christopher hitchens

[jackstar7]

I'm "ignorant" in figuring out how whales fly through the air or how books write themselves. Looking for an answer to nonsense is a waste of time.

You don't get to decide how everyone spends their time.

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm "ignorant" in figuring out how whales fly through the air or how books write themselves. Looking for an answer to nonsense is a waste of time.

Geezus Christ..(insert trademark symbol here)

 

[buckshot24]

Your earlier "Thanks but we're talking about the origin of life", combined with Retro Rob's insistence than no Christians believe God poofed anything (not true btw as someone raised in a Creationist environment), led me to believe you were coming at it from a similar angle. So when you look at two distinct events that clash with your view (abiogenesis and evolution), your answer is to just ignore the one that is measurable and falsifiable, so you can cite lack of knowledge in the other case as proof of your own?

No, I look at both. In this case the conversation "evolved" into the origin of life because of some of the things Hitchens said which I thought were wrong.

I don't consider God engineering life as "poofing" it into existence. Even if it is instantaneously.

 

[buckshot24]

You don't get to decide how everyone spends their time.

Of course not. People can make up their own minds. My opinion is that they are just wasting their time and they will never find an adequate answer. Just my opinion.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I'm "ignorant" in figuring out how whales fly through the air or how books write themselves. Looking for an answer to nonsense is a waste of time.

Birds and insects fly through the air, they share common ancestors with whales. So, its a little bit abstracted, but as whales and birds and insects share over 90% of DNA, its pretty damn close, they are almost the same thing. As an added bonus, whales, do "fly" in water. And, if you heat up water hot enough, it just simply becomes air.... so, wales in water is similar/close to whales in air...

Now, of course books wont write themselves, books are a manmade invention. So not sure why you would expect a book to write itself.

Anyhow, I agree that looking for an answer to nonsense is a waste of time, that is why I am so confused by biblical scholars.

 

[buckshot24]

Birds and insects fly through the air, they share common ancestors with whales. So, its a little bit abstracted, but as whales and birds and insects share over 90% of DNA, its pretty damn close, they are almost the same thing. As an added bonus, whales, do "fly" in water. And, if you heat up water hot enough, it just simply becomes air.... so, wales in water is similar/close to whales in air...

Cooking whales isn't going to change the fact that they can't fly in the air.

Now, of course books wont write themselves, books are a manmade invention. So not sure why you would expect a book to write itself.

I don't. These are illustrations on how I view origin of life studies.

Anyhow, I agree that looking for an answer to nonsense is a waste of time, that is why I am so confused by biblical scholars.

Being a biblical scholar believer is one thing but the atheist biblical scholars really make me scratch my head.

 

[jackstar7]

A theist pedant?

My surprise is real, everyone.

 

[buckshot24]

A theist pedant?

My surprise is real, everyone.

Name calling isn't conducive to conversation which you seemed to desire just a while ago.

 

[jackstar7]

Are either of those descriptors incorrect?

I submit they are not.

So I don't believe it is name-calling, except in the fact that I am identifying you and labeling you properly for reference.


As to the discussion I was interested in having, it has been exhausted. That happens. There are plenty of other people at this party for both of us to annoy.

 

[sandorski]

Cooking whales isn't going to change the fact that they can't fly in the air.
I don't. These are illustrations on how I view origin of life studies.
Being a biblical scholar believer is one thing but the atheist biblical scholars really make me scratch my head.

Ever curious as to why some Believers who become Biblical Scholars end up as Unbelievers?

 

[WelshBloke]

Being a biblical scholar believer is one thing but the atheist biblical scholars really make me scratch my head.

Some people like old things because they are interesting. I like old churches. I found these in a local one. (excuse potato quality, only had my phone).

 

[buckshot24]

So I don't believe it is name-calling, except in the fact that I am identifying you and labeling you properly for reference.

I believe that is absurd and if you have kids not a standard you would teach them to use at their school. But whatever, I'm not really that concerned with your opinion of me anyway.

As to the discussion I was interested in having, it has been exhausted. That happens. There are plenty of other people at this party for both of us to annoy.

Fair enough.

 

[WelshBloke]

I believe that is absurd and if you have kids not a standard you would teach them to use at their school. But whatever, I'm not really that concerned with your opinion of me anyway.

Calling someone a pedant isn't an insult (I'm presuming that you aren't complaining about being called a theist?).

 

[MongGrel]

No, I look at both. In this case the conversation "evolved" into the origin of life because of some of the things Hitchens said which I thought were wrong.

I don't consider God engineering life as "poofing" it into existence. Even if it is instantaneously.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Books do write themselves. Molecular evolution shows clear lineage between species, has been used to falsify previously-believed theories of lineage, and can be measured and quantified mathematically.

 

[fskimospy]

A theist pedant?

My surprise is real, everyone.

I don't know if you noticed earlier, but he totally gave up the game.

Before, he was complaining about how lab experiments failed to show any evidence for abiogenesis. As soon as you provided him with lab results that did provide evidence for it he switched to saying they didn't matter because they were just in a lab.

You know as well as I do even if you did show some self replicating molecules now he would just say that's no reason to think it happened 4 billion years ago and regardless, they still wouldn't have evolved into man.

That's the trick, ask for evidence and then when evidence is provided say it doesn't count. That's why he will never say in advance what evidence he requires, because if he does that then he loses the ability to think up new reasons why it doesn't count. For some reason this kind of fundamentalist creationism is very important to his faith, so he's terrified of losing it. That makes for a powerful defense mechanism, which is probably why he's convinced himself that the study of biochemistry is a conspiracy against God.

 

[jackstar7]

I believe that is absurd and if you have kids not a standard you would teach them to use at their school. But whatever, I'm not really that concerned with your opinion of me anyway.

If my kids' biggest flaw is telling it like it is... then I will feel I've won at parenting.

 

[buckshot24]

Books do write themselves. Molecular evolution shows clear lineage between species, has been used to falsify previously-believed theories of lineage, and can be measured and quantified mathematically.

A few years ago it was determined that echolocation "evolved" into existence in mammals twice in pretty much the same way.

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/09/bats-and-dolphins-evolved-echolocation-same-way

Obviously bats and dolphins didn't get this via a common ancestor. And common ancestry doesn't prove books write themselves even if true.

 

[WelshBloke]

I don't know if you noticed earlier, but he totally gave up the game.

Before, he was complaining about how lab experiments failed to show any evidence for abiogenesis. As soon as you provided him with lab results that did provide evidence for it he switched to saying they didn't matter because they were just in a lab.

You know as well as I do even if you did show some self replicating molecules now he would just say that's no reason to think it happened 4 billion years ago and regardless, they still wouldn't have evolved into man.

That's the trick, ask for evidence and then when evidence is provided say it doesn't count. That's why he will never say in advance what evidence he requires, because if he does that then he loses the ability to think up new reasons why it doesn't count. For some reason this kind of fundamentalist creationism is very important to his faith, so he's terrified of losing it. That makes for a powerful defense mechanism, which is probably why he's convinced himself that the study of biochemistry is a conspiracy against God.

What confuses me is if thats the case (and it looks so), why debate anyone about it? If you're relying on faith and don't want to question it why invite other people to question it? It's not like his non arguments are going to convince anyone else.

 

[jackstar7]

What confuses me is if thats the case (and it looks so), why debate anyone about it? If you're relying on faith and don't want to question it why invite other people to question it? It's not like his non arguments are going to convince anyone else.

Could be a demonstration for God.

Based on the biography of God, it seems like he enjoys a show.

 

[buckshot24]

Maybe Hamburgerboy has some observed instances of mutations "writing new books" that I haven't seen before.

 

[soulcougher73]

What confuses me is if thats the case (and it looks so), why debate anyone about it? If you're relying on faith and don't want to question it why invite other people to question it? It's not like his non arguments are going to convince anyone else.

In one of the earlier Hitchen videos posted he even stated almost the same thing. If your going to debate faith then please excuse yourself from the conversation as you have nothing to offer it. So true.

 

[fskimospy]

What confuses me is if thats the case (and it looks so), why debate anyone about it? If you're relying on faith and don't want to question it why invite other people to question it? It's not like his non arguments are going to convince anyone else.

Nobody likes to think their opinions are irrational. Even if faith doesn't depend on evidence nobody likes to see their faith directly contradicted by observable reality. Better to come up with reasons why it's all a conspiracy or its all nonsense.

That's my guess at least.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Cooking whales isn't going to change the fact that they can't fly in the air.

Cooking is just a regular chemical reaction.
But, evolution, biological reactions over many generations, offers a proven path to change. This really isn't open to debate as its more or less been proven beyond reasonable doubt a million times over.

I don't. These are illustrations on how I view origin of life studies.

You think you are a book? You are simple and your mind is all written down on ink and can't be changed or updated based upon new information and observations? You are static in a dynamic world? unable to adapt? Are you a bot? This would explain the whole belief/creator complex, though bots are getting more and more advanced, where they are able to evolve quite a bit... All bots have a point where their existence "begins", and with bots, humans have created 100% of them 100% of the time. Anyhow, it all boils down to what is plausible/sensible to you. My mind tells me that down is down and up is up, and no matter how much you say up is down and down is up, up is still up and down is still down.
Belief in supernatural, belief that supernatural beings created life, that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life on this planet, to me, that is beyond my imagination.
How are you able to suspend your disbelief? How do you convince yourself of the existence of a super-maker-creater omnipower type? I imagine it would be a reassuring through, but, to me, the necessary suspension of disbelieve is beyond my capacity. Its like when I watch a movie and a person who gets shot fly's back 100 feet, it might look like a neat affect, but that's not how it works.

Naturally, you and I have different life histories, and your life experience is giving you different answers than mine is. So, I know, you probably really actually do believe at least some of what you say. I also believe that you probably are a pretty smart guy too. But, I do not understand you. It confounds me.

Being a biblical scholar believer is one thing but the atheist biblical scholars really make me scratch my head.

In my brain, the basic default assumption is that all truly are fully atheistic at heart. Some people simply deny it more than others. I do not believe it is possible to have a world view where a "creator" actually exists, because that idea is incomprehensible to my mind and incompatible with my understanding of physics. Of course, while very unlikely, it could all be some really really complex and complicated trick, like a practical joke by a very devious practical joker.... But, I choose the path of least silliness and nonsense.

There you go, total honesty, fully opened to scrutiny and vulnerable. Attempt even to not be such a complete total Ass the whole way through....

Have a happy/good evening no matter what beliefs you subsscribe to, we can argue/debate/flame war another day. Peace!

 

[WelshBloke]

Nobody likes to think their opinions are irrational.

But arguing about it ends up reinforcing how irrational they are. He knows this, and he knows that his belief is irrational, that's why he's been desperate to avoid being pinned down on it.

Even if faith doesn't depend on evidence nobody likes to see their faith directly contradicted by observable reality. Better to come up with reasons why it's all a conspiracy or its all nonsense.

Better to just believe quietly than start a debate that there's no way to win and there's no way that you're going to change your mind.

That's my guess at least.

Could be.