Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[Paulhoff]

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

That is anything but true, seeing that the earth had no life when it started, life can come from unliving things. But today since life eats anything that could lead to life, it happens no more.

Paul



Mice do not come from dirty rags, that is true.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Um, no, we do not know that.

Evidence life coming from non-life.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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

All you have done here is replace "God Didit" with "Abiogenesis Didit".

Can you really not see this?

 

[Paulhoff]

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

Not all theories have a problem with that, didn't you read anything I posted, the year is 2008, not the year that The Big Bang theory started. There is this thing called learning new things, it happens all the time. We do know how a bee flies now, and that for most of us, we do use more then 10% of our brains.

Paul

 

[RandFan]

Here is the hypothesis. Science only finding data that life comes from life...

Stating that there is evidence without supplying the evidence isn't stating much.

I propose that life has always existed.

That's nice. Do you have any reason for anyone else to agree?

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

Again, you just assert this.

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

This does not address my point that The Big Bang was NOT a popular theory and it only has survived because the evidence supports it.

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

Again, you are not responding to what I've said. You accept heliocentrism and reject abiogenesis. On what basis do you do so? I would posit that you don't understand the underlying evidence for either but your reasons for rejection or acceptance are arbitrary.

Unless, are you are arguing relativism?

?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Not all theories have a problem with that, didn't you read anything I posted, the year is 2008, not the year that The Big Bang theory started. There is this thing called learning new things, it happens all the time. We do know how a bee flies now, and that for most of us, we do use more then 10% of our brains.

Paul

Which definition of theory are you using here?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Evidence life coming from non-life.

That is not the issue concerning your post. In the future there may be excellent evidence. The problem with your post is that you said:

What we do know from science is that life only comes from life.

We do not know that life only comes from non-life. We have evidence for life arising from previous life. We do not have clear evidence of life arising from non-life, but that does not mean that such an eventuality is impossible -- which is what your post implies (life only comes from life). There is intriguing evidence pointing in probable directions by which life could have arisen from non-life, but no one knows for sure yet.

 

[Paulhoff]

All you have done here is replace "God Didit" with "Abiogenesis Didit".

Can you really not see this?

We shown you sites to read, if you have a problem with understanding them and what they say, that is not our problem, it is yours.

And what is so hard with understanding that life today would have a hard to starting off from a non-life matter. Conditions today are no where near what they where in the beginning of the earth, for one there is free oxygen now, then there wasn't any.

And has for seeing, I drop the god thing at 7.

Paul

 

[Mashuna]

All you have done here is replace "God Didit" with "Abiogenesis Didit".

Can you really not see this?

Your statement is incorrect.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Your statement is incorrect.

Is not.

 

[Mashuna]

Is not.

Is too.

 

[Paulhoff]

It seems that our friend here as a very limited knowledge of the scientific method and scientific theory, and how very hard it is for something to become a scientific theory. All the testing that comes before it can be one, all the peer reviews it goes thru. One can not just say, OH I HAVE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY and it is this. It is a very hard path to get there. I have this problem with my mother’s limited understanding this, that is why she is a Born-again, it takes no knowledge to be one. Limited knowledge rears it ugly head all to many times on this forum and many of us would be wasting our time if it weren’t for those others setting on the fence waiting for that little push that leads them down the scientific path.

Paul



That is why I post short posts, I'm soooo tried of their limited knowledge and Pigheadedness which they claim we have. They can not only not see the forest for the trees, they can't see the mountain, the grass, the sky, the earth, the moon, sun and stars.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Is too.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It seems that our friend here as a very limited knowledge of the scientific method and scientific theory, and how very hard it is for something to become a scientific theory. All the testing that comes before it can be one, all the peer reviews it goes thru. One can not just say, OH I HAVE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY and it is this. It is a very hard path to get there. I have this problem with my mother’s limited understanding this, that is why she is a Born-again, it takes no knowledge to be one. Limited knowledge rears it ugly head all to many times on this forum and many of us would be wasting our time if it weren’t for those others setting on the fence waiting for that little push that leads them down the scientific path.

