Two quick questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2016, 11:18 PM
RE: Two quick questions
At work.

I know the above post is tongue in cheek etc but

*Cough* Abiogenisis *Cough*

Which is not strictly 'Evolution' though it is biology and chemistry.

Real scientist, please explain much better than simple lay-man such as m'self. Big Grin

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2016, 11:44 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(15-11-2016 10:58 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(15-11-2016 10:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Yeah...um, I'm an evolutionary biologist.

So is my wife, who is a Christian.

There is not one thing about evolution about which we disagree.

Wait.

..... waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait.

You and your wife don't disagree on ANYTHING in evolution?

Like, you are in perfect harmony on what the most likely method of going from RNA in a primordial soup or similar environment to metabolizing organisms was? And same for all the other open problems?

.... geez. What do you even TALK about, professionally?

....

Tongue

Yeap. She and I both agree that the silica substrate method seems most likely for abiogenesis, at the moment.

I'm sure if we dug through, we'd find some areas that are still being debated, on which we have differing opinions. But as far as the facts, the basic history and methods of how evolution function, we're on the same team. We both studied genetics, though she actually works in genetics and I wound up working in field biology (I couldn't stand being what she calls a "lab rat", stuck indoors all the time). I no longer work in that field, so it's not something that comes up. Mainly, she keeps up with the literature and shares neat new findings with me, knowing I'm still interested.

But as far as this type of discussion goes, no, we really don't disagree on much. When she's in town (my job and hers are in different towns, at the moment, so we have to visit one another every few weekends), she will often read this forum over my shoulder and openly make fun of the Creationists with whom I am forced to contend. She disdains Christians who reject scientific knowledge far more than I do. If the Christians who come here whining about how we atheists are "ungracious" to them about their ignorance could hear her, they would no longer think we were so bad.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-11-2016, 12:28 AM
RE: Two quick questions
I call scumbag. This Celestial_Wonder kid is a bit too keen to redefine words like faith and to play silly buggers claiming science is religion and the like. He's a certified idiot, the question is what flavour. I'm betting liar for Jesus.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
16-11-2016, 01:54 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(14-11-2016 01:16 PM)Jokurix Wrote:  Hi! Really liking this atheist forum, I realize I'm becoming more and more involved as times goes!

I wanted to ask my fellow atheists.

1. Do you think religion is bad? Why?

2. What do you like most about atheism?


1. This is two questions.

1.1 - Yes
1.2 - Because it can be demonstrated to be so.

2. You used up your two questions already. Move Along.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
16-11-2016, 02:04 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 12:28 AM)morondog Wrote:  I call scumbag. This Celestial_Wonder kid is a bit too keen to redefine words like faith and to play silly buggers claiming science is religion and the like. He's a certified idiot, the question is what flavour. I'm betting liar for Jesus.

Dont we already have a forum memebr who loves to redefine about any word he encounters?
[Image: Socke.7.GIF]

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 02:06 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 12:28 AM)morondog Wrote:  I call scumbag. This Celestial_Wonder kid is a bit too keen to redefine words like faith and to play silly buggers claiming science is religion and the like. He's a certified idiot, the question is what flavour. I'm betting liar for Jesus.

I've been thinking the same thing.

"Well, I can't go in and say I'm a Christian, because my pastor told me they hate Christians. So I'll pretend to be an ex-angry-atheist, the other thing my pastor told me about, and a... Deist... or Spinozean Pantheist, perhaps. Then I'll ask them the questions I've been programmed to ask, and look at the answers only in ways that will confirm my prejudices for me."

Unfortunately for him, too many of the Christian elements are still slipping through the cracks: the passive-aggressive, ever-so-patient Martyr Complex, the over-broadly-defined words that equivocate between knowledge and faith, and the all too common statement that we revere Dawkins.

As you all know, I am extremely reluctant to call someone a Poe, but I think this one is Lying for Jesus™.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-11-2016, 02:52 AM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2016 03:22 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 12:28 AM)morondog Wrote:  I call scumbag. This Celestial_Wonder kid is a bit too keen to redefine words like faith and to play silly buggers claiming science is religion and the like. He's a certified idiot, the question is what flavour. I'm betting liar for Jesus.

Jesus was likely a combination of many people, the top two being John the Baptist and Simon Bar Gorea.

The new testament actually alludes to many references to the happenings of the Jewish revolt.

"Simon escaped into the subterranean passages of the city. By means of stone cutters he tried to dig away into freedom, but ran out of food before he could finish. Clothed in the garments of a Judean king he rose out of the ground at the very spot where the Temple had stood," - Wikipedia (probably sourced from Josephus)

Kind of like how Jesus 'rose from the dead

"The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side." Luke

"We thought you were that Egyptian who recently stirred a rebellion and led 4,000 assassins out into the desert." Acts

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" Luke

"Above His head they posted the written charge against Him: This is Jesus, the King of the Jews. Two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left." - Mathew New International Version

And then even look at the form of punishment that Jesus was said to have suffered. Crucifixion a punishment often reserved for slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state. Many of those who took part in the Jewish revolt were crucified as were many of those who were part of Spartacus' revolt

I am not to keen on the First Jewish revolt, it claimed the lives of many inncoents, particularly the Greeks who were killed, but also the innocent Jews who were caught up in this war of zealots. It is a sad and tragic time in history. However for the good deeds and philosophies I believe that likely came from John the Baptist who Josephus puts as living at the time of Herod Agrippa I and not the time of Herod Agrippa II (the time when the first jewish revolt took place).

But back to the 'science is your religion part'.

Science is not a religion, but that is how many atheists treat it, and that is the point I've been trying to make.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 03:31 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 02:52 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Science is not a religion, but that is how many atheists treat it, and that is the point I've been trying to make.

If you make points by making assertions about people you don't know then congratulations, you made your point. And thanks for informing us, without you and your informational posts I guess we'd all just be stuck here having a good time, whereas now we've got to take time out to tell you you're stupid.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 03:34 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 03:31 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 02:52 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Science is not a religion, but that is how many atheists treat it, and that is the point I've been trying to make.

If you make points by making assertions about people you don't know then congratulations, you made your point. And thanks for informing us, without you and your informational posts I guess we'd all just be stuck here having a good time, whereas now we've got to take time out to tell you you're stupid.

Do you revere Carl Sagan morondog?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 05:07 AM
RE: Two quick questions
(16-11-2016 03:34 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Do you revere Carl Sagan morondog?

Morondog, want to bet against me? $5 says that he is going to imply that "revere" is defined in a way that's closer to the word "worship", rather than simply "admire", and will try to make a point about atheist saints or deference to people who are famous nonbelievers?

Come on, it's just $5. Tongue

Oh, and Reltzik... she texted me when she woke up in the middle of the night to breastfeed our infant son, since she knows my insomnia meant I'd probably be awake to answer and entertain her while she tried to stay awake.

So I asked her and we figured out that we do have one important difference. We both agree that feathers predate flight by quite a margin, but she thinks that flight evolved via the "top-down", or "trees down" model (gliding), and I think it was by the "bottom-up" model, where they used the feathers for short and ever lengthening hops in pursuit of prey, with the wings developing from arms that were getting more powerful in assisting with capture of prey-- the bigger predator theropods with feathers would be able to "steer" somewhat in pursuit of smaller, more nimble prey. However, just as with our (in-agreement) take on abiogenesis, we're waiting for more than the currently-scant evidence before we make any kinds of judgment on the issue, like all scientists do.

So there you go. I guess we don't entirely agree after all. Big Grin

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: