Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

[ClearwaterVol]

Your problem is you are very confident in your beliefs but woefully ignorant in the things you dismiss.

You have claimed you "love science", but you just called the scientific method "silly". I shouldn't need to point out to you how contradictory that is.

Second, "science" has never been about finding the purpose and direction in your life. That's all on you. Whether you use a religion or not is all up to you, but please don't act like atheists can't have a purpose or direction.

Third, evolution is not "dumb luck and chance". I've said this before but you seriously need to study the subject more before you keep making such statements.

Finally, you keep acting like abiogenesis is some accepted fact. It's not, and no scientist will say it is. It's a hypothesis made with the best knowledge we have, but science will clearly tell you "We don't know", and they have no problem saying they don't know. Saying they "don't know" doesn't equal = you being right.

I've said this to you before and I'll say it again, if you were as dismissive and "skeptical" of your beliefs as you claim to be of science/evolution, there's no way you'd hold to them.

That was a post worthy of two gifs.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I think that most Christians would agree with you per the fact that we all rely on faith at some point to hold our worldview. It's the angry atheists that bristle at that point; not Christians. But the angry atheists want to throw out a straw man argument that Christians claim to prove their faith, then kick at that strawman. See SD's stupid memes.

These conversations would go a lot further if everyone would enter with at least this much realistic humility: "This is what I believe and why", as opposed to "You are an idiot and I want every opportunity to mock you."

I agree with you mostly, though I don't agree it's just the "angry atheists". There are plenty of angry theists who bristle up at the notion they might not be right that throw out just as many strawman arguments against evolution/atheism.

 

[rjd970]

Your problem is you are very confident in your beliefs but woefully ignorant in the things you dismiss.

You have claimed you "love science", but you just called the scientific method "silly". I shouldn't need to point out to you how contradictory that is.

Second, "science" has never been about finding the purpose and direction in your life. That's all on you. Whether you use a religion or not is all up to you, but please don't act like atheists can't have a purpose or direction.

Third, evolution is not "dumb luck and chance". I've said this before but you seriously need to study the subject more before you keep making such statements.

Finally, you keep acting like abiogenesis is some accepted fact. It's not, and no scientist will say it is. It's a hypothesis made with the best knowledge we have, but science will clearly tell you "We don't know", and they have no problem saying they don't know. Saying they "don't know" doesn't equal = you being right.

I've said this to you before and I'll say it again, if you were as dismissive and "skeptical" of your beliefs as you claim to be of science/evolution, there's no way you'd hold to them.

Well stated. Abiogenisis is a theory about what happened, and if evidence points to another direction, then so be it. Nothing is taken on "faith" as true.

Unless we are calling the existence of God, and even more specifically the Christian, Muslim, or whatever God only a theory, then we are talking about two different flavors of "faith".

Equating religious or supernatural or whatever you want to call it faith with scientific speculation sounds like a good sound bite, but they are two different things.

 

[Quaint88]

Well stated. Abiogenisis is a theory about what happened, and if evidence points to another direction, then so be it. Nothing is taken on "faith" as true.

Unless we are calling the existence of God, and even more specifically the Christian, Muslim, or whatever God only a theory, then we are talking about two different flavors of "faith".

Equating religious or supernatural or whatever you want to call it faith with scientific speculation sounds like a good sound bite, but they are two different things.

I would argue that faith is required to believe scientists. When scientists have made important discoveries, I didn't get a turn looking through the microscope. I didn't look over the shoulder of the scientists involved and double-check their math. Other scientists verify or disprove the findings by attempting to duplicate the results, but I'm not involved in that process either. On top of that, I don't even know any of them personally, yet I believe them. The reason is that I have faith in the scientific community.

 

[SuperDave]

He is a troll. He's continuing to prop 'science' up as a standard while refusing to deal with the contradiction of his empiricist mindset. He doesn't want discussion. He wants a public place to flatulate and laugh.

Christianity is certainly something to laugh at. It would be nice if the christians actually knew about their own religion. The only contradiction is with your religion and the lack of any evidence for it.

 

[SuperDave]

It was certainly an experiment.
"He assembled a closed system into which he pumped a mixture of gases (methane, ammonia and hydrogen). There was a flask of boiling water in order to add water vapour to the mixture and the gases were circulated around the apparatus. The gaseous mixture was subjected to a high voltage electrical discharge and then passed through a condenser to cool it down before going through a “trap” cooled in ice to collect any liquid products. Unchanged material was cycled through the apparatus repeatedly to maximise the yield."
The results were low yield and not even the right amino acids. Not to mention that an oxygen rich atmosphere would instantly reduce the while thing to goo.
Regardless, it is faith. One must believe it to avoid the alternative. It certainly would be easier to accept if, in our life rich world, we saw examples of life originating from non-life. But science tells us that is absurd.

you need to read more about those and the ones done after.

 

[SuperDave]

He is a troll. He's continuing to prop 'science' up as a standard while refusing to deal with the contradiction of his empiricist mindset. He doesn't want discussion. He wants a public place to flatulate and laugh.

 

[Quaint88]

Christianity is certainly something to laugh at. It would be nice if the christians actually knew about their own religion. The only contradiction is with your religion and the lack of any evidence for it.

For some reason, I think of this every time you post in this thread:
Two Guys from a Religious Cult - SNL

Just for fun, I'll do one of me in this thread:

 

[SuperDave]

For some reason, I think of this every time you post in this thread:
Two Guys from a Religious Cult - SNL

Just for fun, I'll do one of me in this thread:

That was funny plus memes are a better way to get your point across and a lot more fun.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I would argue that faith is required to believe scientists. When scientists have made important discoveries, I didn't get a turn looking through the microscope. I didn't look over the shoulder of the scientists involved and double-check their math. Other scientists verify or disprove the findings by attempting to duplicate the results, but I'm not involved in that process either. On top of that, I don't even know any of them personally, yet I believe them. The reason is that I have faith in the scientific community.

They publish their findings for pretty much anyone to review. You can literally review pretty much all scientific findings and the data that goes into it. So actually yes, you can double check them.

Now as far as you having the knowledge and ability to actually comprehend and double check their findings, much different story. And yes, I guess in a sense you do have to have some sort of "faith" (trust) that what they find is correct. But that's different than you just having to take their word for it.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Your problem is you are very confident in your beliefs but woefully ignorant in the things you dismiss.

You have claimed you "love science", but you just called the scientific method "silly". I shouldn't need to point out to you how contradictory that is.

Second, "science" has never been about finding the purpose and direction in your life. That's all on you. Whether you use a religion or not is all up to you, but please don't act like atheists can't have a purpose or direction.

Third, evolution is not "dumb luck and chance". I've said this before but you seriously need to study the subject more before you keep making such statements.

Finally, you keep acting like abiogenesis is some accepted fact. It's not, and no scientist will say it is. It's a hypothesis made with the best knowledge we have, but science will clearly tell you "We don't know", and they have no problem saying they don't know. Saying they "don't know" doesn't equal = you being right.

I've said this to you before and I'll say it again, if you were as dismissive and "skeptical" of your beliefs as you claim to be of science/evolution, there's no way you'd hold to them.

Me calling the method silly was tongue in cheek, as I referenced the fact that people abandon it in order to believe they came from nowhere. If a person doesn't believe in abiogenesis, or special creation, what do they believe? Nothing?? So their view is " I don't know where life came from, but I am sure it wasn't God. Oh , and those who believe it was Him are intellectually inferior to me and I will mock them while attempting to claim a fictitious intellectual high ground."

Brilliant. Agnostics are at least honest about this, those who can read know that the name itself means "against knowledge."..they don't want to know or don't care.

For an atheist, seems that they would generally believe the scientists best guess of the day, which is rock wash over millions of years, and required an enormous amount of faith. Faith that the necessary amino acids could be created somehow, which had never happened. Faith that they would ACCIDENTALLY arrange themselves in the correct order to make a DNA double helix, even though a single protein out of millions being out of sequence is usually fatal, then
.....here's the big one...faith that somehow an inanimate soup would somehow spring to life and become a viable living creature. Which by every bit of evidence to this point..has never ever occurred and cannot even be made to occur in a a lab despite adding electricity, radiation, chemical catalysts ....everything they could think of. So they completely abandon the scientific method, you know, testable repeatable science, and simply choose to BELIEVE that something happened. Something that there is absolutely no evidence has ever occurred...at all...simply because the alternative is believing in a Creator. Because in our narcissistic me me me culture...if God exists than YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. Don't talk down to me like you are in any way intellectually superior to me. You are not. Period. While I am not a microbiologist, and don't pretend to be, my aunt and uncle both are, UT educated , AND THEY BOTH BELIEVE IN GOD AND JESUS CHRIST.

Good day.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Me calling the method silly was tongue in cheek, as I referenced the fact that people abandon it in order to believe they came from nowhere. If a person doesn't believe in abiogenesis, or special creation, what do they believe? Nothing?? So their view is " I don't know where life came from, but I am sure it wasn't God. Oh , and those who believe it was Him are intellectually inferior to me and I will mock them while attempting to claim a fictitious intellectual high ground."

Brilliant. Agnostics are at least honest about this, those who can read know that the name itself means "against knowledge."..they don't want to know or don't care.

For an atheist, seems that they would generally believe the scientists best guess of the day, which is rock wash over millions of years, and required an enormous amount of faith. Faith that the necessary amino acids could be created somehow, which had never happened. Faith that they would ACCIDENTALLY arrange themselves in the correct order to make a DNA double helix, even though a single protein out of millions being out of sequence is usually fatal, then
.....here's the big one...faith that somehow an inanimate soup would somehow spring to life and become a viable living creature. Which by every bit of evidence to this point..has never ever occurred and cannot even be made to occur in a a lab despite adding electricity, radiation, chemical catalysts ....everything they could think of. So they completely abandon the scientific method, you know, testable repeatable science, and simply choose to BELIEVE that something happened. Something that there is absolutely no evidence has ever occurred...at all...simply because the alternative is believing in a Creator. Because in our narcissistic me me me culture...if God exists than YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. Don't talk down to me like you are in any way intellectually superior to me. You are not. Period. While I am not a microbiologist, and don't pretend to be, my aunt and uncle both are, UT educated , AND THEY BOTH BELIEVE IN GOD AND JESUS CHRIST.

Good day.

WTF? I have literally never met an atheist that believed that he/she was the center of the universe. Quite the contrary, most seem realize just how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things. They simply prefer to have things proven before believing. By way of example, I can tell you that humans are the offspring of an alien race from a planet in a yet undiscovered galaxy. You can't prove me wrong, yet I imagine you would mock me.

 

[MercyPercy]

Marcus brings up a hilarious point about narcissism. From his perspective, he belives that he not only understands but intimately knows the Creator of the universe personally. Said creator custom made Marcus to be a special little snowflake, and all of existence revolves around this one little rock spinning in the void, despite us being a speck of dust in a cosmic sense. And this all powerful Creator loves lowly Marcus so much that he will reward him with Paradise after death. And Marcus claims he knows all of these very specific things as fact with a "you'll just have to take my word for it" and angry defiance at anyone who would suggest otherwise.

Right. Not narcissistic at all.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Me calling the method silly was tongue in cheek, as I referenced the fact that people abandon it in order to believe they came from nowhere. If a person doesn't believe in abiogenesis, or special creation, what do they believe? Nothing?? So their view is " I don't know where life came from, but I am sure it wasn't God. Oh , and those who believe it was Him are intellectually inferior to me and I will mock them while attempting to claim a fictitious intellectual high ground."

There is nothing wrong with believing neither side has a cogent explanation. Additionally, saying Genesis (one account of creation/creator) makes no sense does not discount the possibility of creation/creator.

Brilliant. Agnostics are at least honest about this, those who can read know that the name itself means "against knowledge."..they don't want to know or don't care.

If you honestly believe this, you really don't understand agnosticism.

Furthermore, to tie the two above responses together, one can state the factual accuracy of the transition between non-life to life is rather inconsequential with respect to their lives, meaning, or purpose.

For an atheist, seems that they would generally believe the scientists best guess of the day, which is rock wash over millions of years, and required an enormous amount of faith. Faith that the necessary amino acids could be created somehow, which had never happened. Faith that they would ACCIDENTALLY arrange themselves in the correct order to make a DNA double helix, even though a single protein out of millions being out of sequence is usually fatal, then
.....here's the big one...faith that somehow an inanimate soup would somehow spring to life and become a viable living creature. Which by every bit of evidence to this point..has never ever occurred and cannot even be made to occur in a a lab despite adding electricity, radiation, chemical catalysts ....everything they could think of. So they completely abandon the scientific method, you know, testable repeatable science, and simply choose to BELIEVE that something happened. Something that there is absolutely no evidence has ever occurred...at all...simply because the alternative is believing in a Creator. Because in our narcissistic me me me culture...if God exists than YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. Don't talk down to me like you are in any way intellectually superior to me. You are not. Period. While I am not a microbiologist, and don't pretend to be, my aunt and uncle both are, UT educated , AND THEY BOTH BELIEVE IN GOD AND JESUS CHRIST.

Good day.

To the first bold,...yet.

To the second bold, anthropocentrism is narcissistic, not atheism. Our apparent insignificance with respect to the universe fuels atheism.

 

[Mtntrout]

Just to clear it up, abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory would mean it is observed in some way, explained, and accepted as fact.

Also, assuming something without any evidence whatsoever (like creation of life by an all-powerful being) is not a logical alternative to something else without conclusive evidence.

Further, one's faith or lack of faith surely doesn't teeter on the edge of an event so remote to our own personal lives. If abiogenesis were demonstrated tomorrow, how would it definitively disprove a creator? It would just move the argument back, just as evolution did. If it isn't ever figured out to anyone's satisfaction in our lifetimes, how does that guarantee it never will be or never occurred? It's an unsatisfying point of debate, in my opinion.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Just to clear it up, abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory would mean it is observed in some way, explained, and accepted as fact.

