The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[Coloradomtnman]

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

I really would like better science education in this country...

Currently the scientific community has only hypotheses in regards to the origin of life. There are no theories. As fatal flaws are discovered among the hypotheses, they will be whittled down to whichever hypothesis, if any among the current, makes it to theory status, if that happens. Science is a marketplace of competing ideas, and that capitalistic, competitive nature of how science and scientists work helps to ensure that we as human beings are working with the best hypotheses and theories we have at the time.

I think what PratchettFan means is that the current theories of evolution when taken in context with the evidence and predictive power, makes the best sense when compared to other explanations of current biodiversity. And abiogenesis as an explanation also does the same. Therefore, these explanations are the most rational. It isn't packaging, or salesmanship, or delivery(whatever that means) - its the content and its fitness with the evidence and predictive power.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Actually, human being, I don't agree with the idea that reality is about correct theory versus rationality. Whatever is will be what it is in my opinion, and whatever is will be rational. I'm going to ask Rawlings to step in on this abiogenesis thing. He wrote an in-depth article on it for his blog. I had to read it four times before I had a good handle on it. It's hard, cold science, the facts. There's no way abiogenesis is rational or even demonstrable. I hope Rawlings will step in because his expertise on the issue is clear, but here's the link to the article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

No, that's not what he is saying. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and they are not beliefs. Theories are a framework in which sciencists work. If a scientist makes predictions while working in that framework and those predictions turn out to be accurate again and again for 150 some-odd years (natural selection) that theory is probably accurate and is definitely useful and so will most likely gain wide acceptance as a framework for scientists. If new information or contradicting evidence (such as an inaccurate prediction) is discovered, or a better theory formed the old one is scrapped. An old tool that doesn't work as well as a new tool or is broken is thrown away. There is no packaging only usefulness. A socket set that looks shiny and pretty but every socket is imprecise is not useful. I don't think these theories are pretty or preferable, they are just the current, best explanation for the current, available evidence. And tomorrow that might not be the case.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Abiogenesis isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis, a very weak hypothesis too. A theory would be something that is held to have been demonstrated. The only reason evolution is regarded to be a theory is because it's the received theory, but abiogenesis is not held to be anything but a hypothesis in science. It's not even close to being a theory.


Criticism of Abiogenesis and Panspermia - What is the origin of life on Earth

Even atheists who understand the situation know this, though this guy irresponsibly uses the word theory . . . at first, but eventually gets to the real truth of the matter: Atheism Proving The Negative Current Theories of Abiogenesis

Even though the author is biased, it's clear that it's just a hypothesis: abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Besides the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands.

The only thing I would caution one to be wary of regarding the author's piece in the Encyclopedia Britannica is that while the falsified spontaneous generation of old and abiogenesis are conceptually distinction, both of them are still the notion that life arose from non-living material. I emphasize that because, as you say, Justin, "the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands." Abiogenesis is not a standard scientific theory. For now, it's an hypothesis and nothing more.

abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

It's all packaging and presentation. Whatever tickles their gizzards at a particular point in time.

If that is what you really think, then why even have a serious discussion when you've just written the opposition off as a bunch of children disctracted by something shiny until they see the next shiny thing? You completely invalidate, in your own mind, any argument from the other side no matter its strength. Why even talk to you? You are so uninformed when it comes to science, and you don't want to be informed.

I see now why Hollie gets so frustrated that her posts devolve into angry insults. There's no exchange with someone like you, no communicating, there's just a wall of willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

All other atheists? All people who aren't convinced that your God, or any other gods, are the one, true God. Every single one of us is miserable? And we're all just envious, or jealous that we aren't convinced like you are and so we just steam in our own anger that Christians are just such a happy, jolly bunch. What kind of statement is this? Not only is it a hasty generalization, but it doesn't even make sense.

Even if it were true that Christians are ALL happier than ALL atheists, it doesn't mean Christianity is true. A God of love who created an entire Universe just for His chosen people, the saved, and you just happen to be one of them! Sounds like packaging and salesmanship to me.

Whatever the capital "T' Truth of the Universe is may be unpleasant for us humans, and despite how we might feel about it, or try to deny it or to not accept it, we can not escape it. How's that for packaging?

Who drinks their koolaid with a spoonful of sugar? You, who believes you've been saved by the creator of the Universe to live in everlasting happiness, or the atheist who doesn't know what's going to happen to him or herself, all their loved ones, all humankind, all life, and all things but death is inevitable, life may be meaningles and the Universe seems to be without objective purpose? Whose got the shiny packaging?

 

[PostmodernProph]

you YEC'ists

Hollie, demonstrating how to waste time....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I see now why Hollie gets so frustrated that her posts devolve into angry insults.

actually, in Hollie's case its simply because that's all she knows.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

All other atheists? All people who aren't convinced that your God, or any other gods, are the one, true God. Every single one of us is miserable? And we're all just envious, or jealous that we aren't convinced like you are and so we just steam in our own anger that Christians are just such a happy, jolly bunch. What kind of statement is this? Not only is it a hasty generalization, but it doesn't even make sense.

you're right......he should have limited it to the atheists who post on this forum.....

 

[Hollie]

you YEC'ists

Hollie, demonstrating how to waste time....

Your inability to support your claims is not my waste of time.

 

[PostmodernProph]

you YEC'ists

Hollie, demonstrating how to waste time....

Your inability to support your claims is not my waste of time.

????.....you don't read my claims, how would you know?......

 

[Hollie]

I see now why Hollie gets so frustrated that her posts devolve into angry insults.

actually, in Hollie's case its simply because that's all she knows.....

i know you are unable to further a consistent argument. That is apparent when your YEC'ist views regarding Arks tales and global floods are held to a standard of demonstration that you cannot meet.

We know that the universe exists. We can see evidence for its existence as far back in time as approx. 13.8 billion years. We can see that the universe changes its form over time. The logical implication is that the universe will continue to exist in some form. Of course nature and natural forces may have always existed. Natural law is (by all evidence) eternal and uncreated. Now, in anticipation of your objection that this cannot possibly be, I need only point out that your own beliefs already presume the existence of something that is "eternal and uncreated." You call that thing "gawd(s)." So it appears that you cannot have any consistent argument against something being "eternal and uncreated" since you already accept that possibility explicitly.

 

[Hollie]

you YEC'ists

Hollie, demonstrating how to waste time....

Your inability to support your claims is not my waste of time.

????.....you don't read my claims, how would you know?......

You don't offer anything but pointless one-liners. Screeching out "the gawds did it" is hardly a supportable argument.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

All other atheists? All people who aren't convinced that your God, or any other gods, are the one, true God. Every single one of us is miserable? And we're all just envious, or jealous that we aren't convinced like you are and so we just steam in our own anger that Christians are just such a happy, jolly bunch. What kind of statement is this? Not only is it a hasty generalization, but it doesn't even make sense.

you're right......he should have limited it to the atheists who post on this forum.....

If you want to insult me have the courage not to be passive aggressive about it.

 

[the_human_being]

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Actually, human being, I don't agree with the idea that reality is about correct theory versus rationality. Whatever is will be what it is in my opinion, and whatever is will be rational. I'm going to ask Rawlings to step in on this abiogenesis thing. He wrote an in-depth article on it for his blog. I had to read it four times before I had a good handle on it. It's hard, cold science, the facts. There's no way abiogenesis is rational or even demonstrable. I hope Rawlings will step in because his expertise on the issue is clear, but here's the link to the article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

No, that's not what he is saying. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and they are not beliefs. Theories are a framework in which sciencists work. If a scientist makes predictions while working in that framework and those predictions turn out to be accurate again and again for 150 some-odd years (natural selection) that theory is probably accurate and is definitely useful and so will most likely gain wide acceptance as a framework for scientists. If new information or contradicting evidence (such as an inaccurate prediction) is discovered, or a better theory formed the old one is scrapped. An old tool that doesn't work as well as a new tool or is broken is thrown away. There is no packaging only usefulness. A socket set that looks shiny and pretty but every socket is imprecise is not useful. I don't think these theories are pretty or preferable, they are just the current, best explanation for the current, available evidence. And tomorrow that might not be the case.

