Fed up of non believers

[Obelix]

But my point is that at some point in the creation of the world it must have been sterile, with absolutely no means of sustaining any life form.

 

As I understood it the planet was once a ball of fire with incredible temperatures preventing any form of life whatsoever.

 

The earths core still has temperatures close to that on the surface of the sun.

 

That being the case I don't see how life could have come into existence.

 

Obviously it did, and there has to be an explanation.

 

Firstly abiogenesis is not evolution, so don't conflate the two otherwise it gets somewhat confusing.

 

A possible explanation was given by me and others earlier in the thread. You may also want to google the Miller-Urey experiment as well and have a read.

[mjw47]

Bill Bryson is the travel writer, he's also an atheist. I really like the book that mjw47 refers to, and there is no fine-tuning nonsense in there, just good science presented to the layman in a very readable way.

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 17:59 ----------

 

 

 

It was very good wasn't it? Explained things in an uncomplicated way, he's a very entertaining writer and approached it from the viewpoint of people like me that tend to take a general interest in most things, but claim expertise in only a few.

 

It left me with a certain unease, in that the factors combining to make life possibly are fragile and interlinked to such an extent that the chance of us endangering the whole thing is not impossible to envisage.

 

Did you come away with the same feeling, or do you take a more positive view?

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 21:37 ----------

 

Firstly abiogenesis is not evolution, so don't conflate the two otherwise it gets somewhat confusing.

 

A possible explanation was given by me and others earlier in the thread. You may also want to google the Miller-Urey experiment as well and have a read.

 

Thanks, it does seem logical that some form of chemical reaction may have begun the process and then evolution progressed matters from there.

 

As to meteors bringing life forms the same problem exists. All planets must have gone through the same process as earth, and therefore would also have been sterile at some point.

 

It's either the chemical interaction solution or some old guy with a white beard surrounded by angels clicking his fingers.

[Ryedo40]

Bill Bryson is the travel writer, he's also an atheist. I really like the book that mjw47 refers to, and there is no fine-tuning nonsense in there, just good science presented to the layman in a very readable way.

 

Well I was under the impression, from a review I read about the book, that he pushed the idea of the universe being fine-tuned in his section on the big bang. I'm going to get the book though. Sounds interesting.

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 22:17 ----------

 

As to meteors bringing life forms the same problem exists. All planets must have gone through the same process as earth, and therefore would also have been sterile at some point.

 

The meteors don't contain 'life forms'. They contain the chemical ingredients necessary for life. A lot of the ingredients necessary already exist on the planet(as part of the rocks and gases that form).

[mjw47]

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 22:17 ----------

 

[/color]

 

The meteors don't contain 'life forms'. They contain the chemical ingredients necessary for life. A lot of the ingredients necessary already exist on the planet(as part of the rocks and gases that form).

 

In which case they brought nothing to the party, and can be discounted as possible instigators of life on the planet.

[skinz]

 

Okay I accept that, but can you understand that on those few occasions when several posters challenge the same person in a sometimes aggressive manner, to an observer it can come across as a deliberate attempt to bully the person into submission.

 

Is there a point in debate if your stance is..."I'm a rock and I won't be moved on my beliefs regardless? Once you make that clear then surely your involvement is immaterial unless it's only for the purpose of bandying words around?

 

When a number of people question an individual it may only seem like their bullying simply because of numbers. If it's deliberate then what you're implying is that the group asking questions are in cahoots outside of the debate, or the group in reality is one individual with multi persona. Personally I find those that ask probing educated questions are usually confident enough not to need to rally, or re-invent themselves.

[Ryedo40]

In which case they brought nothing to the party, and can be discounted as possible instigators of life on the planet.

 

I don't see how you jump to that conclusion. The planet was formed through countless collisions with particles of rock, meteors, etc. So to some extent, they've already brought all or at least most of the menu. Later meteors can still contain more of or even different or rarer chemicals needed - some of which may not have survived if they hit the planet while it was in a hot molten mass. Some could have hit later: starting the events necessary.

[mjw47]

I don't see how you jump to that conclusion. The planet was formed through countless collisions with particles of rock, meteors, etc. So to some extent, they've already brought all or at least most of the menu. Later meteors can still contain more of or even different or rarer chemicals needed - some of which may not have survived if they hit the planet while it was in a hot molten mass. Some could have hit later: starting the events necessary.

 

Possibly, the thing is though that chemicals on their own are not 'alive'. They are inanimate, and do not possess whatever it is that constitutes life. Does science even know precisely what life is?

 

Some people on this thread are under the impression that I am 'arguing the toss' whilst in fact I don't believe that I have claimed an opinion of mine to be right and someone else's to be wrong, which sort of defines 'arguing the toss'.

 

What I am doing is raising questions, and some posters have been good enough to attempt to answer them.

[Ryedo40]

Possibly, the thing is though that chemicals on their own are not 'alive'. They are inanimate, and do not possess whatever it is that constitutes life. Does science even know precisely what life is?

 

OMW...they become amino acids, and proteins - and all the stuff that combines and forms cellular structures, animated and so on.

 

Nice chatting man.

[Lockjaw]

I wasn't only referring to this thread, and yes I could give you examples, but I doubt the person on the receiving end would be pleased if I did that.

 

Okay I accept that, but can you understand that on those few occasions when several posters challenge the same person in a sometimes aggressive manner, to an observer it can come across as a deliberate attempt to bully the person into submission.

 

I can.

 

Trouble with the written word, absent of body language, facial expression and so on, is that aggression is often in the eye of the beholder.

 

The fact a number of people disagree with a poster could mean they are ganging up to bully him/her or it could mean that they are, in fact, correct. Which is more likely?

 

---------- Post added 28-02-2014 at 00:25 ----------

 

 

As I understood it the planet was once a ball of fire with incredible temperatures preventing any form of life whatsoever.

.

 

... and volcanoes spewing, amongst other things, water vapour into the atmosphere. What do you think happened next?

 

---------- Post added 28-02-2014 at 00:37 ----------

 

If I recall correctly, when we had this discussion on another thread a while ago I stated that I was an agnostic. Instead of simply accepting this and thinking 'fair enough', you decided to challenge my definition.

 

In response I quoted the Oxford Dictionary definition 'A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.' Once again this did not satisfy your nit picking nature, and you supplied a load of further definitions none of which had any interest to me.

 

To me, the statement 'cannot know whether or not' allows for the possibility of either being true.

 

This does not equate with 'having no belief in Gods', it equates with not knowing either way, which is not the same.

 

I later came to realise that you are totally obsessed with definitions and trying to fit people into boxes of your own construction.

 

Why you feel the need to behave in this manner is anyone's guess ,but it is somewhat irritating.

.

 

You're still not getting it, are you?

 

Roots isn't trying to tell you what you think. He's merely trying to help you understand the meanings of the words you are using incorrectly.

 

Taking the example I provided earlier (which, I admit, was put there to gently guide you, though I now realise you're a bit too arrogant to be guided), when a person on here put me right about the meaning of "jealous" they weren't trying to tell me how I felt, just that, whereas I thought I'd been jealous I had, in fact, been envious.

 

Fortunately I wasn't so full of myself that I started accusing them of nitpicking, fitting people into boxes, being obsessed or being irritating because that would have made me look silly.

 

I simply checked my facts, realised they were correct and moved on.

 

I suggest you try the same.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Lockjaw
Split infinitive.

[redwhine]

If I recall correctly, when we had this discussion on another thread a while ago I stated that I was an agnostic. Instead of simply accepting this and thinking 'fair enough', you decided to challenge my definition.

 

In response I quoted the Oxford Dictionary definition 'A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.' Once again this did not satisfy your nit picking nature, and you supplied a load of further definitions none of which had any interest to me.

Lewis Carroll wrote:" "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "

 

You're setting yourself up as another Humpty.

 

Theism/atheism is to do with belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism is to do with knowledge.

 

This diagram might help...

 

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-q2d4A4N5arw/TmEoB9jCjOI/AAAAAAAAC5k/daRnstnWPJE/Agnostic%252520v%252520Gnostic%252520v%252520Atheist%252520v%252520Theist.png?imgmax=800

 

Everbody is either a theist (having belief in god/God/gods) or an atheist (without a belief in god/God/gods). There is no middle ground

 

To me, the statement 'cannot know whether or not' allows for the possibility of either being true.

Correct.

 

This does not equate with 'having no belief in Gods', it equates with not knowing either way, which is not the same.

You're right that is not the same, but you still either believe in god or do not believe in god. There is no middle ground. Think about it.

 

---------- Post added 28-02-2014 at 10:41 ----------

 

What I actually said was that I had no interest in taking part in a heart to heart conversation with that particular poster.

True.

 

That would entail meeting, sitting down and talking face to face wouldn't it?

Could do, but not necessarily. Ever heard of that new invention; the telephone. I've had many a heart to heart on Facebook.

 

Not the same as posting is it?

It can be. If you had made clear your intention, I would not have responded in that fashion, nor at all.