Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[buckshot24]

That is sort of why we are running experiments such as those that you are damning, albeit I don't necessarily agree with your "semi plausible" statement. That is exactly WHY experiments such as the ones you are debating are done, not to necessarily prove that is exactly what happened but to show that it is at least plausible.

The only thing that the experiment supported is that you need to really tweak the system and intelligently guide the process or it won't happen with RNA. I'm not damning the experiment I'm damning those who think it has anything whatsoever to do with the origin of life. I see it going in the exact opposite direction as far as plausibility is concerned.

 

[ThinClient]

I used to be one TC.

See, that's something I truly do not understand, being an ass aside.

How does one go from reasonable, logical thought processes to buying into make believe? I will never understand the adult transition between intelligent, educated, thinking individuals into religious apologists.

 

[Darwin333]

Yes, if you had evidence that it started out complex. But we don't have evidence that it started out "simple" either.

How exactly do you justify dismissing the entirety of the known fossil record to date?

Starting out "simple" is simply a requirement for your story to be true. It isn't evidence that it happened.

Actually, its working backwards. We found evidence that it started out absurdly simple and took a BILLION years to get even sorta complex and then another billion+ years to get to what you and I consider "complex life". Knowing that, we then started looking for how said simple life came to be. This isn't a matter of real debate in the scientific community, give or take a couple hundred million years....

The giant leap where you suddenly say "when the first replication started" with nothing to support that it did start was your biggest fictional moment. You're basically running on 1860 level of our understanding of what a "living" thing is. Also you've placed a "billions of years did it" fallacy into the mix. Time can't do anything.

Time simply offers the opportunity for something to happen and given enough time nature can do some really crazy, seemingly impossible, stuff.

Also this "self replicating molecule" experiment should show just how hard it is to get replication started.

Again, nature is awesome. How hard would it be for man to create the Grand Canyon? Yet, given enough time nature did it just fine.

Even after all the tinkering and timed release of full segments of the RNA strand, all the buffer solutions, all the rinsing and cleaning to get rid of "linkers" and zero contaminates they could only get half the molecule to copy itself.

A very exciting and cool step imho even though it may yet be proven to be absolutely wrong. It all starts with proving it is possible....

 

[Darwin333]

The only thing that the experiment supported is that you need to really tweak the system and intelligently guide the process or it won't happen with RNA. I'm not damning the experiment I'm damning those who think it has anything whatsoever to do with the origin of life. I see it going in the exact opposite direction as far as plausibility is concerned.

Thankfully you aren't a scientist.

How arrogant can you possibly be? Because YOU can't understand it then it MUST be evidence going "the other way" (which way, exactly, is that again)?

I am smart enough to know that I don't have a reasonable understanding of exactly what this scientists and his experiment have proven, dis-proven, made plausible, made implausible, etc... because I am not formally educated on the subject. You on the other hand, as uneducated on the subject as you are, seem to be much more of an expert on the subject than the guy with the PHD.

What exactly is your PHD in again? Regardless, I would really really like to read a formal, scientific, rebuttal on his experiment since you know so much about it (and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you spent as much time reading it as I did which makes me slightly less ignorant than before I read it). I don't care what others have claimed either, I am holding you to task on what you have said.

The difference between you and me is that I admit my ignorance, you seem to embrace yours. This experiment doesn't prove abiogenesis anymore than the book of genesis proves god. Yet you seem hellbent to argue a point, of which iis completely irrelevant in the realm of science. from a place of complete ignorance. Why is that?

And before you or anyone else goes making stuff up, I do not "believe" this experiment proves abiogenesis. I do not believe it proves the origins of life and I do not believe it disproves your god (nor does it need to). I "believe" that it is a science experiment.

 

[Darwin333]

See, that's something I truly do not understand, being an ass aside.

How does one go from reasonable, logical thought processes to buying into make believe? I will never understand the adult transition between intelligent, educated, thinking individuals into religious apologists.

They have a pretty good sales pitch..... "Believe in this (or at least pretend you do) or you'll BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY YOU HEATHEN BASTARD!!!!!"

 

[sandorski]

See, that's something I truly do not understand, being an ass aside.

How does one go from reasonable, logical thought processes to buying into make believe? I will never understand the adult transition between intelligent, educated, thinking individuals into religious apologists.

