If you’ve been following the comments lately, you'll have noticed something curious. When it comes to origins of the universe or the origins of life, any answer, ANY ANSWER is acceptable to atheists as long as you don’t put the label God on that answer.
Even Aliens bringing DNA to earth (atheists don’t seem to understand that just pushes the problem of origins to another planet) is preferable to Creator God.
Even a cause with the EXACT SAME ATTRIBUTES as Creator God is acceptable as long as that cause is not called God.
Just three comments that highlight this aversion to their Creator:
“Maybe a god started the first lifeforms,”
Any god is acceptable as long as it isn't Creator God
=========
“I just see better alternatives that are yet to be proven”
No reply on my part can do this statement justice.
=============
“Every couple months i see that Scientific American publishes another article regarding the plausability (sic) of a new understand in the origins of life.”
Whether it’s atheist origin of the universe mythologies or atheist origin of life mythologies the one thing they have in common is that they multiply faster than rabbits. The reason they multiply, the reason that new ones are invented “every couple months” seems to be lost on atheists who desperately head in any direction, except to where the evidence is pointing. New mythologies are invented because the previous ones have been proven unworkable!
That desperate hiding from where the evidence points strikes me as very odd.
If the atheist’s search really was for truth, and not to avoid a certain type of truth, there would not be this convoluted bias apparently against nothing more than a Word?
If the cause of the universe and / or life requires the attributes of Creator God, why not call It what It is?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The reason they multiply, the reason that new ones are invented “every couple months” seems to be lost on atheists who desperately head in any direction, except to where the evidence is pointing. New mythologies are invented because the previous ones have been proven unworkable!
ReplyDeleteThose "mythologies" you refer to are built on a foundation of observation and evidence. They are speculations that do not detour or depart from the data. How many published articles have you read about intelligent design in scientific American lately? You ever wonder why we never see "the theory of dynamic creation" printed in the pages of respected science magazines? And you have the audacity to declare us as the ones who depart from evidence?!
The evidence does not point towards god. But let's look at some opinions from some individuals who DO base their assumptions on evidence...
"The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.
The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultrarapid but nevertheless continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics."
- Paul Davies
What did you call it? Oh yes, the big band "creation" theory! (lol) Big bang cosmology says nothing of creation, only the evolution of the universe after Planck time. So why do you act like it does? Aren't you following the evidence?
“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”
ReplyDeleteLike other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.
They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.
At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.
According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”
Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”
Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.
“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”
- Brandon Keim (Wired Science
Tell me, is this article based on facts or prayer?
oh, here's the link if interested...
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
When it comes to origins of the universe or the origins of life, any answer, ANY ANSWER is acceptable to atheists as long as you don’t put the label God on that answer.
ReplyDeleteMisrepresenting the position.
AGAIN!
Even Aliens bringing DNA to earth (atheists don’t seem to understand that just pushes the problem of origins to another planet) is preferable to Creator God.
Aliens bringing DNA is ridiculous, but at least, it's NATURAL, and SIMPLE, so yes, it is more probable than your MAGICAL Creator God.
BUT, your Creator God hypothesis IS still possible too. YES, IT IS. Do you understand that? I, an atheist, claim that it is POSSIBLE THAT YOUR GOD STARTED LIFE.
So stop saying what you wrote above. You are lying!!
Just to make sure, this needs to be posted here as well...
ReplyDeleteDo you believe, yes or no, that all animals/plants, all lifeforms on Earth, share one, or very few, common ancestors?
I don't know.
So your answer is NO !?
Congrats. You are officially retarded.
You claim to KNOW enough about how life started to claim that it HAS to be an intelligent designer, but you don't know enough about biology to believe that animals share a common ancestor.
WOW
What a fucking waste of time.
In other words, Thesauros' position on life's evolution and life's origin would be equivalent to someone saying that,
ReplyDelete'We know that there is a black hole in the center of the galaxy, this black hole had to be created by God, but we are not sure if the Earth is flat or not...'
