Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 3, 2012 at 6:50pm

 Scientists may never know exactly how a swirl of chemicals came together to form the first living organisms some 4 billion years ago, but Jack Szostak is working to recreate a hypothetical model of this process in the laboratory. By building simple cell-like structures in a test tube, he and his colleagues are attempting to establish a plausible path that led primitive cells to emerge from simple chemicals. Ultimately, Szostak hopes to answer fundamental questions about evolution's earliest steps.

Funny. That sounds a little different than 

" Plausible mechanisms for abiogensis have already been irrefutably proven "........

It seems rather you stick to wishful thinking......

Permalink Reply by Artor on January 3, 2012 at 7:16pm

Expand your horizons, Angelo. The synthesization of self-replicating RNA from precursors like those found on asteroids & space dust has already been done, years ago.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

While you are jumping through hoops trying to find reasons to ignore concrete evidence, would you care to offer your logical proofs for believing in a sky-fairy? Some side-by-side comparison can't hurt, can it?

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 3, 2012 at 9:00pm

Well at least Szostak, and scientists like him, are looking for answers -> which is a lot better than the child molestation pursuits of the leaders of your cult.

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on January 4, 2012 at 2:10am

If you are doing textual exegesis on an article about science, then it's good to know a few things about it.

It's a bit of norm for scientists to always use provisional language when writing about stuff, even if for all practical purposes you are absolutely sure, because conclusions in empirical science are necessarily based on the logic of induction and so in principle are always falsifiable.

That is why you must not read over words like exactly in "Scientists may never know exactly how a swirl of chemicals came together to form the first living organisms some 4 billion years ago."

Second a serious worked out scientific hypothesis cannot be dismissed as just an idea I had over breakfast cereals this morning. You actually have to follow the ideas and critique them on their merits.

Third other people may in their enthusiasm - and it is understandable because the ideas are simple and awesomely beautiful - overstate stuff, you cannot take that as a premise to refute the hypothesis itself. That's at best a non sequitur, but I'm afraid that's taking it a bit too seriously.

Just look again: http://exploringorigins.org/index.html - it's easy to follow, and to aid the unwilling mind to get a grasp of the concepts, it's got (interactive) pictures and video's too.

And it's science, which means the hypothesized mechanisms actually do work.

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 8:49pm

Hey Angelo,

 

Again, this is a red herring and has no bearing on what a strong atheist believes. I contend that you cannot provide any reasonable evidence for the existence of a "god". I've proven all of your arguments to be presumptively invalid; pending your response to them.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 8:48pm

Hey Angelo,

 

I think they are saying "no" because there is no reason for them to do so. The burden is on you. Whether an atheist knows how RNA was originally created or not is irrelevant.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Artor on January 4, 2012 at 1:00am

That...was pretty fucking awesome! I'm sure that Angelo will find some way to misinterpret it or ignore the obvious conclusions. If he acknowledges it at all.

Permalink Reply by Denis on January 3, 2012 at 3:27am

Very true, otherwise we'll all just end up being skinheads arguing without making a point.

Permalink Reply by Jacob LeMaster on January 3, 2012 at 6:54pm

Theists always cherry picking reality..

Permalink Reply by Barry Eckert on January 4, 2012 at 6:26am

Simply read "The God Delusion". Anyone having problems with "strong atheism" after that has cranial circulatory problems.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 4, 2012 at 7:41am

what argument in that book did convince you , most probably god does not exist ?

Permalink Reply by Barry Eckert on January 4, 2012 at 7:47am

I was already convinced. Dawkins was preaching to the choir with me. Heheh, Richard would probably like that idiom. ;)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32
• 33
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page