It's like Kirk Cameron being a "Devout Atheist". I can't say for all it is this way, but to many theists simply changing ones position is the same as being the epitome of holding the opposite previously. They were all Dawkins before, but they found Jesus and are now going to Save his soul!

"Atheist" or "Skeptic" may be accurate, technically, but they tend to oversell who they were. Religion has taught them that they were utterly depraved in that position and it doesn't draw much distinction regarding the degree of that depravity. The simple lack of Belief condemns all Unbelievers to the exact same fate. When the Religion that one accepts deals with issues with such a sledge hammer approach, it is to be expected that the Believers do the same.

 

[werepossum]

Your analogy fails so hard it's just plain stupid.

Building's are not grown, they are built. One building was not produced from another building. Screws, bolts, boards, i beams are not made in nature, they are made by man. A screw will not screw itself into a board, it will not replicate,... These comparisons are so stupid it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Yet unless you are positing that the big bang included life, we also know that absent a Creator, life did not come from life, and even a lowly earthworm is vastly and incredibly more complicated than is the most sophisticated building.

Personally I think it's sad when someone believes he is a meat product of random mutations, yet still cannot believe in anything greater than himself.

 

[sandorski]

Yet unless you are positing that the big bang included life, we also know that absent a Creator, life did not come from life, and even a lowly earthworm is vastly and incredibly more complicated than is the most sophisticated building.

Personally I think it's sad when someone believes he is a meat product of random mutations, yet still cannot believe in anything greater than himself.

What's sad is that you can Know many things, yet choose to remain ignorant. Perhaps there is a god, perhaps it started the ball rolling with Life. Regardless, the very first Life on this planet was extremely simple and grew more complex through natural processes over billions of years.

That is not in dispute in any way.

 

[Rio Rebel]

The one thing that always amazes me in these threads is how someone can dismiss everyone who holds the opposing view as "morons" or "idiots" or "mindless sheep". There are many absolutely brilliant people on each side of this debate, and to think that you are more intelligent than they are because something seems "obvious" to you is so ignorant it is laughable. Of course the fact that a brilliant person holds a position on the origins of life doesn't prove that position, but is certainly indicates that the person on the other side in these thread is not an "idiot" solely on the basis of whether he/she believes in the existence of God.

 

[soulcougher73]

What's sad is that you can Know many things, yet choose to remain ignorant. Perhaps there is a god, perhaps it started the ball rolling with Life. Regardless, the very first Life on this planet was extremely simple and grew more complex through natural processes over billions of years.

That is not in dispute in any way.

Apparently it is for the uneducated. Which is sad.

 

[Juddog]

The one thing that always amazes me in these threads is how someone can dismiss everyone who holds the opposing view as "morons" or "idiots" or "mindless sheep". There are many absolutely brilliant people on each side of this debate, and to think that you are more intelligent than they are because something seems "obvious" to you is so ignorant it is laughable. Of course the fact that a brilliant person holds a position on the origins of life doesn't prove that position, but is certainly indicates that the person on the other side in these thread is not an "idiot" solely on the basis of whether he/she believes in the existence of God.

It doesn't help when one side starts typing out huge green letters for their responses. The best way to argue your position is to prove your position via logic and evidence; when the other side just starts making up complete bullcrap off of the top of their heads, or starts yelling, or typing in big green letters like a child, then it doesn't make their side look good.

 

[buckshot24]

Thankfully you aren't a scientist.

How arrogant can you possibly be? Because YOU can't understand it then it MUST be evidence going "the other way" (which way, exactly, is that again)?

I didn't ask you to take my opinion in any other way as my opinion. However I have told you why I hold it. You can make up your own mind.

I am smart enough to know that I don't have a reasonable understanding of exactly what this scientists and his experiment have proven, dis-proven, made plausible, made implausible, etc... because I am not formally educated on the subject. You on the other hand, as uneducated on the subject as you are, seem to be much more of an expert on the subject than the guy with the PHD.

You just said the opposite.

That is exactly WHY experiments such as the ones you are debating are done, not to necessarily prove that is exactly what happened but to show that it is at least plausible.

I gave reasons why I think it makes it more implausible since they had to massage the reactions to get the <50% copies they got. I'm not asking you to believe me because I'm an expert I'm asking you to look at what I've said about it and judge for yourself. The solution they use, the process they use, the parts they use would never happen outside of the lab.

They start out with a designed molecule which doesn't answer how one might arise. They start out with pre-made correctly ordered polynucleotides chunks so they don't need a nucleotide by nucleotide construction of the copy. They rinse these with solutions (that wouldn't be in any plausible environment) to clean the pre-designed chunks. They introduce these at set intervals to allow the reaction to occur in order of desired sequence. There are never undesired molecules in solution that would screw up the replication.

If anything, as far as I'm concerned, this shows how RNA replication really is and how specific the conditions need to be to get it going.

What exactly is your PHD in again? Regardless, I would really really like to read a formal, scientific, rebuttal on his experiment since you know so much about it (and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you spent as much time reading it as I did which makes me slightly less ignorant than before I read it). I don't care what others have claimed either, I am holding you to task on what you have said.

PHD's don't make you right. We could find many PHD's on either side of an RNA world view of origin of life disagreeing with themselves. You're sort of doing a reverse appeal to authority fallacy here. If an argument holds up it doesn't matter if a kindergartner made it.

The difference between you and me is that I admit my ignorance, you seem to embrace yours. This experiment doesn't prove abiogenesis anymore than the book of genesis proves god. Yet you seem hellbent to argue a point, of which iis completely irrelevant in the realm of science. from a place of complete ignorance. Why is that?

Again, proofs are for mathematics. I'm just letting you know what I think the experiment made more plausible. It, in my view, made it more likely that you can't get an RNA first origin of life without intelligent agents.

And before you or anyone else goes making stuff up, I do not "believe" this experiment proves abiogenesis. I do not believe it proves the origins of life and I do not believe it disproves your god (nor does it need to). I "believe" that it is a science experiment.

I don't think the experimenters were out to "prove" abiogenesis either. Forum members across the internet have tried to use it as support. Incorrectly IMO.

 

[buckshot24]

How exactly do you justify dismissing the entirety of the known fossil record to date?

I don't see the fossil record having anything at all to say about what a supposed first "life" was. Even the most primitive fossils are incredibly complex. Bacteria are not anything close to simple.

Time simply offers the opportunity for something to happen and given enough time nature can do some really crazy, seemingly impossible, stuff.

This is simply an article of faith. You're just saying "billions of years didit" a little differently.

Again, nature is awesome. How hard would it be for man to create the Grand Canyon? Yet, given enough time nature did it just fine.

C'mon, this is just ridiculous. What does this have to do with anything? The grand canyon is basically just a hole in the ground. You can go verify with a garden hose in your back yard how something like that might happen.

 

[ThinClient]

The one thing that always amazes me in these threads is how someone can dismiss everyone who holds the opposing view as "morons" or "idiots" or "mindless sheep". There are many absolutely brilliant people on each side of this debate, and to think that you are more intelligent than they are because something seems "obvious" to you is so ignorant it is laughable. Of course the fact that a brilliant person holds a position on the origins of life doesn't prove that position, but is certainly indicates that the person on the other side in these thread is not an "idiot" solely on the basis of whether he/she believes in the existence of God.

What if I dismiss them because of their flawed method of thinking? I don't dismiss them for being idiots, I dismiss them because everyone is an idiot as a child but when they are taught using facts they dismiss them or cling to an irrational thought process and reject logical, reasonable correction when it is presented.

 

[buckshot24]

What if I dismiss them because of their flawed method of thinking? I don't dismiss them for being idiots, I dismiss them because everyone is an idiot as a child but when they are taught using facts they dismiss them or cling to an irrational thought process and reject logical, reasonable correction when it is presented.

To be consistent then you'd need to dismiss all the discoveries these "irrational" people have made. You'd have a lot of dismissing to do.

 

[Retro Rob]

To be consistent then you'd need to dismiss all the discoveries these "irrational" people have made. You'd have a lot of dismissing to do.

Yeah, these idiots have done nothing to advance science, yet they hold "irrational", religious beliefs.

I think thin-klingon can't rationalize even that.

 

[werepossum]

The one thing that always amazes me in these threads is how someone can dismiss everyone who holds the opposing view as "morons" or "idiots" or "mindless sheep". There are many absolutely brilliant people on each side of this debate, and to think that you are more intelligent than they are because something seems "obvious" to you is so ignorant it is laughable. Of course the fact that a brilliant person holds a position on the origins of life doesn't prove that position, but is certainly indicates that the person on the other side in these thread is not an "idiot" solely on the basis of whether he/she believes in the existence of God.

That's certainly a valid point we need to remember, thanks.

I make a huge differentiation between agnostic and atheist. The agnostic says I see no proof of a Creator, so I am not convinced there is one. The atheist says there is no Creator, which requires that the atheist understand the universe. That to me is a huge leap of faith and is not the product of a rigorous mind. But we all have our illogical spots, so your point is well taken.

 

[buckshot24]

That's certainly a valid point we need to remember, thanks.

I make a huge differentiation between agnostic and atheist. The agnostic says I see no proof of a Creator, so I am not convinced there is one. The atheist says there is no Creator, which requires that the atheist understand the universe. That to me is a huge leap of faith and is not the product of a rigorous mind. But we all have our illogical spots, so your point is well taken.

They successfully have gotten the definition of atheism to simply mean lack of belief in God. So in effect rocks, babies, cats, plants and aardvarks are effectively atheist. Makes the definition pretty meaningless.

 

[Retro Rob]

They successfully have gotten the definition of atheism to simply mean lack of belief in God. So in effect rocks, babies, cats, plants and aardvarks are effectively atheist. Makes the definition pretty meaningless.

Additionally, the reason why they define it that way is so that they don't have to EVER defend their position and keep (unfairly) the burden on the believer.

So they can privately outright deny the existence of God and outwardly take an agnostic type position.

 

[JD50]

They successfully have gotten the definition of atheism to simply mean lack of belief in God. So in effect rocks, babies, cats, plants and aardvarks are effectively atheist. Makes the definition pretty meaningless.

You're missing a keyword in that definition.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+atheist

 

[Paul98]

LMAO, I don't believe in God! There is no evidence to support the belief in one. Thus I am an Atheist.

It's up to you to prove there is one, you are making the claim there is one. I am simply saying I don't believe you. If you don't like it that's your problem, we live in reality and you can't make outrageous claims with no evidence, no way to test and expect someone to believe you. It's completely up to you to backup your claim.

The only way to prove a certain god doesn't exist is if it's dependent on certain things, along with having defined traits. If these traits or things don't agree with reality then that god doesn't exist. You run into a problem when you do something like define god to be everything in the universe, or the human mind, well then obviously this god does exist. Those who have faith in god are immune from logic disproving their god. Any well reasoned argument will be countered with faith rather than logic. This is shown over and over again by those who attempt to argue for gods.

 

[Paul98]

I hope that advances in neuroscience will eventually be able come up with a product that will be able to adjust the brain. Those who are blinded by faith will be able to see reality again. Their brains will no longer be shut down by faith, and able to make new links so that they can come to logical conclusions.

 

[Retro Rob]

I hope that advances in neuroscience will eventually be able come up with a product that will be able to adjust the brain. Those who are blinded by faith will be able to see reality again. Their brains will no longer be shut down by faith, and able to make new links so that they can come to logical conclusions.

I was just thinking the same thing about your faith.

 

[Munky]

I hope that advances in neuroscience will eventually be able come up with a product that will be able to adjust the brain. Those who are blinded by faith will be able to see reality again. Their brains will no longer be shut down by faith, and able to make new links so that they can come to logical conclusions.

Interpretation: I hope that in the future people will see the world just like me, because I'm so progressive and enlightened... SCIENCE!!! Oh, and don't forget I'm so tolerant and inclusive, just ask all my other urbanite bohemian hipster friends!!!111

 

[Rio Rebel]

That's certainly a valid point we need to remember, thanks.

I make a huge differentiation between agnostic and atheist. The agnostic says I see no proof of a Creator, so I am not convinced there is one. The atheist says there is no Creator, which requires that the atheist understand the universe. That to me is a huge leap of faith and is not the product of a rigorous mind. But we all have our illogical spots, so your point is well taken.

I hold the same view regarding agnostic and atheist.

I have more in common with agnostics that with evangelical Christians, despite the fact that I consider myself a theist. I am not interested in overzealous people's dogma, or doctrines created by institutions which thrive or die based on convincing people to believe. I'm not interested in someone regurgitating the religious views which were formulated by someone else.

I am interested in who God is, and what God is, and nothing more. I'd rather have a tiny and insufficient understanding of what is real than an expertise of someone else's anthropomorphic charicature.