Hilarious.
By the way, did you guys here about how the Tevtron might have discovered the higgs boson?
ReplyDelete(This is addressed to the atheists obviously, Mak obviously has no concern for actual science)
If the cause of the universe and / or life requires the attributes of Creator God, why not call It what It is?
ReplyDeleteI have two questions for this...
1.What attributes, do we have reason to believe, were involved?
2.How can you possibly know the attributes of god?
Before you answer let me say...
Before you quote William lane Craig's "spaceless, timeless, and immaterial" let me respond to Craig's nonsense.
* - "Immaterial" simply means non-material. Non-material means "nothing". Are you suggesting God is nothing? Oh that's right, he's a "spirit". HOW SCIENTIFIC!!!!!!!! And what makes you qualified to even think that a spirit...
1.Exists
2.Is immaterial
3.Is what an intelligent designer to the universe must be.
You know why silly people accept Craig's attribute? Because it sounds cool to them. But these sheep aren't thinking it through.
* - God is timeless. Sure, you can make all the fine tuning, first cause, infinite regression criticisms all you want, but when god is involved LOGIC GOES OUT THE WINDOW. How can a non-temporal being perform actions? Don't get me wrong, quantum mechanics might even be stranger than god, but when we make assumptions at least we have data to refer to. But how did we end up with god being timeless? Because YOU DECIDED IT SOUNDS KIND OF LIKE GOD. How scientific.
Now you may answer my question, thanks.
Even Aliens bringing DNA to earth (atheists don’t seem to understand that just pushes the problem of origins to another planet) is preferable to Creator God.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, this suggestion is not meant to solve the problem of abiogenesis. It's there to hypothesize about whether the conditions to start life are much different than the conditions of early earth. It's there to suggest that we may be looking in the wrong place. Surely you knew that though.
By the way, did you guys here about how the Tevtron might have discovered the higgs boson?
ReplyDeleteWHAT? Really? This is freaking awesome (assuming they discovered it).
And I'm not even an atheist!
Rod, learn something for a change. God gave you a brain with the capacity to understand things. Ignoring this ability is equivalent to blasphemy. If your God exists (and I highly doubt it), ignoring the nature of reality is far more likely to land you in Hell than looking at the women's underwear section of the Sear's Roebuck catalog...
Hey 'snackbar, FYI only:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/7888012/Higgs-boson-discovery-rumours-false-say-Tevatron-scientists.html
If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to A VERY SMALL SIZE, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe FROM NOTHING need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.
ReplyDeleteDo you actually think that there is not difference between something that is “a very small size,” and “nothing.”
Is that what you’re trying to tell us?
Are you saying that the “nothing” Big Bang Cosmology says everything came from really means, “something very small?” Are you serious?
And where was this really small bit of matter? Hmm?
In a really small bit of space?
===============
nevertheless continuous manner.
Mm, hmm the infinite regress of cause - yes?
============
“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,”
I’ve never said that Intelligent Designers couldn’t intelligently design something.
Listen to what you’ve documented:
.Sutherland’s team included
. They started with
. They mixed the molecules
. They heated the solution,
. They allowed it to evaporate,
. They left behind
. They again added water,
. They heated it again,
. They allowed it evaporate, and
. They then irradiated it.
. At each stage of the cycle
. At the final stage Sutherland’s team added
“Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.
Your quote couldn’t have ended better than with, “and Szostak imagined”
And for what it’s worth, heating and cooling is NOT all that the Intelligent Designers did.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones who select molecules that have a slightly enhanced ligase capacity.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones that preserve the optimal molecules.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones that enrich the molecules by repeated selection and amplification.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones who intervene before any of the other ways that polymerases perform.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones who anticipate the future function in a way that is not possible in nature.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones who choose RNA sequences knowing beforehand the required condition to bring about self-replication.
