anyone and everyone that says life came from lifelessness.Huh ? Ok.. who questions biogenesis ?
Why does evolution select against atheists?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Uh no. Biogenesis just means 'the production of living organisms from other living organisms.'
Saying that live can only ever come from other life is just damn stupid.
whether it's stupid or not it's still a fact that life comes from life.
there is no dissenting evidence anywhere that says different.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
But that's not your point. Your point is that life can ONLY come from other life.
Where did life on this planet come from according to you ?
actually my point is that biogenesis has been elevated to a LAW in science.
it seems atheists are the ones that have a problem with it.
i don't know.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Atheists don't have the slightest problem with it.
Biogenesis means "the production of living organisms from other living organisms", which is an observable fact.
Sure you do.. you said life can only come from other life..
So where did this other life come from ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
This is taking too long.
If life can only come from other life, then life on Earth came from life from somewhere else.
Right ?
So where did that other life fro some where else come from ?
It must have originated from life from yet another place.
Right ?
Repeat infinitely.
At one point you will be asserting that there was life before the big bang..
Alternative.
Life was created by a god.
But life can only come from other life.
Right ?
So that means that god is a form of life as well.
Since god is life, where did god originate from ?
And we end up with infinite regression again..
See how stupid it is to say that life can only come from other life ?
At one point life must have arisen from dead matter.
And, in fact, life consists of dead matter.
If life can only come from other life, then life on Earth came from life from somewhere else.
Right ?
So where did that other life fro some where else come from ?
It must have originated from life from yet another place.
Right ?
Repeat infinitely.
At one point you will be asserting that there was life before the big bang..
Alternative.
Life was created by a god.
But life can only come from other life.
Right ?
So that means that god is a form of life as well.
Since god is life, where did god originate from ?
And we end up with infinite regression again..
See how stupid it is to say that life can only come from other life ?
At one point life must have arisen from dead matter.
And, in fact, life consists of dead matter.
it means more than that.
biogenesis has not been refuted, not one single time.
but yet atheists push that aside and wave abiogegesis in front of everyones face.
biogenesis says life only comes from life.
apparently life has always been here.
and?
you presented no evidence that biogenesis has been refuted.
i could go the same circular route you are going enmos.
where did this "point source" that caused the big bang come from?
where did the energy to heat it come from?
Thanks for the hand-waving article from a pop-sci magazine. Now, once again, go back to your myths and superstitions.
What studies? Show them.
a twin study on faith:
http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Religious_faith_may_be_genetic.html
i'll be honest, instead of you people denying this exists you need to figure out what the hell we are dealing with.
http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Religious_faith_may_be_genetic.html
i'll be honest, instead of you people denying this exists you need to figure out what the hell we are dealing with.
Here is the key phrase in all this, which I mentioned earlier:
"Minnesota researchers have discovered remarkable levels of genetic influence on psychological traits and social attitudes."
The traits and attitudes are captured in a number of components, not just religious beliefs.
You people???
Laws in science, unlike those in other fields, are descriptions of pattern as observed in the real world. They are modified whenever necessary, by circumstance and discovery. They are limited in their extent, deliberately and consciously, to those circumstances in which they make sense.leopold said:
The law of conservation of energy, for example, is much different now than when first established, modified over the years as new complexities were discovered.
The emergence of living beings from the non-living entities of billions of years ago on this planet, through evolutionary processes (the only extant hypothesis apparently supported by the evidence at the moment) or through other means, would not in principle contradict a single scientific law.
And if it did, the law would be changed as soon as the fact of the contradiction was established.
As far as evolution selecting against atheists, it seems as though the actual argument is that evolution has selected for a human mental nature that easily lends itself to theistic belief - that is not at all the same as "evolution selecting against atheists", for starters, and it seems like a reasonable and plausible possibility in the second - worth an actual discussion, if launched in some none-screwball fashion, probably on another thread.
Last edited:
how you can possibly say abiogenesis is supported by evidence is a mystery.
as a matter of fact the exact opposite is true.
biogenesis has no dissenting evidence.
abiogenesis has no supporting evidence.
and you don't find it odd that biogenesis has not one shred of evidence against it?
never, at any time, has a scientist anywhere observed life coming from non life.
even the very notion is absurd.
what's so "screwball" about this thread?
from the very same study:
The newest University study on twins finds that degree of religious faith appears to be tied to genetics. Further, it concludes that the genetic influence grows in adulthood.
a question for you, does this correlate well with the placebo effect?
does the placebo effect also grow stronger with age?
That's an interesting question.leopold said:
I found this easily: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050166
I also ran into some stuff about placebo effects in dogs and rats. There would appear to be a genetic component, perhaps correlated with the known genetic component regarding susceptibility to hypnosis?
Dawkins has long sections in a couple of his books discussing the evolutionary advantages of a tendency toward theistic belief - which would be relevant here, if the OP question had been phrased reasonably. He seems to think it very likely that evolution selected for such a tendency - that it's built in, in a sense, along with an ability to recognize faces and pick up languages.SAM said:
Last edited: