Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles

[Dos Equis]

Funny, since you just finished telling us what science is not too long ago... and no, you don't have to be qualified to talk about stuff and offer your opinion, but unless you are slightly qualified you will make a fool of yourself and, perhaps of more interst to you, you will find out exactly how much your opinions are worth.


Perhaps if you'd care to read up on it (a Google search takes you to Wikipedia) you'd see what the experiment did and did not do.

By the way, I don't like debating when the terms of the debate aren't established. Please proceed to define "life" so that we can have a common frame of reference and a sensible conversation without goal shifting.

I am suggesting that evidence has been presented (see the Miller-Urey experiment I previously mentioned) that complex proteins (the "building blocks of life") which we know are needed for life as we know it to exist, can spontaneously form in the conditions that were likely to have existed billions of years ago based on our cosmological observations.

My opinions on this website are worth the paper they are written on, just like yours and everyone else who posts here.

No, I don't care to read about an experiment that did not create life in a lab that mimicked the origin of life on earth. 

This is not a debate.  It's a discussion.  And no, I'm not going to play the Clinton-esque "it depends on what the definition of is, is" game.  I know what life means.  So do you.  If you're unclear about what life means, you can use a dictionary or use a "Google search." 

You can suggest all you want.  It hasn't been proved.  It hasn't been established using the accepted scientific methods. 

[Necrosis]

My opinions on this website are worth the paper they are written on, just like yours and everyone else who posts here.

No, I don't care to read about an experiment that did not create life in a lab that mimicked the origin of life on earth. 

This is not a debate.  It's a discussion.  And no, I'm not going to play the Clinton-esque "it depends on what the definition of is, is" game.  I know what life means.  So do you.  If you're unclear about what life means, you can use a dictionary or use a "Google search." 

You can suggest all you want.  It hasn't been proved.  It hasn't been established using the accepted scientific methods. 

Dude defining terms is the basis of cogent discourse.

What exactly is your contention anyway? if life never began in a natural manner, are you suggesting that god created us in our current form initially? is that your position?

I am being serious here.

[Dos Equis]

Dude defining terms is the basis of cogent discourse.

What exactly is your contention anyway? if life never began in a natural manner, are you suggesting that god created us in our current form initially? is that your position?

I am being serious here.

I agree there are times when terms need to be defined.  For example, people throw the word "lie" around a lot, but it's often misused, because the actual definition is a statement a person knows to be false at the time they make it, not simply a statement that turns out to be false.  I misuse that word sometimes too. 

But when someone is just trying to play word games, I don't usually participate. 

My position in this thread is there is no scientific theory for how life began on earth and that whatever belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is at least in part a faith-based belief, because it cannot be proved. 

[OzmO]

Zombifying a horse.....

Your contention was theories are often based on mixture of fact and faith.

Your first example of.such as a supporting argument/example was one you don't even believe there is a scientific theory for?

[avxo]

My opinions on this website are worth the paper they are written on, just like yours and everyone else who posts here.

No, I don't care to read about an experiment that did not create life in a lab that mimicked the origin of life on earth.  

This is not a debate.  It's a discussion.  And no, I'm not going to play the Clinton-esque "it depends on what the definition of is, is" game.  I know what life means.  So do you.  If you're unclear about what life means, you can use a dictionary or use a "Google search."  

You can suggest all you want.  It hasn't been proved.  It hasn't been established using the accepted scientific methods.  

But the point is that you don't even know what the "accepted scientific method" even is. I show you an experiment that has, beyond question, proven that the building blocks of life - large folder protein structures - can emerge from simple elements. You say that's meaningless because it didn't create life.

So I ask you what you define as life. You refuse to answer claiming that we all know what life is. Perhaps we do, but we need to both be on the same page if we're going to discuss this topic. Tell me the one defining characteristic that allows me to distinguish something that is alive from something that isn't.

You claim to want evidence based on nothing but science, but you confuse science and the scientific method as synonymous with "Nu-Uh!" and "prove some more." It is not. Moreover, despite being the polar opposite of an expert on the topic, you ignore and dismiss the findings, explanations and evidence of those who actually are. Why? Because it doesn't jive with your preconceived notions and beliefs. Your own words prove that you aren't interested in learning, understanding or critically evaluating: you're just interested in supporting and defending your beliefs and are uninterested in facts and objective reality.

You're like Kent Hovind – another intellectually dishonest moron, in a long line of intellectually dishonest morons so deluded that when reality walks up to you and slaps you across the face with a trout nothing registers. A moron who openly admits that his opinion is immutable, present or future facts be damned.

And having established that you are an intellectually dishonest moron, this debate – pardon me, this discussion – is over, because dealing with you and your brothers-in-spirit is pointless.

[Dos Equis]

Zombifying a horse.....

Your contention was theories are often based on mixture of fact and faith.

Your first example of.such as a supporting argument/example was one you don't even believe there is a scientific theory for?

Yes. 

[Skip8282]

My position in this thread is there is no scientific theory for how life began on earth and that whatever belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is at least in part a faith-based belief, because it cannot be proved. 

Doesn't seem likely.  I would think there are many like me who are comfortable that we simply don't know.  Saying we don't know does not mean we are taking anything of faith.  It just means something occurred that caused life.

Believing that something must be a supernatural entity because we don't know is taking it on faith.

In fact, if we applied you're argument, probably nearly every theory would be based on faith because we don't know every single thing.  Sorry, but not knowing, does not equate to faith.

[Dos Equis]

Doesn't seem likely.  I would think there are many like me who are comfortable that we simply don't know.  Saying we don't know does not mean we are taking anything of faith.  It just means something occurred that caused life.

Believing that something must be a supernatural entity because we don't know is taking it on faith.

In fact, if we applied you're argument, probably nearly every theory would be based on faith because we don't know every single thing.  Sorry, but not knowing, does not equate to faith.

I didn't say not knowing = faith.  I'm saying a couple things.  One is that people like you and Ozmo (two very smart people) and many other smart people I know punt on this issue.  I suspect it's in part because people don't want to address this gaping hole in their belief systems head on.  But I'm sure people have a variety of reasons. 

The other is that anyone who does has an actual belief about how life began has a belief that is at least in part faith based.  And "faith" doesn't always mean "religious." 

[OzmO]

Not knowing how something happened or how something works isnt a hole in a persons believe system.  It simply means not knowing. 

Admitting you dont know isnt punting, its just being honest. 

However, asserting that theories rely on a mixture of faith and facts and citing something you dont even believe is a theory as the basis for your agument is the real punt here. 

[Straw Man]

Not knowing how something happened or how something works isnt a hole in a persons believe system.  It simply means not knowing. 

Admitting you dont know isnt punting, its just being honest. 

However, asserting that theories rely on a mixture of faith and facts and citing something you dont even believe is a theory as the basis for your agument is the real punt here. 

This is what Bum keeps repeating.  That somehow if no one can provide him iron clad definitive answers to quite literally EVERYTHING then they are "punting".  It seems he takes some comfort in this and I suspect he also think it's some kind of support for a creationist world view which is the only "story" that does provide what he is looking for i.e.  an explanation for how everything started

Of course the biblical version has absolutely no proof whatsoever (even with missing data the modern scientific theories have mountains of evidence and proof by comparison) and Bum also seems to be ignoring the fact that the Bible actually has two different "how it all began" narratives so which one do you go with?

[Dos Equis]

Not knowing how something happened or how something works isnt a hole in a persons believe system.  It simply means not knowing. 

Admitting you dont know isnt punting, its just being honest. 

However, asserting that theories rely on a mixture of faith and facts and citing something you dont even believe is a theory as the basis for your agument is the real punt here. 

It isn't just not knowing "how something happened."  It's the origin of life on earth, arguably the biggest mystery today. 

[Straw Man]

It isn't just not knowing "how something happened."  It's the origin of life on earth, arguably the biggest mystery today. 

don't you have a book that you consider to the be the word of your god telling you how it happened

where's the mystery?

[LurkerNoMore]

don't you have a book that you consider to the be the word of your god telling you how it happened

where's the mystery?

Shouldn't be one. 

[OzmO]

It isn't just not knowing "how something happened."  It's the origin of life on earth, arguably the biggest mystery today. 

what does that have to do with your assertion and you punting whenasked about it?

[Dos Equis]

what does that have to do with your assertion and you punting whenasked about it?

Just showing your punt was a lot longer than mine. 

[OzmO]

Just showing your punt was a lot longer than mine. 

