The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth

[Seabear]

Not surprisingly, it seems that your theist adversary is a condescending fuck as well. Kudos on taking the high road.

It is incredible the level of idealism under which these people operate. They constantly change or add to their definition of the nature of their god, and any explanation they can think of is automatically accepted to be true. This always raises two thoughts in my mind:

First, these explanations of how "god" fits in what is known of the natural world was curiously unnecessary while mankind was ignorant and illiterate. Odd; an all-knowing god should have done a better job of defining himself. Surely his omniscience would have allowed him to foresee the contradictions that would arise from scientific knowledge?

Second, its ironic that these people profess to understand so much about the nature and characteristics of a being for which they have absolutely no evidence and no reasonable means to know them. Yet that doesn't stop them from jerry-mandering their "definition" of god to avoid every contradiction. And again, THINKING of a explanation is the same as KNOWING it is true. This more than anything else is a glaring proof that they are simply making this shit up as they go along.

Ask me about the dragon in my garage...

[josephpalazzo]

LOL. My theist is definitely losing patience with me. Here's the latest round. I haven't answered him on the last post, but I [s:3qgmu44j]will[/s:3qgmu44j] just did it.

Theist:

Well, God has provided tons and tons of "signs" already. God is
 not some trained bear that will jump at the command of people
like yourself. The many evidences that God has provided have
 been "twisted" by the secular mind via re-interpretation, ignoring,
 re-defining and other means. God allows you to do that while
 Knowing that you remain without excuse.
 
Sorry, you can't be helped on your question until you sincerely want to be helped.

ME:

I can compare a painting of a tree with the tree itself. There's no way the painting can come into existence on its own. It needs a causal willing agent. OTOH, the tree grew from a seed. It needed soil, water and sun. And one can watch it growing and you know from that observation that there was no causal willing agent, just a natural process which can be explained by scientific laws.

Theist:

WOW ... you 'see' nothing ... blind as a bat!

Soil, water and sun are totally useless, in fact harmful, unless there exists
 an elaborate system (I call it a MEMS for Mass Energy Management System)
 able to extract, transform, store and coordinate/regulate. Such a system
 could not have emerged naturally. To believe otherwise is an act of
immeasurable faith - which is what Atheists practice regularly. Ask God
 for 'sight' that you may begin to 'see',

EDIT: I thought I would wait and take my time, but couldn't resist, so I just fired back:

Yes, I have beliefs that the universe can be understood without the need of a God.

[josephpalazzo]

LOL, my theist has posted his most daring one. And this is perhaps my last parting shot.

Well, thank you very much for openly admitting what I already
knew, namely, that as an Atheist you believe in a Godless
universe.    Always remember : to hold on to that belief you
must ignore hard facts, empirical science and sound logic.

Well that might be true for some, but in my case, my beliefs come from 500 years of scientific investigation, during that time, not a single evidence for the existence of God has been uncovered. So it's not a "presupposition" as some theists falsely believe. And it's not about ignoring "hard" facts, as there are none supporting your beliefs. What you believe in is based on hearsay.

What I do care about is when people LIE, such as claiming to
adhere to "facts, science and logic" when the truth is that they
are merely following their own desires while avoiding the
things that they do not wish to submit to.

Hmm, perhaps there are people like that but most atheists I know of came to their conclusions after they realized they were brainwashed by their parents, guardians, ministers and the people in their lives. It took time, reflection and making the hard choices even if that meant they might lose the love of their families, friends and sometimes their jobs.

If Atheists / Humanists / Agnostics would be 'man-enough'
to admit the truth, then I'd be happy to let them be in peace.

Well, why then are you so hateful towards them?

It won't be me that'll be in their boots on the Appointed Day,
plus I did my duty by informing them of God's Word.  After
that, my job is done - it is for God to carry out the rest.

Why do you need to proselytize? Why does your God need you to defend him? BTW, you'll find the same "dedication" of defending their religion among many faithfuls. Think 9/11 and Islam.

But they DON'T 'man-up'!   They go around telling the world
that they operate on "facts, science and logic" while their
opponents are operating on "blind faith".   That is the lie that
has to be fought against every day.

If you would take the time to find out how exactly they came to their conclusions, you might have a different opinion than this one. This tells me that you are "blinded" by your faith.

[Aupmanyav]

That's all the entire Bible is - a story for little children (or adults with the minds of little children), ..

God did not even create Bible.

[Seabear]

[spoil:14lj9upd]

LOL, my theist has posted his most daring one. And this is perhaps my last parting shot.

Well, thank you very much for openly admitting what I already
knew, namely, that as an Atheist you believe in a Godless
universe.    Always remember : to hold on to that belief you
must ignore hard facts, empirical science and sound logic.

