Question for agnostic, atheists theists,. Which Abrahamic religion you think most likey be true?

Our understanding of pre-biotic chemistry (spontaneous hydrolysis as one example) makes RNA replication virtually impossible.

But the greatest piece of evidence against the RNA world theory's credibility is its inability to be realized and observed, even under intelligent direction using precise laboratory controls.

You're much too pessimistic about this field, our *CURRENT* understanding of pre-biotic chemistry does have some major roadblocks ahead like joining nucleotides and RNA to DNA synthesis and the fact that with our current information scientists can't solve these dilemmas does not mean they will never be solved. So what do you believe? Do you believe that simple chemicals can eventually form nucleotides then require super-intelligent assistance to get to DNA?
 
The evolution of life from non-life effected through a process that science currently deems "natural".

I am assuming that would have to be by definition a "chemical" process but maybe there is some other way to characterize such a process in science-speak.

There could be, but i really doubt it. would have to be like.... nuclear or something. Chemical reaction is a very broad category.
 
You're much too pessimistic about this field, our *CURRENT* understanding of pre-biotic chemistry does have some major roadblocks ahead like joining nucleotides and RNA to DNA synthesis and the fact that with our current information scientists can't solve these dilemmas does not mean they will never be solved.

But science isn't attempting to "solve" something like a crime here. It is not a group of masterminds against some potentially greater mastermind. It's about identifying a chemical process which, according to the theory, occurs randomly and unguided within the natural world.

So what do you believe? Do you believe that simple chemicals can eventually form nucleotides then require super-intelligent assistance to get to DNA?

I would say this...

I understand how gravity acts on mass in the natural world. I accept its action as proven and observable fact.

Thus, were I to be presented with a working example of anti-gravity propulsion I would logically conclude that said system, existing in direct conflict with the laws of the natural world, was not produced through natural processes.
 
If "we"emulate early Christians and you adhered to the old testament how do you feel about owning people and taking their daughters as your second or third wife?
Is it ok in your belief system to kill them if they don't do as you say. Is it ok to kill all atheists and non Christians? Is it ok to rape your wife and if she resists to kill her?

No - I don't adhere to the Old Testament. Early Christians were by and large tolerant and followed the teachings of Christ.
 
wait you believe you is a christian? dude you better just give up religion. you is making things up now

Who are you to say who is and isn't a Christian? I believe in following Christ's teachings - that is the best definition of a Christian.
 
No - I don't adhere to the Old Testament. Early Christians were by and large tolerant and followed the teachings of Christ.
So you pick and choose the parts of the "teachings of Christ" to adhere to "Your" version of Christianity. You don' see the willful ignorance or hypocrisy of that?
You cannot use the teaching of Christ as a belief system or an argument of morality then willfully ignore the parts you don' like and expect anyone with any reason to give any validity to your arguments or reasons for call ing yourself a Christian, can you?
 
So you pick and choose the parts of the "teachings of Christ" to adhere to "Your" version of Christianity. You don' see the willful ignorance or hypocrisy of that?
You cannot use the teaching of Christ as a belief system or an argument of morality then willfully ignore the parts you don' like and expect anyone with any reason to give any validity to your arguments or reasons for call ing yourself a Christian, can you?

No - but I am limiting myself to the teachings of Christ - rather than the interpretations by organized religion, the letters of St. Paul, the writings of modern theologians, the writings of St. John of Patmos in the Book of Revelations. Even assuming very generously that we have - word for word - exactly what was originally written down rather than what is much more likely - a product of editing, revision and mistakes in transcriptions. Early Christians did not consider any of this to be the "word of God" All of this other stuff has, of course, potential to get us closer to the truth. But it is created by fallible individuals.
But as to the teachings of Christ - I am not picking and choosing - I embrace everything He said in the New Testament.
Unfortunately, every statement is subject to interpretation and construction and application to changed circumstances. Those who deny that they are engaged in interpretation are simply adopting one interpretation without reasoning through whether it is valid. Every religion goes through this exercise one way or the other.
And - of course - every Christian sect has done some degree of picking and choosing. Otherwise, we would not have the history of furious debate within Christianity that has prevailed for thousands of year.
My interpretation is that He wanted us to love another, avoid violence, avoid judging others, avoid pride and arrogance, help those who are less fortunate than we are, etc. I believe that this is the clear message he was projecting but there are many who disagree with me and I do not judge them.
 
But science isn't attempting to "solve" something like a crime here. It is not a group of masterminds against some potentially greater mastermind. It's about identifying a chemical process which, according to the theory, occurs randomly and unguided within the natural world.

