• 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.
Upchurch said:
That's not the way it works, Jerome. You made a claim that life only comes from life. It is your responsibility to provide the evidence for your claim. It is not Ichneumonwasp's responsibility to provide counter-evidence against your claim.

Can you support your claim: life only comes from life? Alternatively, I take that to be equivalent to the claim: abiogenesis is impossible.

What is your evidence for this claim?
Click to expand...


WOW!


I have to evidence through a negative proposition that your assertion is not true.


:boggled:
 
DOC said:
So in order to believe in the big bang it looks like this is what you have to believe and I'll quote your source:


"As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing!..."
___

So it seems modern science is sayiing: Nothing to energy to Big Bang to 10 billion trillion stars.
Click to expand...

So, it seems that the proponents of the Big Bang theory are relying upon a ridiculous thought!
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
So, it seems that the proponents of the Big Bang theory are relying upon a ridiculous thought!
Click to expand...
So, gives us some of more of your ridiculous thoughts on how it all stated, we are still waiting, but no you will only talk about what you think are ours, over and over and over again, and not once will you show us yours.

Paul

:) :) :)

Chicken-◊◊◊◊
 
joobz said:
If life only comes from life, do you believe panspermia is a reasonable counter hypothesis to abiogenesis?
Click to expand...
No he will not, nope, not at all until he drops the so-called god thing sitting in he's back pocket.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
No he will not, nope, not at all until he drops the so-called god thing sitting in he's back pocket.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
It seems as the only likely hypothesis that would fit with his mindset and evidence.

We have an overwhelming supply of evidence for evolutionary diversification of life on earth. So the only thing that would fit
Life only comes from life and evolution would be panspermia.

Now, panspermia has the problem of where did THAT seed life come from....
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Is that a fact? A Democracy is based upon popular consent, not the search for truth.
Click to expand...
{sigh}

Sheesh Jerome. You are making this like pulling teeth and I kinda resent your repackaging what I'm saying in order to make a strawman.
  • The scientists LIVE in a Democracy.
  • The scientific method they employ ISN'T Democracy.
  • Because they LIVE in a Democracy they are free to search for the truth USING the scientific method.
Answer this question, given that scientists are often constrained to some degree by political systems, which political system is more conducive to scientific research?

If you answer that question I think we might be able to move on.
 
Fitter said:
Jerome, I just heard Phil, on his video blog, say that the big bang occurred. Why would he say that if he truly believed that it violates the laws of physics?
Click to expand...

I just read Phil stating that the math and physics do not work for the Big Bang theory.

Have you read Bad Astronomy? It is there for you to read.
 
joobz said:
It seems as the only likely hypothesis that would fit with his mindset and evidence.

We have an overwhelming supply of evidence for evolutionary diversification of life on earth. So the only thing that would fit
Life only comes from life and evolution would be panspermia.

Now, panspermia has the problem of where did THAT seed life come from....
Click to expand...

Life has always existed and the universe has always existed. Unless, of course that you have evidence otherwise. If not our arguments are on the same plane.
 
RandFan said:
  • The scientists LIVE in a Democracy.
  • The scientific method they employ ISN'T Democracy.
  • Because they LIVE in a Democracy they are free to search for the truth USING the scientific method.
Click to expand...

You are disregarding popular opinion which constitutes funding in a "Democracy".

Answer this question, given that scientists are often constrained to some degree by political systems, which political system is more conducive to scientific research?

If you answer that question I think we might be able to move on.
Click to expand...

Libertarianism!!!
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Ohh, you don't believe Phil. Good to know.
Click to expand...

Belief has nothing to do with it

If the article in question said what you claim, then I would disagree with Phil.

However this is irrelevant, as I don't think that you have made a correct interpretation of the article.
 
Paulhoff said:
http://www.badastronomy.com/

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

This would be a more precise link: Big Bang

The problem is, right at that moment, at T=0, our laws of physics… well, they stall out. You wind up dividing by zero a lot, which causes a lot of headaches. You get things like zero volume and infinite density of matter and energy. It’s not that this moment didn’t exist physically, or that something impossible happened, it’s just that the math we currently use can’t describe it. And let me be clear: what happened after that one moment we can model fairly well. We may not have a complete picture, and the model may yet be supplanted (more on that in a moment), but we have a relatively (har har) good grasp on how the Universe behaved after T=+0.0000000000000…1 seconds. But at T=0, fuggeddaboutit. And T<0? The way the math works, that question doesn’t even make sense.
Click to expand...
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
WOW!


I have to evidence through a negative proposition that your assertion is not true.


:boggled:
Click to expand...

You made the very strong claim that science says that life only comes from life. But that is not correct. If you want to back that claim then you should provide evidence for it or a philosophical argument as to why it is impossible for life to derive from non-life.

What we have is evidence that life comes from life. We do not yet have evidence that life comes from non-life, but we cannot make the claim, therefore, that life cannot come from non-life simply because we do not have evidence for how it works.

It would not have been correct to have said in the first centruty that man cannot fly because there was no evidence of it at the time.

You need to restate your proposition to something along the lines of: so far all we have evidence of is that life comes from life. You can either deal with this issue or not, but you are simply wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom