I am an Athiest

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Alright Granny, try to think back this far...

How did the oceans originally form?

Please enlighten me on your version.

Or would you like the Goldilocks version?

reply to post by Annee


I asked YOU how the oceans were formed.

You had no qualms about interjecting a few posts ago.

In case you weren't paying close attention I've already explained what I was taught in school.

Earth rocks were rained on for millions of years.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee

 

I asked YOU how the oceans were formed.

You had no qualms about interjecting a few posts ago.

In case you weren't paying close attention I've already explained what I was taught in school.

Earth rocks were rained on for millions of years.

Interjecting? How quaint. I find it interesting how you try to keep your Decorum.

Here you go. Best I can do at the moment. Personal situations have priority.


The oceans formed on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. At this time the Solar System was about 1 billion years old. To explain the formation of the oceans, it is necessary to briefly discuss the evolution of the Solar System.

The Solar System started as a swirling cloud of dust and gases. The dust and gas particles aggregated into bodies that became the Sun, planets, comets, and asteroids. The planets closest to the Sun are the most dense and consist mostly of rock and metal. These terrestrial planets include Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. The outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, are called the jovian planets. They are primarily composed of gases and ice, and are less dense than the terrestrial planets.

www.chem.duke.edu...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Let's just take a look at what you stated originally:-

That's wrong, I'd still be an atheist who believed in molecules-to-man Evolution if I never "challenged my beliefs.

i never stated evolution was a theory regarding the origin of life, or the "seeding" of life. When stars explode, molecules are the part of the chemical soup, Stars exploded in order for our planet, and thus HUMANITY to exist.

I even suggested reading "The 15 Misconceptions About Evolution"" which you have ignored, obviously.

There is much speculation about how life was "ignited" or how it was "seeded" on Earth:-

news.bbc.co.uk...

By simulating a high-velocity comet collision with the Earth, a team of scientists has shown that organic molecules hitch-hiking aboard a comet could have survived an impact and seeded life on Earth.

Is it stardust these days? When I was in school they taught we came from rocks that were rained on for a very long time.

So you're saying we don't come from rocks???

I didn't say any such thing.

The statement that we are all "star stuff," coined by the late astronomer Carl Sagan (not sure if this was before or after Joni Mitchell sang "we are stardust; we are golden. we are billion year old carbon"), is meant to imply more than that we are made of the same elements that stars are made of. Beyond that, the elements themselves (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) were synthesized, cooked up as it were, in the nuclear furnaces that are the deep interior of stars. These elements are then released at the end of a star's lifetime when it explodes, and subsequently incorporated into a new generation of stars -- and into the planets that form around the stars, and the lifeforms that originate on the planets.

We are made of stardust in the loose sense that a tree is too, a planet is, our moon is.

We are all made of stardust. It sounds like a line from a poem, but there is some solid science behind this statement too: almost every element on Earth was formed at the heart of a star.

Next time you’re out gazing at stars twinkling in the night sky, spare a thought for the tumultuous reactions they play host to. It’s easy to forget that stars owe their light to the energy released by nuclear fusion reactions at their cores. These are the very same reactions which created chemical elements like carbon or iron - the building blocks which make up the world around us.

After the Big Bang, tiny particles bound together to form hydrogen and helium. As time went on, young stars formed when clouds of gas and dust gathered under the effect of gravity, heating up as they became denser. At the stars’ cores, bathed in temperatures of over 10 million degrees C, hydrogen and then helium nuclei fused to form heavier elements. A reaction known as nucleosynthesis.

This reaction continues in stars today as lighter elements are converted into heavier ones. Relatively young stars like our Sun convert hydrogen to produce helium, just like the first stars of our universe. Once they run out of hydrogen, they begin to transform helium into beryllium and carbon. As these heavier nuclei are produced, they too are burnt inside stars to synthesise heavier and heavier elements. Different sized stars play host to different fusion reactions, eventually forming everything from oxygen to iron.

During a supernova, when a massive star explodes at the end of its life, the resulting high energy environment enables the creation of some of the heaviest elements including iron and nickel. The explosion also disperses the different elements across the universe, scattering the stardust which now makes up planets including Earth.

I read and share - i don't preach, remember that.

Just do a bit of reading, it might help bring out that 151 IQ you're keane to make people aware of on ATS.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
i never stated evolution was a theory regarding the origin of life, or the "seeding" of life. When stars explode, molecules are the part of the chemical soup, Stars exploded in order for our planet, and thus HUMANITY to exist.

Evo is not about the origin of all/any life, but is about the origin of human life? Don't you ever wonder where the stars came from, what made them explode, how the molecules survived and were part of a "soup" from who knows where, and how sexual reproduction (which humans do) ever became an evolutionary advantage? Just curious.

I even suggested reading "The 15 Misconceptions About Evolution"" which you have ignored, obviously.

Read that quite a while ago, and responded. Gosh, haven't they moved on from those in three years' time?

There is much speculation about how life was "ignited" or how it was "seeded" on Earth:-

And such speculation is merely glorified guessing. Not science but "just so" stories... coulda, woulda, shoulda.

After the Big Bang, tiny particles bound together to form hydrogen and helium. As time went on, young stars formed when clouds of gas and dust gathered under the effect of gravity, heating up as they became denser. At the stars’ cores, bathed in temperatures of over 10 million degrees C, hydrogen and then helium nuclei fused to form heavier elements. A reaction known as nucleosynthesis.

A story! I love hearing the ones where what could have happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away is made into a scientifical fact. And the moral of the story is, "The present is key to the past".

I read and share - i don't preach, remember that.

You're being facetious, right? If not, could you define the difference? Is lack of a deity it?


Just sharing.

reply to post by SaberTruth


You wrote:

["Evo is not about the origin of all/any life, but is about the origin of human life? Don't you ever wonder where the stars came from, what made them explode, how the molecules survived and were part of a "soup" from who knows where, and how sexual reproduction (which humans do) ever became an evolutionary advantage? Just curious."]

Geeeee, 'intelligent design' again. Depending on where you seek the answer, and how much real science your religion can take before it collapses, it's either:

a/ Practically everything beyond event horizon are guesses, except that there maybe IS a beyond event horizon (it may move and include more cosmic laws on the presently unknown). You may want to include the concept 'causality as we know it' in your guesses, most theists forget to do that.

b/ On 'this side' of event horizon complexity developes fine on its own based on the intitial conditions of asymmetric polarities.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I CERTAINLY don't have a 151 IQ today. For one thing that was in high school/middle school, don't remember exactly. And secondly, that was long before my "born-again" experience. We learned from the thread on the study conducted by Duke University that anyone who has had a born-again experience has a shrunken hippocampus portion of the brain. (A retard in layman's terms). And Madness said it's in a peer-reviewed journal, which basically means "100% fact".

If I were to guess what it is today based on what Madness says my IQ is somewhere in the mid to high teens.

reply to post by Annee


So how did the oceans themselves form?

Also, please forgive my extreme ignorance, in your opinion which came first the protein or the DNA?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The point is: IQ doesn't need to be mentioned on here, your accolades and merits need no mention in debate, your arguments can speak for themselves.

reply to post by SaberTruth

Evo is not about the origin of all/any life, but is about the origin of human life?

No, you havn't read the source i posted.

The theory of evolution primarily deals with the manner in which life has changed after its origin.

The misconception is that "Evolution is a theory about the origin of life".

Don't you ever wonder where the stars came from, what made them explode, how the molecules survived and were part of a "soup" from who knows where, and how sexual reproduction (which humans do) ever became an evolutionary advantage? Just curious.

A simple quote from Twinkle, Twinkle little Star conceptualises the human condition; our curious nature, our wonder. So yes, i do wonder. Scientists wonder, they seek information, and try to work our our origins as a detective works out the events that took place at a crime scene, it requires rational, logic; not jumping to silly dark-aged superstitious conclusions.

Read that quite a while ago, and responded. Gosh, haven't they moved on from those in three years' time?

The first quote by you in this post shows you don't understand it. Havn't they moved on from what? Expand if you would.

And such speculation is merely glorified guessing. Not science but "just so" stories... coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Yes it is, like speculating that there's an afterlife, that you will be saved, or be sent to hell, so is presuming the cosmos has been created with us in mind, so is presuming the universe has a cause, and that the cause is God.

At least scientists have EVIDENCE to speculate on the origins of life, not some half-baked pseudo-intelligent philosophy that alludes to some "GOD" being in the background.

A story! I love hearing the ones where what could have happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away is made into a scientifical fact.

Watch out, Darth Vadars about!

You're being facetious, right? If not, could you define the difference? Is lack of a deity it?

Do i "preach" a lack of a deity? Not at all, i share philosophical viewpoints and consider positions, share incite, expand my position.

I don't claim a lack of belief in God is superior
i don't say children will burn for believing in God
i don't claim morality is based on something that we cannot prove (awaiting "well where does it come from")
i don't preach things that i can't prove, i only try to educate, and i am happy to be corrected if i have said something that is incorrect.

I've never said THERE IS NO GOD. So i'm not declaring absolute certainities. (i.e. I don't preach absolutes based on 0 evidence)

I think people can decide who is PREACHING.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Nobody was ever taught that in school. That statement comes from a singular individual whose falsehoods I'm all too familiar with. One Mr Kent Hovind. That's a straw man of the largest size and scope with relation to anything.

Of course, you might have just had a really bad science teacher, so I might be wrong...but I've never seen a science book that said that, except maybe a creationist 'science' book that is making a claim about evolution.



You know, if you all really, really want to discuss evolution so badly, there's a whole subforum for that. If you want a really quick way to get there, click on one of the threads in my signature and then click straight to the subforum from that link. Two clicks is all it takes.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Kent Hovind had nothing to do with Primordial Soup Theory. I didn't even know who any Christian apologists were at that time in my life.

Don't shoot me cuz the theory is stupid, shoot the theory.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
No, you havn't read the source i posted.

I was responding to your statements here.

So yes, i do wonder... it requires rational, logic; not jumping to silly dark-aged superstitious conclusions.

Yet no evo will touch the issue of origins when it comes to how the first "thing" appeared. Whatever they come up with is, as you put it, silly dark-aged superstitious conclusions.

The first quote by you in this post shows you don't understand it. Havn't they moved on from what? Expand if you would.

Read my first response here, and I "expanded" at my link.

Yes it is, like speculating that there's an afterlife, that you will be saved, or be sent to hell, so is presuming the cosmos has been created with us in mind, so is presuming the universe has a cause, and that the cause is God.

Exactly. And one presumption is no better than another.

At least scientists have EVIDENCE to speculate on the origins of life, not some half-baked pseudo-intelligent philosophy that alludes to some "GOD" being in the background.

And theists don't? Design isn't evidence of a designer? The problem is not lack of evidence, it's refusal to accept valid evidence. We all have the same data to study but come to different conclusions, and again, one opinion is no more "scientific" than the other.

Half-baked? Clearly, I've been wasting my time.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


That was a looooooooooong time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

reply to post by SaberTruth

Exactly. And one presumption is no better than another.

No, scientific "pressumptions" are based on existing evidence, and they don't insist upon themselves, they are welcome to change in light of new evidence. And they are not so much apressumptions but "hypotheseses" and some are more rational than others.

You've highlighted your ignorance the source you so easily dismissed, that much is evident.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Nice argument, progressive input. Any refutations? any quoting my arguments and responding to them directly?

Doubt it. Gallaxy far away? Cool story, Star Wars fan?

reply to post by SaberTruth


You wrote:

["And theists don't? Design isn't evidence of a designer? The problem is not lack of evidence, it's refusal to accept valid evidence. We all have the same data to study but come to different conclusions, and again, one opinion is no more "scientific" than the other."]

You've been talking ABOUT intelligent design now for some time, and you've been talking ABOUT cutting-edge science/religion. What about getting to the point and demonstrate some knowledge about what it is.

Your fantasies about the different types of evidence-criteria in a scientific context are just so much talk.You should be aware, that scientific systematic methodology is rather strict, it's not like finding a new method for bible-interpretation build on subjective preferences.

And theists don't? Design isn't evidence of a designer? The problem is not lack of evidence, it's refusal to accept valid evidence. We all have the same data to study but come to different conclusions, and again, one opinion is no more "scientific" than the other.

Half-baked? Clearly, I've been wasting my time.

This much is clear, your willing to deny possibilities with exactly the same evidence as i have. That's narrow-mindedness, my position comes from open-mindedness, i don't make assumptions about causality or how intelligence is "created" or the nature of the cosmological forces behind nature itself.

And theists don't? Design isn't evidence of a designer?

No. Design is an assumption.

And i can guarantee you will be willing to ignore the Blind watchmaker anology, you'll wriggle around, it's so easy to infer something that cannot be proved. It's not progressive, and it's not clever.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
No, scientific "pressumptions" are based on existing evidence, and they don't insist upon themselves, they are welcome to change in light of new evidence. And they are not so much apressumptions but "hypotheseses" and some are more rational than others.

No, all presumptions, whatever they may be based on, are opinions and interpretations. We all have the same facts, but different conclusions. And if you're going to reject design as evidence of a designer, then I'm going to reject your interpretations too. Rationality is often in the eye of the beholder.

You've highlighted your ignorance the source you so easily dismissed, that much is evident.

You've highlighted your refusal to read the rebuttal I gave via a link. As I said, I've been wasting my time and will stop now.

All right, one more:

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
This much is clear, your willing to deny possibilities

WHEN did I deny possibilities? Is is not YOU who deny possibilities?

Answer that for yourself, I won't be responding.