Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Evolution 1, Creationism 0.

Options
«13456

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,170 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Great discovery and that, but anyone with half a brain knows creationism is guff :)


  • Options
    #3
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,077 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    ned78 wrote: »
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/13/2112215

    Scientists have assembled RNA from a pseudo primordial soup - which is pretty much how evolutionists say life originated on earth. Nice.

    1-0 Ned? I think you may have missed a few goals, it was about 240,000-0 last time I checked on teletext ;)

    Nice link though.


  • Options
    #4
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    marco_polo wrote: »
    1-0 Ned? I think you may have missed a few goals, it was about 240,000-0 last time I checked on teletext ;)

    I thought it was closer to 23,000,023,023,232 - 0?????


  • Options
    #5
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,077 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Overblood wrote: »
    I thought it was closer to 23,000,023,023,232 - 0?????

    I only saw the score at half time, they must have tired in the second half. :D


  • Options
    #6
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    marco_polo wrote: »
    1-0 Ned? I think you may have missed a few goals, it was about 240,000-0 last time I checked on teletext ;)

    Nice link though.

    This is exactly what I was thinking. How the hell could anyone consider it 1-0 :)

    ps, Ned is the moderator of A&A


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Owen
    Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    Zillah wrote: »
    Ned is the moderator of A&A

    Aviation & Aircraft, not Atheism & Agnosticism :)


  • Options
    #8
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Not to nitpick, but abiogenesis is different to evolution isn't it (i.e life coming from non-life rather than life developing and forming through natural selection)? :p


  • Options
    #9
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Well, it's another link in the chain. A standard ad hominem attack against evolution, primarily used by those who completely disagree with evolution*, is to retreat to first principles and ask, "How did life come about in the first place if it wasn't there before?". They then extrapolate that if their god created life in the first place, he must have created life as it is now, and not waited for evolution to take place.

    *As opposed to those who accept evolution but disagree on the origins of life


  • Options
    #10
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Not to nitpick, but abiogenesis is different to evolution isn't it (i.e life coming from non-life rather than life developing and forming through natural selection)? :p

    It is, but one of the Creationist calling cards is that abiogenesis cannot happen, therefore evolution could not have happened.

    Evolution is a process, like river erosion. If it is impossible for the process to start then the process itself is some what irrelevant (like modelling what would happen if a river ran up hill)


  • Options
    #11
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Add this to the stuff Gerald Joyce and company are doing with self-replicating RNAs and the abiogenesis story is really coming together!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Borneo Fnctn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭Borneo Fnctn


    This is really groundbreaking news. I'm thrilled to hear about this. I wonder if it will make the 9 o' clock news tough...


  • Options
    #13
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    jackpalance wrote: »
    This is really groundbreaking news. I'm thrilled to hear about this. I wonder if it will make the 9 o' clock news tough...

    If they manage to pull of RNA abiogenesis from start to finish, it'll make the 9 o' clock news. And estrange science from the major religions again for the first time in about 150 years :pac:


  • Options
    #14
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    If they manage to pull of RNA abiogenesis from start to finish, it'll make the 9 o' clock news. And estrange science from the major religions again for the first time in about 150 years :pac:

    I don't see how this follows at all. I don't see how such a discovery would weaken the case for God at all.


  • Options
    #15
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,170 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see how this follows at all. I don't see how such a discovery would weaken the case for God at all.

    It would show that life stemmed from, well, no life all on it's own.

    I guess in terms of Deism it might not really weaken the case,but the more extravagent gods of the major religions wouldn't look quite so powerful anymore.


  • Options
    #16
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see how this follows at all. I don't see how such a discovery would weaken the case for God at all.

    You just love to pick irrelevant points to argue don't you? I was joking. I'm fully confident of the capacity of religious people to doublethink the relevance abiogenesis away. Sure, there'll be a new wave of fundies, reacting like the creationists did to evolution. But tbh, they're just the ones who have figured out that the rest of you are just going to be retreating forever from science. The ones who decided to draw a line. The stand they're making is pointless and hopeless, but then so is the God of the Gaps.

    There you go. Now we can have a proper row.


  • Options
    #17
    Borneo Fnctn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭Borneo Fnctn


    Zeus lived on Mount Olympus. Man climbed the mountain and he wasn't there.

    It turns out he was in the clouds. Man Reached the clouds. He wasn't there.

    God created the earth 6000 years ago. This was disproved.

    It turns out God created the universe 14 billion years ago. But he definitely created life. Nobody can do this but god.

    So when abiogenesis is figured out, religion will retreat further just like it always has to.


  • Options
    #18
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see how this follows at all. I don't see how such a discovery would weaken the case for God at all.

    Because it removes the arguments from ignorance and from incredulity that many religious people use to say life cannot come from non-life with out the magic-spark from God.

