Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah

[rug]

SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 6:38 AM
by Moshe Averick

"Despite the widespread view that Darwinian Evolution has been able to explain the emergence of biological complexity that is not the case…Darwinian theory does not deal with the question how (life0) was able to come into being. The troublesome question still in search of an answer is: How did a system capable of evolving come about in the first place?…Nature just doesn’t operate like that! Nature doesn’t spontaneously make highly organized…purposeful entities…And here precisely lies the (origin of) life problem…it is not just common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about. Certain basic laws of physics (coupled with mathematical probability) preach the same sermon – systems tend toward chaos and disorder, not toward order and function… Biology [i.e. a naturalistic origin of life] and physics seem contradictory, quite incompatible” – What is Life: How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Oxford University Press, 2012 – Dr. Addy Pross, professor of chemistry, Ben-Gurion University, Israel.

Dr. Pross echoes the words of distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel, who wrote the following in 2006, in his review of Richard Dawkins atheistic magnum opus, The God Delusion: “The entire apparatus of evolutionary explanation therefore depends on the prior existence of genetic material with these remarkable properties…since [the genetic system] is a precondition of the possibility of evolution, evolutionary theory cannot explain its existence. We are therefore faced with a problem…we have explained the complexity of organic life in terms of something that is itself just as functionally complex as what we originally set out to explain. So the problem is just pushed back a step; how did such a thing come into existence?”

In other words, despite the prodigious amounts of energy invested by people like Richard Dawkins in spreading propaganda to the contrary, Darwin provided exactly zero evidence to support an atheistic view of biology. Nothing has changed at all; the awe and wonder of the miraculous design and engineering that characterizes every single living creature on earth points as clearly to Divine creation in our day as it did in the period before Charles Darwin published his famous treatise.

In their heart of hearts, non-believers like Richard Dawkins understand that the Origin of Life problem means that their so called “scientific atheism” stands on a foundation of thin air and wishful thinking. That is why they longingly cast their eyes towards the horizon in hope of the imminent arrival of the atheist Origin of Life messiah who will finally explain how life can come from non-life without the involvement of that annoying Creator.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/09/23/atheists-still-waiting-for-the-origin-of-life-messiah/

[ArtD48]

1. A silly post

Evolution explains, well, the evolution of life.

The problem of biogenesis, i.e., the origin of life, is still being worked on.
But saying "God" started life explains nothing.

[rug]

2. That's kind of his point.

"The problem of biogenesis, i.e., the origin of life, is still being worked on."

"Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah"

[LongtimeAZDem]

3. "Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah" - Nope

"We don't know yet" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

The only "atheistic view of biology" is the one you'll find in a good textbook, which will address the known and unknown without any need for silly fairy tales.

[rug]

5. "Yet" is what makes it messianic.

If you believe the answer is inevitably, yes it will, you are entering the realm of faith.

And, as stated above, the topic is biogenesis, not biology.

Besides, atheism is completely mute on science, as it is on any topic other than nonbelief in god(s).

[LongtimeAZDem]

11. "Yet" means "not so far"; there is no other implication, despite your desperate longing for one (nt)

[rug]

17. Oh, good. So, do you expect that answer to be forthcoming?

Or is that just a wan hope of yours?

There really is no other reason to use "yet" if the answer is no.

And from what I can see in the three months you've been here, the "desperate longing" is not mine.

[LongtimeAZDem]

20. Probably not in my lifetime, which doesn't bother me at all

Some things we will learn, some we won't; regardless, there no reason to resort to childish superstition.

And using the "you're new here" tactic is lame.

[rug]

24. Contemplating the limits of scientific knowledge is hardly "childish superstition".

Feel free to keep using that term if it comforts you. It won't change the reality of it.

BTW, I didn't say "you're new here". I commented on your posts, which are not promising.

[AlbertCat]

165. Contemplating the limits of scientific knowledge is hardly "childish superstition".

Scientists have been doing that from the beginning.

No scientists thinks science can reveal everything....only religious malcontents who don't like that science shows how ridiculous religion can be say such absurd things. Absurd things like that and that atheists are "waiting" for anything like a "messiah".

Religious people don't seem to understand that everybody doesn't think like they do. Atheists (most of them) don't long or look for things like salvation (from what?) or messiahs or any of that made up religious stuff.

Besides, science, tho' not perfect, DELIVERS. Just look around..... like your computer! or this!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/02/scientists-testing-cure-for-hiv-report-progress

Religion is still wallowing in ancient superstitions.... and is so arrogant about it! Without cause.

[rug]

167. "Scientists have been doing that from the beginning."

I'm glad you agree with me.

The balance of your post is stereotypes and spittle.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. And here you are, blithely pretending that's not an offensive

Way to cast the claim.

Fucking messiah. And you play so coy when people Fire back at you.

[rug]

94. Who are you talking to?

Frankly, it's hard to tell with half your posts.

Here's one of your favorite memes:

[Brettongarcia]

91. The quote starts with a run-on sentence.

Typical for attacks on evolution and science.

What's the doctor's degree in? Theology?

[rug]

93. Your second "sentence" lacks a verb.

Did you fail to read it's in chemistry?

[Brettongarcia]

97. Blogs and everyday speech usually allow sentence fragments.

But this professor at Ben-Gurion U., is writing a formal article. Even as this chemistry professor provincially ignores the implications that Biology has for his own work.

[rug]

99. Hardly. Show an implication of biology (which is not a proper noun) that rebuts him.

[Brettongarcia]

103. "Hardly" is a sentence fragment.

We allow such things. Even misspellings, etc., on blogs.

"Biology" is often used as a proper name, or title, to refer to an academic department or discipline. Logically extrapolating from biology, suggests we should look for a similar sort of origin, in chemistry.

Some bloggers here have noted new theories that begin to do that.

By the way? There are signs of a very strong religious affiliation, belief, iintent, in this author. The Ben Gurion universities colonized the Negev desert, which had earlier been occupied overwhelmingly by Arab Muslim tribes. Bedouins.

Wiki:

"After Ben-Gurion's death in 1973, the University was renamed Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Today, Ben-Gurion University is a center for teaching and research with about 20,000 students. Some of its research institutes include the National Institute for Biotechnology in the Negev, the Ilse Katz Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology, the Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research with the Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies, and the Ben-Gurion Research Institute for the Study of Israel and Zionism."

Run-on sentences tend to sound a little too anxious, or breathless.

[rug]

104. You haven't posted even a fragment on what implication biology has to this article.

[Brettongarcia]

106. See # 8, # 19, # 30

Last edited Sat Oct 1, 2016, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)

I defer to my esteemed colleagues. Especially #19

[rug]

107. That's wise since you have nothing to offer on the subject.

[Brettongarcia]

110. You posted someone else's work....

A highly misrepresentative fragment, at that. Since the doc was only noting what seemed to be a problem. Before proposing his solution.

What's with Moshe Averick, above, for starting these serious misrepresentations?

[muriel_volestrangler]

150. See #148. The chemistry professor was quoted out of sequence, with vital phrases and pages missing

The 'run on sentence' appeared on 3 different pages of the book, 2 in the preface, 1 in a chapter. Averick butchered the professor's words to make them say the opposite of what they really did.

[Joe Chi Minh]

159. Everything is supernatural. Trouble is, it's too banal-seeming

to seem plausible, or even interesting, but this inspired American poster, William J Murray, perhaps a genius, has written two very impressive articles, imo, in Uncommon Descent, the first absolutely magisterial. A whole lot of information on the implications of quantum mechanics in terms of the development and direction of physics in some of the respondents' posts and their citations of theoretical physicists, as well.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitous-miracles-of-our-existence/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/atheists-believe-truth-has-magical-properties/#comment-618333

[YOHABLO]

4. Okay ... and who created God? hmm.

[rug]

6. That's an excellent question and here is the answer.

Nothing and no one.

Everything natural has a beginning and an end.

However the first thing came to be, the cause must necessarily have been something extranatural or supernatural.

That's why the answer to the problem of infinite regression is not, "who created god?", it must be something of another nature entirely.

[immoderate]

13. Empty assertions. It's purely speculative to assert existence has a cause.

It really doesn't need one.

--imm

[rug]

14. The flip side is what is speculative and unfounded.

Despite all that is known about the natural world, you assert it is eternal, without beginning without end.

[immoderate]

22. What is known, doesn't tell us what is unknown.

--imm

[rug]

23. It doesn't tell what will and won't be known either.

Which is why it's simply speculation.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. How convenient for you.

"That's the rules... that I just made up. "

[rug]

102. Describe it then in natural terms.

And stop putting your thoughts in quotes and attributing them to me. I have standards.

[Joe Chi Minh]

153. You don't need to know that. Ni tampoco hablar tal tonterias.

[struggle4progress]

7. Dr Pross may need to learn thermodynamics better:

open systems can indeed develop complexity, though entropy wins in the end

Perhaps Dr Pross should also think more carefully about the aims of theology: it is not the task of the theologian to handle scientific questions. In my understanding of Judaism, and of its offshoot Christianity, the important theological message is that humans are made in the image of G-d -- and much effort is expended is trying to understand exactly what it means to take this message very seriously

[Jim__]

19. Pross is a professor of chemistry.

Given that Sean Carroll had positive comments on one of Pross's papers, my guess is that he understands something about thermodynamics. Pigliucci has a link to that paper, but it is not available right now - Springer puts out a message that the site is currently under maintenance. The link can be found in this essay at RationallySpeaking:

A number of weeks ago cosmologist Sean Carroll posted a link on his Google+ stream to a recent paper published by Addy Pross in the Journal of Systems Chemistry. Since Sean’s comment about the paper was positive, I went and checked it out. Essentially, Pross argues that he has come up with a general theory of evolution that bridges biology and chemistry by reducing the former to the latter. The key conceptual element in the new theory is something called Dynamic Kinetic Stability (DKS), to which I will return in a minute. Sean briefly noted that he is generally sympathetic to attempts at extending the Darwinian framework to non-biological domains, as for instance Lee Smolin has done in physics with his idea of cosmological natural selection.

Here is a 2 minute video of Pross talking about his ideas:

[center]

[/center]

[struggle4progress]

30. The video may portray his motives well; and he may be a good scientist; but that does not imply

his explanation-of-his-motives is also good science

The statement cited in the OP -- "Certain basic laws of physics (coupled with mathematical probability) preach the same sermon – systems tend toward chaos and disorder, not toward order and function" -- concerns me

... Thermodynamic equilibrium may be characterized by the minimum of the Helmholtz free energy defined usually by F = E - TS. Are most types of “organisations” around us of this nature? It is enough to ask such a question to see that the answer is negative. Obviously in a town, in a living system, we have a quite different type of functional order. To obtain a thermodynamic theory for this type of structure we have to show that that non-equilibrium may be a source of order. Irreversible processes may lead to a new type of dynamic states of matter which I have called “dissipative structures” ...
TIME, STRUCTURE AND FLUCTUATIONS
Nobel Lecture, 8 December, 1977
by ILYA PRIGOGINE

[muriel_volestrangler]

149. See #148; Averick took certain phrases from different chapters of Pross, reordered them

and left out other vital phrases, all in an effort to completely transform what Pross wrote. That statement is from the preface, where Pross is effectively setting out a problem, before describing how he thinks it's solved.

You can, for instance, find Pross acknowledging Prigogine, on this subject:

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know
Addy Pross and Robert Pascal

...
Note that the above description is consistent with Prigogine's non-equilibrium thermodynamic approach, which stipulates that self-organized behaviour is associated with irreversible processes within the nonlinear regime.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

[struggle4progress]

164. That could be -- but it all rapidly falls into an uninteresting category of literary criticism IMO.

I never heard of either Averick or Prosser before, and it's not really clear to me why I should much care that the one misquotes the other -- though I'm somewhat relieved if Prosser isn't ignorant of Prigogine

The little Pross-Pascal article is OK, so far as it goes, though it's too philosophical -- and perhaps also a bit too obvious -- to qualify as a good science paper, according to my tastes. Good science will give us insight into how to tell the best story we currently can, consistent what we know and have observed. That's why the Miller-Urey experiment excited people sixty years ago, and it's why people gave more recently been excited to find amino acids in carbonaceous chondrites, comets, and deep space

[immoderate]

8. A plausible response. (No gods.)

Matter will organize to accelerate entropy if conditions allow for it. It appears to be an emergent property of matter. Here's a reference from Quanta Magazine:

Why does life exist?

Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Edit to add: The assertion that life is organized and purposeful is a red herring.

--imm

[struggle4progress]

9. Is there any good cosmological evidence for the inevitability of life?

[immoderate]

12. I would not say that. Depends on what you consider 'evidence.'

First let me say that England's work confirms hypotheses I've held for a long time. And I'm sure that I'm not the first. The universe has a 'preference' for dissipation, or entropy. Life accelerates and facilitates the rate of entropy all around it. It 'uses up' a lot of energy. It seemed to me that natural forces would seek to implement this where it was feasible. (The universe having that attitude.)

As the article states, England was able to apply some math to the premise, and that may lead to testable hypotheses. Additionally, we haven't ruled out the existence of other life, in some form, even in our solar system. So, I would say "no," and "so far..."

--imm

[struggle4progress]

18. The only definite conception I could have of "life" would resemble "life-as-we-know-it"

So the natural test of "inevitabilty" would be to catalog planets with substantial water and temperature/pressure conditions near the triple-point of water; and then to show that those within a certain age range have an oxygen-rich atmosphere -- since oxygen is a highly reactive gas, which exists in our atmosphere as a result of a balance between sinks and biological sources

[immoderate]

21. Why would you assume life needs oxygen, or water?

There was no free O2 on earth at the start of life -- which didn't start in the atmosphere. Water is just one liquid of many.

--imm

[struggle4progress]

29. Our atmospheric O2 has biological origins. O2 is reactive so one might not expect

to find many planets with a significant O2 atmospheric component without a major O2 generator, which on earth is life

To detect "life" at great distance, one needs distinctive signatures. Perhaps certain sulfur deposits represent a possible alternative to O2 as a signature but I suspect this is a harder problem, as nonbiogenic deposits of sulfur also exist

Life on earth essentially depends on water. One could, I suppose, argue for "other-forms-of-life" -- but a scientific argument has to be based on actual observation and measurement.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. If we stop spending all our money bombing brown people

Around the globe and focus on getting to mars, and even locations like Venus which may well have been capable of supporting life billions of years ago, we might be able to answer that question.

[rug]

15. This is less about the creation of life than it is about the creation of matter in the first place,

from which life comes.

[immoderate]

25. If we assume there's a creator.

Why? --imm

[rug]

26. I could have said the genesis of life but that might upset you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Not really. It's about the arrangement of matter - ie the arrangement of atoms

It's about the creation of chemicals, perhaps - but then, we could characterise any chemical process, such as combustion, as the creation of chemicals. But the atoms are all there in the first place - it's not nuclear fusion, nor the condensing of matter right after the Big Bang. It's a hypothesis that chemical reactions dissipating heat will tend to be more common, and that will end up if 'life' (as we know it, or not). The dividing line between 'life' and its predecessors may be hard to agree on.

[rug]

42. "the atoms are all there in the first place"

That's a novel statement. Now prove it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. It's not 'novel'. It's at the link.

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

[rug]

56. "the atoms are all there in the first place"

is not at that link.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. "You start with a random clump of atoms". Yes, it is there.

I get the feeling this is going to be a pointless exchange if you're going to deny things like that.

[rug]

66. Starting a process with atoms does not mean "the atoms are all there in the first place".

I have the same feeling as you.

[Joe Chi Minh]

152. 'coulda, woulda, shoulda... inexorably acquires key physocal attributes associated with life.'

I love these gratuitous atheist conjectures neatly cloaked in 'woulda, coulda, shouldas'. They spend too much time watching judge Jud, when they should be saying their prayers.

Then, when the latest hapless conjecture touted by a compliant media as virtually a definitive break-through, is proved to be complete nonsense, it becomes a variant of, 'Well, isn't evolution full of surprises ! That's the wonderful thing about it. We're learning all the time ! There's always something new !'

[AtheistCrusader]

82. A question outside the expertise of a chemist.

As a physicist and a cosmologist.

[rug]

101. Lol, an appeal to authority.

Do you think that is not, in fact, a fallacy?

[ZombieHorde]

10. Part of the perceived problem

is the belief/bias that the collections of atoms we categorize as "life" are more special/interesting/valuable than collections of atoms we don't categorize as "life." This bias doesn't cause any scientific problems, that I'm aware of, but it causes social, religious, philosophical, et cetera conflicts that cannot be solved with reason since the perceived problem isn't based on reason.

[rug]

16. The question of where the atoms come from is what remains unanswered.

With no certainty that it will or can be answered. That has significant philosophical implications.

[ZombieHorde]

36. I think that only has

philosophical implications if we want it to, just like everything else.

[Joe Chi Minh]

154. Yes, closing one's mind is always an option. Trouble is, to close on the truth

is the very purpose of an open mind.

[struggle4progress]

37. Until I have good reason otherwise, I will regard smacking a human with a hammer

as quite a different act than smacking a rock with a hammer

[ZombieHorde]

41. I do too because I generally value nonviolence

against humans. I just don't believe my values are objective.

[struggle4progress]

49. The difference is, in some sense, "subjective" -- but the "subjectivity" involved

is not the subjectivity of the hammer-wielder: it is the subjectivity of the hammer-struck

I would avoid striking rocks with hammers, if they seemed to mind; I avoid striking humans and cats with hammers, because they do seem to mind. This is, on my view, a somewhat objective difference, not entirely rooted in my own subjectivity

[ZombieHorde]

60. The difference may be objective,

but the fact that you find that difference notable is subjective.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

108. For one thing, it takes a lot of pounding to piss off a rock.

But once stoked, much like a woman scorned, hell hath no fury liked a pissed off rock. Just ask one.

For another thing, rocks tend to share thoughts, although in a concrete, slow, even stoic fashion. So, if you have deliberately gone after rocks with a sledge, at some point, you must avoid roads in mountainous areas. A landslide is sure to follow.

Lastly, it is clear that rocks have feelings. There was a universal jump for joy when humans began adopting pet rocks - it was as though humanity finally bridged the well known "Human -Stone" gap and began to treat rocks with the care and respect that any collection of sandstone, granite, or shale deserves. Sadly, rock.com had not been fully developed, and those mostly bags of water which were carbon based could not grasp the crags and cliffhanging challenge that rock conversations pose.

The essay above has about as much sense as the original post. Lettuce prey.

[Doodley]

27. Theists Sill Waiting for the Origin of God Messiah.

"It is not just common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about." - evolutionists do not claim that highly organized entities just spontaneously come about. Religion, however does. Religion claims that God just came about, flapped his arms about and made the universe. Where did God come from? Who made God? These are questions that religion can never answer. Evolutionists do not claim to know all the answers.

[rug]

32. Scroll upthread.

Your questions are not original.

[Doodley]

33. I gather the question of where God came from is not mine and mine alone.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

109. The real question: Did God have consent to

Screw Mrs. God in order to spawn the Baby Jesus? Were they married? If not, is Jesus the illegitimate son of god, an out of wedlock bastard who has no legal claims on daddy god's estate?

I keep wondering about transportation, too. How did daddy god send his illegitimate son to Earth? Some celestial space shuttle?

Ok, enough snark. After years of study, I am convinced that religion, more than anything else, kills. We'd be far better off without it as a species. Fear, the unknown, and bad advice from charlatans is why the tattered remnants of faith still cling on to various societies' throats with such desperation. But even that is evolving. The fastest growing group in America is the "nones" mainly because they refuse to accept the stupidity, irrational excuses, and fear based closing of one's mind that faith requires.

[Eko]

28. And people complain about athiest militants.

Atheists aren't waiting for a "Messiah". We are waiting for the one theory (that has the most evidence, actually the only evidence) to finally prove how life came to be. If something comes up with an explanation that has more evidence then we will go with that until it is proven. That's how we work. We don't just decide that something that has no evidence at all is right because we like the way it sounds and then discount the mountains of evidence against it by constantly pointing out that the other side doesn't have 100% of the evidence so it cant be right while overlooking that pesky 0% of evidence for what you like. Cool huh?

[rug]

31. Do you think the time will come when science will "finally prove" it?

[Doodley]

34. I think humans will destroy themselves before that.

[Eko]

35. Of course.

Science will find the answer. Its track record is unparalleled in being the one thing that actually finds out the real answers.

[guillaumeb]

40. So you have faith that scientists will discover the answer?

Even if scientists postulate that the Big Bang happened, could they then explain where the matter came from that exploded?

Your statement that "Science will find the answer" cannot be proven and is based on your faith in scientists.

[Eko]

44. Ha, Ha.

faith? That is for people who don't understand science. If we did a running count, and there is no way we possibly could, we would find out that science is the one things that finds all the answers. Split the atom? Science. Plastic, science. Alloys, science. Combustion, science. Your computer, science. Medicine, science. Food, science. relativity, science. CD's, science. Internet, science. It amazes me when someone takes this "faith in science" track, its like really?, just stand up and look around wherever you are. Pretty much everything you see is because of science. Are you at the beach using a laptop? Laptop, science. How far is the beach from your home? 10 miles? You got there because of science otherwise it would be a 5 hour walk. Roads, science. Lights, science. Faith in science?? Look at your car key, imagine making that 100, 200 years ago, not possible. Faith in science? faith in science would be like a kid admiring his older sibling because they can read not knowing what being able to read actually means and will open up. Faith in science?, no, most definitively no, if anyone has just faith in science then they are not able to comprehend what is right in front of them every second of every day. Certitude is the correct word. Certitude. You say it can not be proven that science will find the answer, I give you the entire world you live in every day as proof it will. Not that long ago we couldn't fly, couldn't split the atom, couldn't visit other planets, couldn't leave the solar system, now we can and do and science did that. Faith is for the blind.

[guillaumeb]

46. But all of your response still avoided thr fact that science can only go so far.....

and then you believe that one day science will explain all.

Cannot happen. So you are countering my belief in the Creator with your own belief in science having all the answers.

Again, what happened prior to the Big Bang and where did the matter come from?

Was it coincidentally just lying around waiting for the Big Bang?

[Eko]

48. Sure, if you say so

Your belief in the creator with no evidence with my facts that science works, ahem, belief. Sure, same thing.

[cleanhippie]

54. Using "belief" and "faith" in place of evidence is a common tactic of the believer.

It's how they deflect from their own shortcomings of knowledge and fact.

[rug]

57. Assertion of a fact without evidence is faith.

He's asserted a fact that science will solve this. There is no evidence for that, only a hope.

Your post, aside from its utter inaccuracy, is how you deflect from your own shortcomings of knowledge and fact and understanding the difference betwen that and faith. Not to mention hope.

[Eko]

58. Yeah, No evidence!!!

Just that pesky history that science has done so for countless of times.

[rug]

59. History is littered with scientific predictions that failed.

Primarily because they were bullshit without evidence that some nevertheless were compelled to peddle.

Here, you're sunning short:

! ! ! !

[uriel1972]

64. Yes science is littered with dead theories...

Theories killed off by science using evidence...

Your point?

[rug]

65. "Science will find the answer" is a statement of faith without evidence.

Pay attention.

[uriel1972]

67. I agree...

I also find that a follower of religion calling out someone for believing in something without evidence a little bit pot and kettle.
Not that I am saying you shouldn't point out someone's failing.

I would have said science will demonstrate which theory is most likely to be correct at any one time based on the evidence available. However, that's just me.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. I would instead say, 'science is the only credible tool for finding the answer to that question'

[rug]

95. I know enough to deduce that there is no "we" at your keyboard.

Only you and your peculiar reactions.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. There's also historical track record that has your God of the gaps

Playing at supreme hide and seek champion of all time.


Forever.

[rug]

96. The only gap here is in your education on the subject.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Science can only go so far... says you.

Why should I care what limitations you assert with no knowledge and no authority on a field of study you don't understand?

[rug]

98. So does anyone who understands the scientific method is not infinite.

Why should I care whether you care, anonymous internet user?

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Actually, some of us understand math, physics and cosmology

And follow what they have actually already discovered and the degree of confidence in the discoveries, and to what decimal place they can show it.

[rug]

157. Is that a yes?

Or simply a wan hope dressed up?

Point to one paper that suggests it can and will be proven.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. We've already shown how organic chemicals are spontaneously

Synthesized from inorganic chemicals, so yes, I expect one or more reproducible abiogenesis mechanisms to be discovered in my lifetime.

[rug]

100. You haven't at all.

Stepping back from your grandiose identification, what you "expect" is no more than what you hope.

[guillaumeb]

115. Where did the matter come from that was affected by the Big Bang?

Did it "just happen" to be lying around in non-existence to be acted upon?

And how will scientists explore the non-existence? What testing will they conduct?

[opiate69]

121. lol..

such a profound defecit in comprehension of basic physics. Allow me to offer up a tiny hint:

E = MC^2

[guillaumeb]

122. But being a non-scientist, and a believer in the Creator,

kindly break it down for me.
Because if mass and energy are interchangeable, if one can become the other in the right conditions, that only changes the question to:
where did the matter and/or energy come from to be acted upon. Just lying around?



Awaiting my enlightenment, I am
respectfully,
Guillaume B

[opiate69]

124. Simply put, we don't know.

But, there's several very intriguing hypotheses, none of which require any sort of external creator.

[guillaumeb]

125. Understood. My belief is that the answer is alreasdy here. The Creator.

If we both live forever we will see how it all turns out.

[rug]

128. Do you expect these hypotheses to be proven?

[opiate69]

141. Do I expect "these hypotheses" to be proven?

Of course not. Because that would mean multiple, disparate origins of the cosmos. However, I do expect that cosmologists, theorists and astrophysicists much more clever than you will eventually solve this mystery.

[rug]

142. That's a hope not an expectation.

It's also an appeal to authority wrapped in an ad hominem.

[opiate69]

143. Bzzt.. wrong again, sir carpet.

It's an expectation based on previous results, current research and deductive inference.

[rug]

144. Nice paraphrase of hope, opiate.

It's not simply a hope, it's a gullible hope.

[opiate69]

145. *sigh*

expect
English
(Webster 1913)
Verb
(en-verb)
To look for (mentally); to look forward to, as to something that is believed to be about to happen or come; to have a previous apprehension of, whether of good or evil; to look for with some confidence; to anticipate; -- often followed by an infinitive, sometimes by a clause (with, or without, that).

hope
English
Noun
(en-noun)
(uncountable) The belief or expectation that something wished for can or will happen.

A subtle difference, to be sure, but significant nonetheless.

[rug]

146. "The belief or expectation that something wished for can or will happen."

Precisely.

[opiate69]

185. Because I'm bored...

"hope" implicitly connotes desire, while "expectation" does not. IE: As my poor old car rapidly approaches 110,000 miles, I fully expect it will soon start developing maintenance issues. I certainly hope it does not.

[Joe Chi Minh]

155. Sure, I can see these lads and lassies sitting in a rockng-chair and,

with an expansive wave of their arm, intoning with a certain proud grandiosity : 'One day my son/daughter, all this whole universe will be understood to the last tiny detail, if not by you when you grow up, by your children or grandchildren.'

[rug]

158. In the sweet bye and bye.

[Joe Chi Minh]

161. Thanks, rug. That's beautiful. One for my Favourites. Did you notice

the similarity between your quote (abbreviated) and this :

'As it is written: "The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little."
- 2 Corinthians 8:15

.. which appears to have been quoted by the Apostle, Paul, from Exodus.

'When they measured it with an omer, he who had gathered much had no excess, and he who had gathered little had no lack; every man gathered as much as he should eat.'

Though I don't think actual equality of income is necessary, I favour this translation ('.... did not have too much'), as the disparity between the income of the top 0.00001 % and the rest of mankind now seems to have brought us to the verge of an unprecedented economic collapse, which will be aggravated, particularly in the US by the movement of the population from the rural areas.

[rug]

163. The sig line? It's from Acts 4.

Acts 4:32–35:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

It's also found in Marx' Critique of the Gotha Program.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

I can't decide which use is more compelling.

[Joe Chi Minh]

168. Yes. But I tend not memorise chapter and verse. The great

failing of Communism is that it takes no account of human nature, that grace builds upon nature. We are not machines, like computers.

[guillaumeb]

39. The issue does come down to this:

In their heart of hearts, non-believers like Richard Dawkins understand that the Origin of Life problem means that their so called “scientific atheism” stands on a foundation of thin air and wishful thinking.

Atheists and other types of non-believers cannot admit that there is no basis for their non-belief in a creator. They assume, without evidence, that "someday" science will solve the question.

Atheism is simply the reverse side of the belief coin, with the Creator on one side and a question mark on the reverse side.

[Eko]

45. What?

"no basis for their non-belief in a creator?" How about there is no proof? Seems like that should be enough but whatever.

[guillaumeb]

47. Proof is not something that is addressed by faith. Faith does not require faith,

as should be apparent.

But science cannot prove anything about the ultimate origin of existence. And so atheists are left to claim that their beliefs are superior to the beliefs of theists.

[Eko]

50. Why cant it prove

anything about the ultimate origin of existence? What makes you say that?

[guillaumeb]

51. That the Big Bang happened can be deduced from the movement of the universe.

Or so I have read it. But science cannot look at the prior moment before this existence came into being.

Something caused the Big Bang, and something caused the matter to be there to expand.

[Eko]

52. Yes,

Science will find the answer, it will take some time but it will be found and the evidence will prove the answer. Religion supposedly has the answer with no proof at all. So far your argument has been, "science does not know and may not ever" without ever bringing your side up of "We know with no proof".

[guillaumeb]

68. My argument is that one either postulates that there is a Creator,

or one postulates that there is no Creator. And I further argue that there can be no proof of either being true or false.

[Eko]

70. Well,

its nice you have decided what the answers are I guess, science doesn't do that. It just finds the answers even if they don't fit our preconceived notions of what they should be. I think its rather defeatist to think there can be no proof if either being true or false, what proof do you have that makes you think that?

[guillaumeb]

71. Faith does not require proof.

One needs no faith for what can be proven. Faith and science do not compete, just as linguistics and math do not compete. They pertain to different things.

If prior to the Big Bang there was no material existence, what would science have to deal with? How would science measure non-existence?

I see faith as a positive, but what works for me might not work for anyone else.

And, assuming for argument sake that there is a Creator who created all of existence, what would make any human think that a human would even be able to recognize clues or proofs of the Creator's existence?

[cleanhippie]

75. How can belief in something without evidence be positive?

[guillaumeb]

113. Explain how belief is positive or negative.

Belief is. You might judge that a particular belief is a positive or negative thing, but that judgement is yours alone.

[cleanhippie]

147. Being that this is the Religion group, I figured the type of belief were talking about was implied.

So now that we have that cleared up, back to my question: how can belief in something without evidence be positive?

[guillaumeb]

166. Belief in a deity is an affirmation.

Non-belief in a deity is also an affirmation. Both can be expressed positively. So positive/negative does not really matter.

I am positive in the existence of the Creator.
Another might be positive that a Creator does not exist.

[cleanhippie]

74. Until one postulates that there is a creator, there is no disagreement.

The one making the claim has the burden of proof.

But you already knew that.

[Joe Chi Minh]

156. You don't know that when you switch the living-room light on, it will

come on - the bulb could be a dud, new and untested by you, or it could have blown. However, humdrum daily experience persuades you that the odds are very, very much in your favour. Well, the same goes for Christians, theists and deists, only the evidence they rely on is far broader in its scope and more persuasive - to them (us). Nevertheless, both could be designated as 'knowledge - faith' continua. corresponding with our world of space-time, though evidently with different emphases, secular and religious.

However, Christianity and divine judgment are really about the heart. As St James says in an Epistle, 'The Devil believes and trembles.' Credence is nowhere near enough - still less credulity. So profound, abstruse and inscrutable are the ultimate mysteries of our life and our universe that we end up believing what we want to believe - just as atheists have claimed, although the same goes for themselves : metaphysical voluntarism. Jesus' preaching is based on it, and a faith that implies a commitment to the Law. And what is the Law ? Love. Love is the fulness of the Law. Upon it, hangs the whole of the law and the prophets: compassion, charity, self-denying love.

Why should the truth be cold, hard, not to be wished for, not to be hoped for, undesirable, ugly - instead of warmly loving, dynamic, something to be passionately wished for and hoped for, eminently desirable and very, very beautiful.

'Well, do I hear some of you say, 'A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush ? I value my sex-life 'as is', and I'm not going to swap it for 'pie in the sky.' Well, that's the question we are faced with, though only God knows our personal circumstances fully, the course and context of our lives, how much self-denying love we have been capable of. The evidence of the New Testament suggests that there will be a lot of former rogues and vagabonds in heaven, at least in the eyes of the polite society of the monied, and fewer of the Pelagians who relied on their following the letter of Church law in small matters, while neglecting the really key ones.

[uriel1972]

61. ummm no...

Why should I believe in something that has no evidence in favour of not believing in something that has no evidence?
That's just plain silly. I should believe in rainbow farting unicorns as well?

Nor do I assume that we will find the answer to the origin of life. Nothing in science is guaranteed.
I do not have faith that God's etc. don't exist, nor do I KNOW that gods etc. don't exist. I have not encountered any evidence that they do, so I don't believe that they do and don't act as if they do.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. I don't need a basis to reject an unfounded and unprovable claim.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be fairly dismissed without evidence.

I pursue scientific answers to the origin of life not to substantiate my atheistic worldview, but rather because I have a real desire to know how things actually work.

[guillaumeb]

114. Good luck with that, as far as science will take you.

[Roland99]

53. Linguistic bullshit to justify belief in sky fairies

[rug]

55. Lackadaisical meme to promote bullshit.

[Bradical79]

72. You're just filling in gaps with a fictional character

God, Superman, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The League of Unicorns... A supernatural creator of the universe makes every single explanation the imagination can concoct equally invalid.

[rug]

73. And you're just regurgitating tired, inaccurate and unoriginal memes.

If the natural universe, by its own nature, has a beginning and an end, then whatever caused it must necessarily be of an entirely different nature.

Not to startle you with a contrary thought.

[Bradical79]

76. It's entirely accurate

You are just filling in the gaps with a fictional character. There is zero reason to attribute the formation of the universe to an intelegent being. At the moment, and possibly forever, it is simply a big unsolvable mystery. It doesn't mean you can fill in the gap with God and have it be an acceptable explanation.

[rug]

78. I'll assume "an intelegent being" is a typo.

Contemplating an extranatural or supernatural existence prior to the existence of a natural universe is hardly invoking a god to full a gap.

Nor do I think "a big unsolvable mystery" is an acceptable answer to an obvious question.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. Contemplate away, sir.

Come on back when you can fucking prove it.

Till then get the fuck out of my healthcare, get the fuck out of my end of life decisions, get the fuck out of my wife and my reproductive choices, and start paying your fucking taxes and reparations to the sexual abuse victims of your fucking church's employees for starters.

[rug]

92. "fucking prove it"?

Go ahead, AC. Prove how something came from nothing.

Until you can, you're pirouetting.

One of the many things wrong with your thinking is that you are unable to separate the problems of individual religions, composed of human beings, from that fundamental question.

Typing "fuck" and beating your chest is a self-indulgent show, not an analysis.

[pokerfan]

62. It's a long-winded god of the gaps argument.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

[Roland99]

69. Ayup. Pure mental laziness. A desire and willingness to suspend critical thinking...

even at the most basic of levels.

[Bradical79]

77. Pretty much

I responded, but I'm reminded just how intellectually dishonest rug has allways been. Guess I should just use the ignore list rather than feed the troll.

[rogerashton]

105. Yes it is a silly post.

Now, by and large I agree with Rug's view on theology. Like him, I find the first cause argument reasonable, and the fact that those who reject it claim that they need not make any counterargument is the best case that is is valid reason -- if there were a counterargument they surely would have given it!

Nevertheless,

1) Biogenesis is one thing; the origin of natural existence is another. If we suppose that some supernatural agency intervened in nature to give rise to life, then we must consider at least as hypotheses the possibility that this supernatural agency intervened in other cases, such as parting the Red Sea.

2) It is not correct that there is no scientific explanation of biogenesis. There are several. We just don't know which one is correct. That's a very different thing! One hypothesis, even an unproven one, is enough to dismiss any claim that the materialistic worldview is inconsistent with the origin of life.

3) It is true, of course, that science assumes that physical events have physical causes, but this is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of pragmatism. It works.

4) In context a word like "messiah" is a put-down, and the claim that science is no less based on faith than traditional religion is wrong (see above) and also a put-down. Phrases like "sky fairies" are also put-downs. Could we all just leave the put-downs out?

[hatrack]

111. Well, that was a complete waste of time . . .

.

[rug]

117. Thanks for that insight.

It's all clear now.

[deathrind]

112. What??

"highly organized…purposeful entities"

Is that referring to humans, seriously? If so it is horribly mistaken as monumentally wrong.

[rug]

116. The first describes many forms of life.

The second, "purposeful" does refer to humans. Are there any other animals that do things purposefully?

[cpwm17]

118. The Universe is huge or infinite.

Host: What is the origin of life? It’s a question scientists, philosophers and theologians have debated for centuries. If you believe one widely accepted scientific theory, life on Earth was one big happy accident, overcoming the astronomical odds against it.

The Universe is astronomically huge and astronomically old. There is also a good chance there is far more beyond our Universe. Given enough chances, the highly improbable becomes guaranteed.

A god is generally defined as a first cause. A god would be far more complex than the most complex life we know, in a form that contradicts all we know that is possible here in our Universe. What are the chances, of all the imaginable starting points, the single starting point of all of existence is this invisible critter with super powers?

A starting point with dumb matter and energy seems infinitely more plausible. Life starting by a low odds event in our ancient and huge Universe is infinitely more likely than the starting pint of all of existence starting with this mysterious critter with super powers.

[rug]

119. That begs the question. How did the (natural) dumb matter and energy get there?

[cpwm17]

120. It's a brute fact of nature that dumb matter and energy exist.

It seems likely that they have always existed, in some form or another.

[rug]

123. The nature of those things belies that.

Every known thing has a beginning.

[cpwm17]

126. You're arguing against the existence of a god unless you can explain who or what made god.

I'm arguing that a much simpler starting point for all of existence is far more likely (though there is likely no literal starting point in time). I'm arguing that a starting point that is closer to the reality that we experience in our Universe is far more likely than a starting point by a magical being with super powers.

We have no experience with anything coming from complete nothingness. Stuff comes from other stuff though existing physics. Our Universe came from some unknowable existence through some existing physics. It's a dynamic world out there.

[rug]

127. No. The argument of infinite regression misses the point.

If everything natural requires a beginning, then whatever preceded the natural universe would have to be of a different nature, extra-natural or supernatural.

That the stuff of the universe was "always there" is as unproveable as an infinite, eternal god.

It's an intellectual standoff.

[cpwm17]

129. Inventing a completely different and massively complex reality is no solution.

I skip that step: beyond that, god is not an answer to that actual problems of creation. You still need an answer for the problem of god's existence and also answer how did this god create our Universe. God answers nothing.

[rug]

130. You're asking fior a natural explanation for an event that would have to be supernatural.

[cpwm17]

131. OK, I can play your game.

The Universe came from an existence that by its very nature does not have to be explained. But you must explain your version of reality - and if you can't, I win by default.

[rug]

132. "does not have to be explained" is a piss-poor answer, especially when science strives to explain it

What you propose is indeed a juvenile "game".

Do you understand the difference between "I don't have to!" and saying something can not be explained? Naturally.

[cpwm17]

133. I don't think that is an answer, but you do.

You believe that god by its very nature doesn't have to be explain. I was clearly showing you how your position appears to me. You think your own position is "juvenile."

I think we should do our best to explain what can be explained and be honest when we don't know. Invented fake explanations from our creative imaginations are no explanations at all.

[rug]

134. You miss again the difference between "doesn't have to" and "can't".

[cpwm17]

135. If it can't be explained then it can be disregarded since the "can't" be explained

includes you can't provide evidence. The distinction between "can't" and "doesn't have to" is little in this case.

[rug]

136. Define the evidence required.

Make sure it matches the thing you want proven.

[cpwm17]

137. Show me that we live in a world that does not work through natural processes

but works through the whims of a creator. We do not.

The obvious would be for this creator to present itself in an unambiguous way. That has never happened.

[rug]

138. No, the question at hand is how the world got here in the first place.

That's the logical question.

Your last paragraph is pure theology.

[cpwm17]

139. I wrote: "You still need an answer for the problem of god's existence

and also answer how did this god create our Universe."

You wrote: "You're asking for a natural explanation for an event that would have to be supernatural."

So now we're at an impasse on how the world got here in the first place since your explanation "can't" or doesn't have to be explained, by its very nature.

Nothing in the world I know points to a god so I certainly have no reason to support a position concerning the world's origin that can't be explained. And if we add the logical improbability of a god as the starting point, I see no reason to support the idea of a god.

[rug]

140. If you reject both the idea of a creator and the idea of an infinte eternal universe, what's left?

[cpwm17]

169. Early in this sub thread I wrote:

"It's a brute fact of nature that dumb matter and energy exist. It seems likely that they have always existed, in some form or another."

I don't claim to know any specifics, which are unknowable, but it seems likely our Universe (I define Universe to be our 13.8 billion year universe) came from a previous reality or at least another reality if time doesn't exist there. Our Universe didn't start from scratch.

I also think it's likely there are many universes beyond our own that came from the same physics that created our universe. This reality has never not existed.

A god is a specific, extremely far-fetched claim. There is no evidence for any god. From what we know, nature behaves as if it works through natural processes. That's why science consistently works,

There are a lot of natural disasters and misery in nature, often by design: earthquakes, predators that eat victims alive or use pain inducing venom to stun their victims, people born into hopeless situations beyond their control, childhood cancer, etc.

[rug]

170. No matter how many (purely hypothetical) universe and multiverses,

there is still the problem of a natural thing of physics arising from nothing. That's the flip side of infinite regression. Anyone attempting a pure explanation in physics at some point must give up or generate a hope that it will (not may) be explained given enough time, a la monkeys and Shakespeare.

[cpwm17]

171. You have much the same issue concerning an always existing god.

If god has always been here then it must have always been doing something, the same with any other always existing reality.

If it hadn't always been doing something, what took god so long to suddenly decide to create a universe? I think it would have gotten bored infinite years in the past (boredom is a product of our minds, but humans like to create god in their own images), and perhaps god would have been making infinite universes through time. I find an always existing mind far more difficult to believe than an always existing reality without a mind.

[rug]

172. If the rationale is a natural one.

As stated above, logically it can only be other than a natural explanation.

"always" is a linear concept which is simply a version of a natural attribute. As is "bored".

[cpwm17]

173. But you are then claiming if reality is difficult to explain then it must be by magic

and magic doesn't have to be explained - problem solved.

[rug]

174. Magic is not logic. I'm sorry your difficulty in explaining has led you to that error.

[cpwm17]

183. The arguments you make are arguments against your god.

You think the same rules don't apply to you, since, as you believe, god, by definition, has no cause; god doesn't have to be explained since it is not natural.

As you wrote above: that's a "juvenile "game"", and you're playing it.

Special pleading:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

In the Thomistic cosmological argument for the existence of God, everything requires a cause. However, proponents of the argument then create a special case where God doesn't need a cause, but they can't say why in any particularly rigorous fashion. (One response to this argument, beyond pointing out the fallacy, would be to point out that nature itself could have existed eternally in some form just as they say God had existed eternally before creating nature. One modern philosopher who has applied this argument is Carl Sagan, though he wasn't the first to do so.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

148. It's time people see how Moshe Averick manipulated the quotes from Professor Pross

to try and make him seem to say almost the exact opposite of what he did.

Pross wrote the book What is Life, which has a blurb:

Living things are hugely complex and have unique properties, such as self-maintenance and apparently purposeful behaviour which we do not see in inert matter. So how does chemistry give rise to biology? What could have led the first replicating molecules up such a path? Now, developments in the emerging field of 'systems chemistry' are unlocking the problem. Addy Pross shows how the different kind of stability that operates among replicating molecules results in a tendency for chemical systems to become more complex and acquire the properties of life. Strikingly, he demonstrates that Darwinian evolution is the biological expression of a deeper, well-defined chemical concept: the whole story from replicating molecules to complex life is one continuous process governed by an underlying physical principle. The gulf between biology and the physical sciences is finally becoming bridged.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Life-Chemistry-Becomes-Biology/dp/0199687773

Now, the impression Averick tried to give in his quotes is almost the opposite - that Pross thinks, with people like Nagel, that no one has an idea how earlier chemical systems developed into biological ones we can call 'life'. What Averick did, and this is typical for the more dishonest theologians, is cut and paste phrases from Pross, typically bits where he's asking rhetorical questions, and leaving out the answers Pross himself proposes (this is often done with Darwin himself, who wrote about how the eye seems too complex for evolution to explain, but then proceeded to show how it can be broken down. But the religionists leave out that part, to have a 'see? Even Darwin thinks it's impossible!' moment). Notice all the '...'s in the quotes used. That's because a lot of stuff is left out.

Here's Pross's book online - at page xii of the preface: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ETUTDAAAQBAJ&pg=PR12&lpg=PR12

That's where "And here precisely lies the (origin of) life problem ... it is not just common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about. Certain basic laws of physics (coupled with mathematical probability) preach the same sermon – systems tend toward chaos and disorder, not toward order and function" and "Biology and physics seem contradictory, quite incompatible" come from ("origin of" is Averick's addition). Read on to page xiii, and he says (in italics, for emphasis) "the central biological paradigm, Darwinism, is just the biological manifestation of a broader physiochemical description of natural forces". A bit later he says "This book is an attempt to demonstrate that Charles Darwin in his genius and farsightedness was right".

So where did the other quotes come from, placed earlier by Averick? Well, some of them are from later - "despite the widespread view..." up to "in the first place" is on page 8 of the main book, rather than the preface.

Then we leap to page x of the preface, for "Nature just doesn’t operate like that! Nature doesn’t spontaneously make highly organized ...". Now, you may think that using a quote with "that" in, but which in fact has nothing to do with what you've positioned before it, is fundamentally dishonest. And you'd be right, for Averick is a conman. "That", in the preface, is actually a "hypothetical tale" of a working, beer-filled refrigerator in the middle of a field. The "highly organized…purposeful entities..." are actually "highly organized, far-from-equiblibrium purposeful entities - fridges, cars, computers etc.". He goes on: "nature, if anything, pushes systems toward equilibrium, toward disorder and chaos, not toward order and function. Or does it?" Because, of course, he's a writer, trying introduce his book by setting out problems that many people see, but he thinks he has a good explanation for. It's good writing, but a charlatan like Averick can chop it up, reorder it, leave out the vital bits, and make it look completely different.

So, Averick is a duplicitous wanker. I hope we can all agree on that. Picking phrases from different parts of the book is bad enough, but shunting them together to make "that" seem to refer to something else is unforgivable. He leaves out Pross's message, so that he can lie "Dr. Pross echoes the words of distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel". Averick is ethically bankrupt, as a writer.

[Joe Chi Minh]

151. Last I heard, rug, Dawkins now describes himself as an agnostic. The facts

are so overwhelmingly indicative of an omnipotent, omniscient Creator - in Einstein's words, a 'Great Spirit, vastly superior to that of man' - he was looking increasingly foolish.

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.” - Einstein.

A single E-Coli cell enlarge to the human scale would be the size of a small town - a small town, moreover, in the form of a vast factory of a technological sophistication we could barely dream of - with all the departments of a major factory and much much more.

Worse, for the historically atypical scientists, effectively scoffing at the great paradigm-changers, such as Einstein as simpletons, and who disparage the intelligent design of matter right down to the quantum level, it has been demonstrated that after matter reduces to energy, energy reduces to information. And no information worth tuppence is produced by 'nothing followed by random events' (phrase coined by Marfin on 'uncommondescent.com'). Posts 25, 53 and 54, among others, are particularly revelatory.

'The Basic Elements of Nature: Matter, Energy, and Information

“Evidently nature can no longer be seen as matter and energy alone. Nor can all her secrets be unlocked with the keys of chemistry and physics, brilliantly successful as these two branches of science have been in our century.

“A third component is needed for any explanation of the world that claims to be complete. To the powerful theories of chemistry and physics must be added a late arrival: a theory of information.

“Nature must be interpreted as matter, energy, and information.” – Jeremy C Campbell. Journalist and author of Grammatical Man: Information, Entropy, Language and Life, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books, 1984:16 (Reprint).

- quoted on the 'AuthorsDen.com' blog.

[rug]

160. He allows a 0.0142 chance that he's wrong.

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

He is nothing if not moored in humility.

[Joe Chi Minh]

162. Absolutely. He's been making more and more of an ass of himself, lately.

[Humanist_Activist]

176. You do know that Einstein was an agnostic pantheist, right? He didn't believe in a personal god...

a "creator" doesn't make sense in this context, for, according to his beliefs, god and the universe are the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

In addition, you seem to be arguing for creationism, where is your evidence for this beyond "its so complex!"?

[Joe Chi Minh]

184. Not believing in a personal God is not to be an agnostic. It is

to be a Deist. In fact, in more specific terms, he was closest to being a Panentheist, i.e. he believed that Nature was suffused with the divine Spirit, but that the latter was distinct from and transcended it.

'The French philosopher Martial Guéroult suggested the term panentheism, rather than pantheism, to describe Spinoza’s view of the relation between God and the universe. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘panentheism’ as the theory or belief that God encompasses and interpenetrates the universe, but at the same time is greater than, and independent of it. So panentheism is similar to pantheism, but crucially in addition believes that God exists as a mind or a spirit. The idea that God is both transcendent and immanent is also a major tenet of both Christianity and Judaism.'

The above quote is from of an article on Einstein's position on religion, which can be found at this link :

http://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god

But this article serves as a wonderful bookend to a subsequent article by William J Murray on the ubiquitous nature of the supernatural in every breath we take, which I believe I have posted elsewhere. In case I didn't I'll re-post it with these latest two articles of his :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experience-rational-debate-science-depend-on-the-supernatural/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitous-miracles-of-our-existence/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-is-intelligent-design/#comment-618773

[Humanist_Activist]

175. Oh look, Rug posting a post that dishonestly quote-mines a scientist to support creationism...

of a slightly different sort.

Not to mention mischaracterizing thermodynamics and adding a lot of unnecessary bullshit(i.e. religion) on top of what are scientific questions.

Also, what is the "atheistic view of biology", because all we have now is evolution by means of natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, and probably about a dozen other physical mechanisms I can't think of right now.

[DetlefK]

177. Rug's OP is an inside-joke. A reply to another over-the-top OP by another DUer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=236987

The point is: Both OPs make claims that cannot be answered within the narrow frame they set up.

[rug]

179. You have it backwards. Check the time stamps on the OPs.

[rug]

178. Oh look. Humanist Activist is upset.

Looks like views contrary to internet memes are "unnecessary bullshit" in contrast to the necessary bullshit he prefers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

181. Face it, rug, you're promoting an infamous intelligent design advocate

http://americanloons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/460-moshe-averick.html
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/moshe-averick-another-creationist-rabbi/

whose chosen method of attack is to completely misrepresent what a scientist wrote, and then shout "God Exists! God Exists!". I don't think anyone's "upset", so much as "unsurprised".

And, no, evolution is not just an "internet meme".

[rug]

182. I'm not promoting anything, muriel.

Criticize his article if you want, and can, but don't attribute anything to me.

You really shouldn't misstate what he wrote either. That's sleazy.

[anoNY42]

180. This is the way things work

Science explains one thing, and then moves on to explain the next (or in this case, the prior). Mr. Averick appears pleased that his "god of the gaps" is still around even though he is getting smaller and smaller.