The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter 111 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  B_Deserter

  I never said NONE. You just did! You proved nothing. You simply counted the amino acids.

  My apologies, your phrasing gave me the wrong impression. Even so, you really need to watch the videos I posted. Abiogenesis does not say that modern cells simply popped into existence by chance.

  Both statements are true. You don't know what was in "the primitive Earth's atmosphere" and neither does anyone else. Who's best guess do I have to use? From where I stand it looks to me like you'll need to produce a life form before you can make a better guess.

  No, no one knows for sure that the primitive atmosphere of Earth was like, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything about it. Evidence from geology for example strongly suggests that the early atmosphere was reducing, containing little to no oxygen. Consider the following:

  • Banded iron formations are layers of hematite (Fe 2 O 3 ) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 to 1.8 billion years ago. The conventional interpretation is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant quantities beginning about 2.5 billion years ago when photosynthesis evolved. This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidize and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formations mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron.
  • In rocks older than the banded iron formations, uranite and pyrite exist as detrital grains, or sedimentary grains that were rolling around in stream beds and beaches. These minerals are not stable for long periods in the present high-oxygen conditions.
  • "Red beds," which are terrestrial sediments with lots of iron oxides, need an oxygen atmosphere to form. They are not found in rocks older than about 2.3 billion years, but they become increasingly common afterward.
  • Sulfur isotope signatures of ancient sediments show that oxidative weathering was very low 2.4 billion years ago

  I think you called it "abiogenesis".

  Way to avoid the issue. Seriously, I'm done here. If you don't want to bother to learn what abiogenesis actually is before using the same old creationist canards, then I see no point in trying to educate you on the subject. Besides, this is way off the course of the original purpose of my thread anyway.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  B_D

  No, no one knows for sure that the primitive atmosphere of Earth was like, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything about it. Evidence from geology for example strongly suggests that the early atmosphere was reducing, containing little to no oxygen.

  That's not my problem. I didn't say anything about oxygen in my statement. You did. Abiogenesis doesn't work, oxygen or no oxygen.

  Way to avoid the issue. Seriously, I'm done here. If you don't want to bother to learn what abiogenesis actually is before using the same old creationist canards, then I see no point in trying to educate you on the subject. Besides, this is way off the course of the original purpose of my thread anyway.

  I can't help it if you aren't happy with your own answer to your own question. I haven't used any "old creationist canards". I'm asking you to make it work. Do the impossible. Make life from nonlife. I don't know why you can't admit that you start your examination of the facts, with the presupposition that there is no God. That was my only point. Who do you think you are, that I need you to educate me? I know what abiogenesis is. It's a way to explain the origin of life without God. The only problem is, as far as we know, today, scientifically, it's impossible. You can't seem to accept that. Neither could Stanley Miller. I'll repeat your challenge: Let's call your invisible horse "Abiogenesis". What would cause me to believe in your "Abiogenesis" story? Your presenting evidence to support your claim would be very compelling. This all ties into the burden of proof. If you are the one claiming that there is something out there that nobody else can confirm and verify, then the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. Those who believe in "abiogenesis" are the ones making the claim, and therefore the burden of proof is upon them to support their position. My position is simply "I don't believe you, prove it."
• 

  wobble

  My position is simply "I don't believe you, prove it "

  That is the position of Agnostics and many who would call themselves Atheists too, about the existence of God.

  Puts us theists in a difficult position.

  Love

  Wobble
• 

  Deputy Dog

  wobble

  Puts us theists in a difficult position.

  Why? I don't see the difficulty. I don't see the need to prove God exists, He's done a perfect job of that Himself.
• 

  leavingwt

  I don't see the difficulty. I don't see the need to prove God exists, He's done a perfect job of that Himself.

  We can only agree to disagree, I suppose.
• 

  superpunk

  Why? I don't see the difficulty. I don't see the need to prove God exists, He's done a perfect job of that Himself.

  Amen, Brother!