Well that might be true for some, but in my case, my beliefs come from 500 years of scientific investigation, during that time, not a single evidence for the existence of God has been uncovered. So it's not a "presupposition" as some theists falsely believe. And it's not about ignoring "hard" facts, as there are none supporting your beliefs. What you believe in is based on hearsay.

What I do care about is when people LIE, such as claiming to
adhere to "facts, science and logic" when the truth is that they
are merely following their own desires while avoiding the
things that they do not wish to submit to.

Hmm, perhaps there are people like that but most atheists I know of came to their conclusions after they realized they were brainwashed by their parents, guardians, ministers and the people in their lives. It took time, reflection and making the hard choices even if that meant they might lose the love of their families, friends and sometimes their jobs.

If Atheists / Humanists / Agnostics would be 'man-enough'
to admit the truth, then I'd be happy to let them be in peace.

Well, why then are you so hateful towards them?

It won't be me that'll be in their boots on the Appointed Day,
plus I did my duty by informing them of God's Word.  After
that, my job is done - it is for God to carry out the rest.

Why do you need to proselytize? Why does your God need you to defend him? BTW, you'll find the same "dedication" of defending their religion among many faithfuls. Think 9/11 and Islam.

But they DON'T 'man-up'!   They go around telling the world
that they operate on "facts, science and logic" while their
opponents are operating on "blind faith".   That is the lie that
has to be fought against every day.

If you would take the time to find out how exactly they came to their conclusions, you might have a different opinion than this one. This tells me that you are "blinded" by your faith.

[/spoil:14lj9upd]
LMFAO...oh, the irony of his angry replies...

again, job well done on taking the high road and not stooping to his level. Not sure I would have done so well in the same situation.

[josephpalazzo]

[spoil:2gqn1xvn]

LOL, my theist has posted his most daring one. And this is perhaps my last parting shot.

Well, thank you very much for openly admitting what I already
knew, namely, that as an Atheist you believe in a Godless
universe.    Always remember : to hold on to that belief you
must ignore hard facts, empirical science and sound logic.

Well that might be true for some, but in my case, my beliefs come from 500 years of scientific investigation, during that time, not a single evidence for the existence of God has been uncovered. So it's not a "presupposition" as some theists falsely believe. And it's not about ignoring "hard" facts, as there are none supporting your beliefs. What you believe in is based on hearsay.

What I do care about is when people LIE, such as claiming to
adhere to "facts, science and logic" when the truth is that they
are merely following their own desires while avoiding the
things that they do not wish to submit to.

Hmm, perhaps there are people like that but most atheists I know of came to their conclusions after they realized they were brainwashed by their parents, guardians, ministers and the people in their lives. It took time, reflection and making the hard choices even if that meant they might lose the love of their families, friends and sometimes their jobs.

If Atheists / Humanists / Agnostics would be 'man-enough'
to admit the truth, then I'd be happy to let them be in peace.

Well, why then are you so hateful towards them?

It won't be me that'll be in their boots on the Appointed Day,
plus I did my duty by informing them of God's Word.  After
that, my job is done - it is for God to carry out the rest.

Why do you need to proselytize? Why does your God need you to defend him? BTW, you'll find the same "dedication" of defending their religion among many faithfuls. Think 9/11 and Islam.

But they DON'T 'man-up'!   They go around telling the world
that they operate on "facts, science and logic" while their
opponents are operating on "blind faith".   That is the lie that
has to be fought against every day.

If you would take the time to find out how exactly they came to their conclusions, you might have a different opinion than this one. This tells me that you are "blinded" by your faith.

[/spoil:2gqn1xvn]
LMFAO...oh, the irony of his angry replies...

again, job well done on taking the high road and not stooping to his level. Not sure I would have done so well in the same situation.

It's a theist forum. So I avoid any personal insult, keeping my reply only on the issue. Not too long ago, they told me I could not use my own blog as a link. It's an underhanded way to censure me. So last time, I just posted the "Google at...{name of my blog}". So far, no reponse from the moderators on that.

[Seabear]

It's a theist forum. So I avoid any personal insult, keeping my reply only on the issue. Not too long ago, they told me I could not use my own blog as a link. It's an underhanded way to censure me. So last time, I just posted the "Google at...{name of my blog}". So far, no reponse from the moderators on that.

Seems to be a common thing on theistic forums... in spite of their self-professed "unshakable" belief in an infinitely powerful supreme being, they cannot tolerate a level playing field when it comes to discussion. It's amazing how much help an omnipotent god needs...

[Solitary]

[josephpalazzo]

I finally got him to get back at the OP, inadvertently, but nevertheless, he open the door.

Theist:

"500 years of scientific investigation" - Hmmm
Okay, so prove to me that everything including mind, consciousness and
life, is able to emerge from raw mass and energy.   Just as you want me to
prove that God exists then using your own rules, I want you to prove
Materialism.   If you cannot do that (which I know you cannot because
it isn't possible) then know that you stand on religious belief - not "science".

Me:

Well, this is where the OP comes in. Szostak and several labs across the planet are making outstanding discoveries about abiogenesis. So we are very close to explain how living matter arose from inert matter. Just think that 100 years ago we didn't understand how atoms got together to form molecules. Now, thanks to QM, we do understanding the fundamental principles of chemistry. And 50 years ago, we discovered the complex molecule DNA, which forms the basis of all living matter. And now, we are at the cusp of discoverring the principles of abiogenesis.

We also have a lot of research into the mind going on, and on all its components: free will, self-awareness, memory, etc. However, we are still in the primitive stage, just like 100 years ago, we were in the primitive stage of understanding chemistry. As a scientist, one thing I learned is to be patient enough.  There is no need to invoke a supernatural entity just because we don't fully understand certain realities. You see, I have beliefs too,  but on those things like science and technology that will eventually yield results.

[Solitary]

[Seabear]

Man this guy is a walking encyclopedia of theist cliches... "prove materialism to me, else I win by default"

PS regarding how much knowledge has changed over the last 100 years, its funny to see how much theistic definitions of "god" have to keep changing to keep him fitting in the smaller and smaller box that science creates. I wonder how gods definition will have to be changed next?

The consequence, of course, to the fact that "god's" definition has had to be constantly changed to keep him in line with science, is that you can argue that the theistic "understanding" of god is STILL incorrect today, and will have to be continually changed again and again as we gain more understanding. The irony is in the "ex post facto" nature of these alterations; theists claim to understand god's nature right up until the point that they change it again; it's never prior to the discovery of conflicting knowledge. I am repeatedly reminded of Carl Sagan's Dragon.

Given this history of alterations, it makes one wonder how theists can be so certain of their understanding today?

[josephpalazzo]

We've entered the phase of derision and mocking. I guess this won't last long. Perhaps I'll get banned.

Theist:

Fine.
Unlike your position - which cannot make any substantive predictions - I will make
one here for the record.   Here it is :

[color="#B22222"]Neither in your lifetime (or mine) will we see life, mind or consciousness arise
solely from pure, undirected mass and energy ... IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN![/COLOR]

That's about as clear and emphatic as I can make it.
I know you believe otherwise - the operative word being "believe".
This goes towards my point - you people are based on BELIEF.
The hard part is getting you to admit it - which, of course, you never will.

Me]BTW, my prediction above is based 100.00% on science. [/quote]

Me:
You mean pseudo-science. Or maybe you have a crystal ball. Whatever. But you are very entertaining. However don't quit you day-job, if you have one, you won't last long as a standup comedian.

Theist:

As someone that knows a bit about information (co-authored a book on it and am
working alone (for now) on expanding it), I know with absolute certainty
that life / mind from pure, unguided mass and energy is impossible.
It takes blind religious belief to think otherwise.

Well, no scientist would ever say, " with absolute certainty"... oh wait, you're not a scientist. Bummer.

[Plu]

As someone that knows a bit about information (co-authored a book on it and am
working alone (for now) on expanding it), I know with absolute certainty
that

This is where you say "prove it". Knowledge with absolute certainty must either be provable or bull.

[Solitary]

[josephpalazzo]

Grand standing:

Except that I will bet my life on my prediction.

You realize that your life isn't worth very much. So betting it means you're betting zilch.

But be careful - be sure to read precisely what I said.
I am very familiar with the underhanded tactics
of Materialists to smuggle things into the experiment,
it's called 'investigator interference'.

Don't know what you're talking about.

Wow ... you just blew the 2 micrograms of credibility
that you had remaining right out of the solar system.

Yep, standup comedy is not your forte.

That's very interesting given that I've pretty much worked my
entire career in maths/science - with the Air Force in pure and applied
research (7+ years); Cape Canaveral in guidance systems development
(2+ years);  with Honeywell in pure and applied research ... and always
successful (e.g., Air Force Scientific Achievement Award, Griffiss Air
Force Base, Rome, New York, 1979 ... et al.).   That's evidence for you.

The proof is in the pudding, and, I hate to say this but the evidence has made a monkey out of you.   Sorry!  

Jorge

Your credentials means little to me, as every time I posted something on real science, like Einstein's derivation of mc[sup:2v5m41ej]2[/sup:2v5m41ej], relativistic doppler effect, or the latest one, on the Unruh Effect, you don't  seem to me to have the capability of following simple mathematical derivations. So whatever work you did in the past certainly does not reflect in your grasp of science so far in this forum.

BTW, when scientist publish their findings, they normally indicate the margin of errors in their work. It's an indication that no work is 100% precise. Secondly, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle forbids any observation to be 100% precision. As one who is supposed to have spent an entire career in maths/science , you should have known this by now. Apparently, you don't.