Atheists on the march in America

[KittenKoder]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Neurons are the collective?

It takes hundreds of neurons just for the concept of the number 1. There is a huge, massive, and elaborate way in which the brain processes just the number 1. Just thinking "1" requires the firing of hundreds of neurons. Counting 1 thing requires thousands of neurons.

[Drew Smith]

nanoanomaly wrote:

A thought is not a neuron, it only exists "inside" the neuron. Thoughts affect the brain but are smaller than a neuron, smaller even than an atom. They aren't the wave, they ride the wave.

That's like claiming that a photographic image in a newspaper exists "inside" each dot making up the newsprint.

Thoughts exist as *patterns* of neuronic activity. So they are not "smaller" than atoms (quite the contrary, since neuronic patterns involve countless atoms).

[Drew Smith]

And from non-life. Otherwise, the first living thing wouldn't have existed.

nanoanomaly wrote:

Prove it.

The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.

Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.

Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.

[Adam]

Drew Smith wrote:

The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.
Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.
Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.

Good logic. Like it.

[postscript]

Both science and religion accept their facts about existence as the gospel truth, and other ideas that threaten their theories become almost heretical.

Only consciousness is real, for only the real cannot be threatened. Anything that can be threatened is not real. For that which can be threatened, can be changed.

Leave the priests to their heavens and hells, to their moldy ancient documents - their fossilized gods. Confine the scientists to their dying universe theory, leave them to count their invisible particles. Have the courage to open your mind's door and explore the unofficial thresholds -the true source of your being.

[Drew Smith]

postscript wrote:

Both science and religion accept their facts about existence as the gospel truth

Science does not claim "truth". Religion does.

postscript wrote:

Only consciousness is real, for only the real cannot be threatened.

What do you mean by "threatened"?

[postscript]

Drew Smith wrote:

And from non-life. Otherwise, the first living thing wouldn't have existed.
<quoted text>
The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.
Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.
Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.

And it was all the result of MAGIC! Science falls embarrassingly short of proving its theories about the origin of life as Christianity always has in an attempt to prove that its god created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Both are fairy tales.

It stands to reason that if life springs from non-life, science should be able to replicate this notion with Frankenstonian experiments. It should be able to produce a fully conscious being by combining a few basic elements but alas, it has failed dismally.

[postscript]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Science does not claim "truth". Religion does.
<quoted text>
What do you mean by "threatened"?

You wouldn't respond negatively when challenged if you thought science's "theories" could stand on their own merit. That's what I mean by threatened.

[Drew Smith]

The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.
Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.
Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.

postscript wrote:

And it was all the result of MAGIC!

No, it was the result of natural chemical processes. No "magic" required.

postscript wrote:

Science falls embarrassingly short of proving its theories...

Science is not about "proof". "Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic.

Science is about providing *evidence* that supports its theories.

As for where current scientific research stands regarding the origin of life, this is a good summary:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...

postscript wrote:

It stands to reason that if life springs from non-life, science should be able to replicate this notion with Frankenstonian experiments.

Why? You're describing an event that may have taken nearly a *billion* years to happen in the natural, sterile environment. Science has not been doing research in this area for very long, by comparison.

[Drew Smith]

What do you mean by "threatened"?

postscript wrote:

You wouldn't respond negatively when challenged if you thought science's "theories" could stand on their own merit. That's what I mean by threatened.

Science's theories *do* stand on their own merit, as they are supported by evidence.

So what do you mean by "responding negatively"? Refuting your baseless claims?

[nanoanomaly]

Drew Smith wrote:

And from non-life. Otherwise, the first living thing wouldn't have existed.
<quoted text>
The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.
Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.
Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.

Aargh, blargh....blah, blah, blah...

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc...

You know better than to use that argument. That's not proof.

[nanoanomaly]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
That's like claiming that a photographic image in a newspaper exists "inside" each dot making up the newsprint.
Thoughts exist as *patterns* of neuronic activity. So they are not "smaller" than atoms (quite the contrary, since neuronic patterns involve countless atoms).

It is not and you know it. Thoughts travel through the brain, affecting it, but the thoughts themselves are not neurons, nor even atoms.

[nanoanomaly]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, wow, you don't understand what fertility is, do you?

Most hermaphrodites are infertile, but not all. Some are fertile enough to pass on their condition to the next generation who likely *would* be born infertile.

[postscript]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Science is not about "proof". "Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic.

Both fail to support the silly notion that life springs from dead matter. I invite you to present information proving me wrong.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Science is about providing *evidence* that supports its theories.

And yet, science has not produced a single shred of evidence to support the fairy tale that life comes from non-life, as you call it.

[postscript]

Drew Smith wrote:

What do you mean by "threatened"?
<quoted text>
Science's theories *do* stand on their own merit, as they are supported by evidence.
So what do you mean by "responding negatively"? Refuting your baseless claims?

Refute or deny?

[Drew Smith]

The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.
Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.
Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.

nanoanomaly wrote:

Aargh, blargh....blah, blah, blah...
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

If life did not come from non-life, then where did it come from? Magic?

[Drew Smith]

That's like claiming that a photographic image in a newspaper exists "inside" each dot making up the newsprint.
Thoughts exist as *patterns* of neuronic activity. So they are not "smaller" than atoms (quite the contrary, since neuronic patterns involve countless atoms).

nanoanomaly wrote:

It is not and you know it.

What is "it"?

nanoanomaly wrote:

Thoughts travel through the brain

No,*signals* travel through the brain. Thoughts include patterns of signals. But the thoughts themselves don't "travel".

[Drew Smith]

postscript wrote:

Both fail to support the silly notion that life springs from dead matter.

Of course life springs from dead matter. The individual molecules in your body are not alive. They are "dead matter". But you are alive. Therefore, your life springs from dead matter.

postscript wrote:

And yet, science has not produced a single shred of evidence to support the fairy tale that life comes from non-life

On the contrary, it has:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...

[Drew Smith]

Science's theories *do* stand on their own merit, as they are supported by evidence.
So what do you mean by "responding negatively"? Refuting your baseless claims?

postscript wrote:

Refute or deny?

Both, since a refutation is a type of denial.

Now, I ask you again, since you avoided my question the first time: What do you mean by "responding negatively"? Refuting your baseless claims?

[nanoanomaly]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Science does not claim "truth".....

No?

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical" ;