Of course scientists are trying to solve a problem:

1) They know that from simple inorganic chemicals they can get to amino acids, components of proteins, and other organic compounds.
2) They can see how living cells are composed of these compounds
3) They are trying to determine the pathway(s) from these simple compounds to living cells

What they are proposing happened billions of years ago under very different conditions then we see now and getting the correct variables is not an easy task

I would say this...

I understand how gravity acts on mass in the natural world. I accept its action as proven and observable fact.

Thus, were I to be presented with a working example of anti-gravity propulsion I would logically conclude that said system, existing in direct conflict with the laws of the natural world, was not produced through natural processes.

Would you be able to answer without the analogy? I'm really not trying to be a dick, I just want to make sure there's no misunderstanding.
 
Would you be able to answer without the analogy? I'm really not trying to be a dick, I just want to make sure there's no misunderstanding.

Answer what question? What is the origin of life? I do not claim to know.

I can only tell you the answer that I rule out (and that was ruled out by mainstream science way back in the mid-1800's when it was called "spontaneous generation") based on everything we currently understand about the observable universe.

Here's a question for you: How long do you think it is reasonable for the scientific community to pursue abiogenesis, without success, before we can reasonably label it a dead dog?
 
Answer what question? What is the origin of life? I do not claim to know.

I can only tell you the answer that I rule out (and that was ruled out by mainstream science way back in the mid-1800's when it was called "spontaneous generation") based on everything we currently understand about the observable universe.

Here's a question for you: How long do you think it is reasonable for the scientific community to pursue abiogenesis, without success, before we can reasonably label it a dead dog?

I'm not asking you what you know, I'm asking you what you believe happened. Also why do you call it spontaneous generation? We already know that chemicals can arrange themselves into amino acids, nucleotides and proteins. Scientists have also observed compounds (TAPAS and CA) that assemble into gene length chains on their own. It can happen and science has observed it.

I believe if the Scientific Community overwhelmingly agrees a theory is impossible then it should no longer receive funding.
 
Last edited:
Far as I'm concerned it's turtles all the way down ;)
 
Even if we just take single celled organisms like bacteria, archaea, protozoa etc. I will agree that the chances of random chemicals joining in the right sequence and forming one of these organisms is virtually impossible. Thankfully that's not what Biologist and Chemists are saying, instead they are proposing a multitude of steps from simple chemicals to monomers to polymers to RNA and with a few more steps all the way up to the functioning single cell.

58591-2350-vsbgk-a.jpg


The flow chart gives a very basic description of the process. Would you consider this process impossible? If so, why?


Not to forget that they think this process probably took 500,000,000 years to just produce single celled organisms. That's a long time for chemical reactions to produce the building blocks for basic life.
 
Not to forget that they think this process probably took 500,000,000 years to just produce single celled organisms. That's a long time for chemical reactions to produce the building blocks for basic life.

Amino acids have been found in meteorites which tell us these compounds are being produced all throughout our solar system and may have been common on the ancient earth. Scientists have also demonstrated how compounds (TAPAS and CA) can assemble into gene length chains on their own. There are still many unanswered questions and we are still a ways away from a working theory but it looks like chemistry and chemical evolution may have the answers to how life began on earth.
 
Yeah, kind of a dumb question, man.
I mean, aren't they basically the same God? They reference the same characters in their holy books. Sounds like the same shit show to me, so it's really impossible to see which one sounds the most correct/true.

If I had to follow one, I'd probably go with Christian. i know plenty of dudes that say they're god warriors but never go to church, and still smoke weed errryyydayy. I could also blend in to society better.
The only place i gotta worry about getting fucked with as a christian would be in a Muslim country.
 
Amino acids have been found in meteorites which tell us these compounds are being produced all throughout our solar system and may have been common on the ancient earth. Scientists have also demonstrated how compounds (TAPAS and CA) can assemble into gene length chains on their own. There are still many unanswered questions and we are still a ways away from a working theory but it looks like chemistry and chemical evolution may have the answers to how life began on earth.


Yeah I'm not entirely convinced on panspermia, but it's entirely possible. I'm more of a believer that conditions on early Earth simply supported these things. Miller- Urey experiment, despite its flaws seems to indicate pretty decently what happens.
 
Last edited:
"Which do you think is most likely to exist: unicorns, leprechauns, or faeries?"

As an atheist, this question is analogous to "Islam, Christianity, or Judaism?"

If I had to choose one, I'd probably choose the one whose worshippers follow their religious text most literally and/or consistently. I imagine that's the Muslims? But that doesn't work for me either because Sharia Law clashes strongly with my moral principles.
 
Back
Top