Fed up of non believers

[ivanava]

Redwhine.

 

But do they bear any resemblance to the milk man?

 

I'm the spitting image of one of my mothers brothers and the very small differences are clearly seen to be from my father, right down to a strawberry birthmark on my shoulder.

 

Height is down to nutrition.

 

As I'm the only one who appears to be comfortable admitting that I don't know, asking me to provide anything other than the occasional observation, and more questions, is going to prove fruitless.

 

Sorry if you expected more.

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 11:01 ----------

 

Lockjaw.

 

Thanks for that, it makes sense apart from one question, Where did what we refer to as 'Life' come from in the very first instance?

 

When this planet was being formed it went through a period of utter uninhabitable chaos, with no air, volcanic eruptions and shifting continents.

And that was when it started to approach a stable period, prior to which it was a ball of fire, agreed?

 

At that point the second law of thermodynamics, Entropy, should have applied.

 

With absolutely no form of life whatsoever on the planet what happened?

 

It might have been started by comet impacts.

[truman]

It might have been started by comet impacts.

 

Or just the right combination of chemicals and environment..

[ivanava]

Or just the right combination of chemicals and environment..

 

Yep, apparently comets contain all the right materials for life, all that is requires is an impact and amino acids are formed.

[Lockjaw]

Well, I was going to suggest an input of energy from somewhere which isn't at odds with any of the above but:

 

 

As I'm the only one who appears to be comfortable admitting that I don't know,

 

 

Of course not. Nobody on the thread is claiming to know exactly what happened in the past. We can only discuss what the evidence suggests and, as a consequence, the ideas/beliefs for which there is no evidence, whatsoever.

 

The thing is, though, some people don't know more than others and are often oblivious to that fact; and not many people use the fact they don't know something as a debating position.

 

None of that is at odds with people wanting to learn more or share their own knowledge and understanding though, is it? Even when such actions become illogical because, for instance, we are dealing with a closed-minded person we still carry on, with various motivations at the root.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Lockjaw

[WeX]

Yep, apparently comets contain all the right materials for life, all that is requires is an impact and amino acids are formed.

 

I thought this had been proven a while back. That the effects of a commit impact could turn amino acids into protein strands which is the fundamental step we need to create RNA and then DNA.

[redwhine]

Redwhine.

 

But do they bear any resemblance to the milk man?

Your education was sadly lacking. It's the female that produces milk.

 

 

Height is down to nutrition.

So short people are short because they eat less than tall people?

[ivanava]

I thought this had been proven a while back. That the effects of a commit impact could turn amino acids into protein strands which is the fundamental step we need to create RNA and then DNA.

 

I think they have proven its possible by recreating comet impacts on a very small scale, each time they did it they got the same results, the building blocks of life. According to their tests these building blocks are inevitable, the question is would the results be the same on the much larger scale of a comet impact.

[salsafan]

Well, I was going to suggest an input of energy from somewhere which isn't at odds with any of the above but:

 

Of course not. Nobody on the thread is claiming to know exactly what happened in the past. We can only discuss what the evidence suggests and, as a consequence, the ideas/beliefs for which there is no evidence, whatsoever.

 

The thing is, though, some people don't know more than others and are often oblivious to that fact; and not many people use the fact they don't know something as a debating position.

 

None of that is at odds with people wanting to learn more or share their own knowledge and understanding though, is it? Even when such actions become illogical because, for instance, we are dealing with a closed-minded person we still carry on, with various motivations at the root.

I am sure they know, but they choose not to put emphasis on that area.

 

I just like to point out that we "created" these evidences in history to support what had went on before. We created language which gave us the term "evidence". We created science to analyse the current samples of materials. We created "theories" one on top of another in order to improve the chances of that theory fitting the samples. So it is not like we saw something happened in real time and we can see, and know that this is real. We are traveling back in time to try to make sense of what had occurred.

 

Yet to believe in science, it means making that big leap of faith too.

 

There is an oddness in wanting to learn and to know continually. As learning should be done independently, than it should be done through fighting and questioning of others. That is the point. Critical thinking on your own, or deductive reasoning and arguing with others who may not know just as much as you do. So what does it achieve if anything ? Hurt feelings, and suppressed ideas, memories, and intuition. If a child was not taught anything, and then he discovered something, this is Godliness. It is also an amazing thing too.

 

(I like to clarify by "we", I meant humans.)

Edited February 27, 2014 by salsafan

[RootsBooster]

I am sure they know, but they choose not to put emphasis on that area.

 

I just like to point out that we "created" these evidence in history to support what had went on before. We created language which gave us the term "evidence". We created science to analyse the current samples of materials. We created "theories" one on top of another in order to improve the chances of that theory fitting the samples. So it is not like we saw something happened in real time and we can see, and know that this is real. We are traveling back in time to try to make sense of what had occurred.

We also created gods and deities.

Yet to believe in science, it means making that big leap of faith too.

In theism, a leap of faith is required to cross the gap that an absence of evidence leaves. What is the gap in science that needs a "big leap of faith?"

There is an odd in wanting to learn and to know. As learning should be done independently, than it should be done through fighting and questioning of others. That is the point. Critical thinking on your own, or deductive reasoning and arguing with others who may not know just as much as you do. So what does it achieve if anything ? Hurt feelings, and suppressed ideas, memories, and intuition. If a child was not taught anything, and then he discovered something, this is Godliness. It is also an amazing thing too.

No, it's discovery. You're just trying to give false credit to your God in a silly way. Clutching at straws, in other words.

[milquetoast1]

As I'm the only one who appears to be comfortable admitting that I don't know,

 

Here's a well known atheist responding to the first premise argument of a well known theist.

 

 

There is only one person expressing certainty here.

 

Moulding your beliefs to the evidence, and withholding them where there is none, is not the same as expressing certainty.

 

Most atheists are very comfortable admitting they don't know.