Number of atheists & agnostics grows

[This_person]

Just to test your intellectual honesty, can you cite where it says that all living things on the planet share a common ancestor?

Wouldn't it have to? I'll answer as honestly as I can, if there was no life, and then there was life, and the odds of that happening are admittedly astronimaically insanely tiny, then wouldn't all of life on the planet today have to have evolved from one life form?

I'm trying to honestly understand your side of things, I'm not being sarcastic or cynical here AT ALL.

 

[wxtornado]

Wouldn't it have to? I'll answer as honestly as I can, if there was no life, and then there was life, and the odds of that happening are admittedly astronimaically insanely tiny, then wouldn't all of life on the planet today have to have evolved from one life form?

I'm trying to honestly understand your side of things, I'm not being sarcastic or cynical here AT ALL.

When you say "there was no life, and then there was life", it really sounds like you're aksing about abiogenesis again. I'll tell you again, I don't know, and science doesn't know how life started, although there are theories. You have to remember that this has nothing to do with evolution however - you seem to want to keep mixing evolutionary biology with abiogenisis (which I think centers on molocular biology).

To try to answer your question though, genetic information was not inherited only from one's immediate ancestor; some was obtained from entirely different organisms, too. As a result, the tree of life does not stem from a single trunk but from a reticulated collection of stems. This does not invalidate the theory of evolution, though. It says only that another mechanism of heredity was once more common. If you're really interested, google 'horizontal gene transfer' and there's a decent explanation in the Wiki.

 

[PsyOps]

When you say "there was no life, and then there was life", it really sounds like you're aksing about abiogenesis again. I'll tell you again, I don't know, and science doesn't know how life started, although there are theories. You have to remember that this has nothing to do with evolution however - you seem to want to keep mixing evolutionary biology with abiogenisis (which I think centers on molocular biology).

BINGO! What are you left with? FAITH! Chose your flavor as to how life got here... the theory of evolution or the theory of God.

One thing to consider here... you just admitted that you don't know. Christians DO know how life started. THAT'S the difference. You cannot disclaim ours with "I don't know".

 

[wxtornado]

BINGO! What are you left with? FAITH! Chose your flavor as to how life got here... the theory of evolution or the theory of God.

One thing to consider here... you just admitted that you don't know. Christians DO know how life started. THAT'S the difference. You cannot disclaim ours with "I don't know".

More theistic idiocy ON PURPOSE. Did you even read what I wrote? Either you didn't, or you (as per usual) are muddying things up for the sake of.........muddying things up! Oh, and since you know how life started, go ahead and prove your assertion. I've yet to see that from any theist.

 

[This_person]

When you say "there was no life, and then there was life", it really sounds like you're aksing about abiogenesis again. I'll tell you again, I don't know, and science doesn't know how life started, although there are theories. You have to remember that this has nothing to do with evolution however - you seem to want to keep mixing evolutionary biology with abiogenisis (which I think centers on molocular biology).

I'm not mixing it at all, regardless of how many times you two claim I am.

Evolution presupposed life. Taken back and back and back to the original generation, it is only the virtually only probability for life to have begun from a single cell. Regarding evolution, I'm asking for the proof of all life coming from that single cell. Regarding the origin of life, I'm asking how that cell began.

Neither question has been answered, nor even come close to anything potentially logical as a theory, from science. Thus, putting too much stock into denying the only logical or workable theory seems close-minded to me.

You don't know, and I don't blame you - the answer's not out there. That's my whole point. I'm not satisfied with not knowing, and that being okay.

To try to answer your question though, genetic information was not inherited only from one's immediate ancestor; some was obtained from entirely different organisms, too. As a result, the tree of life does not stem from a single trunk but from a reticulated collection of stems. This does not invalidate the theory of evolution, though. It says only that another mechanism of heredity was once more common. If you're really interested, google 'horizontal gene transfer' and there's a decent explanation in the Wiki.

Again, go back more and more and more generations, and there MUST be a single cell to have begun it.

 

[This_person]

More theistic idiocy ON PURPOSE. Did you even read what I wrote? Either you didn't, or you (as per usual) are muddying things up for the sake of.........muddying things up! Oh, and since you know how life started, go ahead and prove your assertion. I've yet to see that from any theist.

Look in the mirror - LIFE. Hypothesis becomes theory. It's the closest thing to an answer out there.

Proof is not here, but at least we have a working theory, something science doesn't have.

 

[This_person]

BINGO! What are you left with? FAITH! Chose your flavor as to how life got here...

You cannot disclaim ours with "I don't know".

 

[wxtornado]

I'm not mixing it at all, regardless of how many times you two claim I am.

Evolution presupposed life. Taken back and back and back to the original generation, it is only the virtually only probability for life to have begun from a single cell. Regarding evolution, I'm asking for the proof of all life coming from that single cell. Regarding the origin of life, I'm asking how that cell began.

