(April 5, 2016 at 2:45 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(April 5, 2016 at 12:52 am)AJW333 Wrote: It is used as an example of faith. No one ever saw it happen, it can't be reproduced naturally and it cannot be said to be a scientific fact because it fails to meet the necessary criteria. On the other hand, we have independent eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and his miracles who wrote down their observations and were prepared to die for the truth of what they wrote. Therefore, I would contend that there is more factual evidence for Christ than there is for abiogenesis. As such, I would consider atheists who believe in abiogenesis to be  a people of faith.

You never saw 'god' play in the dirt and create "Adam" either so let's dismiss that "no one ever saw it" bullshit right off the bat.

Try to understand what is being said here. 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...earth.html

Quote:Scientists today generally agree that DNA is the result of life on Earth, rather than its origin. But many molecular biologists are embracing the intruiging possibility, and strong evidence that the first life on Earth involved chemical multitasking by another key life molecule, ribonucleic acid or RNA. Molecular subunits of RNA have been found in alien carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, or could have formed through chemical reactions in the early Earth's oceans or primordial atmosphere leading to the exciting new theory that RNA is our earliest molecular ancestor.

One of the great problems I see with the view, "it's just chemical reactions" is that there is a distinct lack of intelligence in those reactions, even the self-assembling molecules, which don't possess much in the way of "self-awareness" that DNA possesses. What we see in DNA is the ability to self-scan, self-diagnose and self-repair. In the same way that cells in an embryo differentiate into other cells and migrate into precise locations with specific purposes, as if they have an inbuilt knowledge or intelligent programme that guides them. Such is the case with DNA. There is a massive difference between throwing some chemicals in a petri dish and watching them aggregate, to the kind of intelligent behaviour seen in DNA.

(April 6, 2016 at 7:20 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(April 6, 2016 at 7:16 pm)AJW333 Wrote: I think that modern atheists have attempted to morph the meaning of atheism into something new. In the strictest sense, "atheism" means "without God."

Origin

Late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'. Oxford Dictionary.

Meanings morph, dude. Atheism, right now, means a lack of belief or disbelief in deities. "Without god" is fine by me, anyway, because due to my lack of belief, I am without one.

What does that have to do with my point, anyway? If you missed it: "if abiogenesis is incorrect, your god of choice isn't the answer by default."

Strictly speaking, Christians believe in abiogenesis. The difference is , they believe that God was responsible for it, and that he created Adam complete, with no intermediary steps.

I think it just bugs you that atheists are not committed to a belief, and therefore do not have to shoulder any burden of proof.

(April 6, 2016 at 7:30 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Strictly speaking, Christians believe in abiogenesis. The difference is , they believe that God was responsible for it, and that he created Adam complete, with no intermediary steps.

Barring the fact that not all christians stoop so low on the intellectual scale as to believe in that mud golem.

(April 6, 2016 at 7:30 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(April 6, 2016 at 7:20 pm)The_Empress Wrote: Meanings morph, dude. Atheism, right now, means a lack of belief or disbelief in deities. "Without god" is fine by me, anyway, because due to my lack of belief, I am without one.

What does that have to do with my point, anyway? If you missed it: "if abiogenesis is incorrect, your god of choice isn't the answer by default."

Strictly speaking, Christians believe in abiogenesis. The difference is , they believe that God was responsible for it, and that he created Adam complete, with no intermediary steps.

Holy eff.

Still missing the point.

(April 6, 2016 at 7:27 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(April 5, 2016 at 2:45 am)Minimalist Wrote: You never saw 'god' play in the dirt and create "Adam" either so let's dismiss that "no one ever saw it" bullshit right off the bat.

Try to understand what is being said here. 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...earth.html

One of the great problems I see with the view, "it's just chemical reactions" is that there is a distinct lack of intelligence in those reactions, even the self-assembling molecules, which don't possess much in the way of "self-awareness" that DNA possesses. What we see in DNA is the ability to self-scan, self-diagnose and self-repair. In the same way that cells in an embryo differentiate into other cells and migrate into precise locations with specific purposes, as if they have an inbuilt knowledge or intelligent programme that guides them. Such is the case with DNA. There is a massive difference between throwing some chemicals in a petri dish and watching them aggregate, to the kind of intelligent behaviour seen in DNA.

You're personal incredulity is not our problem, and we do not have to answer for it.

(April 6, 2016 at 7:30 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(April 6, 2016 at 7:20 pm)The_Empress Wrote: Meanings morph, dude. Atheism, right now, means a lack of belief or disbelief in deities. "Without god" is fine by me, anyway, because due to my lack of belief, I am without one.

What does that have to do with my point, anyway? If you missed it: "if abiogenesis is incorrect, your god of choice isn't the answer by default."

Strictly speaking, Christians believe in abiogenesis. The difference is , they believe that God was responsible for it, and that he created Adam complete, with no intermediary steps.

But why?
Why do people believe this?
What is there that makes them accept this unsupported proposition?

(April 6, 2016 at 7:27 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(April 5, 2016 at 2:45 am)Minimalist Wrote: You never saw 'god' play in the dirt and create "Adam" either so let's dismiss that "no one ever saw it" bullshit right off the bat.

Try to understand what is being said here. 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...earth.html

One of the great problems I see with the view, "it's just chemical reactions" is that there is a distinct lack of intelligence in those reactions, even the self-assembling molecules, which don't possess much in the way of "self-awareness" that DNA possesses. What we see in DNA is the ability to self-scan, self-diagnose and self-repair. In the same way that cells in an embryo differentiate into other cells and migrate into precise locations with specific purposes, as if they have an inbuilt knowledge or intelligent programme that guides them. Such is the case with DNA. There is a massive difference between throwing some chemicals in a petri dish and watching them aggregate, to the kind of intelligent behaviour seen in DNA.

(April 6, 2016 at 7:48 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 6, 2016 at 7:30 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Strictly speaking, Christians believe in abiogenesis. The difference is , they believe that God was responsible for it, and that he created Adam complete, with no intermediary steps.

But why?
Why do people believe this?
What is there that makes them accept this unsupported proposition?

Cellular biology is endlessly elegant and screams designer.

(April 6, 2016 at 7:56 pm)AAA Wrote:

(April 6, 2016 at 7:27 pm)AJW333 Wrote: One of the great problems I see with the view, "it's just chemical reactions" is that there is a distinct lack of intelligence in those reactions, even the self-assembling molecules, which don't possess much in the way of "self-awareness" that DNA possesses. What we see in DNA is the ability to self-scan, self-diagnose and self-repair. In the same way that cells in an embryo differentiate into other cells and migrate into precise locations with specific purposes, as if they have an inbuilt knowledge or intelligent programme that guides them. Such is the case with DNA. There is a massive difference between throwing some chemicals in a petri dish and watching them aggregate, to the kind of intelligent behaviour seen in DNA.

(April 6, 2016 at 7:48 pm)pocaracas Wrote: But why?
Why do people believe this?
What is there that makes them accept this unsupported proposition?

Cellular biology is endlessly elegant and screams designer.

LOL, wow, consider us all schooled then! Perhaps you haven't actually read through the pages and pages of this thread where you guys utterly failed to prove, or even provide legitimate evidence for that claim. I mean, are we just going to rewind and start all over again now?

(April 6, 2016 at 7:58 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 6, 2016 at 7:56 pm)AAA Wrote: Cellular biology is endlessly elegant and screams designer.

LOL, wow, consider us all schooled then!   Perhaps you haven't actually read through the pages and pages of this thread where you guys utterly failed to prove, or even provide legitimate evidence for that claim.  I mean, are we just going to rewind and start all over again now?

Well there is only one cause that is capable of explaining information rich cells. That is intelligence. No other known cause is sufficient. There are also a ton of cases where you have a protein A regulating protein B which regulates protein C which regulates a DNA protein which regulates gene expression. It is hard to explain the formation of these systems in a gradual progressive process, because unless all the proteins/enzymes are there, the organism dies and therefore does not reproduce/evolve.