============
“The instructions for them to do it are inherent.”
The instructions are INHERENT???
The discovery of Higgs Boson would indeed be exciting but it would do nothing to explain how the particle came into existence in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThat is true
ReplyDeleteDo you actually think that there is not difference between something that is “a very small size,” and “nothing.”
ReplyDeleteIs that what you’re trying to tell us?
Are you saying that the “nothing” Big Bang Cosmology says everything came from really means, “something very small?” Are you serious?
And where was this really small bit of matter? Hmm?
In a really small bit of space?
Wow. AGAIN, big bang cosmology doesn't say ANYTHING about the universe coming out of nothing, YOU DO. How long will you ignore the rebuttal to this? One more time...
* - The big bang model operates under general relativity.
* - General relativity has no dominion over quantum levels.
* - At Planck time, the universe would not have operated under the rules of general relativity.
* - Therefore, assumptions like the universe "coming out of nothing" have no merit under big bang cosmology.
THIS IS PRECISELY WHY WE LOOK TO QUANTUM GRAVITY.
"Why does something exist rather than nothing? Because it had to."
- Lawrence Krauss (a universe from nothing lecture)
Get it yet?
---------------------------------------------------
Now, as far as infinite regress. Do I really need to school you on infinity? You have no more right to implement an infinite god, than i have to say the universe is infinite. All the same problems with infinite regress don't just disappear because you ignorantly declare god to be "immaterial". Again, immaterial literally means nothing. The universe may operate on over riding multiple temporal dimensions for all we know, but we don't know! The further we peer, the more complicated it gets. Do you really think that we've evolved to percieve all components of existance? Like an ant cannot grasp non-linear calculus, we'll take our perceptive gifts to the end, but it may not BE THE END. What I do suggest is that you don't know it's god. God is no more probable than anything else when it comes to the universe. And the answer is sure to be counter-intuitive. So don't take the burning bush into the science lab. Of course, I welcome you to answer ANY of my questions regarding infinity that I've littered all over your blog the last month or so.
---------------------------------------------------
Listen to what you’ve documented:
ReplyDelete.Sutherland’s team included
. They started with
. They mixed the molecules
. They heated the solution,
. They allowed it to evaporate,
. They left behind
. They again added water,
. They heated it again,
. They allowed it evaporate, and
. They then irradiated it.
. At each stage of the cycle
. At the final stage Sutherland’s team added
“Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.
Your quote couldn’t have ended better than with, “and Szostak imagined”
And for what it’s worth, heating and cooling is NOT all that the Intelligent Designers did.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones who select molecules that have a slightly enhanced ligase capacity.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones that preserve the optimal molecules.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones that enrich the molecules by repeated selection and amplification.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones who intervene before any of the other ways that polymerases perform.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones who anticipate the future function in a way that is not possible in nature.
. Intelligent Designers are the ones who choose RNA sequences knowing beforehand the required condition to bring about self-replication.
Look at what else I documented...
"According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”
Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.
“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”
DID YOU SERIOUSLY NOT READ THE LAST FOUR PARAGRAPHS?
Seriously! Your impossible. How can you expect your rebuttal to operate when I clearly addressed it BEFORE you postulated it.
“They’re doing it unwittingly."
Did you not read that?
"The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”
Or that?
"Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”
Or that?
"Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites."
Or that?
Obviously not. Not when your gazing at the world through your God Goggles.
For the last five years atheists have been holding conferences and seminars, study sessions and discussion breakout groups trying to nail down whether they are people who don’t believe that God exists or people who are non believers in God.
ReplyDeleteJust as they were close to a decision (no more than three or four years from an agreement, Hugo screws it all up but saying,
“I, an atheist, claim that it is POSSIBLE THAT YOUR GOD STARTED LIFE.”
This is priceless. A whole new category of atheist has evolved. Seems there is a previously undiscovered, until now, subspecies of atheist (formerly known as agnostics) who actually believes that God might exist.
