Atheists please answer this

Hello Crunchy Cat,

As I said, these things quickly develop into book length topics. I could spend hours and write many pages in response, but will have to look at your other points later.

Just to take one now, in post #127 you said

I denied that and stated that the Septuagint did not contain discussions of the life of Jesus and you responded,

I guess it depends on my understanding of "prophecy" and "discussion."

Yes, there are prophecies, many of them, but not "discussions," extended and detailed discourses about what Christ would say or do.

Here is one difference from your source.

So, if you want to say "prohecies" and not "discussions," I will say that the Old Testament does show an ability to predict the future.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do we need to define God? How about a supreme being who created everything?

I believe it is not a fact.

Unknown - a key word. This does not mean God HAS to be used to fill it, but it does mean that God can not be or should not be ruled out a priori.

I don't believe in divinely guided evolution or any other kind of evolution, but my point is you have no scientific evidence to prove it is not guided. Your rejection of guidance is a personal decision, not a scieintific or rigorously logical one.

You don't know if it s going anywhere or not. We have progressed from little in the past to comparatively advanced forms. How do you know this proces will not continue toward some end as yet unseen by you? I am not advocating this, I am only saying you cannot KNOW this is wrong.

And, life got started - how? You don't know. What if God did start it? You can still have your evolution.

Those arguments show that the human soul or the life force or spirit, whatever, works in and through the brain and is affected by material considerations. No one denies this. The point is that consciousness is not a part of the brain operating only. That within us which thinks, feels, perceives - you believe it ceases at death but this is a belief, not based on rigorous logic or evidence. And there is no known explanation of how chemicals and neurons can give rise to human feelings.

You don't know if the soul still exists and retains all of that information but only is unable to express it as the means of communication are damaged. If I destroyed your cell phone so you were unable to call me that would not mean you had ceased to exist. You have provided an argument and evidence, not proof.

The Roman historians were not concerned with every minor rabble rouser in obscure parts of the empire.

The four Gospels are historical documents concerning the life of Jesus. There is a wealth of information about his life and teachings from eye witnesses.

At the time he would have been unknown to the Romans and of no interest to them. If he had gone to Rome and worked his miracles there he would have been mentioned, but Christ was as the bible says sent to the Jews first.

Don't you think its odd that an invented religion about someone who never even existed could have spread with such speed throughout the empire?

Speculation nevertheless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A valid definition of "discuss" is to "talk over or write about". The word and it's context were clear and applicable:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussed

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's an easy one. Humans are part of "everything". Humans evolved; therefore, were not created.

Obviously. Scientific knowledge can take you to the evidence but it can't make you accept it. Beyond that, I can't help you.

Actually it does mean that God should be ruled out. There is no evidence such a life form exists; therefore, it shouldn't even be a consideration as it's utterly disconnected from objectively reality.

I don't its being understand what something "guided" looks like. When something is guided, decisions are made to intentionally change the course of something that, if left alone, would yield an entirely different result. There is no evidence of any such decisions in evolution. None whatsoever. That means it's no guided.

Yes I do. Entire lineages of species can be examined (from start to extinction) and there is no "end".

Because the concept doesn't apply. To have an "end" means there is a "purpose". A "purpose" can only be given by a "purposer". A "purposer" requires a sapience. The process of evolution is demonstrably non-sapient, therefor lacks purpose, and therefore has no "end".

That is incorrect. You can know as long as you are able to observe, think, and learn from existing knowledge.

Right now, humans are able to put together various conditions which yield basic building blocks of life on Earth. The very fact that we can do this and the fact the evolution is quite real strongly points to the start of life on Earth to be nothing more than a natural process that we simply don't have good visibility into. Furthermore, there is no reason to even consider that some super life form "started it". There's no evidence for such a life form existing in the first place.

You are denying it, but I don't think you understand that yet.

I would agree. The nervous system is also a big part of it.

When you go to sleep tonight and are not dreaming... take note of what you think, feel, and perceive. You wont be able to, simply because your consciousness is effectively gone. The experience of death is no different than a dreamless sleep, it's non-experience.

100% understood factional explanation? You are correct (we don't have that yet); however, by all means please don't discount what affective neuroscience has discovered as far as emotions are concerned.

Of course I know. I can also stimulate your brain in various manners and bring up long lost memories, sensations, emotional states, etc. Whether I am removing or stimulating, the results are clear.

A cell phone transmits radio signals to cellphone towers. Those signals are translated into binary information, sent through a network, and re-transmitted to a target cell phone in a different geographical location. A brain observably doesn't operate like that. It's a poor anology.

Seriously? How likely do you think it is that the Romans somehow missed the most important person in the world? Historians tend to capture alot of detail; however, in looking at Roman history there is an important detail concerning prophets at the time. Did you notice what that is?

Yes, "lots" of eye witnesses... which somehow escaped Roman historians?

Really? You don't think that word of a geniune Miracle man would not have reached Rome?

I actually find it ironic that Roman historians have no historical record of the "Man-God" behind the religion that spread throughout their empire. But to answer your question, no I don't think its odd. Look at how easily cults start and spread amongst people who want to believe.

And well reasoned speculation as well. It uses the knowledge we actually have about reality.

 

Needless to say you've fallen grossly short of proving anything since empirical estimations about origins of evolution are rendered false due to new emerging "facts" drawn from the very disciplines that created them

Once again, given that the evidence that shapes contemporary understandings of evolution is still in a very malleable state, it appears that you too are also standing outside of assistance

gawd
empirical methodologies drawing up objective reality?
gimme a break ....

not clear exactly what scale you are using to gauge what one would expect an unguided objective reality versus a guided objective reality to look like.

What are you using as a control group?
Do you even have a single data point?

... If however you are simply talking about a world view that is obedient to your (reductionist) values you are making perfect sense however (albeit relative in content)

huh?
If here's no end, what is it exactly that you have examined from start to finish?

In the absence of a control model or even a single data point, all you have demonstrated is that you are not shy about letting your values take the mantel

And I think that's his point.

Your call of existing knowledge, in the complete absence of a control model or a single data point, is simply a bluff.

Only in star trek films I'm afraid

If you've discovered the process of abiogenesis, wiki is waiting to grant you fame and fortune.

I don't think you understand how emergence is distinguished from merely being localized.
I'm sure however if we applied your same general principles you use for consciousness and the brain to electricity and a light bulb you would have a tougher time denying it.

Sheesh
another wild claim made in the complete absence of control models

Empirically you have just been falcon punched

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"far" is probably not an appropriate word

Hogwash
You can do nothing of the sort.
The results are anything but clear.
Neuroscience is still out to lunch on pedagogy.

It does however highlight the inadequacies of mere localization in your argument for emergence

Quite easily if he rose to fame a few hundred years after his demise

and they tend to miss a lot too since histography is basically glorified journalism

Why talk of Roman history ... you can talk amply of what the historians of WW2 missed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Its not so much about it reaching but reaching in a form that is palatable to the political ideology/values ... since that's the very thing that shapes importance in one's eyes.

I mean how much work do your values permit you to do in the name of researching miracles performed in this era (as opposed to sitting back on your laurels and guffawing)?

Don't worry
It just took them a few hundred years to get on the uptake with Constantine (for better or worse)

The absence of philosophical frameworks for terms like "reality are conspicuous by their absence in numerous atheist arguments ....

 

Wow, haven't seen you in a while light. Still fighting the good fight against truth and reason? Anyhow this is a classic non-sequitur. Joe said I cannot prove that God is not behind evolution. I asked Joe to define God. Joe defined him as the creator of everything. Humans are a subset of everything; however, reality shows they evolved (i.e. were not created); therefore, I showed that his definition of God could not be behind evolution simply because he would have created Humans (by its very definition).

How so? The theory of evolution is a model and new evidence/understanding continually shapes it. What is certain is that evolution is a real phenomenon (it's self-evident at this point).

How about objective reality drawing up objective reality?

I thought I had made it clear; however, I will try to paraphrase. When you guide something, you are making decisions to change the course of that *something* to avoid an outcome that would have commenced should that *something* have been left alone. For example. Here is an example of guiding:

http://android-apps.com/best/labyrinth/

No end as in no final product / no specific outcome / no sought after result.

Yes I know. I value truth. Your desire for a "control model" is most... hmmm... what's that word that means "do a lot of retarded work for me to demonstrate the self evident even though I could care less anyway?"... ahh yes... douchy.

Reality is the control model. The hypothesis is that evolution is guided. Reality shows the process being unguided; therefore, there is no "desired outcome".

Is it that you are ignorant because of lack of education or do you actively try to maintain that state?:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Correct. I unfortunately have not; however, there is NOTHING to suggest that the process is anything other than purely natural (just the laws of physics doing its thing).

Your reply made no sense to the context of the statement you quoted. Perhaps you would like to expand / paraphrase?

Um... the control model... have a video camera record the audio-visual aspects of the environment while your not experiencing anything and see if your lack of memory of the lack of experience matches whats on the recording. Is "Control Model" your new trendy toy? Having tools to use is a nice thing, but retarded application of tools is... well... retarded.

Good lord, do some reading or something. You're missing out on a lot of great work coming out of affective neuroscience.

You are entirely incorrect:

http://www.erowid.org/tech/devices_article1.shtml
http://www.musc.edu/tmsmirror/intro/layintro.html

Please do point them out.

There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus either. That's some pretty shitty record keeping for such an important event. There's also not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. No physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.

Which is why you can cross reference other sources (for example the ones I exemplified above).

Because it's one of many nails in the coffin of fantasy ideas being peddled as real.

Just enough to know that miracles don't happen ;3.

I wonder why that was...

What is.

 

Not sure where you are going with this one.

If it is an attempt at a criticism of the theory of evolution, you may as well criticise a yo-yo because it isnt a submarine

you'd be right of course - yo-yo's do indeed make lousy submarines - the solution of course is simple

I have no idea if he consciously used it- but relativity is consistent with occam's razor

which isnt consistent with occam's razor

no it doesnt - it provides and answer not an explanation - there's a difference

but she does none of these things in any way that is detectable or measurable over and above the purely mundane and natural - occams razor suggests that they are best explained as non-miracles

There have been no miracles save for the occasional holy appearance in foodstuffs - the coincidence between the sudden dissappearance of miracles and the discovery of explanations for supposed supernatural events is just too uncanny to ignore - occams razor suggests that they were never miracles in the first place.

if it cant be tested then it isnt important.

well god's purported behaviour is pretty well documented (afterall you seem to be pretty familiar with her modus operandi)- so my expectations are perfectly justified - so it is surprising that god suddenly started to act so out of character to her previous behaviour simultaneously to us beginning to be able to explain what we previously thought of as her miracles in naturalistic terms.

it is only speculative in the sense of whether this precise process gave rise to life on earth or another one - but the science is solid and uncontestable

 

actually it was more that you offerred such a condensed bundle of mis-information that I couldn't help myself

and as I painfully reminded you, current (malleable) understandings about evolution are deeply embedded in cause and effect with a totally unclear (or at best, constantly changing) ideas about origins , so all you have shown is that you have no proof.

Its only when you dress it up as sufficient to rule out a creator or designer or extrapolate it to literally infinite boundaries for which there is no evidence that you step out of the whole "self evident" thing.

that says absolutely nothing for your claim to have a monopoly on it

not sure what the link is supposed to illustrate, but my point is that the "thing" you are claiming isn't working under any guidance is objective reality... which is a remarkable claim since it contextualizes not only your working senses (the nuts and bolts of the fervent reductionist), but the object of the senses too

How you can say this from an authority that is essentially metonymic (aka empiricism) is a mystery

actually you value empiricism. I'm just reminding you what it requires in order to come close to truth

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A classic example of the hogwashiness of circular reasoning
Reality (specifically your douchy version of it) is the very thing under scrutiny

The general pattern for the claim that we are capable of synthesizing is to dumb down the definition of life. This takes the form of declaring that life is non-different from the chemicals it utilizes.
Your link is a fine example.

Perhaps the scores of physicists who run back with their tails between their legs when they attempt to approach biology.

You cite different functioning levels of the brain to indicate that it is the reservoir of consciousness (from normal waking consciousness to coma to death ... as a broad spectrum).
One could similarly cite different functioning states of a bulb to indicate that it is the reservoir of electricity (bright, dim and extinguished) ... except of course that the science behind electricity enables one to make the distinction between the energy and the energetic.

IOW what you (completely) lack is a break down of the source - all you have is a localized claim bluffed up to assume credible as emergent

not sure where this leaves you with your wonderful claim of the experience of death ....

Seems that neuroscience (or at least the version that you are painting up to completely encompass life) is also missing quite a bit too ...

errr ... Big difference between inducing an epileptic fit and a successful pedagogical model

If you can't determine that a mobile phone is localized (IOW if you can't isolate the energizing force behind it - namely the user ... much like your model of neuroscience can't isolate the energizing force behind life ... since death is still powering along wonderfully at the rate of 100%) you can talk of a person ceasing to exist once the binary information that forms their communication (the "objective reality") falls corrupt.

Text critical issues come to bear on events as recent as WW2, what to speak of events 2000 years ago ... what to speak of events that surround a personality 2000 years ago who rose to popular fame several hundred years after his demise.
Much like one can entertain a lopsided view by granting empiricism a monopoly on all claims of objective reality, one can also carry a lop sided view of history when one doesn't triangulate

Its not really cross referencing when you claim "if the romans didn't record him (even though he was practically a no one at the time) he didn't exist"

Given the problems that even plague modern history, it should be clear that you're the one peddling a fantasy if you're prepared to advocate wholesale rejection solely on the basis of roman record keeping .... ....

a good answer to the question how much work of investigation your values permit you ...

Because previously christianity was comprised exclusively of reformed jews and didn't even have the numbers to be a minority group

your absence of philosophical framework is duly noted again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It always amazes me how much those plagued by the supernatural tend to find mis-information.

I demonstrated Joe incorrect strictly on logical grounds. The fact that the start of life on earth is unclear doesn't make an omnipotent life form a possibility either.

It rules out the claimed creator/designer claimed by humans. Can't help that... when you have silly stories (for example) about adam, a rib, and magic and then compare it to reality, it's clear that those silly stories are what they appear to be. Silly stories.

Understanding something better than the supernaturally plagued doesn't make a monopoly.

The link illustrated an example of guidance. You guide a steel ball through a maze. It's a demonstration of a concept. Unless you're claiming that your senses aren't enough to detect a "decision" it stands that evolution is not guided.

Because there is demonstrably no intent, no sapience, no guidance behind evolution. Without that, there is no goal as sapience is required to have a goal.

All that is required for truth is a simple relationship between what's in your head and actual reality. If the relationship is that of correspondence then you have achieved truth.

I have news for you. When you test an idea against reality, whatever reality validates or invalidates is what determines if the idea is correct or not. Reality is NEVER incorrect. It has the final say on everything.

Life is what is common to all entities considered living. All such entities are functionally collect energy to persist. Whether you like that or not, it is what it is and there are no known exceptions to it either.

Or the scores of chemists who try to approach computer science. Non-sequitur.

Then it's your understanding that is incorrect. The brain isn't a reservoir of consciousness. It is a parallel quantum computer where consciousness is showing itself to result from the circuits competing to hold the stage for a moment. That's why it's important to understand what happens when those circuits are off, misfiring, etc.

It leaves it right where it started. Death is non-experience.

Of course, the knowledge gained from it is incomplete; however, it has resulted in a lot of good knowledge.

Non-sequitur again. None of what you stated detracts from you being very incorrect.

Let's see here.

* Cellphones were made for users... check.
* Cellphones don't exhibit sapient behavior... check.
* Cellphones and users are observable... check.
* Cellphones and users function just fine independent of each other... check.
* LG's cellphone analogy is evidently retarded... check.

An "individual"? We're talking about a deity. It's interesting that all throughout history, major players (whether their fame was immediate or after their death) are reasonably well documented... except this one. At the same time, this poor elusive fella' is documented before and after death... just not during life. And lets not forget proto-religion similarities.

Just the right amount to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Hmmm... sounds like a great way to gain some influence. Start a cult, get it recognized, and viola!!! On the path to glory!

Consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. Just like my absence of philosophical framework.

 

it always amazed me how staunch reductionists can be possessed by such strong reservoirs of emotional baggage .... I don't require to bring in anything exterior to even your own value system in order to [point out the inadeqaucies

The fact is that there is no proof for the origin of life so all your gallivanting amounts to nil . The evidence for this is that there are several different ideas on the subject (one being that it came from outer space

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

The old testament isn't celebrated for its strong text critical issues ... but then its not surprising that you take the weakest form of theism as central to your criticisms ... but that said, you can take the strongest from of abiogenesis and having nothing better since it still remains a claim totally isolated from any doable procedures (which is, after all, the methodology that grants credence to the discipline of empiricism) .

Deeming that the claim is false on the grounds that it stands outside the jurisdiction of one's favored monopolizing agent is certainly not an understanding at all.

Once again I fail to see the relevancy of the article.
In the case of the link, the articles in question (the maze and the ball) can be fully analyzed in terms of decisions ... and one can further draw a control model in the absence of any agent of decision.
Unless you are making the claim that objective reality be obedient to the values of human intelligence, its hard to understand the parallel.
The moment you start to talk about what you "see" in "objective reality" to indicate that there is no guiding force, you depart from the safe confines that the link operates out of.

with a demonstrative absence of a controlled environment to base such claims (what to speak of a total lack of reference of the values indicative of a universal sapience) this is tripe

sure

that's why if the idea of "|actual reality" (such as "reality is defined by the workings of the senses") has no basis other than your head, you are guilty of circular reasoning.

the problem is that you are not talking about reality.
What tests do you have to show that life is the consequence of material elements?
What tests do you have to show that evolution is not guided by intelligence?
What tests do you have to show that all phenomena are materially reducible?
Answer : zero
:shrug:

I'm not sure how this helps your claim that life is non-different from the chemicals it utilizes ...

actually they don't have that problem
chemists (plastic and metal fabricators) are the very ones who manufacture computers

the circuits of a parallel quantum computer ?

Pseudo science here we come!!

then it becomes even less clear why you attribute it to sleep or memory loss ... which is the experience of practically everyone.

none of which evidence your claims

Perhaps you could prove your point by highlighting the bits you think deal with pedagogy ... or even indicate what (successful) pedagogical models are in place that rely solely on reductionist language.

kind of amazing the conclusions one can draw up when one has the power to isolate the energizing force behind it, huh?

try again
Its our very ability to isolate the workings of a mobile phone that grants fraudulence to the claim - using it as an analogy draws a parallel to the inconsistencies of your claim

not necessarily
some text critical issues frame him as god's representative

the problem is that your break down of "well documented" is "validated by roman authorities"
:shrug:

needless to say, if you can't do the work to investigate, your claim of status is debatable ...

there's a similar pattern with darwinism, dawkinism or anything else on the face of the planet that draws a social influence

Your inability to come up with a philosophical framework shows that the only persistent qualities are inconsistency and contradictory

 

there was a muslim philosopher who had this theory that when cotten burns because of flames, it's not the flames that make the cotton catch fire, but god putting the cotton on fire as the flames come near, the reason he "orders" the cotton to burn everytime we bring the flames closer to it, is for us to navigate our world easier. in other words, physical laws don't exist per se, they don't govern anything, but are merly a trend for us to pick with our given logic about how god does things.*
miracles are when god decides he wants to do somthing outside our known trend.
funny though, those are what science labels "Anomalistics"

...
so much for the most comprehensive outlook on life eh? ALL of science could be breadcrumbs laid down by god..