Yes. If one group has an opinion, it's called speculation. If ten different groups of scientists have ten different opinions, they are called theories.

 

[the_human_being]

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

All other atheists? All people who aren't convinced that your God, or any other gods, are the one, true God. Every single one of us is miserable? And we're all just envious, or jealous that we aren't convinced like you are and so we just steam in our own anger that Christians are just such a happy, jolly bunch. What kind of statement is this? Not only is it a hasty generalization, but it doesn't even make sense.

Even if it were true that Christians are ALL happier than ALL atheists, it doesn't mean Christianity is true. A God of love who created an entire Universe just for His chosen people, the saved, and you just happen to be one of them! Sounds like packaging and salesmanship to me.

Whatever the capital "T' Truth of the Universe is may be unpleasant for us humans, and despite how we might feel about it, or try to deny it or to not accept it, we can not escape it. How's that for packaging?

Who drinks their koolaid with a spoonful of sugar? You, who believes you've been saved by the creator of the Universe to live in everlasting happiness, or the atheist who doesn't know what's going to happen to him or herself, all their loved ones, all humankind, all life, and all things but death is inevitable, life may be meaningles and the Universe seems to be without objective purpose? Whose got the shiny packaging?

Yes, all atheists are unhappy campers.

 

[the_human_being]

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Abiogenesis isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis, a very weak hypothesis too. A theory would be something that is held to have been demonstrated. The only reason evolution is regarded to be a theory is because it's the received theory, but abiogenesis is not held to be anything but a hypothesis in science. It's not even close to being a theory.


Criticism of Abiogenesis and Panspermia - What is the origin of life on Earth

Even atheists who understand the situation know this, though this guy irresponsibly uses the word theory . . . at first, but eventually gets to the real truth of the matter: Atheism Proving The Negative Current Theories of Abiogenesis

Even though the author is biased, it's clear that it's just a hypothesis: abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Besides the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands.

The only thing I would caution one to be wary of regarding the author's piece in the Encyclopedia Britannica is that while the falsified spontaneous generation of old and abiogenesis are conceptually distinction, both of them are still the notion that life arose from non-living material. I emphasize that because, as you say, Justin, "the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands." Abiogenesis is not a standard scientific theory. For now, it's an hypothesis and nothing more.

abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

It's all packaging and presentation. Whatever tickles their gizzards at a particular point in time.

If that is what you really think, then why even have a serious discussion when you've just written the opposition off as a bunch of children disctracted by something shiny until they see the next shiny thing? You completely invalidate, in your own mind, any argument from the other side no matter its strength. Why even talk to you? You are so uninformed when it comes to science, and you don't want to be informed.

I see now why Hollie gets so frustrated that her posts devolve into angry insults. There's no exchange with someone like you, no communicating, there's just a wall of willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding.

I don't know what your job is but there's a very strong possibility that I have been involved in far more "science" than you have.

 

[Taz]

It is totally arrogant to think to you know for a fact that a god exists or doesn't exist. That's why agnostic is the only rational stance to have, as the matter has not been settled one way or the other.

 

[Taz]

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

All other atheists? All people who aren't convinced that your God, or any other gods, are the one, true God. Every single one of us is miserable? And we're all just envious, or jealous that we aren't convinced like you are and so we just steam in our own anger that Christians are just such a happy, jolly bunch. What kind of statement is this? Not only is it a hasty generalization, but it doesn't even make sense.

Even if it were true that Christians are ALL happier than ALL atheists, it doesn't mean Christianity is true. A God of love who created an entire Universe just for His chosen people, the saved, and you just happen to be one of them! Sounds like packaging and salesmanship to me.

Whatever the capital "T' Truth of the Universe is may be unpleasant for us humans, and despite how we might feel about it, or try to deny it or to not accept it, we can not escape it. How's that for packaging?

Who drinks their koolaid with a spoonful of sugar? You, who believes you've been saved by the creator of the Universe to live in everlasting happiness, or the atheist who doesn't know what's going to happen to him or herself, all their loved ones, all humankind, all life, and all things but death is inevitable, life may be meaningles and the Universe seems to be without objective purpose? Whose got the shiny packaging?

Yes, all atheists are unhappy campers.

About what?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Actually, human being, I don't agree with the idea that reality is about correct theory versus rationality. Whatever is will be what it is in my opinion, and whatever is will be rational. I'm going to ask Rawlings to step in on this abiogenesis thing. He wrote an in-depth article on it for his blog. I had to read it four times before I had a good handle on it. It's hard, cold science, the facts. There's no way abiogenesis is rational or even demonstrable. I hope Rawlings will step in because his expertise on the issue is clear, but here's the link to the article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

No, that's not what he is saying. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and they are not beliefs. Theories are a framework in which sciencists work. If a scientist makes predictions while working in that framework and those predictions turn out to be accurate again and again for 150 some-odd years (natural selection) that theory is probably accurate and is definitely useful and so will most likely gain wide acceptance as a framework for scientists. If new information or contradicting evidence (such as an inaccurate prediction) is discovered, or a better theory formed the old one is scrapped. An old tool that doesn't work as well as a new tool or is broken is thrown away. There is no packaging only usefulness. A socket set that looks shiny and pretty but every socket is imprecise is not useful. I don't think these theories are pretty or preferable, they are just the current, best explanation for the current, available evidence. And tomorrow that might not be the case.

Yes. If one group has an opinion, it's called speculation. If ten different groups of scientists have ten different opinions, they are called theories.

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Actually, human being, I don't agree with the idea that reality is about correct theory versus rationality. Whatever is will be what it is in my opinion, and whatever is will be rational. I'm going to ask Rawlings to step in on this abiogenesis thing. He wrote an in-depth article on it for his blog. I had to read it four times before I had a good handle on it. It's hard, cold science, the facts. There's no way abiogenesis is rational or even demonstrable. I hope Rawlings will step in because his expertise on the issue is clear, but here's the link to the article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

No, that's not what he is saying. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and they are not beliefs. Theories are a framework in which sciencists work. If a scientist makes predictions while working in that framework and those predictions turn out to be accurate again and again for 150 some-odd years (natural selection) that theory is probably accurate and is definitely useful and so will most likely gain wide acceptance as a framework for scientists. If new information or contradicting evidence (such as an inaccurate prediction) is discovered, or a better theory formed the old one is scrapped. An old tool that doesn't work as well as a new tool or is broken is thrown away. There is no packaging only usefulness. A socket set that looks shiny and pretty but every socket is imprecise is not useful. I don't think these theories are pretty or preferable, they are just the current, best explanation for the current, available evidence. And tomorrow that might not be the case.

Yes. If one group has an opinion, it's called speculation. If ten different groups of scientists have ten different opinions, they are called theories.

Not only is that statement entirely devoid of facts, but you didn't address anything about the post to which you were responding.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Abiogenesis isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis, a very weak hypothesis too. A theory would be something that is held to have been demonstrated. The only reason evolution is regarded to be a theory is because it's the received theory, but abiogenesis is not held to be anything but a hypothesis in science. It's not even close to being a theory.


Criticism of Abiogenesis and Panspermia - What is the origin of life on Earth

Even atheists who understand the situation know this, though this guy irresponsibly uses the word theory . . . at first, but eventually gets to the real truth of the matter: Atheism Proving The Negative Current Theories of Abiogenesis

Even though the author is biased, it's clear that it's just a hypothesis: abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Besides the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands.

