Michael Welch wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:02 PM:
" Well sure it's 'obvious' and there is no need to disparage them for not knowing what they didn't know eh. And AGAIN -- of course I do NOT argue for a LITERAL interpretation of religions but for a metaphoric mythological one which indeed has great value for many people. It IS a 'cold world' out there (surface wise at least) and religions aid in understanding human values and aspirations. ALL mythologies attract as Joseph Campbell realized and ought to be treated with some respect. NO mythology is 'better' than another I say but they have legitimate purposes that 'speak' to human beings. Darwin, Einstein, Freud and Marx also expressed a 'human' dimension for science and that's why they remain 'beacons'... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:56 PM:
" For a good break down of some of the major problems with abiogenesis see this site:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html
If you check out the site, you'll see they reference their statements to other science sources, and not the Bible. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:52 PM:
" Obviously BS uses selective reading.
Here's another quote from another site...
"One of the biggest hurdles faced by Origins of life research is the fact that modern life at some point incorporated the dichotomy between replicating molecules and the effector molecules they code for. Life (the objection goes) would have had to develop two distinct but wholly dependent systems simultaneously. It is safe to say that this scenario is so unlikely that it is effectively impossible......There are enormous gaps in all Origin of Life models."
Your assumption that science has shown that life can come from non-life is far from proven. "
Big Spender wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:05 PM:
" Bates,
Life's not that hard, even your own links support abiogenesis--read them!
This can be synthesized artificially or via nature, no god required:
http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/3/518?view=long&pmid=15353568
"A minimal metabolism. The minimal cell can obtain its more basic components from the environment: glucose, fatty acids, amino acids, adenine, guanine, uracil, and coenzyme precursors (nicotinamide, riboflavin, folate, pantothenate, and pyridoxal). Each box includes the metabolic transformations classified in major groups of pathways: glycolysis, phospholipid biosynthesis, nonoxidative pentose-phosphate pathway, nucleotide biosynthesis, synthesis of enzymatic cofactors, and synthesis of protein precursors, i.e., aminoacyl-tRNAs (aa-tRNA)"
http://mmbr.asm.org/content/vol68/issue3/images/large/zmr0030420620001.jpeg "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:26 PM:
" BS,
Kevin's information isn't 30 years behind. Here's another example:
"As of 2004, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics."-http://www.bio-medicine.org/Biology-Definition/Origin_of_life/
You'll recognize I didn't cut and paste from a "Creation Science" site, but just plain science websites. This information isn't 30 years old, but current. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:12 PM:
" BS,
You're relying on HUGE assumptions, like:
"First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive; second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine; third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose; fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides; fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry.
These assumptions are not only vexing but progressively so, ending in a serious impediment to thought. That, indeed, may be why a number of biologists have lately reported a weakening of their commitment to the RNA world altogether, and a desire to look elsewhere for an explanation of the emergence of life on earth." -http://www.discovery.org/a/3209 "
Big Spender wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:18 PM:
" To Welch, re: "I am NOT arguing that Darwin, Marx, Freud and Einstein are the END ALL or BE ALL of science, history or anything else. I am simply recognizing their great importance to the DEVELOPMENT of the modern world."
-------------------------------------
This is, of course, obvious, but that's not what I was trying to get at: recent scientific developments point closely to the notion that pure atheism is PHYSICALLY correct and that gods and the 'supernatural' are literally impossible. The last refuge for a god or the supernatural exists in higher physical dimensions and at the Planck length. This is getting too abstract for this blog, but it looks like there is little refuge left even for 'well-reasoned' theology. My smart-alecky put-up-or-shut-up remarks hints at something deeper: god proofs are now within the province of theoretical physics. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:20 PM:
" I am NOT arguing that Darwin, Marx, Freud and Einstein are the END ALL or BE ALL of science, history or anything else. I am simply recognizing their great importance to the DEVELOPMENT of the modern world. OF COURSE they are ALL to degree 'products' of the 'positivism' and democratic resurgence of the 19th century. But what is still so admirable about them, aside from their pioneeringly bold and courageous ideas, is that they retained the 'warmth' of the human past; they didn't dismiss it altogether but conflated it into a truer view of modernity. 'They might be giants' -- well indeed they were... "
Big Spender wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:42 AM:
" Bats, re: "Like Kevin pointed out to you in the other Faith blog, science has not shown how life can come from non life or where life even comes from."
