The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

a reply to: Answer

If you've read my posts, you will see that I have cited a massive amount of scientific data - hard evidence - not cultist bs.
Click on my name and review the posts I have made on this board.

originally posted by: Answer

As time goes on, more and more people realize how infantile the creation story is and seek scientific answers instead of fairy tales.

The World Factbook gives the population as 7,095,217,980 (July 2013 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.50% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.20% (of which Sunni 75-90%, Shia 10-20%, Ahmadi 1%), Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.).[1]

Only 11.67% of the human population don't believe in a God.
Religion is the dominant theory across the world, your minority view is irrelevant. Sorry it's just the facts.

a reply to: Phantom423

Is believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old a "novel belief"?

Not one single Christian I associate with believes that.

Is believing that dinosaurs lived along side humans rational?

I don't believe that either

Is beliving that isotopic ratios are "unreliable" reasonable?

That depends if is says a T-Rex bones are millions of years old.
Or if it claims there are human bones that are 250,000 years old.

One right and one is wrong

But I do agree with you "young earth" creationists have an undefendable stance, and they are an easy target for people like you to brand all
creationists as you just did.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

As time goes on, more and more people realize how infantile the creation story is and seek scientific answers instead of fairy tales.

The World Factbook gives the population as 7,095,217,980 (July 2013 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.50% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.20% (of which Sunni 75-90%, Shia 10-20%, Ahmadi 1%), Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.).[1]

Only 11.67% of the human population don't believe in a God.
Religion is the dominant theory across the world, your minority view is irrelevant. Sorry it's just the facts.

I love it when religious people do this, group all the different religions together in order to make some kind of statistical point to the evil atheists.....but then forget that these religions have been butchering one another for thousands of years as the very worst of enemies and are still doing it to this day.

You not only do this but then attempt to equate all religious folk with creationists......the laughing stock of religions (which is saying something).....

snip
wrong thread

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

As time goes on, more and more people realize how infantile the creation story is and seek scientific answers instead of fairy tales.

The World Factbook gives the population as 7,095,217,980 (July 2013 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.50% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.20% (of which Sunni 75-90%, Shia 10-20%, Ahmadi 1%), Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.).[1]

Only 11.67% of the human population don't believe in a God.
Religion is the dominant theory across the world, your minority view is irrelevant. Sorry it's just the facts.

I love it when religious people do this, group all the different religions together in order to make some kind of statistical point to the evil atheists.....but then forget that these religions have been butchering one another for thousands of years as the very worst of enemies and are still doing it to this day.

You not only do this but then attempt to equate all religious folk with creationists......the laughing stock of religions (which is saying something).....

It must suck to feel insignificant. Atheists are even fewer, only 2.01%.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

The vastness of the universe makes me feel insignificant and humble for that matter, but not having a belief in a sky fairy?

lol no not at all

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Answer

If you've read my posts, you will see that I have cited a massive amount of scientific data - hard evidence - not cultist bs.
Click on my name and review the posts I have made on this board.

I was quoting Blue_Jay33, not you.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

As time goes on, more and more people realize how infantile the creation story is and seek scientific answers instead of fairy tales.

The World Factbook gives the population as 7,095,217,980 (July 2013 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.50% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.20% (of which Sunni 75-90%, Shia 10-20%, Ahmadi 1%), Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.).[1]

Only 11.67% of the human population don't believe in a God.
Religion is the dominant theory across the world, your minority view is irrelevant. Sorry it's just the facts.

You make the idiotic assumption that all people who associate with religion believe the biblical version of creation and deny evolution.

I know plenty of people who identify as Christian but accept the Bible as an allegorical work that isn't meant to be taken literally.

If you really want to post some statistics, how about you figure out the number of "biblical literalists" and get back to me.

My particular "minority" (atheists and agnostics) includes the brightest minds on the planet. Your "religious majority" isn't much to brag about.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
It must suck to feel insignificant. Atheists are even fewer, only 2.01%.

It must also suck when the only thing you can do to try to support your silly beliefs is throw out meaningless, out-of-context statistics that you think are somehow going to shame others for being logical....

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Atheists are even fewer, only 2.01%

Yes they are so much smarter than the other 98% of the world, they are a special elite group, and of that group they are sure of that the hypothesis of abiogenesis happened, there faith in science is just as absolute as ours is in God.
It is a pompous arrogance to think they are intellectually smarter that 98% of the population.

Yet they will ignore people like this.
Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures.

“The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.”

Michael J. Behe

As I was looking at some quotes I really like this one because it cuts right to the true crux of the bias of the 2%.

“The problem with ID, of course, is that it leaves open the possibility that the intelligence behind nature may have a moral interest in us, having communicated already with humanity in the past, and might try to boss you around in your private affairs.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

There's a reason scientifically minded people who aren't deadset on proving silly beliefs ignore him...

Numerous scientists have debunked the work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy. When the issue raised by Behe and Snoke is tested in the modern framework of evolutionary biology, numerous simple pathways to complexity have been shown. In their response, Behe and Snoke assumed that intermediate mutations are always damaging, where modern science allows for neutral or positive mutations.[30] Some of the critics have also noted that the Discovery Institute continues to claim the paper as 'published evidence for design,' despite its offering no design theory nor attempting to model the design process, and therefore not providing an alternative to random chance.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Doesn't matter he is with the 98%, we don't care if 2% of his peers ignore him.
Here is another quote from him, he understands the conceptual fields of science very well, some in this thread are failing to grasp this.

“Is the conclusion that the universe was designed - and that the design extends deeply into life - science, philosophy, religion, or what? In a sense it hardly matters. By far the most important question is not what category we place it in, but whether a conclusion is true. A true philosophical or religious conclusion is no less true than a true scientific one. Although universities might divide their faculty and courses into academic categories, reality is not obliged to respect such boundaries.”

Science can divide, separate and separately define categories all they want, just like posters have said here about abiogenesis links to evolutionary science, and atheists can decouple them all they want with their clever semantics, but reality is unaffected by how humans choose to quantify them.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

As I was looking at some quotes I really like this one because it cuts right to the true crux of the bias of the 2%.

“The problem with ID, of course, is that it leaves open the possibility that the intelligence behind nature may have a moral interest in us, having communicated already with humanity in the past, and might try to boss you around in your private affairs.

Yes people only reject ID because they don't want to imagine a sky daddie watching them masturbate.

Damn......busted.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

As time goes on, more and more people realize how infantile the creation story is and seek scientific answers instead of fairy tales.

The World Factbook gives the population as 7,095,217,980 (July 2013 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.50% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.20% (of which Sunni 75-90%, Shia 10-20%, Ahmadi 1%), Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.).[1]

Only 11.67% of the human population don't believe in a God.
Religion is the dominant theory across the world, your minority view is irrelevant. Sorry it's just the facts.

You make the idiotic assumption that all people who associate with religion believe the biblical version of creation and deny evolution.

I know plenty of people who identify as Christian but accept the Bible as an allegorical work that isn't meant to be taken literally.

If you really want to post some statistics, how about you figure out the number of "biblical literalists" and get back to me.

My particular "minority" (atheists and agnostics) includes the brightest minds on the planet. Your "religious majority" isn't much to brag about.

There weren't really that many people on earth until well into the 1800's after the industrial revolution and advances in medicine. Science was really well formed by then and Darwinism came into being. With all of the people living since then, science has failed to compile a dominant theory among human population that does not include a creator. In fact evolution itself is seen as nothing more than the study of what happened after a creation process brought about life. Atheists admit they don't know exactly how and cannot reproduce life, but have faith that it just happened without a creator.

Faith, that dirty word they won't admit to but most definitely express in their views is a religious requirement. You may as well ordain a few ministers and erect your churches, toss in a few hallelujah's at your meetings discussing how stupid the rest of the world is.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Once again a creationist avoids talking facts, in place of opinion, and misdirection. Well done, a credit to your cultus.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Once again a creationist avoids talking facts, in place of opinion, and misdirection. Well done, a credit to your cultus.

I gave statistics and was lambasted for it, atheists don't want facts and statistics they want to just say they are right when they cannot prove a thing, they just know (have faith) a creator didn't start life.

BTW with Atheism at only 2.01% of the human population, they cannot throw the word cult around when they are one themselves.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Cite or be damned You quote things but don't understand them. You ignore things that do not support you. Its called building a straw man neighbor.

Also so what if 2.01% are atheiests. The 97.99% who are not don't all have the same beliefs, nor is it clear they are correct. Just because you wish really hard....

a reply to: Noinden

Ahh look the lets misquote Berkley gambit. How quaint. Couple of things you need to know:
(a) Berkley is not the top University for Biological sciences. Link

Misquote? It's a direct quote. Cited for anyone to see. Come on.

I'm sure you saw that Berkley is #6 in the world on that list. What number university did you graduate from?

(b) That is a single source, thus it proves nothing. Here are many more have fun. Link 2

Single source, yes. Proves nothing? Oh brother
Besides, I wasn't trying to prove anything other than to show that the number one referenced site on the web for all things evolution says that biologists are concerned with abiogenesis. Your list of articles is meant to show what exactly?

And for the record, I do have my issues with some of the things that the Berkeley site says. But I used it since most folks here wouldn't question it as a bunk source.

(c) The OP and your own posts look vaguely familair.... oh wait. Link 3 also very Bill Stein like He worked for Nixon ... I'd trust nothing from him either.

Huh?
I've read a lot of material on evolution and have never heard of that guy, so I don't get the reference. I also don't know the OP, have never once conversed with him/her in all my years on ATS, not even in this thread. Our ideas on the subject matter are idependently arrived. Why do you have to be snide? I can also say that your posts look more than vaguely familiar to many members here. What does that mean? Nothing.

(d) There are a number of hypotheses on abiogenesis/proteogenesis. Its why its a series of hypotheses, evolution is a theory, as it has sound evidence supporting it.

Do you think I'm rejecting evolution because it doesn't explain abiogenesis? You must be confusing me with someone else. I know evolution is a fact, never denied it, and I also know that abiogenesis has several hypotheses. So what exactly was the point of your pointless point?

(e) Its clear no matter how much I say it I will say it again, with a link.

Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. Link you should really read.

How quaint, a rationalwiki page. And this is supposed to be more valid than the Berkeley site? What number was this on that list of yours?

You are misrepresenting my position. I know full well that evolution is a fact. I also fully accept that just because the ToE doesn't answer the questions of abiogenesis it doesn't mean it's invalid. What I've been saying is that it doesn't seem outrageous that abiogenesis is an evolutionary process as well. Why is that so difficult for you?