The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Sithdarth]

1. He's using organic molecules. Organic molecules that were made from other lifeforms.

Yeah and we all know that surprisingly complex "organic" molecules haven't been formed in a lab using early earth like conditions. Oh wait...

2. It hasn't worked, so therefore hasn't proven anything yet.

I refer you to this section of my previous post.

Originally Posted by me

As for not having worked; yeah they should totally give up after less than 5 years of work. Despite all the computer modeling, which is surprisingly accurate these days, they should totally just accept its a lost cause. We all know that scientific breakthroughs always happen in less than 2 years. Especially the really complex breakthroughs.

I mean its not like he had proof enough of the concept that a bunch of skeptical scientists decided to fund his research. Oh wait...

3. Even if it did, its intelligent design.

Yes just because a man thought to himself what might the very first multimolecular form of "life" might have looked like and then found a process that should work, and by itself during early earth conditions, nature didn't come up with it first. Hell this pretty much proves that the universe itself was intelligently designed because all the theories that define it were thought up by man.

Oh and:

I'm not criticizing his research. I'm criticizing your interpretation of it and its relevance to this thread because:

Yes because when the guy state multiple times that is passion was the origin of life he didn't mean in the religion vs science sense. Oh and when he referred to PNA and a possible DNA precursor, a step on the evolutionary scale from non-life to life, he so wasn't talking about the origins of life. Hell the fact that the whole thing has to do with creating life from a bunch of crap that was never alive pretty much excludes it from dealing in anyway with abiogenesis. Oh wait..

Edit:

Originally Posted by ZAKthegeek

But you see, all that would prove is that the formula happened to be right that one time. You can't prove that it's true in all cases and at all times; it's just impossible to collect all the data. Based on the massive amount of evidence that agrees with the formula, we are quite certain that it's true, but the point I was trying to make is that it isn't technically a fact and thus entails a bit of faith, meaning that an "atheist" holding no beliefs could not trust such an idea.

That's more or less crock because that argument could be made about anything. You're confusing faith with logic; in that logic tells us that you do not form a conclusion without contrary evidence. Kinetic Energy deals with laws of motions equations that have been tested again and again and again and never once have they suddenly became wrong. The rather shocking lack of evidence for the law of kinetic energy being variable suggests that it is in fact not variable.

Again a better choice to demonstrate faith in science would have been something less concrete and measurable. Things like strings, potential energy, gravitons, gravity waves, extra dimensions, ect...