The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth

[josephpalazzo]

Getting closer to the origin of life.

Szostak doesn't need any introduction. Here's part 1,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXo ... r_embedded

[josephpalazzo]

After posting this thread on a theist forum, here's what I got.

Theist:

I watched the whole thing for the music -- love it!
 
The rest was a pure, unadulterated just-so story, a.k.a. pseudo-intellectual garbage.
 
Here... I have stated several times that if I should ever need FAITH,
 I will consult an Atheist before I consult any other Christians. I say this
 because no one - NO ONE ! - could possibly have more faith than Atheists
 given the nonsense, the sheer stupidity, that they believe. Worse than that,
 they claim to "follow science" yet what they actually follow is a children's
 version of science - a version where the details are omitted lest they show
 the Emperor to be stark naked.
 
But, of course, I know the true reason for their beliefs. Let me outline it:
 humans are spiritual beings and, as such, they absolutely cannot be in a
 "spiritual vacuum" state. Remove God from their life and something
must fill the void. And there you have it. That's why it has been said
that ceasing to believe in God does not mean that the person believes
in 'nothing'; it means that the person will believe in anything.
 
Enough said here ... nothing more is merited. Adios

My reply to the bold part:

Nice fairy tale, but nevertheless a blatant assertion with no evidence to support it.

His next reply

You want "evidence", find yourself a mirror and look right into it.

One of my main platforms is to denounce what I believe to be the
greatest ideological falsehood perpetrated on society, which also
happens to be amongst the most important issues needing resolution.  
I'm referring to the lie that "non-religious is an attainable state".  
Last year I gave a talk in California on that subject and I'm preparing
that talk into a video presentation.

That's all I will say on that.

My reply to the bold part:

Reflection of light has been thorough studied, and none of those studies proves your assertion.

I'm waiting for his next one.

[Solitary]

[GurrenLagann]

Getting closer to the origin of life.

Szostak doesn't need any introduction. Here's part 1,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXo ... r_embedded

Yeah, a cell biologist on Twitter linked me that once. Szostak is good. :)

[Colanth]

The problems with a lecture like this, when presented to theists, also include the 'ing' words.  If something was 'done', it needs a 'doer', which they call God.  They don't accept that chemicals do things with no conscious direction.  As Szotak showed in the first lecture (the one you linked to), if the right kind of clay has the right chemicals suffusing through it, it's going to form long-chain molecules and lipid membranes around them.  Given trillions of trillions of cubic miles of chemical-laden water, and half a billion years, and the need for a protocell like this to only need to be formed once, and the odds that it happened are astronomical - it must have happened trillions and trillions of times.

The children's story I'd like to see evidence of is God creating everything.  That's all the entire Bible is - a story for little children (or adults with the minds of little children), with absolutely no evidence that any of it happened (and tons of actual physical evidence that parts of it are impossible).

yet what they actually follow is a children's version of science - a version where the details are omitted

When you give a lecture to undergraduates who haven't studied the subject (I'm assuming, from the nature of the lecture, that that's what it was), you don't go into details they won't have a chance of understanding.  But the details are there.  How which molecules bind to which other molecules, why they bind to those molecules, not other ones, etc.  Szostak seems to have been talking to chem majors or people who have taken some chem courses.  He mentions some chem terms, but not at a much higher level than HS chem.  I'm sure he goes into MUCH greater detail when speaking to his peers.  (And if you give those details to your theist correspondent, I'm sure that all you'd get would be a fixed, glazed stare.  From his remarks, I'm sure that he doesn't even understand the basic, middle-school-chemistry aspects of the lecture, like 'polymerize' or 'chain'.)

[josephpalazzo]

The problems with a lecture like this, when presented to theists, also include the 'ing' words.  If something was 'done', it needs a 'doer', which they call God.  They don't accept that chemicals do things with no conscious direction.  As Szotak showed in the first lecture (the one you linked to), if the right kind of clay has the right chemicals suffusing through it, it's going to form long-chain molecules and lipid membranes around them.  Given trillions of trillions of cubic miles of chemical-laden water, and half a billion years, and the need for a protocell like this to only need to be formed once, and the odds that it happened are astronomical - it must have happened trillions and trillions of times.

The children's story I'd like to see evidence of is God creating everything.  That's all the entire Bible is - a story for little children (or adults with the minds of little children), with absolutely no evidence that any of it happened (and tons of actual physical evidence that parts of it are impossible).

yet what they actually follow is a children's version of science - a version where the details are omitted

When you give a lecture to undergraduates who haven't studied the subject (I'm assuming, from the nature of the lecture, that that's what it was), you don't go into details they won't have a chance of understanding.  But the details are there.  How which molecules bind to which other molecules, why they bind to those molecules, not other ones, etc.  Szostak seems to have been talking to chem majors or people who have taken some chem courses.  He mentions some chem terms, but not at a much higher level than HS chem.  I'm sure he goes into MUCH greater detail when speaking to his peers.  (And if you give those details to your theist correspondent, I'm sure that all you'd get would be a fixed, glazed stare.  From his remarks, I'm sure that he doesn't even understand the basic, middle-school-chemistry aspects of the lecture, like 'polymerize' or 'chain'.)