You’re beautiful man. Really.
"According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond”
ReplyDeleteYa, cause he would know - right? He was there - right? "Yes folks, pre biotic earth closely resembled 20th century laboratory conditions."
Ya, cause he would know - right? He was there - right? "Yes folks, pre biotic earth closely resembled 20th century laboratory conditions."
ReplyDeleteJust as you were there to see the crucifixion of Jesus? Your logic is dubiously childish. Obviously the LAB BUILDING itself, didn't resemble pre-biotic earth. The conditions within the experiment did. Do you thing a NASA space shuttle can't fly because the building for mission control doesn't closely resemble a space ship?
This is priceless. A whole new category of atheist has evolved. Seems there is a previously undiscovered, until now, subspecies of atheist (formerly known as agnostics) who actually believes that God might exist.
ReplyDeleteThis may come as a surprise to someone as biased and stubborn as yourself, but...
YOU CAN BE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING AND STILL BELIEVE THERE TO BE A POSSIBILITY OF IT'S EXISTENCE, EVEN IF SMALL. Yep, if you need to reread that go ahead. I disbelieve that bigfoot exists, but there's always a possibility. Even someone like Richard Dawkins admits that there's a small probability.
This is how atheists thinks, this is what they're like.
@WEM
ReplyDeleteWell, oh well about the Higgs. I suppose the search continues. You know, a bulk of the physicists out there actually hope that we don't find the Higgs. They hope that the standard model is wrong and we all have to go back to the drawing board. So i suppose either way might be exciting!
I agree completely, 'snackbar. Not finding the Higgs would be pretty frustrating but far more exciting than finding it.
ReplyDeleteFor the last five years atheists have been holding conferences and seminars, study sessions and discussion breakout groups trying to nail down whether they are people who don’t believe that God exists or people who are non believers in God.
ReplyDeleteJust as they were close to a decision (no more than three or four years from an agreement, Hugo screws it all up but saying,
“I, an atheist, claim that it is POSSIBLE THAT YOUR GOD STARTED LIFE.”
This is priceless. A whole new category of atheist has evolved. Seems there is a previously undiscovered, until now, subspecies of atheist (formerly known as agnostics) who actually believes that God might exist.
You’re beautiful man. Really.
You are a clown. Your stupidity is so amusing that there is not much to reply...
Let's try to summarize anyway:
- I don't know how life on Earth started (nobody does)
- Therefore I cannot eliminate the possibiliy that an invisible, undetectable created it
- You claim your God can do anything
- Therefore your God could have started life using a technique we nothing about, and that we cannot detect
Honest CONCLUSION: It is possible that, according to your definition, God started life on Earth.
I don't believe this God exists in the first place so I find it pretty unlikely, just like Aliens dropping some eukariota cells, but, it's still POSSIBLE....
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?
ReplyDeleteYou mean other than forever in hell?
It's sad that you feel the need to change your life and criticize the lives of others because you're scared
ReplyDeleteHilarious, ya, as WEM says, you're the one who's scared because of his beliefs (beliefs based on faith) so you really think that mentionning hell is relevant?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?" was regarding the small summary I gave; trying to explain to you why it makes sense for an atheist to consider God, or ANY god, as the cause of life.
You still don't get it though, obviously...
Is it really that hard to understand? Want me to draw you a picture or something?
...but Atheism does not have much to do with it by the way... it's not because I do not believe in a god that my beliefs on the origin of life is any different!
ReplyDeleteAnother thing you won't understand but it's worth mentionning anyway I guess.
so you really think that mentionning hell is relevant?"
ReplyDeleteVery - I don't want you to go there.
Thanks for this sudden empathy; but I would prefer you to try to understand people that you insult and misrepresent instead of just wishing them a good afterlife...
ReplyDelete...and, it's still irrelevant to subject of this blog post and the comments that followed.