Also, assuming something without any evidence whatsoever (like creation of life by an all-powerful being) is not a logical alternative to something else without conclusive evidence.

Further, one's faith or lack of faith surely doesn't teeter on the edge of an event so remote to our own personal lives. If abiogenesis were demonstrated tomorrow, how would it definitively disprove a creator? It would just move the argument back, just as evolution did. If it isn't ever figured out to anyone's satisfaction in our lifetimes, how does that guarantee it never will be or never occurred? It's an unsatisfying point of debate, in my opinion.

It is about Genesis.

The idea is that if one can demonstrate the improbability or falsity of abiogenesis, then one can by association dismiss evolution; thus saving Genesis and by extension God's Word. In other words, they think abiogenesis and evolution are inseparably tethered. You disprove one, you disprove the other.

 

[Mtntrout]

Nah, evolution is solid for any fair-minded observer willing to learn about genetics. If there is a creator, he used evolution as surely as we orbit the sun.

 

[MercyPercy]

It is about Genesis.

The idea is that if one can demonstrate the improbability or falsity of abiogenesis, then one can by association dismiss evolution; thus saving Genesis and by extension God's Word. In other words, they think abiogenesis and evolution are inseparably tethered. You disprove one, you disprove the other.

I think it's an argument of convenience because the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that one must divert from it. And even then, it's not a fantastic argument as abiogenesis is of course not disproved.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Nah, evolution is solid for any fair-minded observer willing to learn about genetics. If there is a creator, he used evolution as surely as we orbit the sun.

That doesn't help the OT theists (especially the sola scriptura kind).

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think it's an argument of convenience because the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that one must divert from it. And even then, it's not a fantastic argument as abiogenesis is of course not disproved.

In fairness, they are merely walking back the principals of evolution/biology/biochemistry to get abiogenesis (in the same way biologists do).

The problem is philosophically abiogenesis isn't necessitated by evolution.

 

[Roustabout]

In fairness, they are merely walking back the principals of evolution/biology/biochemistry to get abiogenesis (in the same way biologists do).

The problem is philosophically abiogenesis isn't necessitated by evolution.

I would say from a materialist's view it is.

 

[Quaint88]

Possibly another piece of the puzzle:

Origin of life: An artificial comet holds the missing piece - Daily Science

Summary:
Researchers have for the first time shown that ribose, a sugar that is one of the building blocks of genetic material in living organisms, may have formed in cometary ices. They propose the first realistic scenario for the formation of this key compound, which had never been detected in meteorites or cometary ices until now. Their findings shed new light on the emergence of life on Earth.

As a first step, an artificial comet was produced at the Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale. By placing a representative mixture of water (H2O), methanol (CH3OH) and ammonia (NH3) in a high vacuum chamber at -- 200 °C, the astrophysicists simulated the formation of dust grains coated with ice, the raw material of comets. This material was irradiated with UV, as in the molecular clouds where these grains form. The sample was then warmed to room temperature, as in comets when they approach the Sun. Its composition was analyzed at the Institut de Chimie de Nice, optimizing an extremely sensitive and accurate method (multidimensional gas chromatography coupled with time-of-flight mass spectrometry). Several sugars were detected, including ribose. Their diversity and relative abundances suggest that they were formed from formaldehyde (a molecule found in space and on comets that forms in large quantities from methanol and water).

Although the existence of ribose in real comets remains to be confirmed, this discovery completes the list of the molecular building blocks of life that can be formed in interstellar ice. It also lends further support to the theory that comets are the source of the organic molecules that made life possible on Earth, and perhaps elsewhere in the Universe.

 

[T-TownVol]

So.....they manufactured sugar in a lab and claim that they have "possibly" found the source of life on Earth......do I have it right or am I missing something in this article full of "ifs" and "remains to be confirmed"s......

 

[rjd970]

So.....they manufactured sugar in a lab and claim that they have "possibly" found the source of life on Earth......do I have it right or am I missing something in this article full of "ifs" and "remains to be confirmed"s......

That is pretty much the gist of what I read. Certainty and absolutes are not as common as they are in religious circles.

 

[Persian Vol]

So.....they manufactured sugar in a lab and claim that they have "possibly" found the source of life on Earth......do I have it right or am I missing something in this article full of "ifs" and "remains to be confirmed"s......

They didn't simply manufacture a sugar in a lab. One cannot feasibly test this hypothesis by waiting for a comet to crash down on earth, but they replicated the environment of a scenario, (putting it in a vacuum, increasing the temperature, etc), and discovered the product of organic sugars. The purpose of the experiment was to see if it was possible under the right conditions.