This theist has claimed in the past that he was a major in physics. So I tested him by sending him to one of blogs. He then claimed that he had studied this stuff back in the 1970's and couldn't remember his "college" physics. So from that time on, I have pretended to give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows some science, though I know he knows very little and might have been lying to the members of that forum. The other thing is that he is very active in the creationism movement. From his reply, "Last year I gave a talk in California on that subject and I'm preparing that talk into a video presentation." I know he is not bluffing there. He is known to give talks in some circle, and with his supposed authority he is spewing that nonsense.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But ... magic is so much simpler.

[josephpalazzo]

To my latest response:

Reflection of light has been thorough studied, and none of those studies proves your assertion.

This is his next post:

None so blind as they who refuse to see.
 
A man with a net worth of $10 million, gave $5 million to help the poor.
 A man with a net worth of $10,000, gave $10,000 to help the poor.
 Mathematics says that the former gave 500 times as much as the latter.
 And so it seems that the former loved the poor much more than the latter.
 Proper 'sight' and wisdom would say the opposite.
 This is the vision and wisdom that Materialists can never possess.

My reply:

You're giving me an anecdote that is irrelevant to my post. Your statement,"humans are spiritual beings and, as such, they absolutely cannot be in a "spiritual vacuum" state", is an essertion without evidence. At least be honest enough to say that it is sheer speculation on your part.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ask him to tell you something moral that religious people can do that atheists can't.

[josephpalazzo]

I'm not sure if I want to go on a tangent. I'm trying to get him on the abiogenesis as posted in the OP, since he is not only a creationist, but also an activist in that movement among christians, and a prominent member of that forum.

[Solitary]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm not sure if I want to go on a tangent. I'm trying to get him on the abiogenesis as posted in the OP, since he is not only a creationist, but also an activist in that movement among christians, and a prominent member of that forum.

Save it for later. It's a fun thing to do to them.

[josephpalazzo]

Here's is next reply, and mine.

Honest is what I am.
You call it "sheer speculation"; I say that you cannot see what is plain sight.
My anecdote was meant as an aid to get you to see something that, as a
Materialist (Atheist), you are blind to see, namely, that the physically
measurable is not the only reality and in fact is not Reality at all.

Now, I stated and re-affirm that humans cannot be in a spiritual vacuum.
You objected and want evidence.  
I said, for evidence just look in a mirror.  
Not surprisingly, you did not understand.
Since you demand honesty from others (me), why not give it yourself?

Answer these : do you actually think that you do not fervently adhere
to very powerful beliefs - every bit as powerful as that of any
person whom you would call "religious"?
Do you actually believe that you are a-religious, i.e., without religion?
Do you not know that Atheism is a full-fledged religion?

Atheism may not have a 'god' (actually it has many 'gods' but that's
another story) but many religions have no deity yet remain religions
nonetheless.

Lastly, again in the name of honesty, is it not "sheer speculation" on
the part of all Atheists to claim that everything is the result of mass,
energy, time, space and physical laws?  If you answer "no" then present
your hard evidence here and now that that is not "sheer speculation"
but rather that you are able to demonstrate it.  Go on, demonstrate, for
example, that consciousness is able to proceed from Materialism alone.

So, answering your post, NO, it is not "sheer speculation" on my part.
Simply by observing people has proven that all without exception
adhere to a set of beliefs.   The beliefs may differ but what does not
differ is that they are BELIEFS making everyone 'religious' in the sense
of the term.   I put it this way : "Everyone has beliefs, everyone has a religion.
The only difference lies in the specific beliefs and religion of each person."

Now, you be honest ... look in a mirror and 'fess up if only to yourself.
 

I think you're confusing between beliefs with religious beliefs. I believe that tomorrow the sun will rise in the East, I believe in a few hours I will be very hungry and will eat a nice dinner, etc. I believe in a lot of stuff, and they have absolutely nothing to do with religion. The question is: are these beliefs that one holds correspond to real things. Certainly, the Superman of DC comics isn't real, the Mickey Mouse of  Disney cartoons isn't real, and Iron Man, the movie character, isn't real, and so is your God. You see the burden of proof is not on me to disprove Superman, it's not on me disprove Mickey Mouse, it's not on me to disprove Iron Man. And neither is it on me to disprove your God. The burden of proof falls  squarely on those who believe in Superman, Mickey mouse, Iron Man, and yes your God.

Where's the evidence? I'm still waiting.

[GurrenLagann]

Well, that sort of Hitchensian question about "what moral action a theist can do that an atheist cannot" is, strictly speaking, meaningless. I've rarely, if ever, heard a theist seriously say that an atheist is incapable of moral actions. The claim I often see is that we cannot justify being moral without God (bollocks, yes).

[Seabear]

Which theist forum? I might like to lurk on this one.

EDIT: It doesnt seem like you need any help, so I am not interested in getting involved in the argument. But I can only speculate that the reason you feel the need to waste time with people like this is for the benefit of the proverbial "fence sitter" who might also be reading.

that said, after all these years of being an atheist, I never cease to be amazed and frustrated at the extent to which the "faithful" willingly and knowingly engage in flagrant, arrogant ignorance.

Science is a self-correcting mechanism interested only in seeking out the true nature of things, independent of iron-age superstition and myth. And yet, rather than re-examine the basis of their belief, the faithful believe that science is actually consciously conspiring against them. As if science gave two shits about their ridiculous beliefs.

Xtians believe that there is a supreme creator to all of the vast complexity of the entire universe, and that this "god" created them, they are special, they have a personal relationship, he hears their individual thoughts and prayers, and actively intervenes in the fabric of reality on their behalf. There is in my opinion, quite simply, no one more egotistically self-centered and childishly arrogant than the typical evangelical xtian.