Nope, you're way out of date, even your very limited scientific knowledge is way old. Take a molecular bio course soon--learn what life really is, physically and chemically. Weak scientific knowledge has made you prone to superstitious nonsense: you think you know more than you really do. Humility is the first step toward intellectual advancement. Your statements regarding science show you've only a primitive grasp of basic scientific concepts. Don't take that as an insult: consider it a challenge. Science knows much more about life and "non-life" than you imagine. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:38 PM:
" BS
Like Kevin pointed out to you in the other Faith blog, science has not shown how life can come from non life or where life even comes from. Electrical current in a puddle has never shown to produce anything close to life, let alone reproductive, sustainable life.
Your hope and faith lies in man run science and that will let you down. "
Big Spender wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:29 PM:
" Welch,
All those men passed long ago: Darwin never learned about molecular biology, even Einstein missed out on much of modern physics. Science is a moving target: much of the mainstream modern religionists' critique of science aims at what science was, rather than is. Most of what Darwin, Freud and Newton thought has been superseded by ideas more in line with reality. What recently seemed to be only the domain of poets and philosophers is now under the scrutiny of neuroscientists and physicists.
"The Road to Reality"
Roger Penrose
http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679454438 "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:05 PM:
" Jesus was a pacifist, yes a 'militant' one; he was FAR closer to Gandhi than to George W Bush and John McCain; EVEN a 'casual' reader of the gospels can comprehend that! 'Zeus lives' IF Zeus or any god has 'meaning' -- try watching the play-become-movie 'Equus' to understand that especially. (It's now revived on Broadway with the young 'Harry Potter' actor portraying the troubled boy and quite well apparently!) The 'gods' are symbolic as Hinduism (a religion even Sagan respected by the way) tells us; you 'use' the gods to discover your life's aims, its duties, its sufferings, its escapes etc. Personally I admire Darwin immensely -- with Marx, Freud and Einstein he is a founder of 'modernity' but even, no especially, Darwin had a 'religious' sensibility. The 'best' doubters always do... "
Big Spender wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:20 AM:
" oops, anything, not any outside "
Big Spender wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:19 AM:
" To Bates, re: "The "proof" of God is all around you, it's just that you want to give credit for your suroundings (human life, animal life, earth's ecosystem, etc.) to uncalulatable, extraordinarily, inconcievable coincidences"
No, all of that is just quarks and leptons, acting upon each other via the fundamental forces of nature: electromagnetism, gravity, the nuclear strong and weak (or electroweak) forces in quantum spacetime. That's it. That's all there is that we know. Any outside that is still speculative, including your gods/superaliens/whatever. References to your bible are circular--show me real proof! "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2008 8:51 PM:
" Michael Welsh may characterize me however he wants but militant pacifists have always been a physical force.
Now Michael will object to that statement and say that if a person is physically violent then that aren't really a pacifist regardless of what they call themselves.
However, when I say that if a person is physically violent in trying to "force" a person to be a Christian or punish them for not being a Christian, that that person isn't really a Christian regardless of what they call themselves, Michael will object.
With Michael, it's also a one way street, but you have to follow his way to be correct. I will follow Christ instead. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2008 8:46 PM:
" What you and others like you want is for God to meet your demands. That's not how God set the stage. People get the ultimate proof of God by stepping out in faith and accepting Jesus as savior. When a person does that, the Holy Spirit enters their life and they have internal assurance or proof.
The fact is that many people who saw Jesus's miracles still rejected him. I suppose God chose faith to be the avenue to Him because it shows Him people who truely want to be with Him. God gave us all free will, and you choose to reject God. I hope that you change your mind before you die, but if not, God will grant your wish of eternal separation from your Maker. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2008 8:38 PM:
" The "proof" of God is all around you, it's just that you want to give credit for your suroundings (human life, animal life, earth's ecosystem, etc.) to uncalulatable, extraordinarily, inconcievable coincidences. You and people like you are not new. Even at in New Testament times, people like you existed.
Romans 1:19-22 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (unbelievers); for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." "
Big Spender wrote on Oct 5, 2008 5:12 PM:
" To Welch, re: "In many ways yes YOU ARE BOTH 'WRONG'"
No. Logic requires that one side be right. Either the Christian god physically exists or she doesn't. Either Zeus physically exists or he doesn't. The respective catechisms are mere detail: if the big Sky Daddy doesn't exist in the first place, why not instantaneously plunge the rest of it into the memory hole?
It's not the atheists' job to prove Sky Daddy exists, but it is right to expect that religionists ante up. That's all I ask: put up or shut up. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 5, 2008 3:46 PM:
" 'Militant Christianity' has ALWAYS been 'a physical assault' if anyone bothers to read its 2000 year history. 'PO'B' can characterize me as he will but Christianity is hardly the innocent victim he depicts, as it has attacked other religions militarily (from the crusades to the Thirty years' wars to its colonizations in America, Africa and Asia) and employed Christian rhetoric for the most recent US wars as well. JESUS WAS A PACIFIST yes and it seems a 'militant' one as well but Christianity has always been well armed and dangerous to millions of other folk throughout history... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2008 3:24 PM:
" Well, after looking up Militant in a couple of different dictionaries I can see that there is one definition of the term that I and Robertson represent:
vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause
In the same sense though, Michael Welch is a militant pacifist.
What comes to mind for me, when you post a word like militant, is military or physical warfare. Militant Islam is physical warfare. Militant Christianity would be aggressive support or defense of Christianity, not physical warfare. That can be understood in the same way that Michael's militant pacifism is not (to my knowledge) a physical assult on anyone. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 5, 2008 3:13 PM:
" I WOULD AND HAVE called them 'militants' as I would call 'PO'B' -- I find literalism in religions indeed an equivalent of 'militancy' and I find statements by the late Falwell, Robertson et. al., often ignorant and fraught with political pander -- I find the same re: 'PO'B.' I am NOT presenting a 'double standard' here at all; I am criticizing BOTH views as unsophisticated, simplistic and with little purpose but to attack broadly and unfairly 'everyone' who doesn't think 'correctly' -- i. e. as the TWO of YOU ('brothers of the spear' whether you accept each other or not) DO. In many ways yes YOU ARE BOTH 'WRONG'... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2008 1:56 PM:
" Robertson and the like are not called facist or militant because they are neither. For you to do so tells us that you don't understand the plain meanings of those words and what Robertson and the like do and profess. "
Big Spender wrote on Oct 4, 2008 6:00 PM:
" To Welch: re: "militant atheists"
Why aren't the Falwell/Robertson/Swaggart crowd called militant religionists? Militant Christians? ChristoFascists? Radical Christianists? Just wondering...
If someone said that the earth was hollow, I'd call them delusional morons too. Why equivocate when the truth is so obvious? That doesn't imply that the hollow-earthers (they do exist) are bad people per se; they're just delusional morons.
See my replies in a parallel thread. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:43 PM:
" 'Big Spender' you're really 'in danger' of becoming the 'Phil O'Bates' of militant atheism; now maybe that's a compliment for you but 'PO'B' is obsessively poisonous re: Obama and anything that isn't in his version of religious right Republicanism. Now your continous hyperventilating and simplistic characterizations of 'Christians' -- while it may be VERY satisfying to you -- are becoming rather a mirror image of those you attack with such a broad and repetitive brush. It's PAST TIME that YOU TOO attempted a more 'thoughtful' and less 'ideological' approach. (The religious righties ignore me so perhaps now the militant atheists will but nevertheless you are doing your 'cause' more harm than good...) "
Big Spender wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:45 AM:
" I wonder if LaX theaters have the guts to show Maher's film; I'll bet they'll cave in to the wacko religulous right.
Anyone who'd inflict Palin on America is in league with the devil.
Palin believes that the Xtian bible is literally true: she believes the talking snake story literally happened. She believes that men get swallowed up by whales. She believes in witches:
"Palin Witchcraft"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg
Proof Christians are delusional morons:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ "