Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[rjh4 is back]

So Minimalist provides this article stating that scientists have found a sugar molecule and methyl isocyanate in a distant star system and that this is a clue as to how life formed and nobody here thought to push back at this at all??? Amazing!!

Maybe the following question would be appropriate:

Given that sugars and methyl isocyanate already exist here on earth and still no scientist that I know of has come up with a natrualistic mechanism for forming life from non-life, how does finding these materials in a distant star system provide any more clues to how life formed than anything that we already know?

Or maybe simply:

Scientists have found a sugar molecule and methyl isocyanate in a distant star system...so what?

Perhaps no atheists wanted to push back as doing so might highlight the lack of any known naturalistic mechanism for forming life from non-life????

C'mon, Minimalist, explain the significance of the finding such that any story whatsoever would be needed from a creationist or anyone else.

Have at it guys!!

There are a lot of things scientists haven't found yet. But  when scientists have found what was previously attributed to god, Christians lack the sense to take heir feet out of their mouths. Case in point, you still argue that the earth is flat and believe in a book that says god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon.

Here I thought I was going to get a good response to my original post.

Maybe it's my own fault for putting in the snarky line: "Perhaps no atheists wanted to push back as doing so might highlight the lack of any known naturalistic mechanism for forming life from non-life????"

How would you have responded if I had left that out?

What if I left that out and was listed as an atheist?

[Brian37]

There are a lot of things scientists haven't found yet. But  when scientists have found what was previously attributed to god, Christians lack the sense to take heir feet out of their mouths. Case in point, you still argue that the earth is flat and believe in a book that says god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon.

Here I thought I was going to get a good response to my original post.

Maybe it's my own fault for putting in the snarky line: "Perhaps no atheists wanted to push back as doing so might highlight the lack of any known naturalistic mechanism for forming life from non-life????"

How would you have responded if I had left that out?

What if I left that out and was listed as an atheist?

Why would you leave out that your religious beliefs under your avatar note you as Christian? Is that true or not? I don't know about you but I dont hide my position. Everyone here knows I am an atheist and I don't doge my position.

[The Valkyrie]

There are a lot of things scientists haven't found yet. But  when scientists have found what was previously attributed to god, Christians lack the sense to take heir feet out of their mouths. Case in point, you still argue that the earth is flat and believe in a book that says god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon.

Here I thought I was going to get a good response to my original post.

Maybe it's my own fault for putting in the snarky line: "Perhaps no atheists wanted to push back as doing so might highlight the lack of any known naturalistic mechanism for forming life from non-life????"

How would you have responded if I had left that out?

What if I left that out and was listed as an atheist?

Then you would have come across as a pretty ignorant atheist.

[Rhondazvous]

Certainly there is no "absolute truth" in regards to the future.

But looking at our modern data today, there are certainly claims we can safely discard without the needless fear of missing something, like Apollo, or Thor or Poseidon. How is it you rightfully accept those claims as bunk, because if you think the people who invented those claims back then didn't truly believe it them, you are a fool.

The ancient Egyptians falsely believed for 3,000 years that Ra and Osiris and Isis and Horus were real deities, but even after all that success, it turned out those gods were not real.

Wait!

What??

Right, because whole lot of folks who call themselves christians don't really believe in Yahweh. Even some preachers aren't interested in anything past the offering bucket, so if they plan to argue that the ancients didn't really believe in their gods, they're just looking in the mirror.

---

There are a lot of things scientists haven't found yet. But  when scientists have found what was previously attributed to god, Christians lack the sense to take heir feet out of their mouths. Case in point, you still argue that the earth is flat and believe in a book that says god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon.

Here I thought I was going to get a good response to my original post.

Maybe it's my own fault for putting in the snarky line: "Perhaps no atheists wanted to push back as doing so might highlight the lack of any known naturalistic mechanism for forming life from non-life????"

How would you have responded if I had left that out?

What if I left that out and was listed as an atheist?

No, it wasn't one little sentence. Your whole argument was beside the point.

[Brian37]

Wait!

What??

Right, because whole lot of folks who call themselves christians don't really believe in Yahweh. Even some preachers aren't interested in anything past the offering bucket, so if they plan to argue that the ancients didn't really believe in their gods, they're just looking in the mirror.

Hold on now. My sarcasm isn't aimed at just Christians. I cant repeat this enough. Our species tribalism isn't a patent owned by one religion. 

The groups of any religion all claim the truth and reject all claims of the other groups. And even within the same sects you cannot find full agreement under the umbrella label. 

