Quote from jem:
That is now completely off point. You were comparing a Creator to Big foot.
But you answer is also bullshit.
Since the discovery of the big bang and DNA... science has been decimating the idea of creation by random chance, year by year and discovery by discovery.
Quote from Free Thinker:
I wonder if it bothers the religious that atheists have brilliant physicists, biologists, mathematicians arguing for the atheist side, while they have, really, no one of credible intelligence.
For three hundred years now, the Christian astronomer has known that his Diety didn't make the stars in those tremendous six days; but the Christian astronomer doesn't enlarge upon that detail. Neither does the priest.
Samuel Clemens- Letters from the Earth
Quote from jem:
you confuse atheist and agnostic.
You obviously do not know what the heck you are talking about when it comes to science. There are zero scientists who say they have evidence life evolved from not life.
so your choices...
directed evolution
pan spermia
Creator
eventually discovery of natural causes by random chance or something else.
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf
We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will takeâalthough of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at allâbut we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the âAlmosta Miracle Campâ including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick âthe origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it goingâ (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a âhappy
accidentâ (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, âa full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.â (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was âvirtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo gameâ (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is âchance caught
on a wingâ (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of lifeâs emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that lifeâs emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into lifeâs
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS Ë
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
âWhatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?â (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the âration of luckâ that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf
Quote from Free Thinker:
there is more evidence for bigfoot than a greyhaired old guy in the sky. bigfoot has left tracks and there are videos and pictures of him not to mention many testimonials.
âThe invisible and the non- existent look very much alike.â ¯ Delos Banning McKown
Quote from futurecurrents:
What? Where did agnosticism come in?
Yes there are some agnostic life scientists. But the VAST majority of them., something like 90- 95%, including the best in the field, are atheists and believe that life arose and evolved on earth by natural processes. That's just a fact, sorry. All these little lightweight contradictory stories you dredge up does not change that fact. Just as a few contradictory opinions does not change the fact that 97% of all the world's climatologists and all the world's science organizations believe in man-made global warming.
Quote from jem:
prove that and include the questions or the definitions
when I see these polls they always lump agnostics in with atheists.
definitions
Atheists say there is no God.
Agnostics waiting for proof.
Note... the Nature magazine poll of scientist found that 40 percent do believe and an additional number might be categorized as Deists... but todays definition of Deist.
Quote from futurecurrents:
n 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever â a mere 7% of respondents.
Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience" [3]. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge." [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists.
Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
so I was a little off, but only 5.5% of greater biologists believe in God
Quote from jem:
well you know that is a new age definition of atheist...
so stu
do you say there is no God or
are you waiting for proof?
now in your troll persona
do you say you are waiting for proof or
do you say there is no God.