Neither question has been answered, nor even come close to anything potentially logical as a theory, from science. Thus, putting too much stock into denying the only logical or workable theory seems close-minded to me.

You don't know, and I don't blame you - the answer's not out there. That's my whole point. I'm not satisfied with not knowing, and that being okay.Again, go back more and more and more generations, and there MUST be a single cell to have begun it.

Again, you really need to talk this over with someone schooled in abiogenesis. I don't think scientists put too much weight on it however, as it's a limited field of research, and progress is generally slow and sporadic. There are several theories on "how life started", if you're into that kind of study......

 

[wxtornado]

Look in the mirror - LIFE. Hypothesis becomes theory. It's the closest thing to an answer out there.

Proof is not here, but at least we have a working theory, something science doesn't have.

Where's the data from this study?

 

[This_person]

Where's the data from this study?

 

[PsyOps]

More theistic idiocy ON PURPOSE. Did you even read what I wrote? Either you didn't, or you (as per usual) are muddying things up for the sake of.........muddying things up! Oh, and since you know how life started, go ahead and prove your assertion. I've yet to see that from any theist.

Ah, so when you can't refute my point with facts you call it idiocy. Good and predictable tactic. I read what you wrote and saw it how I saw it.

Proof is in my faith. There's nothing muddy about it for me. It's a waste of time trying to prove to you what you have summarily rejected. But, I throw the question back at you... prove to me how life started. Oh wait, you already did... you said you don't know. But guess what, I do know and it's in my belief and faith in God. I don't have to prove this to you. It will only come to you with faith.

Just as you can't touch, see or smell God you can't touch, see, or smell something that which "you don't know" and can't be defined with science. Both, at a certain level, require faith or belief in that "truth". I don't expect you to understand this; I don't even claim to completely understand it. In fact, considering that we are here on this rock (regardless of how you believe we got here) doesn't make sense. It's a concept that perhaps humans can never get a grasp on.

 

[tommyjones]

Look in the mirror - LIFE. Hypothesis becomes theory. It's the closest thing to an answer out there.

Proof is not here, but at least we have a working theory, something science doesn't have.

science has facts to support its theory

you have to support your working theory?

 

[This_person]

science has facts to support its theory

you have to support your working theory?

What theory? Are you going back to the pointless discussion on evolution, or the theory of life's origin? Cuz if you're doing that, I'd like to see those facts.

 

[tommyjones]

What theory? Are you going back to the pointless discussion on evolution, or the theory of life's origin? Cuz if you're doing that, I'd like to see those facts.

so something that we can see and document is pointless, but fairy tales aren't?


give me a theory of how life originated that has a few things that are testable and maybe we can have that discussion. otherwise, its all just guessing, that is totally pointless

 

[wxtornado]

I read what you wrote and saw it how I saw it.

And therein lies the problem - you saw what you wanted to see, not what I actually wrote. No surprise there then.

 

[wxtornado]

I ask for your data that proves your assertion and you laugh?

 

[This_person]

so something that we can see and document is pointless, but fairy tales are?


give me a theory of how life originated that has a few things that are testable and maybe we can have that discussion. otherwise, its all just guessing, that is totally pointless

We can see and document how a lot of things occur. I call it pointless because it means nothing when discussing religion. It neither supports a rejection of religion, nor an adherence to it. As you say I don't understand, it has nothing to do with the origins of life, so what's the point in discussing whether or not mankind used to be shorter, or live shorter lives?

I don't know what fairy tales you are talking about (Big Bang?), but I agree that fairy tales are pointless to discuss.

I'm not disputing Intelligent Design is untestable for now. I was disputing your assertion that science has a fact-based theory. Show me your facts, and I'll be corrected. Otherwise, we're back to what I've been saying ALL ALONG, and you can't seem to wrap your head around - the best anyone has is an unprovable, unproven, equally-acceptable-to-an-open-mind theory.

 

[This_person]

I ask for your data that proves your assertion and you laugh?

Well, my data was "look in the mirror - LIFE". I presumed you were kidding when you were asking me to prove you are alive.

Read my last post to Tommy, maybe it will help in answering this question.

 

[tommyjones]

I call it pointless because it means nothing when discussing religion.

i'd say it has a lot to do with discussing religion. If your religion states that man was created 6000 years ago and two people throguh a process of insectual relations populated the entire world, but there is scienitfic evidence that man evolved from a lesser species over a longer period of time, i think it is a worth while discussion.

 

[wxtornado]

i'd say it has a lot to do with discussing religion. If your religion states that man was created 6000 years ago and two people throguh a process of insectual relations populated the entire world, but there is scienitfic evidence that man evolved from a lesser species over a longer period of time, i think it is a worth while discussion.

This_person, do you believe in a young earth? Do you believe in a literal translation of Genesis?