The only thing I would caution one to be wary of regarding the author's piece in the Encyclopedia Britannica is that while the falsified spontaneous generation of old and abiogenesis are conceptually distinction, both of them are still the notion that life arose from non-living material. I emphasize that because, as you say, Justin, "the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands." Abiogenesis is not a standard scientific theory. For now, it's an hypothesis and nothing more.

abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

It's all packaging and presentation. Whatever tickles their gizzards at a particular point in time.

If that is what you really think, then why even have a serious discussion when you've just written the opposition off as a bunch of children disctracted by something shiny until they see the next shiny thing? You completely invalidate, in your own mind, any argument from the other side no matter its strength. Why even talk to you? You are so uninformed when it comes to science, and you don't want to be informed.

I see now why Hollie gets so frustrated that her posts devolve into angry insults. There's no exchange with someone like you, no communicating, there's just a wall of willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding.

I don't know what your job is but there's a very strong possibility that I have been involved in far more "science" than you have.

That very well may be true when it comes to your job, but you haven't shown that you actually know anything about, as you put it: "science" or at least how it works. One doesn't need a science job to educate one's self about science. I suggest you do so.

 

[the_human_being]

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Actually, human being, I don't agree with the idea that reality is about correct theory versus rationality. Whatever is will be what it is in my opinion, and whatever is will be rational. I'm going to ask Rawlings to step in on this abiogenesis thing. He wrote an in-depth article on it for his blog. I had to read it four times before I had a good handle on it. It's hard, cold science, the facts. There's no way abiogenesis is rational or even demonstrable. I hope Rawlings will step in because his expertise on the issue is clear, but here's the link to the article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

No, that's not what he is saying. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and they are not beliefs. Theories are a framework in which sciencists work. If a scientist makes predictions while working in that framework and those predictions turn out to be accurate again and again for 150 some-odd years (natural selection) that theory is probably accurate and is definitely useful and so will most likely gain wide acceptance as a framework for scientists. If new information or contradicting evidence (such as an inaccurate prediction) is discovered, or a better theory formed the old one is scrapped. An old tool that doesn't work as well as a new tool or is broken is thrown away. There is no packaging only usefulness. A socket set that looks shiny and pretty but every socket is imprecise is not useful. I don't think these theories are pretty or preferable, they are just the current, best explanation for the current, available evidence. And tomorrow that might not be the case.

Yes. If one group has an opinion, it's called speculation. If ten different groups of scientists have ten different opinions, they are called theories.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Actually, human being, I don't agree with the idea that reality is about correct theory versus rationality. Whatever is will be what it is in my opinion, and whatever is will be rational. I'm going to ask Rawlings to step in on this abiogenesis thing. He wrote an in-depth article on it for his blog. I had to read it four times before I had a good handle on it. It's hard, cold science, the facts. There's no way abiogenesis is rational or even demonstrable. I hope Rawlings will step in because his expertise on the issue is clear, but here's the link to the article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

No, that's not what he is saying. Theories are not facts, they are never proved, and they are not beliefs. Theories are a framework in which sciencists work. If a scientist makes predictions while working in that framework and those predictions turn out to be accurate again and again for 150 some-odd years (natural selection) that theory is probably accurate and is definitely useful and so will most likely gain wide acceptance as a framework for scientists. If new information or contradicting evidence (such as an inaccurate prediction) is discovered, or a better theory formed the old one is scrapped. An old tool that doesn't work as well as a new tool or is broken is thrown away. There is no packaging only usefulness. A socket set that looks shiny and pretty but every socket is imprecise is not useful. I don't think these theories are pretty or preferable, they are just the current, best explanation for the current, available evidence. And tomorrow that might not be the case.

Yes. If one group has an opinion, it's called speculation. If ten different groups of scientists have ten different opinions, they are called theories.

Not only is that statement entirely devoid of facts, but you didn't address anything about the post to which you were responding.

Nothing in the post worth responding to. No substance.