universe is completely consistent with the Big Bang. Of course, my actual knowledge is extremely limited on the subject, and am relying on trusted authority figures, in this case physicists, astronomers, and those in related disciplines, to make my judgements.

It could be that you are right and they are wrong, but until you persuade some of them to join you, I'll keep believing them.

 

[Paulhoff]

I think you misunderstand science.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha thanks I needed that hahahahahahaha

misunderstand science


hahahahahahahhahaha

Paul



oh, my sides hurt

 

[Terry]

Jerome, are you proposing panspermia, since there is certainly good evidence that the earth has a finite age.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

To the best of my knowledge, the universe is completely consistent with the Big Bang. Of course, my actual knowledge is extremely limited on the subject, and am relying on trusted authority figures, in this case physicists, astronomers, and those in related disciplines, to make my judgements.

It could be that you are right and they are wrong, but until you persuade some of them to join you, I'll keep believing them.

I just presented to you the inconsistencies that the scientific community is dealing with today!

It is not me verses science. It is science acknowledging the inconsistencies and attempting to find explanations for said inconsistencies.

If you are going to stand by your statement, "We know that the universe as it appears today is completely consistent with the Big Bang", then you are the one contradicting the scientists.

 

[Paulhoff]

I think you misunderstand science. One does not have to have a better explanation to discard a failed explanation.

Well, it may have failed you, but that is you misunderstanding, not ours. Also the earth is only about 4.5 billions years old, so life did come from non-living material.

Paul

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, are you proposing panspermia, since there is certainly good evidence that the earth has a finite age.

Sure, that is a possibility. What we do know from science is that life only comes from life.

 

[Meadmaker]

If you are going to stand by your statement, "We know that the universe as it appears today is completely consistent with the Big Bang", then you are the one contradicting the scientists.

Have any of them written books about it? That's how I get most of my knowledge. Of course, there are some disputes about the specific mathematical formulations about what happened in the first femtosecond after the main event, and all of that, but as far as I know, there is no serious dispute about whether the universe as we know it was once extremely small, and extremely hot. That is what I refer to as the Big Bang. As far as I know, the scientists with good reputations pretty much agree on that part.

If you can persuade them, you can persuade me.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Sure, that is a possibility. What we do know from science is that life only comes from life.

Um, no, we do not know that.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What basis would I have for addressing the possibility? Until someone much smarter than I comes up with a plausible theory there doesn't seem to be much point.

Here is the hypothesis. Science only finding data that life comes from life, I propose that life has always existed.

No. Demonstrably not so. The Big Bang was at first not popular with materialists who largely took for granted that life emerged from non-life. The Big Bang was the result of evidence and simple mathematics.

The Big Bang violates the laws of physics and math at t=0.

I realize that you don't like it and that it is counter intuitive to you but that is where the evidence leads. Like I said before, The Big Bang didn't start out as a popular theory. It only became accepted because the evidence so strongly supports it. Those who were against the Big Bang could not come up with competing theories that explained the evidence as elegantly and as thoroughly.

The Big Bang is needed to evidence that at some point in the past life did not exist.

You can assert this but it doesn't make it true. And you are far less likely to provide us with this supposed evidence than you are to supply us with the evidence for Heliocentrism and that evidence is just a Google click away.

I honestly think you understand the evidence for and or against abiogenesis far less than you understand the evidence for heliocentrism yet you simply accept heliocentrism because over the years that model has come to be the accepted one by science.

You accuse me of giving short shrift to the concept that life has always existed but where is your attention to geocentricism? Why do you accept heliocentrism over geocentricism? You state that it is because of "evidence" but ignore me when I ask you to provide this evidence. I think it is because you've never actually taken the time to examine the evidence and you don't really care.

This is silliness. The observations and the maths can be made again and again.

Unless, are you are arguing relativism?