Paul

Not all theories have a problem with that, didn't you read anything I posted, the year is 2008, not the year that The Big Bang theory started. There is this thing called learning new things, it happens all the time. We do know how a bee flies now, and that for most of us, we do use more then 10% of our brains.

Paul

Are you using the same definition of theory in the second post quoted?

 

[Paulhoff]

Are you using the same definition of theory in the second post quoted?

Still waiting for your deep insight.

Paul

 

[RandFan]

One can not just say, OH I HAVE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY and it is this.

The great thing about the scientific method is that it utilizes human ego to test theories. Most new theories are viewed with a skeptical light. Often they are attacked and counter arguments are made against them (kinda like this forum). In the end, the theories that can survive peer review and attacks survive.

Which explains how we have come to know so much more than any one of us could possibly know on our own. I couldn't come up with the structure of matter on my own. Discover the structure of DNA. Calculate all of the math necessary to travel to the moon and back. Discover anti-biotics, germ theory, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Euclidean Geometry, etc., etc..

People take most of this stuff for granted. They don't get emotional over it. But--

• Scientists propose a theory as to the origin of the universe.
• The theory is challenged.
• Alternate theories are proposed.
• The theory is peer reviewed.
• It is tested.
• A consensus forms PROVISIONALLY

And, what next? Folks get all emotional and demand that the theory violates the law of physics without even understanding what it is that they are objecting to.

Please..... At least learn what you are talking about first.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Still waiting for your deep insight.

Paul

Your refusing to define your use of the word "theory" is a deep insight.

 

[Paulhoff]

Your refusing to define your use of the word "theory" is a deep insight.

Still waiting for you deep insight, you seem not to read well.

Paul

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The great thing about the scientific method is that it utilizes human ego to test theories. Most new theories are viewed with a skeptical light. Often they are attacked and counter arguments are made against them (kinda like this forum). In the end, the theories that can survive peer review and attacks survive.

Which explains how we have come to know so much more than any one of us could possibly know on our own. I couldn't come up with the structure of matter on my own. Discover the structure of DNA. Calculate all of the math necessary to travel to the moon and back. Discover anti-biotics, germ theory, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Euclidean Geometry, etc., etc..

People take most of this stuff for granted. They don't get emotional over it. But--

• Scientists propose a theory as to the origin of the universe.
• The theory is challenged.
• Alternate theories are proposed.
• The theory is peer reviewed.
• It is tested.
• A consensus forms PROVISIONALLY

And, what next? Folks get all emotional and demand that the theory violates the law of physics without even understanding what it is that they are objecting to.

Please..... At least learn what you are talking about first.

I agree in essence with your remarks here. Science is a great tool for the advancement of human knowledge. The problem occurs when currently accepted science is used as a bludgeon against the the questioning of said. This is a tantamount to religion. You should read The Open Conspiracy by H.G. Wells for a better understanding of the politics involved. In particular the link is titled Broad Characteristics Of A Scientific World Commonwealth.

 

[RandFan]

I agree in essence with your remarks here. Science is a great tool for the advancement of human knowledge. The problem occurs when currently accepted science is used as a bludgeon against the the questioning of said. This is a tantamount to religion. You should read The Open Conspiracy by H.G. Wells for a better understanding of the politics involved. In particular the link is titled Broad Characteristics Of A Scientific World Commonwealth.

There's two problems with this concern.

1. Democracy.
2. Human Ego.

Scientists WANT to prove theories wrong. That is in large part what drives scientific advance. As long as people are free to question the Status Quo then superior theories will supplant current ones or go down in flamses.

I can't say it enough, the Big Bang theory was not popular when it came out. Many materialists who were not against life from non-life were against it. It makes no sense to say that the Big Bang theory is dominant simply because it supports abiogenesis.