I Origins Is Irreducibly Irritating

Flatfrog

New member
Dec 29, 2010
885
0
0
seiler88 said:
By definition science must be repeatable so if life arose via naturalistic means then you should be able to replicate it in a lab. Until then the atheistic theory is just as much of a faith-based position as my theistic one.
Falterfire has already made it clear that you're making the common mistake of confusing abiogenesis with evolution, but I'd also call you out on this bit. It's certainly not the case that 'by definition' science has to be repeatable, or at least not in the naive way you define it. Science is about creating falsifiable hypotheses. There are in fact any number of excellent theories about how life might have originated, and all of them are perfectly scientific, falsifiable theories that don't have to be 'repeatable' in the sense you imply.

My personal favourite abiogenesis theory is that life may have begun in micropores in rocks near geothermal vents - essentially very fine pumice stone. The small pores act almost like ready-made cells, and each one can easily become its own individual cocktail of chemicals. Some of those chemicals may have entered into a self-catalysing cycle and begun to spill over into neighbouring pores, creating competition between the most effective cocktails. Excitingly, the process has been to some extent replicated in the lab, and apparently something remarkably close to the Krebs cycle that forms the basis for all cellular metabolism appeared. (If you want to read more, the first couple of chapters of Nick Lane's 'Life Ascending' give an excellent introduction)

Of course, we'll probably never know what the origin of life *did* look like - and even if we did 'reproduce' it in the lab that wouldn't produce it. But that's not the point. The point is to show that it *could* have happened that way. And of course each one of these theories also makes certain predictions about things we'd expect to see in a biota that arose in that way. In general, people who think 'how could you possibly know that' have no conception of the incredible ingenuity of scientists in coming up with ways to test their theories.

As one further example of this, the same book 'Life Ascending' includes a really interesting discussion of how we can test the two competing theories of how complex eukaryotic cells might have evolved from simpler prokaryotic cells, either by a cell that normally predated on other cells accidentally swallowing a cell that wasn't digested but instead went on to form a useful symbiotic relationship, or by a number of cells forming a symbiotic relationship first and then developing a cell memreane that surrounded them and turned them into a new complex cell. It sounds like the kind of thing that's impossible to test, but some incredibly ingenious experiments backed up with plausible arguments suggest it's the second option that makes most sense.
 

Hiramas

New member
Aug 31, 2010
124
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Others have tackled the "problem" with "atheistic" evolution, so I guess that just leaves this.

Hiramas said:
Atheists believe what has been proven. period.
Well, no. "Atheist" only means that you don't believe in God. Everything else is up for grabs. An atheist can believe in new age, supernatural stuff, aliens, pop sci, etc.

Atheism is a single point of belief. It doesn't even address science. You will see a higher instance of atheists in scientific fields, but that doesn't mean anything. You have atheists with no interest in methodology, verification or falsification.
I accept your criticism of my methodology.
See, more science ;P
It is true that there are a lot of people who have a faith of some sort and are atheist strictly speaking.
But in a more colloquial sense, we often mean people with a rational world view without any supernatural power, which was my intention.
My basis stands, though. Atheism is NOT a faith or a religion because of fundamentally different paradigms.

Finally on Topic:
Somehow this reminds me of "book of eli" a sci-fi adventure story turned smacked-with-a-bible religious imagery.
 

gridsleep

New member
Sep 27, 2008
299
0
0
I've come to the conclusion that reality is patterns of mass and energy coalescing and dispersing. That's it. We only think we're special because we think we're special. What we are is what matter and energy do under these particular circumstances.

Anyway, I was wondering why Pinkie Pie is my favorite, even though I am more like Fluttershy personally. Now that I know about the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, I know why. Also why I am oddly attracted to Audrey Hepburn, and why most of the women who gravitated into my life are like Holly Golightly (including one actually named Holly Golightly, but that's for another day.)
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
It sounds like MB disliked the movie more because it hit his particular buttons than anything in the movie itself. Still, I have to give him credit that he made it clear the "No, I don't research much" quip was in jest- a lot of Internet commentators writing about a viewpoint they opposed would have been all too happy to play that out of context.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
I am not aware of any scientist who is notable that actually is using their scientific research to "disprove God". No good scientist or scientific thinker would ever waste their time with such an endeavor.

Zachary Amaranth said:
Others have tackled the "problem" with "atheistic" evolution, so I guess that just leaves this.

Hiramas said:
Atheists believe what has been proven. period.
Well, no. "Atheist" only means that you don't believe in God. Everything else is up for grabs. An atheist can believe in new age, supernatural stuff, aliens, pop sci, etc.

Atheism is a single point of belief. It doesn't even address science. You will see a higher instance of atheists in scientific fields, but that doesn't mean anything. You have atheists with no interest in methodology, verification or falsification.
Don't tell all the Atheists on the internet that. You'll make them all mad. Seems like a lot of the ones on Youtube confuse the two as interchangeable. Atheist = scientific to most of them, or at least it would seem.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Baresark said:
Don't tell all the Atheists on the internet that. You'll make them all mad. Seems like a lot of the ones on Youtube confuse the two as interchangeable. Atheist = scientific to most of them, or at least it would seem.
To be fair, I'm not a big fan of most internet atheists (or, I guess, I should say the celebrity ones) anyway. From TAA telling someone to drown in rape semen to Dusty Smith accusing the Jews of bringing it all on themselves, there's a lot of bullshit out there. And honestly, they're a good chunk of the reason I didn't want to actually identify as one for so long.

Oftentimes, these views are actually justified by "skepticism." Though, I guess that just proves that atheists are human. Good ones, bad ones, and in between.

At the same time, there's a decent chunk of people who know better than to assume atheism is (inherently) scientific. Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience, as well as several other folks from that show) talks about just this sort of thing. I think Steve Shives has been around the point, and even Penn Jillette, who I disagree with on many things, points out that pretty much everyone's got their rational blind spots.

And while I'm not looking for a fight with the internet atheist community, I certainly won't back down from this just because the loudest and most prominent ones seem to be willing to fling feces.


But yeah. They may disagree, and they're demonstrably wrong. There may be a strong correlation between atheism, skepticism, and sicence, but it's not a given.
 

Jacked Assassin

Nothing On TV
Jun 4, 2010
732
0
0
I feel like I missed out on the entire discussion as I Origins isn't playing where I live. Then again its poorly named for a religious movie as I would've thought it was a prequel to iRobot.

As for the whole Atheist thing I'd prefer the word Nonreligious over it. I'd also prefer people to stop using the word Atheism as Atheists as an Ism doesn't exist. Then again I guess that wouldn't stop Religious from misusing words.

As far as youtube goes most Nonreligious on there seem desperate for views, content, & drama. I tend to consider getting involved with vlogging then change my mind as it seems too toxic.

The only Nonreligious youtube vloggers I still follow are AronRa, The Thinking Atheist, RDF, & JRF. My favorite of those being AronRa. Though if he had his own vlog I'd go with A.C. Grayling since I favorited "The Unconsidered Life" & "Teach The Controversy".
 

VaporWare

New member
Aug 1, 2013
94
0
0
seiler88 said:
Well if our "Brilliant Scientists" want to go after God then they are (once again) going about it in the wrong way.

Look, the big problem with Atheistic Evolution is that they can't prove that you can go from non-life to life using purely scientific means.

By definition science must be repeatable so if life arose via naturalistic means then you should be able to replicate it in a lab. Until then the atheistic theory is just as much of a faith-based position as my theistic one.
On the subject of faith, science does not 'believe', it merely strongly suspects based on what can be demonstrated to be true. In the case of abiogenesis, we can observe that life exists and infer that it must have come from somewhere. Looking back, we suspect that at one point the Earth was incapable of supporting life and from there conclude that it must have, at some point, started.

The Theist/Atheist split is on the question of whether or not a supernatural agent was causal in the development of life on Earth. Science has, at this point, proven that such an agent was unnecessary irrespective of whether or not one acted in that capacity. Organic molecules forming natural chemical chains leading to primitive life precursors and life have been quite thoroughly demonstrated at this point. We have shown that it /can/ happen, and available data suggests that primitive conditions on Earth were likely to cause it to happen in a fashion similar to some of the scenarios we've examined under laboratory conditions. There are, in fact, a number of ways in which life /could/ have formed under those conditions on Earth...what we don't know is which specific method actually occurred (including the possibility of methods unknown).

None of which 'disproves' a God of any sort. Demonstrating that the universe and it's contents can operate absent a supernatural agent does not indicate that a supernatural agent is absent...merely unnecessary to the operation of the universe.

The problem in that space is that one cannot meaningfully prove a God in the first place...God, by typical definition, requires one to be a God to be able to reliably analyze. Since we are fallible, we can easily mistake things for Godlike phenomena. The scientific method is merely a means by which we winnow out errors over time to determine to high degrees of certainty what actually is, irrespective of personal experience and beliefs.

The reason atheism increasingly coincides with scientific naturalism is that no theories concerning God hold up to scientific scrutiny. Worse, theistic claims often fly in the face of demonstrable truth. This doesn't disprove God either, but it does suggest that if there is a God we do not, as a species, know anything of substance about it.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
The irony doesn't seem to strike him. "We're going to induce the creation of eyeballs in a species to prove that an invisible man in the sky didn't induce the creation of eyeballs in other species. CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!"

But even beyond that, science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and I'm tired of the idea that they have to be.