No, what you are doing is inserting an irrelevant issue to divert attention from your assertion.

Basic form of red herring fallacy. 

I suspect you are doing this because you can't back up your claim. 

[LurkerNoMore]

don't you have a book that you consider to the be the word of your god telling you how it happened

where's the mystery?

Must have overlooked this question.

[Straw Man]

Must have overlooked this question.

Nope. Bum is just afraid to engage because I always make him look like an idiot (though it doesn't take much)

[LurkerNoMore]

Nope. Bum is just afraid to engage because I always make him look like an idiot (though it doesn't take much)

Maybe he is lacking some faith in his "faith".

[LurkerNoMore]

 

[Necrosis]

I agree there are times when terms need to be defined.  For example, people throw the word "lie" around a lot, but it's often misused, because the actual definition is a statement a person knows to be false at the time they make it, not simply a statement that turns out to be false.  I misuse that word sometimes too. 

But when someone is just trying to play word games, I don't usually participate. 

My position in this thread is there is no scientific theory for how life began on earth and that whatever belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is at least in part a faith-based belief, because it cannot be proved. 

Ok, so the first issue is that you seem to be confusing theory and facts, there are theories, with many facts.

Autocatalytic theory for example explains life, do you buy it? well that depends on the weight of the evidence. I am throwing my hat in with natural order being maintained as we have never witnessed it otherwise.

[Dos Equis]

Ok, so the first issue is that you seem to be confusing theory and facts, there are theories, with many facts.

Autocatalytic theory for example explains life, do you buy it? well that depends on the weight of the evidence. I am throwing my hat in with natural order being maintained as we have never witnessed it otherwise.

Not confusing them.  I understand theories can have a mix of fact and opinion/things that have not been proved.  That was my whole point.  I'm just using a word that people are running away from.   

I had an interesting discussion with a recently retired astronomy professor the other day.  Never really thought about what a fascinating field it is to work/study/teach in.  I brought up the issue of life with him.  He said there is always an ongoing search for life in other parts of the universe from "regular" life (e.g., simple cells, etc.) to intelligent life.  No luck with either.  I asked him for the current prevailing scientific theory on the origin of life on earth.  He couldn't really say. 

Also, he said scientists never use absolutes.  They always use qualified language, because things change so often.  One of the things he loved to do was go into his class and tell them he was wrong, because they found something new. 

Very interesting stuff.  Gave me a different perspective of space.  I'm going to buy a telescope.  (Had one years ago but sold it.)

[Necrosis]

Not confusing them.  I understand theories can have a mix of fact and opinion/things that have not been proved.  That was my whole point.  I'm just using a word that people are running away from.   

I had an interesting discussion with a recently retired astronomy professor the other day.  Never really thought about what a fascinating field it is to work/study/teach in.  I brought up the issue of life with him.  He said there is always an ongoing search for life in other parts of the universe from "regular" life (e.g., simple cells, etc.) to intelligent life.  No luck with either.  I asked him for the current prevailing scientific theory on the origin of life on earth.  He couldn't really say. 

Also, he said scientists never use absolutes.  They always use qualified language, because things change so often.  One of the things he loved to do was go into his class and tell them he was wrong, because they found something new. 

Very interesting stuff.  Gave me a different perspective of space.  I'm going to buy a telescope.  (Had one years ago but sold it.)

Why the fuck would I care what an astronomer thinks of abiogenesis? being a doctor or a professor aren't arguments in themselves.

dude I get being spiritual but religions are bullshit, the world makes sense, god has never been found in any gap, that will likely continue. Why not face reality? god might exist but science explains the creation properly, ie objectively.

[Dos Equis]

Why the fuck would I care what an astronomer thinks of abiogenesis? being a doctor or a professor aren't arguments in themselves.

dude I get being spiritual but religions are bullshit, the world makes sense, god has never been found in any gap, that will likely continue. Why not face reality? god might exist but science explains the creation properly, ie objectively.

I wasn't asking you if you cared about what the guy thinks.  Just recounting what I thought was an interesting discussion. 

I know some of you atheists are obsessed with God and religion, but I'm not talking about God and religion. 

[LurkerNoMore]

don't you have a book that you consider to the be the word of your god telling you how it happened

where's the mystery?

?  Must have overlooked this one.