christopher hitchens

[buckshot24]

Will you answer my actual question that I asked previously? That would be nice.

I will, right now I have to go get my daughter from school though. I'll be back later.

 

[jackstar7]

Looking forward to it.

 

[jackstar7]

Fun little reads:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/10/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth

 

[sandorski]

How about the Abiogenises experiments that were successful? Do they not matter?

 

[BurnItDwn]

So, Christians believe a superior sentient thinking being who loves us all created everything, not using "poof" but using some incomprehensible method, because we are just idiot children. Furthermore, offering up less unlikely ideas or hypothesis is frowned upon, because we shan't question "god." Also, we totally aren't getting into heaven which is a real place.

To me, that very idea is nauseating. I find it so impossibly implausible and unlikely. I can not comprehend how anybody can seriously consider wasting energy 'believing' in ANY supernatural anything.

Now, I understand people who want to belong to their church, they want to belong to their friends and family. They want to fit in, they want to be a part of things. They want to be at home and at peace. This makes a lot of sense.

But, how come this insanity is required to appear sane?

 

[sandorski]

So, Christians believe a superior sentient thinking being who loves us all created everything, not using "poof" but using some incomprehensible method, because we are just idiot children. Furthermore, offering up less unlikely ideas or hypothesis is frowned upon, because we shan't question "god." Also, we totally aren't getting into heaven which is a real place.

To me, that very idea is nauseating. I find it so impossibly implausible and unlikely. I can not comprehend how anybody can seriously consider wasting energy 'believing' in ANY supernatural anything.

Now, I understand people who want to belong to their church, they want to belong to their friends and family. They want to fit in, they want to be a part of things. They want to be at home and at peace. This makes a lot of sense.

But, how come this insanity is required to appear sane?

At one point in History such views would have been leading edge. Perhaps even useful to promote advancement of Thought and Reason. Now it is just an anchor tied around their necks in a sea of Knowledge. Some realize it and reformulate their Religious beliefs, casting off the anchor. Others choose to be dragged down until their words sounds like blurbling.

 

[MongGrel]

No I didn't. I demonstrated I didn't want a discussion about something I found to be irrelevant.

Other than "No I didn't" "Yes I did", most of your posts have been irrelevant since you said you were done posting about 20 back.

Yet you continue to do so non stop I guess.

LOL, you can't say I'm wrong, then ask me to "see anything related to solar eclipses, volcanos erupting, etc".

What's wrong with you?

I could ask what is wrong with you if you cannot see the point.

So it is moot.

 

[jackstar7]

More to read while I wait: http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Answer the second one then. How is the idea itself falsifiable?

Evolution doesn't have to explain abiogenesis. The latter is much more speculative, although still not without consideration of our understanding of the Earth's formation, organic chemistry, etc.

 

[buckshot24]

Fun little reads:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

Is the natural unguided origin of life falsifiable? If so then how?

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/10/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth

What do you think this shows us?

Your question. Obviously I am a theist and believe that God created life which gives it an intrinsic value. A piece of canvas has very little value but if the painter is well known enough the value of the painting on the canvas can go through the roof. There is no intrinsic value of paint splatters on the floor but a purposeful design can carry value.

 

[buckshot24]

Evolution doesn't have to explain abiogenesis. The latter is much more speculative, although still not without consideration of our understanding of the Earth's formation, organic chemistry, etc.

Thanks but we're talking about the origin of life.

 

[buckshot24]

More to read while I wait: http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Now all they have to do is have RNA form spontaneously. So far they are showing intelligence is required to get any form of RNA to form.

 

[buckshot24]

So, Christians believe a superior sentient thinking being who loves us all created everything, not using "poof" but using some incomprehensible method, because we are just idiot children. Furthermore, offering up less unlikely ideas or hypothesis is frowned upon, because we shan't question "god." Also, we totally aren't getting into heaven which is a real place.

To me, that very idea is nauseating. I find it so impossibly implausible and unlikely. I can not comprehend how anybody can seriously consider wasting energy 'believing' in ANY supernatural anything.

Now, I understand people who want to belong to their church, they want to belong to their friends and family. They want to fit in, they want to be a part of things. They want to be at home and at peace. This makes a lot of sense.

But, how come this insanity is required to appear sane?

Frankly this rant sounds to be bordering on insanity.

 

[jackstar7]

Is the natural unguided origin of life falsifiable? If so then how?

In and of itself, that is just an idea. That's not a hypothesis, so it is not a testable thing. Each effort to try and demonstrate abiogensis is clearly falsifiable, as demonstrated by the repeated failures of those efforts.

What do you think this shows us?

That it is an idea.

Your question. Obviously I am a theist and believe that God created life which gives it an intrinsic value. A piece of canvas has very little value but if the painter is well known enough the value of the painting on the canvas can go through the roof. There is no intrinsic value of paint splatters on the floor but a purposeful design can carry value.

There are a number of assumptions in your analogy.

 

[buckshot24]

In and of itself, that is just an idea. That's not a hypothesis, so it is not a testable thing. Each effort to try and demonstrate abiogensis is clearly falsifiable, as demonstrated by the repeated failures of those efforts.

When should one abandon the idea completely? I think the time is now.

That it is an idea.

Didn't really get into the origin at all from I could tell.

There are a number of assumptions in your analogy.

Of course.

 

[jackstar7]

When should one abandon the idea completely? I think the time is now.
Didn't really get into the origin at all from I could tell.
Of course.

Why abandon an idea that's relatively new when new methodology and means come to bear all the time?

You think this is a poor use of the resources involved?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Your question. Obviously I am a theist and believe that God created life which gives it an intrinsic value. A piece of canvas has very little value but if the painter is well known enough the value of the painting on the canvas can go through the roof. There is no intrinsic value of paint splatters on the floor but a purposeful design can carry value.

If you believe God created the spark of life, which then evolved over billions of years to the modern day human, what gives humans any more "intrinsic value" than an amoeba?

 

[buckshot24]

Why abandon an idea that's relatively new when new methodology and means come to bear all the time?

Because it's nonsense? We understand chemistry really well, much better than we do biology. These reactions are just not going to spontaneously occur without interfering reactions messing things up. The only reason people are looking, in my opinion, is they don't like the God option.

You think this is a poor use of the resources involved?

Absolutely.

 

[buckshot24]

If you believe God created the spark of life, which then evolved over billions of years to the modern day human, what gives humans any more "intrinsic value" than an amoeba?

Exactly, but I don't believe that.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Frankly this rant sounds to be bordering on insanity.

Thank you for making my point for me. I appreciate you going out on a limb like that and exposing yourself. You truly are kind and considerate.

 

[jackstar7]

Because it's nonsense? We understand chemistry really well, much better than we do biology. These reactions are just not going to spontaneously occur without interfering reactions messing things up. The only reason people are looking, in my opinion, is they don't like the God option.
Absolutely.

Oh. You would choose ignorance over exploration and you think science exists to spite your God.

All right.

I guess we're done here.

 

[soulcougher73]

Because it's nonsense? We understand chemistry really well, much better than we do biology. These reactions are just not going to spontaneously occur without interfering reactions messing things up. The only reason people are looking, in my opinion, is they don't like the God option.
Absolutely.

Someone is scared lol

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Exactly, but I don't believe that.

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?

 

[fskimospy]

Oh. You would choose ignorance over exploration and you think science exists to spite your God.

All right.

I guess we're done here.

That is a pretty amazing idea. He thinks we have biochemistry literally all figured out so the only reason people would be spending all this time to research it anymore is in an effort to avoid believing in god.

I mean, holy shit.

 

[buckshot24]

Oh. You would choose ignorance over exploration and you think science exists to spite your God.

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.