Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Aura Mytha]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
Homey, you are way out of the main stream. WAG means Wild Ass Guess. I would have told you sooner but I thought you knew.

I thought WAG meant "women and girls"?

But there you go , making d stuff up!

[Eagle12]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
We do not know the mechanism. But, your choice of language is telling. It shows a bias that is unreasonable in this context.
For example, NONE of the atoms in your body is alive. None of the basic components from which you are made is alive. An oxygen atom or a hydrogen atom are 'dead, lifeless, sterile material'. The same can be said for every other chemical element, but you are completely made from such elements.
In other words, YOU, a living thing, are made from dead, lifeless, sterile materials. You really should think about this point. Everything alive is made from atoms and those are all, according to your language, dead, lifeless sterial materials.
The point is that chemical elements are NOT sterile in the sense that they interact with other chemical elements in complex and interesting ways. And it is in the variety of those interactions that we get life. There is no 'life substance' that is added to 'dead lifeless atoms' to obtain life.

It takes more than mixing chemicals to come up with living cells. It takes purposeful and precise bio engineering. RNA and DNA had to be assembled through precise engineering to have this run on life.

Happenstance creation as you would want to believe. It doesn’t happen that way in labs and it didn’t happen that way in the beginning. Science research is a testament to that fact. Life doesn’t self create from non living things.

The answer that Atheist want can be found in the beginning. If you are an Atheist. You should be thinking about how all this life started from lifeless material without purposeful intervention.

You would have a very strong argument if we had repeatedly produced in a lab life from non living material without intrusion. It has not happened. It hasn’t happened on Mars and it hasn’t happened on the Earth.

[Aura Mytha]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
Homey, you are way out of the main stream. WAG means Wild Ass Guess. I would have told you sooner but I thought you knew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Eagle12]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Daffy thinks an advertisement for a book is proof for Jesus. Daffy thinks because a book written by a guy who said he knew the world was ending in 1988, claims it then it must be true!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahaha!
<quoted text>

#154652

“Even your hero Bart Erhman states the Josephus and Tacitus passages are forged.“

You were the one who brought him up as a reference in post #154652. I would like to see proof that the world would end in 1988.

[Eagle12]

something seven wrote:

PROOF THERE IS A GOD: http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Funny but I don't see anything relevant to the thread but I did get a laugh out of it.

[Catcher1]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
You ain't shit, either.
Why do you feel so compelled to volunteer your comments?
Hooked the spa back up. Looks like it will work.

I have always believed in pro bono work.

Even on these threads. My comment are free of charge.

So turn on the heat and enjoy the hot tub.

[Eagle12]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Wow! I wonder if Adam sang that to Eve, lol.:)

[Aura Mytha]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow! I wonder if Adam sang that to Eve, lol.:)

Damn straight, if you dumb enough to believe there was a Adam And Eve.

Then You will believe anything!

[Just Think]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are an Atheist. You should be thinking about how all this life started from lifeless material without purposeful intervention.

If you are a Christian, you should be thinking about how god came to be without purposeful intervention.

[polymath257]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
http://pages.towson.edu/ladon/carbon.html
Geometry, motion, motion displacing "space", motion creating polarity, channeling of motion.

And I thought you didn't like quantum mechanics. Those orbitals described in your link are classical quantum mechanical concepts. Not to mention electron spin (not to be confused with rotation).

[Eagle12]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>Damn straight, if you dumb enough to believe there was a Adam And Eve.
Then You will believe anything!

You don’t believe there was a first man and woman?

How could there not be a first?

[polymath257]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
It takes more than mixing chemicals to come up with living cells. It takes purposeful and precise bio engineering. RNA and DNA had to be assembled through precise engineering to have this run on life.

That is a claim you can make, but there is no evidence for it. And my basic point still remains: that *every* atom is your body is non-alive, yet those 'dead lifeless' atoms still combine to produce life.

The answer that Atheist want can be found in the beginning. If you are an Atheist. You should be thinking about how all this life started from lifeless material without purposeful intervention.

While I am interested in abiogenesis, I don't have the technical knowledge of organic chemistry required to pursue the question in depth.

You would have a very strong argument if we had repeatedly produced in a lab life from non living material without intrusion. It has not happened. It hasn’t happened on Mars and it hasn’t happened on the Earth.

We have been working on the question for about 60 years. Less if you also require some knowledge of the genetic code. In that time, we have shown the basic building blocks of life spontaneously form under a variety of conditions. We have produced microspheres that are capable of catalyzing reactions required for life, that grow and divide. Given the the natural process on life took at least a couple of hundred million years, I don't consider that bad progress at all.

Mars has always been a borderline case for life off of Earth: a bit too far from the sun, low gravity (so the atmosphere diffuses away), and no other source of heat. Even if there was life on Mars very early on, I strongly doubt it would still be here OR that we would be likely to find unambiguous evidence of it. That there was running water certainly helps the case, but a lack of nitrogen compounds hurts it. I'd give it about a 20% chance of ever having life and about a 5% chance of our finding it even if it did.

I am much more enthused about Titan. It has a heat source from tidal action, has a wealth of organic compounds and has a decent atmosphere. It is still very cold and running water is an issue (although a ammonia based life might be feasible). I'd give Titan about a 10% chance of having life, although actual detection will still be another issue.

Let's face it. We have barely started to explore other worlds in our own solar system. But I certainly would not be surprised if Earth is the only body in our solar system with life. Even if it isn't, I strongly doubt anything more advanced than bacteria is anywhere circling the sun (other than us).

Now, when we go to other stars, the odds increase dramatically. First, we know that basic building blocks of life are common in the galaxy. We also know that stars with planets are very common (a fact that we did not know even 10 years ago). At this point, our techniques are biased towards finding planets that are close to the parent stars and so are unlikely to have life. But our technology is getting better on this. An oxygen atmosphere on another planet would be an almost sure sign of life there. And it is possible we could detect that even from here. I guess we shall see.

[Mylan]

Dave Nelson wrote:

Atheists don't need a skydaddy to keep watch over them.

Either do you, you're just too delusional to realize it.

[Dave Nelson]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
And I thought you didn't like quantum mechanics. Those orbitals described in your link are classical quantum mechanical concepts. Not to mention electron spin (not to be confused with rotation).

"Quantum mechanics" is a mathematics attempt to interpret a process. It didn't create the universe.

What I have said about it is physics has started to worship the interpretation instead of the process or cause of such process. Your little fairy particles that drift in and out, and other magical thingies are a result of the worship of the math, and not true understanding of the process.

Such is evinced in your kneejerk quantummechaniscdidit.

[Mylan]

Aura Mytha wrote:

I thought WAG meant "women and girls"?

Close, it means wives and girlfriends, unless you're buying Walgreens stock :p

[Eagle12]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are a Christian, you should be thinking about how god came to be without purposeful intervention.

To answer that question let us compare what we both believe.

Every Christian has pondered where God came from. The scripture tells us that God is everlasting. No beginning and no end. Psalms 90:2 and Psalms 93:2. Atheist accept that there was always matter in the cosmos. It wasn’t created but just existed forever.

Atheist believe this matter just self formed and Stars were born and planets, comets, moons and every celestial body. From this self creation of the cosmos there was the Earth in a orbit around the sun spinning on his axes. Then mysteriously life was formed (self created) and made this mad diverse expansion on the earth. Atheist embrace self creation.

You can believe that matter has always been and was never created but you can’t believe God has always been and wasn’t created? Science tells us that energy can’t be created nor destroyed but transformed into one form or another. If you can believe the conservation laws of energy. You can also believe in God.

