Christians on Decline, Non-believers Skyrocketing in US

[bshole]

I just whince a lot, smack my legs, then find some Ibuprofen or think of what I need to do to get rid of the pain.

BTW, some Christians don't believe Death Bed conversions are legit either.

Of for the love of God, where is the bullet proof method, damnit!

I have problems with abiogenesis and irreducible complexity. I am particularly interested in molecules capable of reproduction. This is something that I would expect to occur in nature (alive molecules deriving from non-alive molecules). Right now it seems like a miracle that such a thing could happen. I know some work was done in this regard decades ago but I am not aware of any scientists following up on it since. Give the ramifications of such research, I am a little surprised that more work hasn't been done in this regard. How the fuck can these complex molecules form in the first place when AFTER formation they are only formed from pre-existing molecules? How the hell did the millions of atoms line up and configure in that formation? And that is my problem with abiogenesis. This is something that could theoretically be demonstrated in the lab. I would LOVE to see such a demonstration.

 

[realibrad]

Of for the love of God, where is the bullet proof method, damnit!

I have problems with abiogenesis and irreducible complexity. I am particularly interested in molecules capable of reproduction. This is something that I would expect to occur in nature (alive molecules deriving from non-alive molecules). Right now it seems like a miracle that such a thing could happen. I know some work was done in this regard decades ago but I am not aware of any scientists following up on it since. Give the ramifications of such research, I am a little surprised that more work hasn't been done in this regard. How the fuck can these complex molecules form in the first place when AFTER formation they are only formed from pre-existing molecules? How the hell did the millions of atoms line up and configure in that formation? And that is my problem with abiogenesis. This is something that could theoretically be demonstrated in the lab. I would LOVE to see such a demonstration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

I wont explain irreducible complexity, because its not a thing, so no need.

The Miller-Urey experiment showed how bonds could form and start the building blocks of life. It does not explain how our life started, but it shows how organic compounds could form naturally in an environment that was reasonable.

It may or may not have happened like this experiment, but it does show how things like Abiogenesis could start.

 

[OverVolt]

Current theory is RNA world. Derp.

Thats the other issue with atheists though is they treat science like its some kind of sci-fi story. Or they think science and religion are at odds with each other. I've never seen god or religion mentioned in a real journal and I've never seen the church in modern day persecute someone for researching science.

Like where do you guys get these stupid contrived grievances from.

 

[jhbball]

Par for the course with Cerpin Taxt, it seems:

You get destroyed in every religion debate on these forums. Just give up.

 

[realibrad]

Current theory is RNA world. Derp.

Thats the other issue with atheists though is they treat science like its some kind of sci-fi story. Or they think science and religion are at odds with each other. I've never seen god or religion mentioned in a real journal and I've never seen the church in modern day persecute someone for researching science.

Like where do you guys get these stupid contrived grievances from.

Lol.

Science Journals don't talk about my poop either. I also like how you threw in "modern day".

 

[OverVolt]

Lol.

Science Journals don't talk about my poop either. I also like how you threw in "modern day".

Well you never know with atheists they will complain about the crusades as if they happened yesterday not 800-1200 years ago.

Its as if they were personally affected by it they get so upset by it. Its bizarre.

 

[realibrad]

Well you never know with atheists they will complain about the crusades as if they happened yesterday not 800-1200 years ago.

Its as if they were personally affected by it they get so upset by it. Its bizarre.

I am an atheist, and I do not feel like the crusades hurt me and it does not upset me. The wars that the Muslims took to the Christians were very close to the Crusades. Except the 3rd Crusade, that was a clusterfuck.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Of for the love of God, where is the bullet proof method, damnit!

I have problems with abiogenesis and irreducible complexity. I am particularly interested in molecules capable of reproduction. This is something that I would expect to occur in nature (alive molecules deriving from non-alive molecules). Right now it seems like a miracle that such a thing could happen. I know some work was done in this regard decades ago but I am not aware of any scientists following up on it since. Give the ramifications of such research, I am a little surprised that more work hasn't been done in this regard. How the fuck can these complex molecules form in the first place when AFTER formation they are only formed from pre-existing molecules? How the hell did the millions of atoms line up and configure in that formation? And that is my problem with abiogenesis. This is something that could theoretically be demonstrated in the lab. I would LOVE to see such a demonstration.

I think you're falling into a bit of a mind trap called "painting the target around the arrow."

If the historical trajectory of molecular and biological evolution is an arrow in flight, and if the present moment is where the arrow happens to land, you must realize that it had to land somewhere. That "somewhere," now, is the state of biological diversity we observe in our present.

We know of no reason that it could not have landed in a different "somewhere." Maybe it could've been somewhere that "life" is configured radically different than what we know now. Maybe somewhere that dolphins are the dominant species on the planet. Maybe somewhere that nothing resembling "life" exists at all. It just happened to land here, now. There's really no reason to shout "BULLSEYE!" and then marvel at how "miraculous" it is that we're here.

