The Atheism/Agnosticism Thread

[Vyom]

Again you show that you don't know what you are talking about.

I don't like that tone. If you want to discuss something, discuss on the basis of the merits of your arguments. As far organic compounds are concerned, they are already available. Like a crystal or a virus. A virus is not considered a living thing, if you know about that.

 

[KS]

I don't think there is any reason for me to stay and debate here. This "discussion" is becoming increasingly anti-intellectual thanks to theists,

I agree. The thread has been de-railed.

Without ribonucleic acid there would no theists to peddle their religious nonsense and no atheists to retort. If you want to worship anything, worship this molecule, because without RNA there would be nothing.

Is there sufficient scientific evidence of how the first strand of RNA was created ?

 

[civfanatic]

Artificial Hype...But Not Life...Created in MSM Laboratory | NewsBusters.org

IT'S ALIVE!!!
Visions of Dr. Frankenstein creating his monster came to mind with the news yesterday that artificial life had been "created" in the laboratory. Unfortunately, for the mainstream media hypemeisters, a scientist has tossed cold water upon that bold assertion. And who was the killjoy scientist raining on the MSM parade hyping this event? Why, it was the scientist, J. Craig Ventner himself, who was being credited in the media for being a latter day Dr. Frankenstein as you can see in this San Diego Union-Tribune report:

J. Craig Venter, the La Jolla biologist who played a key role in decoding the human genome, said Thursday that his team has made the world's first "synthetic cell," an advance that eventually could help and hurt humanity.
Venter and his colleagues basically figured out how to design a bacterial cell on a computer. Then they used genetic engineering and chemicals that are essential for life to produce an entity that's novel but not yet a truly living version of anything that occurs naturally.
This "is the first self-replicating species that we have on the planet whose parent is a computer," said Venter, who was careful to add that he had not created new life from scratch.
​

Got that? Ventner himself was careful to note that new life had NOT been created.This is made clear when you read the actual details of most of the news stories with misleading headlines. An example is the BBC story with this headline:

'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
​

The details of the actual story reveal that something much less than "artificial life" was created in the lab:

Dr Venter told BBC News: "We've now been able to take our synthetic chromosome and transplant it into a recipient cell - a different organism.
​

But who am I to ruin everyone's excitement over this overhyped "Frankenstein" story? Let us review a few of the misleading but fun headlines such as this from the UK Sun:

'Frankenstein' doc creates life
​

The UK Daily Mail gave us a special bonus of a doomsday headline:

Scientist accused of playing God after creating artificial life by making designer microbe from scratch - but could it wipe out humanity?
​

Vanity Fair ventured into the theological realm with a headline that seems to be a putdown of the Almighty:

Mankind Creates First Synthetic Genome, Officially Replaces God​

Yes, artificial hype was created in the newsrooms but it appears no artificial life in the laboratory. A Wired story by Carol Zimmer brings us down to earth on this subject:

...We are a long way from playing God. The scientists didn't assemble the fragments of DNA by themselves, nor did they program robots to do so. Instead, they injected the fragments into E. coli, and let the bacteria do the job themselves. Eventually, it turned out that E. coli could only build up a quarter of the genome. The scientists don't quite know why. So they injected those big chunks of Mycoplasma DNA into yeast. Lo and behold, the yeast were able to finish up the job for the scientists. They don't quite know how the yeast did their own biochemical magic either. I would assume that God would have this kind of stuff figured out.
​

So perhaps an updated Dr. Frankenstein could shout: "HYPE! HYPE! I'VE CREATED ARTIFICIAL HYPE!!!"

Nice. Now you're copy-pasting blogs to compensate for your own lack of scientific knowledge. The authors of the blog (which is a joke in itself) have no idea what they are talking about and it is has long been obvious that you don't either.

 

[KS]

Hilarious. Superstition and faith lumped in as two separate entities.

Can you tell me what is faith and what is superstition?

Superstition = cat crossing from right to left is bad for you

Faith = There is something , that is beyond your scientific explanation, which influences life.

Sorry for the brevity, these are so abstract concepts that I lack words to sufficiently express it over internet.

 

[civfanatic]

Artificial Hype...But Not Life...Created in MSM Laboratory | NewsBusters.org

IT'S ALIVE!!!
Visions of Dr. Frankenstein creating his monster came to mind with the news yesterday that artificial life had been "created" in the laboratory. Unfortunately, for the mainstream media hypemeisters, a scientist has tossed cold water upon that bold assertion. And who was the killjoy scientist raining on the MSM parade hyping this event? Why, it was the scientist, J. Craig Ventner himself, who was being credited in the media for being a latter day Dr. Frankenstein as you can see in this San Diego Union-Tribune report:

J. Craig Venter, the La Jolla biologist who played a key role in decoding the human genome, said Thursday that his team has made the world's first "synthetic cell," an advance that eventually could help and hurt humanity.
Venter and his colleagues basically figured out how to design a bacterial cell on a computer. Then they used genetic engineering and chemicals that are essential for life to produce an entity that's novel but not yet a truly living version of anything that occurs naturally.
This "is the first self-replicating species that we have on the planet whose parent is a computer," said Venter, who was careful to add that he had not created new life from scratch.
​

Got that? Ventner himself was careful to note that new life had NOT been created.This is made clear when you read the actual details of most of the news stories with misleading headlines. An example is the BBC story with this headline:

'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
​

The details of the actual story reveal that something much less than "artificial life" was created in the lab:

Dr Venter told BBC News: "We've now been able to take our synthetic chromosome and transplant it into a recipient cell - a different organism.
​

But who am I to ruin everyone's excitement over this overhyped "Frankenstein" story? Let us review a few of the misleading but fun headlines such as this from the UK Sun:

'Frankenstein' doc creates life
​

The UK Daily Mail gave us a special bonus of a doomsday headline:

Scientist accused of playing God after creating artificial life by making designer microbe from scratch - but could it wipe out humanity?
​

Vanity Fair ventured into the theological realm with a headline that seems to be a putdown of the Almighty:

Mankind Creates First Synthetic Genome, Officially Replaces God​

Yes, artificial hype was created in the newsrooms but it appears no artificial life in the laboratory. A Wired story by Carol Zimmer brings us down to earth on this subject:

...We are a long way from playing God. The scientists didn't assemble the fragments of DNA by themselves, nor did they program robots to do so. Instead, they injected the fragments into E. coli, and let the bacteria do the job themselves. Eventually, it turned out that E. coli could only build up a quarter of the genome. The scientists don't quite know why. So they injected those big chunks of Mycoplasma DNA into yeast. Lo and behold, the yeast were able to finish up the job for the scientists. They don't quite know how the yeast did their own biochemical magic either. I would assume that God would have this kind of stuff figured out.
​

So perhaps an updated Dr. Frankenstein could shout: "HYPE! HYPE! I'VE CREATED ARTIFICIAL HYPE!!!"

Nice. Now you're copy-pasting blogs to compensate for your own lack of scientific knowledge. The authors of the blog (which is a joke in itself) have no idea what they are talking about and it is has long been obvious that you don't either.

 

[Vyom]

Nice. Now you're copy-pasting blogs to compensate for your own lack of scientific knowledge. The authors of the blog (which is a joke in itself) have no idea what they are talking about and it is has long been obvious that you don't either.

Time and again you make things personal, is that how "intellectuals" in your world behave?

 

[Daredevil]

Is there sufficient scientific evidence of how the first strand of RNA was created ?

We can create RNA in the lab using chemical reactions.

I find it hilarious that when we are discovering new planets, galaxies and solar systems each year and here on earth, which but a speck in this universe, we are still debating about existence of god.

 

[KS]

We can create RNA in the lab using chemical reactions.

Yes with the advance of science, humans have synthesised.

My question who synthesized the first strand. You have a convincing scientific proof for it ?

I find it hilarious that when we are discovering new planets, galaxies and solar systems each year and here on earth, which but a speck in this universe, we are still debating about existence of god.

What has existence of God got to do with discovery of new planets ? Theism does not say there are no new planets or galaxies.

The basic problem with the Atheists (..and some theists too) is that they assume Science is incompatible with religion and proceed from there. Science and religion complement each other. They are not mutually exclusive.




Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" - Albert Einstein.

 

[Vyom]

Nice. Now you're copy-pasting blogs to compensate for your own lack of scientific knowledge. The authors of the blog (which is a joke in itself) have no idea what they are talking about and it is has long been obvious that you don't either.

Would this be the source good enough for you?

Scientist: 'We didn't create life from scratch' - CNN

 

[Vyom]

The basic problem with the Atheists (..and some theists too) is that they assume Science is incompatible with religion and proceed from there. Science and religion complement each other. They are not mutually exclusive.

A correction, not all religions. In actuality, the basic premise about reality can be correct in only one way.

 

[civfanatic]

Yes with the advance of science, humans have synthesised.

My question who synthesized the first strand. You have a convincing scientific proof for it ?

There have been plenty of experiments conducted that show how nucleic acids (of which RNA is one) and proteins can be spontaneously synthesized from inorganic compounds. Given the right conditions, RNA will form by itself.

 

[Daredevil]

Yes with the advance of science, humans have synthesised.

My question who synthesized the first strand. You have a convincing scientific proof for it ?

Its bollocks to ask for evidence of an event that has occurred billions of years ago when you cannot even prove existence of god.

What has existence of God got to do with discovery of new planets ? Theism does not say there are no new planets or galaxies.

It is just to show how backward people's thinking has been when we are making progress on many other fronts.

 

[p2prada]

I don't like that tone. If you want to discuss something, discuss on the basis of the merits of your arguments. As far organic compounds are concerned, they are already available. Like a crystal or a virus. A virus is not considered a living thing, if you know about that.

If you are talking about Daredevil then he has a PhD in the field.

Superstition = cat crossing from right to left is bad for you

Faith = There is something , that is beyond your scientific explanation, which influences life.

Sorry for the brevity, these are so abstract concepts that I lack words to sufficiently express it over internet.

It is easy to bring in BS statements like that to corroborate with what you say and instead of what is not.

Let's look at Merriam webster shall we:

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
firm belief in something for which there is no proof

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstition
a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

Now looking at your definition of superstition and faith, you are hinting you actually don't know the difference.

These are well defined concepts and not abstract concepts. There is only a difference of opinion when saying faith is different from superstition. As long as there is no proof of existence then you can believe only upon faith. Faith leads to superstition due to the fear of the unknown and ignorance. Atheism really tries to differentiate between these two. Faith is simply not a fact. Hence why follow it? It can either never become fact or is in the process of becoming a fact. That's why there are agnostics.

Now shall we try to differentiate by categorizing which has more superstition involved, religion or science? Atheist vs Theist, as pointed out, is a one sided discussion. That's the very reason why atheists are insulted when theists lose their cool. They are called holier than thou and stuff like that when there is actually know reason to be called that at all.

It's like if DD and I had a discussion on whether a human is living or non living and I take the side of the non living, there is no real points of discussion for obvious reasons. Once DD wins and acts all smug, my only recourse is to say he is acting holier than thou. An atheist's debates are simply based on facts that have been revealed till date and the biggest point where there is unanimous support is that religion from any part of the world is false. However we know that only religion talks about a God, hence God is false.

 

[civfanatic]

Would this be the source good enough for you?

Scientist: 'We didn't create life from scratch' - CNN

No, because that doesn't counter anything I said. Did you even read the interview, or did you just Google Search and found the snappy headline?

It's nothing more than a semantical twist on CNN's part. The scientists created a cell. A cell is alive. Ergo, they artificially created life. No amount of theist rhetoric can change that.

 

[p2prada]

We can create RNA in the lab using chemical reactions.

How far have we progressed in this field? Can a complex lifeform be made from scratch with enough funding or still a lot more leagues to cross in order to get there?

I find it hilarious that when we are discovering new planets, galaxies and solar systems each year and here on earth, which but a speck in this universe, we are still debating about existence of god.

The day Earth was discovered to be round should have ended the debate. But it won't because of the brain washing kids go through. It's slowly changing though considering Atheism and agnosticism is the fastest growing. Hinduism believed the Earth is round though. So, Indians as a whole will take a lot longer to come out of living a life of superstition.

BTW, Earth is a speck even from a few million kilometres away. Bring in trillions and Earth as a speck will be the biggest understatement in Human history.

 

[asianobserve]

Religion is one of those debates that will go on until "the end of the World as we know it." In the first place how can you prove something that does not exist? But wherever we stand on this great debate, nobody can deny the role that religion played in bringing order to early societies (before the advent of modern Governmental institutions).

 

[p2prada]

Religion is one of those debates that will go on until "the end of the World as we know it." In the first place how can you prove something that does not exist? But wherever we stand on this great debate, nobody can deny the role that religion played in bringing order to early societies (before the advent of modern Governmental institutions).

Yes, that much is true. Religion brought a sense of purpose and gave the ruling class power to control the mob. It is simply not required at a time when the laws of the land are greater than religious laws.

It's like using bullock carts in the era of bullet trains.

 

[Daredevil]

How far have we progressed in this field? Can a complex lifeform be made from scratch with enough funding or still a lot more leagues to cross in order to get there?

We are still far away and few people working in this field as there might be less funding for this kind of research because we have other pressing issues like Cancer.

It is still difficult to make life from the scratch because we don't know the exact combination of the 'soup' and the conditions that made the life possible as we know now. We know each and every molecule in the bacteria but just putting all these molecules together will not make a bacteria. We need an existing cell to make another bacteria the way Craig Ventor group has done.

 

[Ray]

Religion is normally not insane.

Some who interpret and practice it, are!

 

[Vyom]

No, because that doesn't counter anything I said. Did you even read the interview, or did you just Google Search and found the snappy headline?

It's nothing more than a semantical twist on CNN's part. The scientists created a cell. A cell is alive. Ergo, they artificially created life. No amount of theist rhetoric can change that.

Now that is an example of extremism in atheism.

CNN: What exactly have you done?J. Craig Venter: We announced the first cell that is totally controlled by a synthetic chromosome, that we designed in a computer based on an existing chromosome.
We built it from four bottles of chemicals.. that's over a million base pairs [of chromosomes]. We assembled that and transplanted it into a recipient cell and that new chromosome started being read by the machinery in the cell, producing new proteins, and totally transformed that cell into a new species coded by the synthetic chromosome.
So it's the first living self-replicating cell that we have on the planet whose DNA was made chemically and designed in the computer.