Posts: 3628
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 8:47 pm
(March 17, 2016 at 8:30 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: (March 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm sorry, did you just list off some of the evidence based scientific explanations for the origin of life in a sentence that began with the claim that there is currently no evidence based scientific explanation for the origin of life?
L2Words.
In any case, atheism is not a position on the explanation for the origins of life. Atheism is not believing in gods. That clears everything up nicely, I hope.
Mmm. There is a difference between a speculation, and a fact. The former is not supported by solid evidence. The latter is.
The nature of the origin of life will affect atheism. If it turns out to be super-natural, then that creates a problem for a naturalistic worldview, which is by far one of the strongest assumptions in atheism.
The various hypotheses that currently exist for abiogenesis are far beyond speculation. The chemistry for all of them is solid.
It doesn't matter that the exact explanation is not yet known. The fact that the current explanations work, and the complete lack of evidence for a supernatural explanation, is all that is needed to disregard the supernatural.
Quote: If it turns out to be super-natural, then that creates a problem for a naturalistic worldview, which is by far one of the strongest assumptions in atheism.
This is not true.
There are plenty of atheists that believe in the supernatural. Just not gods. Buddhism is largely an atheistic religion, yet they believe in ancestor spirits.
But there's further problems with your contention.
For the gods to become a viable explanation, you have to provide evidence that they exist.
How would you even go about proving that the existence of gods is even possible?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 69
Threads: 4
Joined: March 14, 2016
Reputation:
0
RE: The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 8:54 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 9:00 pm by truth_seeker.)
(March 17, 2016 at 8:47 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (March 17, 2016 at 8:30 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: Mmm. There is a difference between a speculation, and a fact. The former is not supported by solid evidence. The latter is.
The nature of the origin of life will affect atheism. If it turns out to be super-natural, then that creates a problem for a naturalistic worldview, which is by far one of the strongest assumptions in atheism.
The various hypotheses that currently exist for abiogenesis are far beyond speculation. The chemistry for all of them is solid.
It doesn't matter that the exact explanation is not yet known. The fact that the current explanations work, and the complete lack of evidence for a supernatural explanation, is all that is needed to disregard the supernatural.
Quote: If it turns out to be super-natural, then that creates a problem for a naturalistic worldview, which is by far one of the strongest assumptions in atheism.
This is not true.
There are plenty of atheists that believe in the supernatural. Just not gods. Buddhism is largely an atheistic religion, yet they believe in ancestor spirits.
But there's further problems with your contention.
For the gods to become a viable explanation, you have to provide evidence that they exist.
How would you even go about proving that the existence of gods is even possible?
Whether abiogensis is far beyond speculation or near beyond speculation doesn't change the fact that its a speculation. Strongly wanting it to be a fact, is another story 
Did you see the word god anywhere in this post?
(March 17, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Minimalist Wrote: No it doesn't, asshole.
Thanks for your kindness
Did you see me ridicule you in any way?
I hope we can keep discussions about ideas, not persons
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 9:17 pm
Really, Truth? You came here to argue for God and, "abiogenesis isn't a scientific fact yet" is the BEST you could come up with? It's like you're not even trying...*yawn*
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 69
Threads: 4
Joined: March 14, 2016
Reputation:
0
RE: The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 9:30 pm
(March 17, 2016 at 9:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Really, Truth? You came here to argue for God and, "abiogenesis isn't a scientific fact yet" is the BEST you could come up with? It's like you're not even trying...*yawn*
Can you please show me a peer reviewed replicated experiment that was able to recreate abiogenensis in vitro?
If you can, I retract my statements.
Go ahead. I'll be waiting here
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 9:31 pm
(March 17, 2016 at 9:30 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: (March 17, 2016 at 9:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Really, Truth? You came here to argue for God and, "abiogenesis isn't a scientific fact yet" is the BEST you could come up with? It's like you're not even trying...*yawn*
Can you please show me a peer reviewed replicated experiment that was able to recreate abiogenensis in vitro?
If you can, I retract my statements.
Go ahead. I'll be waiting here
Way to miss my point entirely, lol. You're fun.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 4664
Threads: 100
Joined: November 22, 2013
Reputation:
39
The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 9:37 pm
(March 17, 2016 at 9:30 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: Can you please show me a peer reviewed replicated experiment that was able to recreate abiogenensis in vitro?
I could but you'll just have to take my word for it.
Posts: 69
Threads: 4
Joined: March 14, 2016
Reputation:
0
RE: The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 9:38 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 9:38 pm by truth_seeker.)
(March 17, 2016 at 9:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (March 17, 2016 at 9:30 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: Can you please show me a peer reviewed replicated experiment that was able to recreate abiogenensis in vitro?
If you can, I retract my statements.
Go ahead. I'll be waiting here
Way to miss my point entirely, lol. You're fun.
No where in my post did I mention god.
I was specifically discussing the possibility of natural and the possibility of super-natural explanations.
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 9:40 pm
(March 17, 2016 at 9:38 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: (March 17, 2016 at 9:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Way to miss my point entirely, lol. You're fun.
And no where in my post did I mention god.
I was specifically discussing the possibility of natural and the possibility of super-natural explanations.
That's about as dodgy as it gets. So, do you mean God, or not? What exactly would you be talking about?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 3628
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 9:43 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 9:44 pm by Simon Moon.)
(March 17, 2016 at 9:38 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: (March 17, 2016 at 9:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Way to miss my point entirely, lol. You're fun.
No where in my post did I mention god.
I was specifically discussing the possibility of natural and the possibility of super-natural explanations.
What are some examples of the supernatural, that would be not described as a god, creating life on earth?
So we can then show you the logical and evidential flaws in believing in them also.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 20476
Threads: 447
Joined: June 16, 2014
Reputation:
111
RE: The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 9:44 pm
Aliens!
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
|
