The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific

[rightwinger]

It is a simple issue. Atoms, no matter what other atoms they bond to, do not become sentient.

Evidently, they do

We are all made up of atoms

 

[ScienceRocks]

I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.

I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.

Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.

Pretty clear to me....

I bet you religious fuckers would love to silence any talk of science. Fucking liars.

We're the ones that use real evidence...So don't be surprised when your dumb belief that is based on nothing is called out.

What a dumb bitch.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Dumb religious idiots,,,

I aint silencing you but you have NO evidence for your belief. I have mountains of evidence for physics and chemistry. lol

Its a joke.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll say it right now that I now reject the god of idiocy. Seems to be the same god of radical islam!

Fuck em.

 

[edthecynic]

Stars, dufus.
And since you likely never go far from your 400 sq ft apartment, you can read by starlight

Yeah, the Daystar, AKA the Sun, but it was not created until the 4th day.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Stars, dufus.
And since you likely never go far from your 400 sq ft apartment, you can read by starlight

Yeah, the Daystar, AKA the Sun, but it was not created until the 4th day.

The galaxy's and the stars that make up them were around 3 times as long as our stupid little planet.

Our planet isn't important and there's probably billions like it.

 

[cnm]

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
Sentience - Wikipedia​

Hmmm. So bacteria are sentient. I didn't know that.

 

[jillian]

You think atoms are sentient?

I know sentient beings are made of atoms.

the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is a joke thread?

Physics and chemistry that is supported with hundreds of years of theory and evidence explains it very well.

Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.

How do you explain your super being coming out of thin space??

You have it backwards.

Space/time came out of the Creator.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You think atoms are sentient?

I know sentient beings are made of atoms.

the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.

Reason? I don’t consider talking carbon atoms reason.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.

I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.

Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.

Pretty clear to me....

I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.

Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.

Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.

 

[G.T.]

You think atoms are sentient?

I know sentient beings are made of atoms.

the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.

its good comedy, though

 

[cnm]

Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.

Science doesn't do proof. It does evidence. Once again for the scientific illiterates.

 

[G.T.]

You think atoms are sentient?

I know sentient beings are made of atoms.

the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.

Reason? I don’t consider talking carbon atoms reason.

carbon atoms dont talk

youre welcome

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you kill because someone doesn't believe as you believe I think that is criminal. Doesn't matter if it's the Church or NKVD. The Catholic Church was no better or worse than other theocracies.

Well there is part of your problem, you dont understand why these people were put to death.

Plenty of Jews lived in Europe with no problem with the church.

You should unlearn what you think you have learned on this topic if you want to grasp the Truth of the matter.

You do subscribe to the notion of Objective Truth, do you not?

BTW, I am not trying to offend you or put you off with cheap shots or whatever. And I am not trying to convert you to anything, as I do not ever want that responsibility again anyway.

I simply want to reason with you and come to an accurate mutual understanding.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I bet you religious fuckers would love to silence any talk of science. Fucking liars.

Modern science began as the effort of Christians to apply the scientific method to various bodies of knowledge.

Thus Astrology became Astronomy, Alchemy became Chemistry, etc.

So why did we invent something to only silence it later when it still serves our purpose?

We're the ones that use real evidence...

Lol, you mean like Piltdown Man or Bokop Man?

That kind of real evidence? lolol

So don't be surprised when your dumb belief that is based on nothing is called out.

Religious belief is not based on nothing, Sherlock.

Have you found that list of Scientific axioms yet, genius?

What a dumb bitch.

She is easily twice as smart as you are, child.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Reason? I don’t consider talking carbon atoms reason.

carbon atoms dont talk

No shit

 

[JimBowie1958]

the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.

its good comedy, though

Sure is, between you, jilian and ScienceRocks the whole thread is a gut busting orgy of laughter.

 

[jillian]

the religious freak won't listen to reason and doesn't believe in science.

its good comedy, though

Sure is, between you, jilian and ScienceRocks the whole thread is a gut busting orgy of laughter.

sub literate science denying trumptards wouldn't know what's funny if it bit them.

gotta love the juxtaposition of the cross and the cross-hairs of a scope in your avi.... seems you confuse religion and guns.

thanks for playing though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no Biblical recounting of evolution. the Bible was written by barely literate people who were writing down the legends handed down by even less literate goat herders. they didn't even know the freaking Earth was round. Give me a break.

Wrong, you dunce.


1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

1. “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

What a laughable, steaming pile of shit that copy/paste job was. No, the Bible does not 'recount evolution".

In general, the default to vulgarity is an admission of losing the argument.

In your case it is both specific, and eternal.

You religious nutballs can turn any statement or word saladinto affirmation of yourselves. That's theluxurythat wielding magical thinking affords you. I could have said "goats like watermelon", and you would have proceeded to do a little victory dance. We all knew this before you even opened your mouth. No, I am not going to debate the utterly stupid and absurd idea that the Bible recounted evolution with you.

How many times must you be proven to be a low-level dunce?

Shouldn't once be sufficient?


Let's review:
The events and the order of those events as outlined in the book of Genesis mirror the very same event and order of events posited by modern evolutionary biologists.


This:
1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

All made-to-fit nonsense. How convenient and easy for you. I imagine i could pull the same trick with any religious text. And I'm sure that goes for more than just evolution. But it would be boring, and a waste of time. Peddle that nonsense to someone else.