RE: So your an Athiest
December 5, 2015 at 9:19 pm
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2015 at 9:40 pm by AAA.)
(December 5, 2015 at 9:11 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: AAA, TheRocketSurgeon has you pegged perfectly - your strangely warped ideas on evolution are nothing more than psychological projections on chemicals which really don't care less what you think they do, and they will keep doing what they do no matter how much you wish they would do something different. You believe in a disembodied person who you treat as the Big Kahuna of all gods, but he hasn't actually done anything, he isn't doing anything now, and he probably won't do anything in the future. He cares less than the mindless chemicals which are now hard at work shaping the future of life, just as they always did, and changing conditions will select their best work for posterity.
Anybody with a web connection can view and evaluate the hard-won understanding which scientists have aquired these days, but as a student you can actually see how this works firsthand. You don't know how lucky you are right now to have this access to the best of what those who work in the field are able to point out. They know what they are talking about, and you should open your eyes now, while you can! The scientists here are not selling you bullshit, like the high priests of yore who would tell their people outlandish things, while meeting in secret and conspiring with magicians to fool the public with demonstrations that would make the kings who they controlled look strong, LOL! If it were like that, then why would they waste their time talking to you now?
I understand that I'm lucky to have access to the available information. But the science will quickly come to a halt if we discourage discussion on what the evidence means. Discussion on the meaning of evidence is how science progresses. I don't really disagree with the evidence itself. For example I understand most of the mechanisms by which DNA can be manipulated. I disagree on the theoretical grounds that say that changing the DNA improves its information content and that life's genetic code developed without the input of intelligence. You have access to the information too, go check it out and keep an open mind. You tell me to open my eyes, but I'm concerned that I'm not the one with my eyes shut.
(December 5, 2015 at 9:15 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Please read this, AAA.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
I read it. It's interesting. I'm a little disappointed that almost all the meat of the article was condescending statements about religious people. The possible models for abiogenesis were kind of just thrown in there and barely mentioned.
I don't want to say that they aren't true, but I will say that if there were a well working model then I'm sure it would be more well known. I have heard of some of them before, but from my experience it seems like the scientists will give unfair starting conditions to get some important molecules. After you get the important molecules, you still have to have a way to get them into semi long sequences (at least long enough to have the chemical capacity to replicate.) One of the models said that they got some peptides. But it is important to know that you could have perfectly good DNA (or RNA) sequence, and it is still useless by itself. Or you could get a fully formed DNA pol, and it is still useless by itself. It seems like they get a few molecules and claim that from there you can get all the information necessary to produce a stable, replicating system. Again this is just me speaking generally, I'm not going after each specific model they pointed out.