So please dont fall for the "This label doesn't really believe". That is the true Scotsman fallacy and it doesn't work even when atheist try it.

The "mirror" all of humanity needs to face regardless of label, is that we are all capable of the same range of cruelty and compassion regardless of label. I am not in any way suggesting forcing differences I might not like out of existence via force of government. But suggesting that what our species has in common outweighs our differences. If the worst you say to your neighbor is a "fuck you" or "bullshit" and nobody dies that is far better than murdering or being murdered because you got offended.

[Minimalist]

What if I left that out and was listed as an atheist?

Then I'd just think you were stupid...

Oh, wait.  Too late.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Life cannot come from nonliving matter?

What living material did your god work with to create humans, then?

The reply was "naturalistic process," No one has said God used natural processes to "make" the human body. Yes the term is "make," God made the human body from the materials of the earth and then created a soul (breath of life). Read the creation story God created three times and made things from the created things.

1) Yes, I've already pointed out this bit of special pleading he was engaging in. Thanks for bringing it back up.

2) Just because I think your bible is a pile of shit with covers sewn on doesn't mean I haven't read it. I have. I just think that it's horseshit.

---

1) Maybe you should practice nuance also.  I never used the word "insulting".

Here's what you wrote:

[...] and all I have gotten is name calling[...]

Now, you weren't complaining because they were calling you "Angel of the Morning", or even "Jimmie James". YOu were complaining about being insulted. If you're reduced to this level of rank pedantry, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe this will help:

2) I agreed that at the point you were talking about that I was generalizing. So why are you commenting like I said I wasn't. More nuance practice needed on your part.

Probably because you were defending your generalizations on the basis of having so many people to talk to. It takes a few seconds and a few words to insert a qualifier.

3) I really love this one: "but I sure as hell won't let your overbroad generalization slide without comment".  This one is really rich given that neither you nor anyone else has piped up in Min's defense indicating that his original post was really meaningful in any way. It certainly does not show evidence that supports any view of life to non-life. And if it did, I would think people like you would have called me out for that, i.e., that I was wrong on my original post. But...you didn't. So from what I get out of this is that  here at this forum, you, Thumpalumpacus, will hold a Christian to a different standard than an atheist.

No, what it is is that I think it indicates that life may possibly be more common than supposed. I thought it was an interesting article but it didn't add too much to my knowledge; this is stuff I learnt in astronomy back in the 90s asa college student. It doesn't rise to the strength of evidence. Oddly enough, Minimalist didn't make that claim in his OP, which renders this paragraph of yours a red herring.

And -- it's not my job to defend Minimalist. He's more than capable of holding his own.

So, Thumpalumpacus, in your position what makes stealing or kicking someone in the teeth wrong? I mean I think it is wrong because the Bible tells us to treat others like we want to be treated. But without God, what is your naturalistic explanation for right and wrong? Is it just a result of chemical reactions going on in your brain?

Wait, you have to be told that stealing and kicking people in the teeth is wrong? What the fuck?

Me, I reckon they're wrong out of my sense of empathy. I've had that shit done to me, I didn't like it, and I'm deeply uncomfortable doing those things for that reason.

Empathy. Do you really need to be told not to lie, cheat, or steal?

[Minimalist]

The reply was "naturalistic process," No one has said God used natural processes to "make" the human body. Yes the term is "make," God made the human body from the materials of the earth and then created a soul (breath of life). Read the creation story God created three times and made things from the created things.

I'm sure all of us have read it, G-C.  It's fucking ridiculous.  Material for children.  When are you going to grow up?

[Thumpalumpacus]

You still have not explained your basis for determining good/evil. You say it is "evolutionary empathy". What in the world is that? Do you mean just the chemical reactions going on in my body/brain?

Some other things to consider: In your worldview (I am talking about you personal worldview...and everyone has a worldview), where do the laws of logic come from? Are they just a product of chemical reactions in the brain?

Do you believe that morality is objective?

Do you believe that morality is absolute?

---

You can say my presuppositions are a non-starter for you and never go through the mental exercise to determine if it is a logically consistent position to see where I am coming from.

This fetish with "logic" indicates to me someone who doesn't know enough about it to understand its limits. Logical consistency does not impart truth. A flawed premise can render perfect logic utterly absurd.

All As are X.
B is an A.
B is an X.

All turtles are automobile mechanics.
You are a turtle.
QED you are an automobile mechanic.

Anyone who's worked with logic for a while would know such a simple truth. And as Brewer pointed out earlier, you cannot logic something into existence.

[Nay_Sayer]

 

Yes some atheist here are, they gang up on the Christians trying to overwhelm us. We see it in almost every thread. One the other hand the Christians here do not resort to such tactics and try and have a good conversation. I'm not playing the victim game, I do not feel like a victim but what I see is the insecurity of many atheist here.


I do not get offended, I'm not sure what made you think that other than wishful thinking. I am not as childish as some atheist here by choosing to get offended. Choosing to get offended is dishonest and a mark of immaturity. My logic is not flawed, just because you do not believe in God doesn't give you the right to question my logic. You know as well as I do that I can't prove God to you to your satisfaction and you also know you can't begin to disprove God.


I'm not hiding behind Christianity, I live it and there is a huge difference in the two. I didn't say you were the bad guys and I've never complained about being victimized. I do see you are playing the victim card for atheist though. You just don't like others differing from what you thinks the truth, to bad, that's life and Christians have long understood this.


I do not like some of your responses but that doesn't make me uncomfortable. That was your problem then, no one that knows Christ will feel uncomfortable, we are taught that in the scriptures, something you seem to have missed. I've been wide awake for a long time now and see the truth and it ain't your beliefs.


You were the one who brought up the word "gang," if you had not I wouldn't have even posted on this thread. Denying what takes place here to Christians has been well tolerated by us. Yes we point out what happens from time to time to let you know you're not fooling us, then we go on with happy hearts. I've seen you all fighting among yourselves (something that's rare between Christians) says to me the Christians have something going for us that you lack. Again you are the one who brought up "gang" not me and I certainly did not characterize all atheist here as a gang, that's your discomfort that's making you edgy.


I've used it, for one person and that was because I as other Christians here tire of his language and super harsh characterization of us as something lower than animals. You can use that same tool or just ignore my posts. I didn't characterize the atheist here of being any sort of gang as you mentioned, I said that some atheist gang up on Christians just to harass us, it's not hard to see as long as you remove those biased blinders. Did I ever say that anyone was preventing me from making an argument, NO, so you need to get over what ever is bothering you. I have seen some atheist here who want to ban all Christians from this site, by your definition that would constitute a "gang." I on the other hand ignore such childish ranting and go on about my way.
 

I have every right to dislike some of the things posted here and exercise that right mostly to myself. I have never said you were bad guys, misguided yes but that doesn't make you bad guys.

---

I did not characterize all atheist as democrats, my atheist brother is a republican so you see I know better. I didn't decide anything, I made a statement about most atheist here being democrats because they make it obvious and have chosen that for themselves and that's fine with me. I have voted for democrats and especially for some of our governors who have been excellent.


I didn't even have economics on my mind. I do not believe in the kind of economics you posted about republicans and most republicans do not agree with that either.


All people who do not believe in the only God are atheist, that's something you can't seem to comprehend and incest now is not good with the Christians or with God. The gene pool was perfect and did not present a problem with genetic adnormalities, once the gene pool became corrupted enough God gave man a law about incest.

Sure it would be irritating because I could disprove that statement as false, you on the other hand can't disprove God, period. Note the fact that I said I could disprove their statement, yet you will insist on the opposite from Christians. By your statement and my answer you should be willing to bring proof that God doesn't exist, instead you rely on a Dawkins statement. 

Your logic bothers us, not your human rights. Your rights are not in danger so please stop playing false martyr and falsely calling us a gang. Either you have facts to defend your position, or you dont. If you don't, fine, we wont murder you for not having facts, but we are also under no obligation to remain silent and never challenge you.

  My logic is sound, just because you have differences with it doesn't mean I'm wrong. I would never consider myself a martyr and it was you that brought up the "gang" terminology. I just showed how it was used here by some and it's okay if they continue, they only show the childish attitude they have in life. What they expose here is done in their lives, which is rather unfortunate. This site has so many tweeny weenies who have no idea about life that real adults here have a more difficult time in good conversation. If you think all this is pointed at you, you would be wrong and if some of it makes you uncomfortable about yourself then the shoe must fit.

GC

---

I'll take that bet and set up a poll to ask them but first what does that have to do with anything?

Secondly, You managed to be wrong about nearly everything you typed, It's apparent you fail to understand the concept that Atheism is a position on one singular question. You made several strawmen and played a victim card and then you followed up with a non sequitur.

In conclusion I will pray FSM heals your broken mind.

Hey gang member.

GC

Sup, That wasn't a response, In fact, it seems your still throwing a tantrum.

Have a blessed day. RAmen