Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah [View all]rug
(82,333 posts)99. Hardly. Show an implication of biology (which is not a proper noun) that rebuts him.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
185 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Yet" means "not so far"; there is no other implication, despite your desperate longing for one (nt)
LongtimeAZDem
Sep 2016
#11
Contemplating the limits of scientific knowledge is hardly "childish superstition".
rug
Sep 2016
#24
Contemplating the limits of scientific knowledge is hardly "childish superstition".
AlbertCat
Oct 2016
#165
Hardly. Show an implication of biology (which is not a proper noun) that rebuts him.
rug
Oct 2016
#99
You haven't posted even a fragment on what implication biology has to this article.
rug
Oct 2016
#104
See #148. The chemistry professor was quoted out of sequence, with vital phrases and pages missing
muriel_volestrangler
Oct 2016
#150
The video may portray his motives well; and he may be a good scientist; but that does not imply
struggle4progress
Sep 2016
#30
See #148; Averick took certain phrases from different chapters of Pross, reordered them
muriel_volestrangler
Oct 2016
#149
That could be -- but it all rapidly falls into an uninteresting category of literary criticism IMO.
struggle4progress
Oct 2016
#164
Is there any good cosmological evidence for the inevitability of life?
struggle4progress
Sep 2016
#9
The only definite conception I could have of "life" would resemble "life-as-we-know-it"
struggle4progress
Sep 2016
#18
Our atmospheric O2 has biological origins. O2 is reactive so one might not expect
struggle4progress
Sep 2016
#29
This is less about the creation of life than it is about the creation of matter in the first place,
rug
Sep 2016
#15
Not really. It's about the arrangement of matter - ie the arrangement of atoms
muriel_volestrangler
Sep 2016
#38
Starting a process with atoms does not mean "the atoms are all there in the first place".
rug
Sep 2016
#66
'coulda, woulda, shoulda... inexorably acquires key physocal attributes associated with life.'
Joe Chi Minh
Oct 2016
#152
Yes, closing one's mind is always an option. Trouble is, to close on the truth
Joe Chi Minh
Oct 2016
#154
Until I have good reason otherwise, I will regard smacking a human with a hammer
struggle4progress
Sep 2016
#37
The difference is, in some sense, "subjective" -- but the "subjectivity" involved
struggle4progress
Sep 2016
#49
But all of your response still avoided thr fact that science can only go so far.....
guillaumeb
Sep 2016
#46
Using "belief" and "faith" in place of evidence is a common tactic of the believer.
cleanhippie
Sep 2016
#54
I would instead say, 'science is the only credible tool for finding the answer to that question'
AtheistCrusader
Oct 2016
#89
Proof is not something that is addressed by faith. Faith does not require faith,
guillaumeb
Sep 2016
#47
That the Big Bang happened can be deduced from the movement of the universe.
guillaumeb
Sep 2016
#51
Being that this is the Religion group, I figured the type of belief were talking about was implied.
cleanhippie
Oct 2016
#147
Ayup. Pure mental laziness. A desire and willingness to suspend critical thinking...
Roland99
Sep 2016
#69
You're arguing against the existence of a god unless you can explain who or what made god.
cpwm17
Oct 2016
#126
You're asking fior a natural explanation for an event that would have to be supernatural.
rug
Oct 2016
#130
"does not have to be explained" is a piss-poor answer, especially when science strives to explain it
rug
Oct 2016
#132
If it can't be explained then it can be disregarded since the "can't" be explained
cpwm17
Oct 2016
#135
If you reject both the idea of a creator and the idea of an infinte eternal universe, what's left?
rug
Oct 2016
#140
But you are then claiming if reality is difficult to explain then it must be by magic
cpwm17
Oct 2016
#173
Magic is not logic. I'm sorry your difficulty in explaining has led you to that error.
rug
Oct 2016
#174
It's time people see how Moshe Averick manipulated the quotes from Professor Pross
muriel_volestrangler
Oct 2016
#148
Last I heard, rug, Dawkins now describes himself as an agnostic. The facts
Joe Chi Minh
Oct 2016
#151
You do know that Einstein was an agnostic pantheist, right? He didn't believe in a personal god...
Humanist_Activist
Oct 2016
#176
Oh look, Rug posting a post that dishonestly quote-mines a scientist to support creationism...
Humanist_Activist
Oct 2016
#175
Rug's OP is an inside-joke. A reply to another over-the-top OP by another DUer.
DetlefK
Oct 2016
#177
Face it, rug, you're promoting an infamous intelligent design advocate
muriel_volestrangler
Oct 2016
#181