billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
rehmwa 2
Quote>So what's the scientific answer to "how did life on Earth begin?"?
We don't know yet. We have several theories on how it _may_ have begun, but we can't yet say with any certainty which is correct yet.
Once again, religion serves a great purpose for scientists to wrap up the work and make it clean (by putting out one extreme theory to piss them off enough to do more than the typical, half-assed job). I say keep creation on the books until we can reduce the "several theories on how it _may_ have begun" to one with certainty.....
people are contrary and won't work to prove something, only to disprove something they can't stand
Religion, motivating scientists for 3 thousand years and counting...
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you suggesting that religions should be judged by comparing how little evil they do?
are suggesting engineers should all be judged by counting how many bridges/balconies/buildings collapse?
I am completely in disagreement that doctors that go to church should have their licenses to practice revoked - for the sole reason of their church attendance.
I didn't write anything about bridges. YOU brought up the topic of human sacrifices by religions. Nice tangent attempt, though.
And you compared them to the Crusades. Nice tangent attempt.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteI didn't write anything about bridges. YOU brought up the topic of human sacrifices by religions. Nice tangent attempt, though.
The irony here would be amazing if the subtleness of the post wasn't akin to a moose charging through a bakery.
however, to repost the same original question concerning blatant unreasoning negative religious bias (in total disregard to demonstrated individual character) would just be a waste of time, I see.
Well, that was so subtle I can't tell if it is a PA or a compliment.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuoteThe irony here would be amazing if the subtleness of the post wasn't akin to a moose charging through a bakery.
Well, that was so subtle I can't tell if it is a PA or a compliment.
I think it depends on whether the bakery is located in Los Angeles or Alaska.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
billvon 2,991
>Which theory has the most evidence to support it?
Right now I'd go with the autocatalysis model - the ability of some very simple molecules to replicate themselves and "inherit" the structure of their "parent." Once you have the ability to reproduce and inherit traits, evolution begins.
>Do any of thses theories go beyond conjecture?
Several have been demonstrated in the lab, which goes significantly beyond conjecture. We can create amino acids in the lab using nothing but simulated primordial atmosphere and lightning. We can cause unlimited replication of very simple molecules under the right conditions. We have observed spontaneous creation of lipid bilayers, the precursors of cell membranes.
The ultimate test is going to come from one of two angles - the bottom-up approach or the top-down approach. The bottom-up approach is going to start with the basics (atmosphere, water, ooze, lightning) and attempt to show the path to creating a self-replicating organism. The top-down approach attempts to take the most basic life-forms we know (i.e. archaea and the like) and remove evolutionary enhancements until we have an organism that can do nothing more than (barely) reproduce, then show how such an organism can form from the basics. Both are making pretty steady progress. If we achieve success on the bottom-up approach, we'll have _one_ way life might have formed. The top-down approach is more likely to show how _our_ version of life formed.
Right now I'd go with the autocatalysis model - the ability of some very simple molecules to replicate themselves and "inherit" the structure of their "parent." Once you have the ability to reproduce and inherit traits, evolution begins.
>Do any of thses theories go beyond conjecture?
Several have been demonstrated in the lab, which goes significantly beyond conjecture. We can create amino acids in the lab using nothing but simulated primordial atmosphere and lightning. We can cause unlimited replication of very simple molecules under the right conditions. We have observed spontaneous creation of lipid bilayers, the precursors of cell membranes.
The ultimate test is going to come from one of two angles - the bottom-up approach or the top-down approach. The bottom-up approach is going to start with the basics (atmosphere, water, ooze, lightning) and attempt to show the path to creating a self-replicating organism. The top-down approach attempts to take the most basic life-forms we know (i.e. archaea and the like) and remove evolutionary enhancements until we have an organism that can do nothing more than (barely) reproduce, then show how such an organism can form from the basics. Both are making pretty steady progress. If we achieve success on the bottom-up approach, we'll have _one_ way life might have formed. The top-down approach is more likely to show how _our_ version of life formed.
QuoteQuote
Asking questions and finding answers is called "science". Making up answers and invoking the supernatural is called "religion".
So what's the scientific answer to "how did life on Earth begin?"?
Incredibly stupid question.
I'll pass that on to Bill Von.
QuoteWhat was the religious answer to "what creates lightning storms" or "what creates earthquakes" 1,000 years ago? Do you fault scientists of the 11th Century for not having discovered electrostatics or plate tectonics? If the Roman church had had its way, we'd still believe the Earth is center of the solar system.
Nice turn around. Instead addressing the topic you try to make it about alternative thinking. I notice that throughout this exchange, you've repeatedly tried to make it about superstition or outdated incorrect beliefs or making up answers.
It's like you want to make this into a Science vs. Religion issue, when I've just been asking about the science aspect of it.
jakee 1,489
QuoteQuoteUntil I was old enough to go to school I had absolutely no concept of god. Didn't know what the word meant, never heard of Jesus etc. Never crossed my mind that there might be some big dude sitting up there pulling the strings. I very much doubt you would call that state of non-belief religious.
Nope, wouldn't call it religious. Wouldn't call it atheist either. "Never crossed my mind" isn't a choice to dis-believe, it's just agnostic in it's purist form (don't know, don't care).
I was looking for an answer to the second part of the post
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
>they actually believe anything different to what I do, and is "God"
>adequate terminology to describe their belief?
Well, what matters is that it's adequate to _them._ To me, the ultimate test of any religion/god/system of belief is how it helps a person live their lives; indeed, it's the only use of religion that makes any sense IMO.
But anyway, some definitions of related terms:
Theist - someone who believes in a supernatural intelligence who created the universe, is still here, listens to us when we pray, and occasionally has some real-world effects like turning people into pillars of salt, curing cancer in believers, destroying cities etc.
Deist - someone who believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one who basically set up the laws that govern the universe in the
first place, then let those natural laws take their course. He doesn't interfere in the lives of man, and doesn't listen to (and judge) prayers and whatnot. Note that such a belief is congruent with evolution.
Pantheist - someone who believes that god effectively IS the universe of natural law, that god arises from their interaction rather than the other way around.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites