Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[Thumpalumpacus]

For a social species, the ability to reach consensus can be more important to reproductive success in many cases than whether the consensus is correct.

Then why would anyone here who is an evolutionist, think it is a "bad" thing that so many people believe in God? Isn't it then a "good" thing from an evolutionary point of view?

Yet how often does theism produce consensus? Christians spent decades killing each other in Northern Ireland in part over whose conception of the Biblical god was more correct. The Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock fled persecution from other Christians in Europe, only to engage in persecuting other Christians once they arrived in America (to say nothing of the pagans they met!) Muslims kill Jews, Jews kill Muslims, Muslims kill Christians, Christians kill Muslims, Buddhists kill Muslims and vice-versa there too ... I'm left wondering when this consensus he referred to and you tried to claim kicks in.

Much like nationalism, theism strikes me as simply one more way to identify an outgroup, rather than seek inclusion.

For what it's worth, I'm not an "evolutionist". I am a rationalist. Evolution by natural selection seems the most rational way to explain the diversity of species (and by the way, does not explain the origin of life at all -- it only explains diversity of species). Abiogenesis is the term which addresses the various hypotheses seeking to explain the rise of life in naturalistic terms. While most evolutionary biologists accept abiogenesis as the most likely source of life, it is entirely possible for a religionist (such as myself when I was younger) to accept evolution as a tool for his deity of choice to work his ways in the world.

Even when I was a Christian I accepted evolution as a fact. The evidence that species evolve one into another is overwhelming, and we have observed it in nature. Where life came from is unknown. I myself regard special creation as much more unlikely than chemical scaffolding, in large part due to the fact that it has no reasonable basis so far as I can see.

---

Who cares? We're watching an argument between two folks who don't have the sense to understand that any utility in this argument has long been superseded by plugged ears and shouts of "lalalalala".

Exactly why should anyone entertain nonsense? They can, but I don't have the patience for it. R is defending crap and had been early in the thread trying to claim he was not trying to debate God only to recently admit he is a creationist. 

If others want to wade through his fantasy and allow him to pretend he has real science, they can. I like to cut to the chase. 

Nonsense is nonsense. Kinda like when Judge Judy's crap detector goes of and she is short and blunt and to the point.

Feel free to shoot spitballs all you want at a brick wall. Don't forget to use ALL-CAPS every so often to demonstrate how willing you are to discuss things rationally.

---

Sure he can.  Lots of gods invented by humanity have been ignored into non-existence.  Yhwh and his bastard kid are merely next on the list.

I wonder. Can you be ignored out of existence? I will try and we'll see.

"When you understand why you don't believe in Zeus, you'll understand why I don't believe in God."

---

As for me...I was just trying to get Brian to either admit that his statement: "Close proximity of individual atoms that by themselves are not a living thing, but because they bond like magnets exchanging electrons, that makes it very easy to go from non life to life." is unproven or to explain the mechanisms by which life comes from non-life easily.

It's much easier to understand once you see life as a process and not the end-result.

Of course Brian's claim -- mine as well, for that matter -- is yet unproven. It may never be proven.

I'm comfortable admitting ignorance, and I find that preferable to claiming knowledge I do not and perhaps cannot possess.