*i actually reached this "theory" by myself one day on the way to school[or uni, i forogt], and i thought it'd get me another nobel prize without a doubt..boy how was i disappointed when i first read that wiki page

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...but it was made up for by the awesome fact that thre actually existed someone as brilliant as me before, and that he cared to write down notes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

If you want to claim that the New Testament naratives about Christ are not original because they were "discussed" in the Septuagint (which is only the Greek translation of the Old Testament), you will find no discussions of many outstanding features of Christ's life. Walking on water, feeding the multitudes, healing a man born blind, and so on. There are references to being pierced, being born of a virgin, being born in Bethlehem, but these are all made in passing, sufficiently clear for those who believe in Christ but sufficiently obscure so those who do not believe in Christ can sey they don't apply. To me they are not "discussions."

Anyway, if the writers of the old Testament were in facat able to predict the future, then references to a later Christ show not imitation by later writers, but true prediction by earlier ones.

Of course, you cannot scientificall refute the possibility of prediction.

 

You secularists like to pride yourselves on your logic, but pride can be a barrier.

If humans evolved - a very big "if," by no means a matter of proven fact.

Also, other forms of reasoning can point you to the existence of a God behind all natural order, above and beyond the very limited grasp of science, but can't force you to accept them. This is not a matter of logic and evidence and science only, but also of deep personal needs, emotions, fears . . . what if some atheists are afraid of God, and do try to pretend he doesn't exist.

You arbitraily define "objective reality" according to your own personal criteria - but your custom made concept of reality is arbitrary and limited, and excludes much. Objective reality is larger than you think it is, and the nature of various sorts of evidence as well as the ways of interpreting that evidence is not confined to your personal level of understanding.

 

I agree with you, evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of life or of the cosmos. It assumes those things and takes them for granted. So, how do you explain them? Evolution won't help here. It is a limited and partial explanation solidly grounded on a foundation of mist and fog.



It is a PART of the methodology, not the whole. It is a limited guide, not an infallible law. Did Einstein use it to discover the theory of relativity? ... I did not say God was needed, I said there was no proof to rule him out.

I repeat, Occam's razor is a rule of thumb, an aid, not a proof.

no it doesnt - it provides and answer not an explanation - there's a difference

No significant difference that I can see - an answer and an explanation can both be true or false, valid or invalid.

but he does none of these things in any way that is detectable or measurable over and above the purely mundane and natural - occams razor suggests that they are best explained as non-miracles

"Suggestion" shows you are speculating here.

There have been no miracles save for the occasional holy appearance in foodstuffs - the coincidence between the sudden dissappearance of miracles and the discovery of explanations for supposed supernatural events is just too uncanny to ignore - occams razor suggests that they were never miracles in the first place.

You are not privy to all of the things happening all over the world. You assertion there have been no miracles is not based on empirical data.

Also, a razor is good for shaving, not for chopping down redwoods and splitting them up into lumber. There is more to life than Occam's razor.

if it cant be tested then it isnt important.

According to you. Your statement is not empirically verifiable. You think if it can't be studied in the lab it doesn't exist? That a scientific lab is the center of the universe?

well god's purported behaviour is pretty well documented (afterall you seem to be pretty familiar with his modus operandi)- so my expectations are perfectly justified - so it is surprising that god suddenly started to act so out of character to his previous behaviour simultaneously to us beginning to be able to explain what we previously thought of as his miracles in naturalistic terms.

I repeat my unanswered question: If there were a God, don't you think it would be surprising if he conformed exactly to your expectations and did nothing beyond your comprehension?