[Dave Nelson]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
That is a claim you can make, but there is no evidence for it. And my basic point still remains: that *every* atom is your body is non-alive, yet those 'dead lifeless' atoms still combine to produce life.
<quoted text>
While I am interested in abiogenesis, I don't have the technical knowledge of organic chemistry required to pursue the question in depth.
<quoted text>
We have been working on the question for about 60 years. Less if you also require some knowledge of the genetic code. In that time, we have shown the basic building blocks of life spontaneously form under a variety of conditions. We have produced microspheres that are capable of catalyzing reactions required for life, that grow and divide. Given the the natural process on life took at least a couple of hundred million years, I don't consider that bad progress at all.
Mars has always been a borderline case for life off of Earth: a bit too far from the sun, low gravity (so the atmosphere diffuses away), and no other source of heat. Even if there was life on Mars very early on, I strongly doubt it would still be here OR that we would be likely to find unambiguous evidence of it. That there was running water certainly helps the case, but a lack of nitrogen compounds hurts it. I'd give it about a 20% chance of ever having life and about a 5% chance of our finding it even if it did.
I am much more enthused about Titan. It has a heat source from tidal action, has a wealth of organic compounds and has a decent atmosphere. It is still very cold and running water is an issue (although a ammonia based life might be feasible). I'd give Titan about a 10% chance of having life, although actual detection will still be another issue.
Let's face it. We have barely started to explore other worlds in our own solar system. But I certainly would not be surprised if Earth is the only body in our solar system with life. Even if it isn't, I strongly doubt anything more advanced than bacteria is anywhere circling the sun (other than us).
Now, when we go to other stars, the odds increase dramatically. First, we know that basic building blocks of life are common in the galaxy. We also know that stars with planets are very common (a fact that we did not know even 10 years ago). At this point, our techniques are biased towards finding planets that are close to the parent stars and so are unlikely to have life. But our technology is getting better on this. An oxygen atmosphere on another planet would be an almost sure sign of life there. And it is possible we could detect that even from here. I guess we shall see.

It is the connections of those lifeless atoms and maintenance of those connections that produce life.

Place battery, light bulb, wire, and connectors on table.

Get back to me when they assemble themselves and light the room.

Oh, schedule a periodic delivery of fresh batteries until such occurs.

[TheBlackSheep]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
It is the connections of those lifeless atoms and maintenance of those connections that produce life.
Place battery, light bulb, wire, and connectors on table.
Get back to me when they assemble themselves and light the room.
Oh, schedule a periodic delivery of fresh batteries until such occurs.

You let me know when you can live for 2 billion years to witness it.

[Dave Nelson]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
That is a claim you can make, but there is no evidence for it. And my basic point still remains: that *every* atom is your body is non-alive, yet those 'dead lifeless' atoms still combine to produce life.
<quoted text>
While I am interested in abiogenesis, I don't have the technical knowledge of organic chemistry required to pursue the question in depth.
<quoted text>
We have been working on the question for about 60 years. Less if you also require some knowledge of the genetic code. In that time, we have shown the basic building blocks of life spontaneously form under a variety of conditions. We have produced microspheres that are capable of catalyzing reactions required for life, that grow and divide. Given the the natural process on life took at least a couple of hundred million years, I don't consider that bad progress at all.
Mars has always been a borderline case for life off of Earth: a bit too far from the sun, low gravity (so the atmosphere diffuses away), and no other source of heat. Even if there was life on Mars very early on, I strongly doubt it would still be here OR that we would be likely to find unambiguous evidence of it. That there was running water certainly helps the case, but a lack of nitrogen compounds hurts it. I'd give it about a 20% chance of ever having life and about a 5% chance of our finding it even if it did.
I am much more enthused about Titan. It has a heat source from tidal action, has a wealth of organic compounds and has a decent atmosphere. It is still very cold and running water is an issue (although a ammonia based life might be feasible). I'd give Titan about a 10% chance of having life, although actual detection will still be another issue.
Let's face it. We have barely started to explore other worlds in our own solar system. But I certainly would not be surprised if Earth is the only body in our solar system with life. Even if it isn't, I strongly doubt anything more advanced than bacteria is anywhere circling the sun (other than us).
Now, when we go to other stars, the odds increase dramatically. First, we know that basic building blocks of life are common in the galaxy. We also know that stars with planets are very common (a fact that we did not know even 10 years ago). At this point, our techniques are biased towards finding planets that are close to the parent stars and so are unlikely to have life. But our technology is getting better on this. An oxygen atmosphere on another planet would be an almost sure sign of life there. And it is possible we could detect that even from here. I guess we shall see.

http://www.france24.com/en/20130216-jupiters-...

BTW, do you remember my posts about Saturn and Jupiter being planetary nurseries, and maybe our originating spot?

[Dave Nelson]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
You let me know when you can live for 2 billion years to witness it.

LOL.

You are the one claiming it. Prove it. You sit and watch. We will send you sandwiches and beer every so often.