 

[OverVolt]

I am an atheist, and I do not feel like the crusades hurt me and it does not upset me. The wars that the Muslims took to the Christians were very close to the Crusades. Except the 3rd Crusade, that was a clusterfuck.

Yea I'm sure you would know because you were there/are a history expert.

 

[realibrad]

Yea I'm sure you would know because you were there/are a history expert.

Why would the only way for me to know about the topic is if I were there, or an expert?

I can say the earth is round and not be an expert on the earth. I can say that Obama is the president and not be an expert on the US. Why would I need to be an expert to know the 3rd Crusade was a clusterfuck?

It was also a joke.

 

[mindmajick]

Maybe but I still have that death bed conversion sitting in my back pocket.

When you are in extreme agony, do you cry out to God for relief? The last time I prayed was for relief from pain (many years ago). It was almost a reflex reaction. I am wondering who athiests cry out to for help when in the grip of death or great pain. I am genuinely interested in the response because it seems like humans in general are genetically programmed to call out to a god for help in those circumstances.

I don't believe i would.

I think crying out to god is a religious and/or cultural reflex. It really has to be ingrained from birth.

I was not raised with any religion and neither my mother or father prayed.

It's really hard to convince Christians of that, in general, because of the whole theory that "no one is an atheist in a foxhole".

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"no one is an atheist in a foxhole".

If there were more atheists, there'd probably be less foxholes.

 

[Zorkorist]

There will be fewer and fewer people that believe in God, as science continues to expand our minds.

Our problem with "God" is now down here, and our Government.

We have to limit Government, or it will become God like.

Big Brother.

etc.

-John

 

[OverVolt]

If there were more atheists, there'd probably be less foxholes.

Not true thats just your belief.

 

[Zorkorist]

Not true thats just your belief.

Prove it.

-John

 

[JSt0rm]

Current theory is RNA world. Derp.

Thats the other issue with atheists though is they treat science like its some kind of sci-fi story. Or they think science and religion are at odds with each other. I've never seen god or religion mentioned in a real journal and I've never seen the church in modern day persecute someone for researching science.

Like where do you guys get these stupid contrived grievances from.

RNA and also

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea

Just in the news as well...

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...tic-Microbes-with-Eukaryote-like-Genes-Found/

 

[bshole]

I think you're falling into a bit of a mind trap called "painting the target around the arrow."

If the historical trajectory of molecular and biological evolution is an arrow in flight, and if the present moment is where the arrow happens to land, you must realize that it had to land somewhere. That "somewhere," now, is the state of biological diversity we observe in our present.

We know of no reason that it could not have landed in a different "somewhere." Maybe it could've been somewhere that "life" is configured radically different than what we know now. Maybe somewhere that dolphins are the dominant species on the planet. Maybe somewhere that nothing resembling "life" exists at all. It just happened to land here, now. There's really no reason to shout "BULLSEYE!" and then marvel at how "miraculous" it is that we're here.

Please remember that I am coming from a very conservative Christian background. My worldview is actually kind of flexible. I have been trending agnostic for years now but it is incremental. With regards to abiogenesis, when and if scientists are able to create life, I will be on board. Until that point it seems too complex to me (VERY weak logical argument but I can't help it that is what my emotions are telling me). I am open to life coming to earth on meteorite or through a being greater than us. The argument for abiogenesis is actually quite compelling and I recognize that, emotionally I am not quite able to accept it at this point absent an experiment proving it. Ask me five years from now and my opinion will probably be different.

I just watched a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Overall it seemed like Bill utterly destroyed Ken, his arguments just resonated with me. I did take umbrage at one point Bill made on 3 separate occasions. He believes that it is impossible to be scientific minded and be a creationist. I disagree with that hypothesis rather strongly. There are plenty of examples of people with strong religious beliefs making astounding scientific discoveries, both in the past and today. The best engineer I ever worked with is a creationist. To me the origin of the planet, the universe and life is as much a philosophical question as it is a scientific question. Our beliefs with regards to our origins have no bearing on our ability to solve differential equations, to make scientific observations, etc.... The cause of evolution acceptance is best served by not attempting to silence creationists, but to engage them, to debate them and to explain why they are wrong from a scientific perspective. The concept of silencing them and treating them as almost less than human and less deserving is anti-freedom, anti-American and bigoted. I know you disagree with me on this and would like to see your reasons why.

 

[JSt0rm]

Evolution is real. Anyone who is a "brilliant engineer" isnt a scientist and his opinion on evolution is worth shit.

 

[bshole]

Evolution is real. Anyone who is a "brilliant engineer" isnt a scientist and his opinion on evolution is worth shit.

Agreed 100%. But...... on the other hand, an evolutionary scientist who says an engineer is incapable of good engineering if he doesn't believe in evolution is equally full of shit. And that is EXACTLY what many evolutionists are saying. Please see what Richard Dawkins has to say in the link below. He says a doctor is incapable of being a good doctor without a belief in evolution. On what scientific BASIS does Dawkins make that claim? Jesus Christ, that is just an illogical and unscientific statement! The quality of a doctor of medicine is measured by their ACTUAL FUCKING performance, NOT by their belief in evolution/abiogenesis/origin of the universe. To me this is just bigotry on the part of SOME evolutionists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U

 

[Paul98]

Please remember that I am coming from a very conservative Christian background. My worldview is actually kind of flexible. I have been trending agnostic for years now but it is incremental. With regards to abiogenesis, when and if scientists are able to create life, I will be on board. Until that point it seems too complex to me (VERY weak logical argument but I can't help it that is what my emotions are telling me). I am open to life coming to earth on meteorite or through a being greater than us. The argument for abiogenesis is actually quite compelling and I recognize that, emotionally I am not quite able to accept it at this point absent an experiment proving it. Ask me five years from now and my opinion will probably be different.

I just watched a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Overall it seemed like Bill utterly destroyed Ken, his arguments just resonated with me. I did take umbrage at one point Bill made on 3 separate occasions. He believes that it is impossible to be scientific minded and be a creationist. I disagree with that hypothesis rather strongly. There are plenty of examples of people with strong religious beliefs making astounding scientific discoveries, both in the past and today. The best engineer I ever worked with is a creationist. To me the origin of the planet, the universe and life is as much a philosophical question as it is a scientific question. Our beliefs with regards to our origins have no bearing on our ability to solve differential equations, to make scientific observations, etc.... The cause of evolution acceptance is best served by not attempting to silence creationists, but to engage them, to debate them and to explain why they are wrong from a scientific perspective. The concept of silencing them and treating them as almost less than human and less deserving is anti-freedom, anti-American and bigoted. I know you disagree with me on this and would like to see your reasons why.

The problem is that you are looking at the most simple "current" life and it's complexity and thinking that this is similar to simple life as it got started. It isn't as it's been though billions of years of evolution.

If you want to get to a point where you might be able to convince yourself how life may have come to be. You should be looking at chemistry, as that's is where life came from. Look at how the building blocks of life actually come from chemistry, and how complex chemical reactions can change and build things.

 

[JSt0rm]

Agreed 100%. But...... on the other hand, an evolutionary scientist who says an engineer is incapable of good engineering if he doesn't believe in evolution is equally full of shit. And that is EXACTLY what many evolutionists are saying. Please see Richard Dawkins has to say in the link below. He says a doctor is incapable of being a good doctor without a belief in evolution. On what scientific BASIS does Dawkins make that claim? Jesus Christ, that is just an illogical and unscientific statement! The quality of a doctor of medicine is measured by their ACTUAL FUCKING performance, NOT by their belief in evolution/abiogenesis/origin of the universe. To me this is just bigotry on the part of SOME evolutionists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U

A doctor is in a different position then a engineer. A engineer isnt some super smart dude. He is just super smart in one area and its pretty fucking black and white. A medical doctor on the other hand isnt working in black and white situations very often and you need someone with a scientific mind to make the right choices.

 

[Paul98]

A doctor is in a different position then a engineer. A engineer isnt some super smart dude. He is just super smart in one area and its pretty fucking black and white. A medical doctor on the other hand isnt working in black and white situations very often and you need someone with a scientific mind to make the right choices.

Someone's job doesn't make a person smart or dumb

 

[bshole]

A doctor is in a different position then a engineer. A engineer isnt some super smart dude. He is just super smart in one area and its pretty fucking black and white. A medical doctor on the other hand isnt working in black and white situations very often and you need someone with a scientific mind to make the right choices.

An evolutionary scientist is not in a better position to judge how good a doctor is than that doctor's boss, colleagues and patients. Richard Dawkins claims the opposite. That is ARROGANT, counter-intuitive, offensive and wrong. An evolutionary scientist knows about evolution, his opinion on medicine means fuck-all.

 

[JSt0rm]

An evolutionary scientist is not in a better position to judge how good a doctor is than that doctor's boss, colleagues and patients. Richard Dawkins claims the opposite. That is ARROGANT, counter-intuitive, offensive and wrong. An evolutionary scientist knows about evolution, his opinion on medicine means fuck-all.

Why are we even talking about this? YOU brought up your engineer friend and then argue against that same thing? Lol. I don't have time for this.

 

[JSt0rm]

Someone's job doesn't make a person smart or dumb

No it doesn't but being open to new ideas and changing your mind based on new evidence is a pretty big advantage to someone who works in science/medicine.