Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 12:26am

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

5,549 posts

Ark, not ram. It makes more sense this way.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 12:45am

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

How was life supposed have have come from inamate objects (the origins of said objects you can only explain as "poof, objects") that have no will, intelligence or power to do anything other than the basic nature of rocks, gasses etc.


Chemical reactions which were formed through coincidence (although on the scale of the universe, inevitability) that replicated.

Google Abiogenesis. No, it's not the same thing as spontaneous generation.

furthermore how we're they supposed to have gotten any energy in the first place?


If you mean energy as in food, chemicals don't eat.
If you mean energy as in thermodynamics, there's a big thing in the sky called the sun which is constantly having nuclear reactions within it.

Or did they get that when they randomly appeared out of nowhere?


Spontaneous generation has been thoroughly disproved.

after you say to yourself or to me "I don't know" or "not a clue"


Well, seems I didn't do that.

when we say something like that then you go ahead and say that all of Christianity is idiocy because the bible doesn't expressly say just how every single animal in the ram was fed.


1) I never said that all of Christianity is idiocy.
2) It is idiotic to believe that two of every kind of animal could fit onto a boat as described in the Bible, eat and drink for 40 days without killing each other off, after the amount of water on the world increased something around 20 times over in volume and then disappeared again, and THEN breed from just two of each animal to the current amount of animals there are today, all of which occurred just around 5000 years ago.
 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 1:08am

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

5,549 posts

Yes, I know what that is and no there isn't any real proof now is there? Another but of guesswork because that's the only thig to fit the agenda.

It's pretty obvious that it's been disproved, a 3 year old could have told you that. But now what's your theory since it had to come from somewhere, oh that's right, there is no God so there is no explanation since it wasn't created by a higher being and it didn't just appear.

I don't suppose that there's any actual profe of that (back to abiogenesis)? Or what chemicles or how much etc. if we can't even figure that out or recreate it than how did it happen so perfectly on accident? I just looked up the definition of that on my IPod's dictionary and it says "the technical term for spontaneous generation" so there you go, stuff randomly appearing just like you said was disproven.

You just called it idiocy.

Has man ever created life? A livig cell, a single love cell? No. And even if by chance it is done all that proves is that of takes great skill and knowledge to create it.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 1:10am

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

5,549 posts

Sorry about yet another double post, I frequently to see things after I post.

Yes sure you didn't say I don't know, but you also didn't say anything else, like how it actually happened so you basically said I don't know without actually saying it.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 1:12am

Bobthebest

Bobthebest

28 posts

Has man ever created life? A livig cell, a single love cell? No


Yes and no, we have cultured cells and made more, but we have not made a new cell from scratch.

I never said that all of Christianity is idiocy.


You implied it.
 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 1:16am

TheMostManlyMan

TheMostManlyMan

5,549 posts

Thank you twice bob! Exactly my point, never been created from scratch even as advanced as we are but yet you think it's perfectly logical to think it happened by accident despite this fact and the lack of facts supporting it.

And yes you most certainly did imply it on many an occasion.

 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 1:29am

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

Yes, I know what that is and no there isn't any real proof now is there?


Depends what you consider "real proof."

Scientists have emulated what we believe to be early earth conditions and self replicating amino acids formed.

Another but of guesswork because that's the only thig to fit the agenda.


Back to guesswork are we? Good. Then you won't have any trouble giving me that "guesswork" in evolution, which you said there was so much of.

. But now what's your theory since it had to come from somewhere


Abiogenesis doesn't have to do with the Big Bang theory either. Please pick another card.

there is no God so there is no explanation since it wasn't created by a higher being and it didn't just appear.


There are explanations. We've told you some of them.

I don't suppose that there's any actual profe of that (back to abiogenesis)?


It's currently the most widely accepted theory, but there's not nearly as much evidence for it as evolution.

Mostly where it is at is "if conditions were like this then it would have been possible for it to occur this way." in terms of definitively proven.

Or what chemicles or how much etc.


I see you didn't google it.

if we can't even figure that out or recreate it than how did it happen so perfectly on accident?


Well, let's take a look at the whole picture.

How many galaxies are there?
How stars in each galaxy are there?
How many planets are around each star?
Out of those hundreds of thousands of trillions, it's pretty much inevitable from an odds perspective on those chemicals being combined.

I just looked up the definition of that on my IPod's dictionary and it says "the technical term for spontaneous generation"


Your IPod needs a new dictionary. Like I said, google it. Read the wiki at least.

stuff randomly appearing just like you said was disproven.


Spontaneous Generation has been disproved.
Abiogenesis is not Spontaneous Generation. If it was, it would be called Spontaneous Generation.

You just called it idiocy.


I called one literal interpretation of an event in the Bible idiocy.

Has man ever created life?


Depends what you mean by created life. If you mean an entirely new creature that you can hold in the palm of your hand, no.
If you mean manipulating genes and what not to create something different, yes.

A livig cell, a single love cell?


...what is a love cell?

And even if by chance it is done all that proves is that of takes great skill and knowledge to create it.


Actually, from what I know the problem isn't that we don't have the knowledge. We don't have the tools to work at such a level as to "put together" a cell.

like how it actually happened so you basically said I don't know without actually saying it.


If you mean I didn't assert something as 100% fact without having enough evidence behind my claim to say such, you're right, I didn't.

That's because I'm not a fool. We can only go with what we know.

If we don't know something, we try to learn it. We don't just ascribe every unknown thing to some magic man in the sky with absolutely no reason to do so.

I can tell you right here, when you say "know" and I say "know" we're not saying the same thing.

You're using "know" as "irrefutably to be such" while I'm using it as "from what we can see and logically infer."

You implied it.


Again, I said the literal interpretation of a single event in the Bible was idiocy.

Exactly my point, never been created from scratch even as advanced as we are but yet you think it's perfectly logical to think it happened by accident despite this fact and the lack of facts supporting it.


Abiogenesis does not state that a rabbit hopped out of the primordial ocean.

And yes you most certainly did imply it on many an occasion.


I won't deny many parts of it are idiotic.

Most of what isn't idiotic comes in the form of advice or wisdom. Almost all of the stories are logically bs if you take them literally.
 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 3:06am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

...what is a love cell?

If that's the word he meant, I suppose he meant 'genetic material', babymaking cells, asking if humans ever synthetically made something that could be used to directly make life.
*mutters something about people being overly sensitive*
 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 8:54am

Bobthebest

Bobthebest

28 posts

Almost all of the stories are logically bs if you take them literally.


Isn't that what we've been trying to say?
 

Posted Jan 9, '13 at 12:06pm

BigP08

BigP08

1,469 posts

Well you guys are seeming all high and mighty, so answere this. How was life supposed have have come from inamate objects (the origins of said objects you can only explain as "poof, objects") that have no will, intelligence or power to do anything other than the basic nature of rocks, gasses etc.

Have you studied abiogenesis? Basically, what we can demonstrate at this point is that the building blocks of life, amino acids, can come from non-living material. So while we don't know exactly how life did form, we do know that it is possible for life to come from non-life.

furthermore how we're they supposed to have gotten any energy in the first place?

It depends on exactly what you mean by energy, but energy exists independent of life. But since I read later in your post that the answer you expect is "I don't know" so you can respond, we'll go with that for the moment.
And remember, after you say to yourself or to me "I don't know" or "not a clue" when we say something like that then you go ahead and say that all of Christianity is idiocy because the bible doesn't expressly say just how every single animal in the ram was fed.

The difference here is that when we reject the claims of Christianity, we aren't making positive claims that Christianity is absolutely impossible. So when we look at the things that we do know within a reasonable degree of certainty and then see that there are still question marks, the only intellectually honest thing we can do is leave them as question marks and investigate. Christianity, on the other hand, is a proposed hypothesis (at best) to the questions of life, but it only answers with more questions. God, by definition, is infinitely more complex than the universe, demanding that he need an even more complicated explanation than what he is trying to explain in the first place.
If it clarifies the point, my or anyone else's questions about the Bible don't necessarily mean that you have to be able to answer them or the Bible is absolutely false. But if the Bible was proven to be 100% accurate tomorrow, we'd go from investigating the questions that you've posed, and others, about the world we know, to investigating the "I don't knows" in the Bible. Asking questions about your proposed hypothesis is only natural, especially with many different denominations of Christianity alone and other religions.
Yes, I know what that is and no there isn't any real proof now is there? Another but of guesswork because that's the only thig to fit the agenda.

There isn't a formed explanation of exactly how it happened, but we've demonstrated that abiogenesis can happen, if that's your question. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that amino acids can be generated from non-living material under normal physical laws similar to earth. Again, we don't have a time machine to observe how it happened but from this experiment we know it can happen. We wouldn't know evolution is a scientific fact either if we had to know exactly how it happened, because all we can demonstrate with evolution is that it does happen now and that it did happen in the past.
It's pretty obvious that it's been disproved, a 3 year old could have told you that.

I'm not sure what you mean by disproved, particularily since a three year old doesn't have access to the related experiments. How would you go about proving that something can't happen? Do you just mean that it sounds really unlikely or impossible, because that isn't how science works. We investigate the truth before making any claims about it.
But now what's your theory since it had to come from somewhere, oh that's right, there is no God so there is no explanation since it wasn't created by a higher being and it didn't just appear.

By "it" I assume you mean the universe or matter or something equivilent. Again, atheism does not make claims about the origin of the universe or even science. It is the response to theistic claims as unsupported by evidence, nothing more. Science does not make claims to knowledge about anything until it has been investigated and confirmed.
I don't know how the universe was formed, but neither do the religious that claim to know it was God, because even if you did know God exists you weren't there and God most likely hasn't shown you how he created the world in a verifiable way. "I don't know" is better than "It was God, prove me wrong!" That's the argument from ignorance fallacy.
I don't suppose that there's any actual profe of that (back to abiogenesis)? Or what chemicles or how much etc. if we can't even figure that out or recreate it than how did it happen so perfectly on accident?

If you're looking for the exact way that abiogenesis happened, we don't have that. But what do you mean it happened "so perfectly"? There is no design in the way life formed and thereafter the way life evolved, and there's no reason to thing that the outline for life had any type of design. In fact, if anything, I'd say we're as far from perfect as life could be. Our reality revolves around life taking other life to survive (animals, plants) or losing its own life. Surely an omnibenevolent god could have come up with a way to live and let live?
I just looked up the definition of that on my IPod's dictionary and it says "the technical term for spontaneous generation" so there you go, stuff randomly appearing just like you said was disproven.

It's life coming from non-life material. The definition you're using is not the definition that scientists investigating abiogenesis use.

Has man ever created life? A livig cell, a single love cell? No. And even if by chance it is done all that proves is that of takes great skill and knowledge to create it.

That's the wrong conclusion. There are many things that man can't create because they're naturally occuring. We don't look at something and say that because we can't create it, something more intelligent than us is therefore required to create it.
It sounds like you're trying to go in the direction of the argument from design, and feel free to ignore this tangent if I'm mistaken. We don't recognize design by complexity or intuition. We recognize design by contrasting it with naturally occuring. When we see a painting and a tree, we have examples of paintings having been designed and no examples of naturally occuring paintings. When we look at the tree, we have examples of naturally occuring trees but no examples of designed trees. When we look at the universe, we have no other examples of universes having been created. So I don't know how we can say that everything requires a designer that is infinitely more complex than the universe. Doesn't that imply that God was created by an even higher power?
 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!