  SURAH 112:

  1 Say: He is Allah, the One!
  2 Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
  3 He begetteth not nor was begotten.
  4 And there is none comparable unto Him.
• 

  B_Deserter

  Deputy Dog, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree, but you are consistently misrepresenting my position.

  You seem to be claiming that I think that abiogenesis is the ultimate explanation for life and proves there is no God. I am not making that claim. You cannot equate abiogenesis to the invisible horse because A) I am not making the claim that abiogenesis is absolutely true, just that it is a possible explanation, which is not what I'm doing when I say I know for a fact there is an invisible horse standing next to me and B) there is at least SOME evidence for it. You seem to be implying that just because the Miller-Urey experiment failed to create a cell, the entire field of study is valueless and it never will reach its goal.

  But regardless of whether or not abiogenesis explains the origin of life, the default viewpoint is NOT "a magic man must have done it!" because that is an assertion of something where proof is required. In comparison, saying there is absolutely no God is also an assertion which requires proof. Yes, there are only two possibilities: there is either a God or there is no God, but Atheism (at least my atheism) is the default position because it does not have to make an assertion either way. It CAN make an assertion that there is no God, but I can reject that claim (as I do) citing insufficient evidence and still be an atheist.
• 

  B_Deserter

  Comparing a lighting bolt striking the ground to the creation of a cell is like throwing paper and a typewriter in a tornado and expecting to get an unabridged dictionary.

  For the last fucking time: ABIOGENESIS DOES NOT SAY THAT CELLS JUST POPPED INTO EXISTENCE BY THEMSELVES, OR BY 'LIGHTNING STRIKING THE GROUND!'

  Honestly, I'd encourage you to watch the videos I posted again, but it seems you're too fond of propping up the same age-old straw man arguments to take part is any serious conversation. If you disagreed with specific points of the videos and stated why then we could have a civilized conversation, but you're either willfully remaining ignorant of the subject or deliberately ignoring the information so you can continue to feel intelligent by knocking down the cheap caricatures of my positions you've constructed.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  B_D

  "You seem to be claiming that I think that abiogenesis is the ultimate explanation for life and proves there is no God. I am not making that claim."

  I never said you were claiming that. My point really is simple. It's that as an atheist you start with the presupposition that "there is no God", even though you see the natural universe. Or to put it in other words, the natural universe isn't enough for you. You said:

  "Postulating on the supernatural is useless because 1) by definition the supernatural is something that cannot be detected and therefore 2) there is no way of knowing anything about it at all."

  So what's left? Would you know if the "supernatural" bit you in the ass? Then you made an irrational statement when you said:

  There is a natural explanation for the origin of life. It's called abiogenesis.

  Even if you could assemble all 22 amino acids (from Miller's experiment) in the right order (and you can't) at best you would have a dead cell. Graveyards are full of the building blocks of life. As of today 6/19/2009 at least, we have no way to make "abiogenesis" work, it is impossible, as far as man knows. Miller's work doesn't even make the shoes visible on that invisible horse.

  Yes, there are only two possibilities: there is either a God or there is no God, but Atheism (at least my atheism) is the default position because it does not have to make an assertion either way. It CAN make an assertion that there is no God, but I can reject that claim (as I do) citing insufficient evidence and still be an atheist.

  Feel free to disagree with me anytime you like. But it seems you are disagreeing with yourself. You just want it both ways. I understand. I really do. I just wish you could be honest enough to admit to your presupposition, and that you are going to live as if "there is no God" until you can be supernatural and see Him. Please don't try to claim this myth of neutrality.
• 

  B_Deserter

  " It's that as an atheist you start with the presupposition that "there is no God""

  No, that's not it at all. I simply reject the claim that there is a God. Saying "I don't believe X" is not the same as saying "X cannot be true." There are two possibile outcomes when it comes to the existence of God, either there is a God or there is not, but that does not mean there are only two possible beliefs regarding that subject. For example, if I were to flip a coin, and then hold it in the palm of my hand, would you believe that the heads side is up? would you believe that the tails side is up? If you answered No to both of those questions, I rest my case.