Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

Abiogenesis is highly probable , if you follow the 'chain' of science.


These are just definitions that don't have any relevance.If you lead a discussion based on definitions , then i don't know what to say.
When you speak about Science , you need to be well aware that evidence matters.

We're talking here about abiogenesis. What's the evidence as to HOW the first cells were produced?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which I find often correlates with depth of faith.

I'm not sure it is depth of faith or direction of faith. Some people direct there faith to the demands of the people and organization that they joined, rather than the theology from which that organization allegedly formed to celebrate. The wrong direction and lead you to dead ends.

 

[John53]

I don't think it's meaningless although even scientists realize they can or might use more precise terminology when describing things. I expect the insults to come forth now. From uh -- now let's see...LOL...I might just stop reading some of these posts but I think the insults and rancor would be there...

Bingo! I needed the martyr post to finish my card!

 

[John53]

Nah, I can't/won't tell you again BUT -- you said you asked twice and I didn't answer. So i answered again, perhaps in a way you better understood. Hey, have a good one.

No you still haven't answered my question.

What is a first cell?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think it's meaningless although even scientists realize they can or might use more precise terminology when describing things. I expect the insults to come forth now. From uh -- now let's see...LOL...I might just stop reading some of these posts but I think the insults and rancor would be there...

I'll ask this too. Are you suggesting it has meaning to science? What meaning do you derive from it and how do you think that fits with our understanding of life and consciousness arrived at through science?

Or do you find meaning from a personal theological sense? It seems offered as if part of a theology, but that isn't what I mean, since you aren't likely to accept the apparent theology that @cladking seems to be promoting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We're talking here about abiogenesis. What's the evidence as to HOW the first cells were produced?

We don't know yet how they came to be. We do know that the evidence indicates no life over 3.8 billion years ago and then later, evidence of life. What do you infer from that?

What significance do you see for this ignorance in light of the fact that there were once many other things we were ignorant of too. Imagine the simple acts of hygiene we practice today. Some acts as a matter of course, done so frequently, we do them without thinking. At one time the reasons behind this hygiene were unknown and many of the techniques were also unknown or little practiced.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bingo! I needed the martyr post to finish my card!

Wouldn't suggesting that insults will fly, be itself an insult? Does that result in extra points?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think it's meaningless although even scientists realize they can or might use more precise terminology when describing things. I expect the insults to come forth now. From uh -- now let's see...LOL...I might just stop reading some of these posts but I think the insults and rancor would be there...

I raised a good point without even thinking about it.

Is claiming an expectation of receiving insults itself an insult?

What do you think of that? How do you feel about it in light of claiming to expect them?

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know yet how they came to be. We do know that the evidence indicates no life over 3.8 billion years ago and then later, evidence of life. What do you infer from that?

That there was not life and then there was life.

What significance do you see for this ignorance in light of the fact that there were once many other things we were ignorant of too. Imagine the simple acts of hygiene we practice today. Some acts as a matter of course, done so frequently, we do them without thinking. At one time the reasons behind this hygiene were unknown and many of the techniques were also unknown or little practiced.

Yes, and men like Dr. Semmelweis were insulted and not taken seriously by his contemporary physicians.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wouldn't suggesting that insults will fly, be itself an insult? Does that result in extra points?

So you think these jokes you and some others engage in are not insults?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No you still haven't answered my question.

What is a first cell?

I'm curious about the answer to that myself.

 

[YoursTrue]

I raised a good point without even thinking about it.

Is claiming an expectation of receiving insults itself an insult?

What do you think of that? How do you feel about it in light of claiming to expect them?

Just saying the expected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That there was not life and then there was life.

You lost me. What do you mean here?

Yes, and men like Dr. Semmelweis were insulted and not taken seriously by his contemporary physicians.

I'm familiar with the story. It is a shame, but it does illustrate a point that sometimes well-founded ideas are not readily accepted by those that don't understand them. The theory evolution seems to be one that exists in such a state here.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm curious about the answer to that myself.

Scientists say there was a first cell or cells. And some articles offer what they think these first cells might have been.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just saying the expected.

I didn't lob any insults to your posts and I sort of feel insulted by the declaration of the expectation in a conversation I'm involved in. It reminds me about stones and glass houses.

Perhaps statements like that curry the favor of insult when none would have otherwise been forthcoming.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists say there was a first cell or cells. And some articles offer what they think these first cells might have been.

Well, the evidence does indicate that there was no life on the Earth and then the evidence of cellular life can be found in more recent strata. We don't know what were the first cells. Maybe the fossils no longer exist. Maybe they haven't been found. How would you determine which was first? What is significant in knowing which was first? Isn't it more important to demonstrate that life arose in an environment previously without it?

 

[John53]

Wouldn't suggesting that insults will fly, be itself an insult? Does that result in extra points?

I think it's only what's on the bingo card.

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know yet how they came to be. We do know that the evidence indicates no life over 3.8 billion years ago and then later, evidence of life. What do you infer from that?

I infer from the above that we do not know how the first cells came to be. Also from the above I infer that scientists claim evidence indicates there was no life more than 3.8 billion years ago and later there was evidence of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, the chances of succeeding approach zero, which is why I say that there has to be another reason to write such post. There are several for me. I don't need a response from the person quoted, which is why being on their ignore list doesn't change anything. I'm not really writing to them given the inevitable outcome of the effort. I'm writing to others like you who can assimilate new information and for my own benefit. Writing out why I know is beneficial. I gain new insights at times for the effort and discover better ways to present the same ideas. Once in a while, I might impart new information to such a person, or offer a new turn of phrase others might like.

With that attitude, there is never frustration or disappointment.

I to consider the chances of success approach zero. The evidence of the repetition stretching back years adds a fairly high confidence to my expectations.

I consider your methods to be sound and worthy of consideration and application, but I'm not as patient I suppose or retain the false hope that reason and logic will overcome ignorance or an apparent reliance on what are to me delusional notions.

Still, your way has benefits that I'm doing my best to explore. Besides, I rather like these discussions for the information I get from more knowledgeable and reliable sources of information. Getting frustrated just encourages me to wander away from threads where I may learn new things that might be important and useful. And meet interesting people with new ideas that aren't trying to render revealed truth while claiming it is all fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I infer from the above that we do not know how the first cells came to be.

That is a widely understood and I don't know scientists are claiming otherwise. But is there anything else to infer here?

Also from the above I infer that scientists claim evidence indicates there was no life more than 3.8 billion years ago and later there was evidence of life.

The evidence indicates that and the scientists are relating this discovery? Do you doubt it? If so, what evidence can you share with me and others to support that doubt?