    As the various abiogenesis hypotheses are strengthened by discoveries like this one it become harder and stupider for people to say things like "We don't know of any way that natural processes could produce life from non-life, So God must have done it!"

    It closes another Gap... from the atheist point of view putting another nail in God's coffin ... for this reason alone religious people will decry it.

    Of course religious people that accept or don't care where life came from will not be too affected by these things... For example ones that believe that God created the universe and let nature take its course until humans eventually appeared (just as God new they would) and then he sent visions and revelations to the humans...

    But generally even non-creationist Christians say things like without God's actual interaction non-life can not become life...


    Just because you don't understand the chemistry doesn't mean it can't happen...
    Also just because it can happen doesn't mean it did happen...


  • Options
    #19
    Obni
    Registered Users Posts: 424 ✭✭Obni


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see how such a discovery would weaken the case for God at all.
    Nobody mentioned god. The OP mentioned that the discovery was one-in-the-eye for creationism, and atomichorror made a similar point about major religions.
    The case for god remains as strong as ever.


  • Options
    #20
    Lobelia Overhill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 704 ✭✭✭Lobelia Overhill


    ah but sure you're all missing the point, God put the RNA there in the first place.

    :pac:


  • Options
    #21
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Lobelia Overhill wrote: »
    ah but sure you're all missing the point, God put the RNA there in the first place.

    :pac:

    No... that's what this paper is ruling out! And since we have naturalistic explanations for where the bits the make up the nucleotides of RNA come from that leaves very few gaps to fit God into. Once abiogenesis is down, the Big Bang is all that's left basically. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    If the Catholic Church is happy to say that God guides a process that requires no guidance (evolution) then I'm sure they'll be happy to say that he triggered a process that requires no trigger.


  • Options
    #23
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Zillah wrote: »
    If the Catholic Church is happy to say that God guides a process that requires no guidance (evolution) then I'm sure they'll be happy to say that he triggered a process that requires no trigger.

    Yes, well they've pre-empted aliens so I'm sure abiogenesis won't be a problem.


  • Options
    #24
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    In honor of this, shouldn't we rename him the "God of the gap"?


  • Options
    #25
    Lobelia Overhill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 704 ✭✭✭Lobelia Overhill


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    No... that's what this paper is ruling out! And since we have naturalistic explanations for where the bits the make up the nucleotides of RNA come from that leaves very few gaps to fit God into. Once abiogenesis is down, the Big Bang is all that's left basically. :pac:

    So did God write the paper then?

    Or did he cause the Big Bang by clapping his hands?

    I'm confused

    :pac:


  • Options
    #26
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    Where can I try some of this 'Primordial Soup'? Sounds delish


  • Options
    #27
    Borneo Fnctn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭Borneo Fnctn


    OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »
    Where can I try some of this 'Primordial Soup'? Sounds delish

    Don't bother. I hear it's a vegetarian dish.


  • Options
    #28
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    You just love to pick irrelevant points to argue don't you? I was joking. I'm fully confident of the capacity of religious people to doublethink the relevance abiogenesis away. Sure, there'll be a new wave of fundies, reacting like the creationists did to evolution. But tbh, they're just the ones who have figured out that the rest of you are just going to be retreating forever from science. The ones who decided to draw a line. The stand they're making is pointless and hopeless, but then so is the God of the Gaps.

    There is nothing to respond to. It doesn't exclude God. For me this would explain the how and not the why.


  • Options
    #29
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,170 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    There is nothing to respond to. It doesn't exclude God. For me this would explain the how and not the why.

    At least you don't just say its all lies like NWCs will :)


  • Options
    #30
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Jakkass wrote: »
    There is nothing to respond to.

    You say the same for evolution, yet we have creationists. So I think we can be confident that some people are going to reject science on this front also.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It doesn't exclude God.

    Logically, nothing excludes God as you guys define it. Unless you can perhaps detail to me the conditions under which you would reject the God pseudohypothesis?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    For me this would explain the how and not the why.

    Showing that life emerges without intervention rather solves the "why" does it not? Why does sugar dissolve in my tea? Because that is in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry. Why does life emerge from organic solutions under conditions x and y. Same reason. If that has anything to do with God then at best all He did was set a pattern in motion at the start of the observable universe, and so He has retreated from you guys once again. Interventionist only in ways that are immeasurable. Like infusing "spirit" into man during evolution, yet to no detectable effect. Like I said, you guys will find a way around it but in a strange way I sort of admire the creationists more for their realisation of the nature of this silly game.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    ned78 wrote: »
    Aviation & Aircraft, not Atheism & Agnosticism :)

    Can we come to your beers?
    robindch wrote: »
    In honor of this, shouldn't we rename him the "God of the gap"?

    Didn't someone post an article recently that he is now hiding in sub-atomic partickles?


Advertisement