God is much greater than you, and he does things beyond your comprehension. I say nothing about his m.o., but only make the obvious point that our very small brains are not the final measure of reality.




it is only speculative in the sense of whether this precise process gave rise to life on earth or another one - but the science is solid and uncontestable

Some science is solid, or much of it, but not all speculation by scientists is solid. "Science" does not equal "speculation by scieintists on things beyond the reach of experiment (including the origin of the cosmos).

 

Yes it does. And they are not beyond reach of experiment, just because they happened in the past. Speculation is the first part of the process. There are some plausible theories on the origin of the first cells. The latest one:

We may never be able to prove beyond any doubt how life first evolved. But of the many explanations proposed, one stands out - the idea that life evolved in hydrothermal vents deep under the sea. Not in the superhot black smokers, but more placid affairs known as alkaline hydrothermal vents.

This theory can explain life's strangest features, and there is growing evidence to support it.

Earlier this year, for instance, lab experiments confirmed that conditions in some of the numerous pores within the vents can lead to high concentrations of large molecules. This makes the vents an ideal setting for the "RNA world" widely thought to have preceded the first cells.

If life did evolve in alkaline hydrothermal vents, it might have happened something like this:

1.

Water percolated down into newly formed rock under the seafloor, where it reacted with minerals such as olivine, producing a warm alkaline fluid rich in hydrogen, sulphides and other chemicals - a process called serpentinisation.

This hot fluid welled up at alkaline hydrothermal vents like those at the Lost City, a vent system discovered near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in 2000.
2.

Unlike today's seas, the early ocean was acidic and rich in dissolved iron. When upwelling hydrothermal fluids reacted with this primordial seawater, they produced carbonate rocks riddled with tiny pores and a "foam" of iron-sulphur bubbles.
3.

Inside the iron-sulphur bubbles, hydrogen reacted with carbon dioxide, forming simple organic molecules such as methane, formate and acetate. Some of these reactions were catalysed by the iron-sulphur minerals. Similar iron-sulphur catalysts are still found at the heart of many proteins today.
4.

The electrochemical gradient between the alkaline vent fluid and the acidic seawater leads to the spontaneous formation of acetyl phosphate and pyrophospate, which act just like adenosine triphosphate or ATP, the chemical that powers living cells.

These molecules drove the formation of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins – and nucleotides, the building blocks for RNA and DNA.
5.

Thermal currents and diffusion within the vent pores concentrated larger molecules like nucleotides, driving the formation of RNA and DNA – and providing an ideal setting for their evolution into the world of DNA and proteins. Evolution got under way, with sets of molecules capable of producing more of themselves starting to dominate.
6.

Fatty molecules coated the iron-sulphur froth and spontaneously formed cell-like bubbles. Some of these bubbles would have enclosed self-replicating sets of molecules – the first organic cells. The earliest protocells may have been elusive entities, though, often dissolving and reforming as they circulated within the vents.
7.

The evolution of an enzyme called pyrophosphatase, which catalyses the production of pyrophosphate, allowed the protocells to extract more energy from the gradient between the alkaline vent fluid and the acidic ocean. This ancient enzyme is still found in many bacteria and archaea, the first two branches on the tree of life.
8.

Some protocells started using ATP as well as acetyl phosphate and pyrophosphate. The production of ATP using energy from the electrochemical gradient is perfected with the evolution of the enzyme ATP synthase, found within all life today.
9.

Protocells further from the main vent axis, where the natural electrochemical gradient is weaker, started to generate their own gradient by pumping protons across their membranes, using the energy released when carbon dioxide reacts with hydrogen.

This reaction yields only a small amount of energy, not enough to make ATP. By repeating the reaction and storing the energy in the form of an electrochemical gradient, however, protocells "saved up" enough energy for ATP production.
10.

Once protocells could generate their own electrochemical gradient, they were no longer tied to the vents. Cells left the vents on two separate occasions, with one exodus giving rise to bacteria and the other to archaea.​

​

Until even these speculative theories are discounted, a non-supernatural origin of life must prevail.

 

Geez

Has there been a time in the past 80 years or so where there hasn't been a latest plausible speculation about the origins of first cells?
:shrug:

 

I still dont really understand why you are choosing this as a talking point - my comprehesive guide to Asian cookery doesnt explain the origins of life or the cosmos either - so what?

perhaps not - but it is essential to the process - without it science can become pseudo-science.
for example - the suggestion that we are obliged to include non-detecable, non-measurable, supernatural entities in naturalistic explanations would make the following statement completely valid, and certainly as valid as including god as a guiding force in evolution.

"All measurements show that tides are created by a combination of the gravitational attraction of both the moon and the sun on the worlds oceans, and the centrifugal forces resulting from the earth's rotation, however as we cannot rule out the intervention of gangs of invisible 2ft 3 inch green pixies called steve from dimension X, we must also conlude that they are also responsible"

an explanation is more satisfying

no it doesnt - I'm a scientist so I use scientific language - we tend to be circumspect

Miracles would be big news - they arent in the news - they arent happening

the simple fact is that most supposed miracles need to be "interpreted" as such - but survive other and better explanations

Indeed there is - but it is very useful for a surefire quick method of blowing away obvious bullshit - which is why it is so useful with your assertions

actually you couldnt find something more empirically verifiable than that - show me 1 peer reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates something that cant be measured

and I repeat my answer - perhaps you just need to understand it - try reading it for starters

present 4 recent peer reviewed papers discussing the origin of the cosmos and describe precisely what is speculative about them - or admit that you have nothing more to offer than opinion on that subject.

 

Here's a suggestion.

Let's say for example we decide to completely change the way science is done and include the supernatural entity of your choice as an undetectable guiding force for evolution.

in what way is that useful?

how does that improve our understanding?

what new questions does that raise?

 

I agree with both of you.

I like science because it tries to find truth. Atheists are indeed a persecuted minority. We got a black president of the USA and will probably have a female president long before we get an openly gay or openly atheist president.

But having a belief persecuted by irrational religious people does not make that belief scientific. Atheism is not a scientifically based belief. Anybody who thinks atheism is scientifically based is either a second rate scientific thinker or is blinded by their own emotions on the topic of atheism.

I wrote the quote below in another thread an hour ago at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2614612#post2614612 before seeing this thread. Strange coincidence that Joe was talking about pride as a barrier to science and so was I. Pride as a barrier to science is not a very common thought but here at Sciforums science loving atheist pride and dogma is somewhat like the religious pride and dogma displayed elsewhere and this inspires thinking about pride in science as a barrier to scientific thinking. The science loving atheist proud /dogmalike belief is so funny because by holding science as it's proof and the reason for the pride and dogmalike beliefs the dogmalike beliefs of the science loving atheists includes the negation of the dogmalike beliefs of the science loving atheists but the proud science loving atheists can't see that.

They are barely aware of their pride.

Occam's razor is good for cutting religion and the belief in god out of scientific thought but it also cuts atheism AKA the belief that god does not exist out of scientific thought. Neither belief in god nor belief that god does not exist are scientific ideas. They have no practical application in science and are not supported nor unsupported by logic and experimentation. To be in alignment with the principle of Occam's razor then you would be an agnostic.

Some of the religious ideas other than the belief in god do run into conflict with science and that conflict invalidates major sections of various religious doctrines and proves that religious doctrine has a low probability for truthfulness; But that conflict between the details of religious doctrine and science in no way scientifically validates atheism.

 

I'm not sure why we have to label god as "undetectable" from the onset.
Perhaps you are alluding that one bring the phenomena of "god" to the table of empiricism (so "undetectable" actually means "undetectable by empiricism"), but this also makes it unclear what the requirement for this is.
It makes me wonder what problems you have with theistic based discipline which tend to focus on "stat of being" as opposed to "state of the working senses".