Posted on 01/11/2009 2:16:04 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
One of life's greatest mysteries is how it began. Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this:
Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago — perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets — to create biology.
Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.
The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
So you have no data to support your assertion. Merely a seat-of-the-pants feel.
”If you are saying the science community is somehow skewed from the general populace, it is YOUR responsibility to show statistics I am wrong.”
You made the assertion. It’s your responsibility to support it. Obviously, you can’t. If you could you wouldn’t turn aggressive, delve into motive-questioning, become accusatory, and resort to an appeal to authority (in this case, your own). If you’re the scientist you claim to be, you know that none of these are acceptable procedures.
”Is there a point to your post?”
Yes. To discover if you know what you’re talking about, or if you are simply blowing smoke. To this point it’s all blow and no show. Also your Christian forbearance is slipping.
”As far as the "who understand TToE, I put that in there to exclude the extreme and tiny population of non-Life Sciences scientists who do not understand TToE. It is there for clarity.”
Thanks for the clarification. And, thanks for your response.
So there is no point to your post vis a vis the discussion. But you may note I continue to be polite.
Thank you for responding and have a great evening.
Only if your statement had no point relative to the discussion: ”The percentage of scientists who understand TTOE and are also Christians or Jews is pretty much the same as in the non-scientific population.” Otherwise you draw an unwarranted conclusion. And, may I ask (politely) why you would post a statement to the thread that has no relevance?
I can certainly reiterate my point: Scientists are no more nor less than the general populace to be Christian or not. I didn't bring my SuperDuperLinkerater to the discussion. If you believe I am wrong in my assertion, then you have made that point. How does that move the ball and to what end?
I can Google studies if you like -- does it make any point to the subject?
I ask again: Other than a "gotcha" to me for being a bit lax in my memory, what point towards the OP does this provide for you?
Are you saying that scientists are less Christian? If you are merely saying you don't know one way or the other then you make my point.
And to reiterate, my point is to counteract the suggestions (overt and implied) that scientists are atheists and wish to push the mystical atheist agenda on schoolchildren.
You have upbraided me on my imprecision and for that I thank you.
But it still makes no point in the context of the discussion.
Other than diminishing a post of mine, what is your point? There are two stands on one of the many subtopics here: Scientists are "all" atheists or they are no more or less atheists than the general populace.
I thank you for pointing out I have a bit lax in my posts -- I should have started with my thesis instead of a blatant assertion. Had I merely asked why anyone would think Scientists are atheists we would not be having this digressive discussion. I will be more careful in the minefields of rhetoric in the future.
But, now that we have run that gamut together, what is your point vis a vis the OP? Are scientists who understand TToE atheists who hate God (which was what started this entire sub-topic)? Or are they just intelligent men who understand that there is no conflict between faith and science?
Thank you in advance for your response.
Yep, that’s the point. I’ve seen it referenced frequently in the numerous evo/crevo science/religious threads that haunt FR, and raised almost exclusively by scientists. Which made me wonder the degree of its accuracy. Scientists are supposed to be accurate.
”I didn't bring my SuperDuperLinkerater to the discussion.”
A SuperDuperLinkerater, huh. Wow! {8 ^) But, I think an honestly researched, statistically valid, professionally conducted survey would be of more value.
”If you believe I am wrong in my assertion, then you have made that point. How does that move the ball and to what end?”
You tell me. It’s your assertion. I assume that you are in the habit making assertions that you believe to be relevant and to be reasonably correct. What was the purpose for your making this particular assertion? How did you believe you would “move the ball” and to what end?
”I can Google studies if you like -- does it make any point to the subject?”
You’ve not done that already? Why would you make an assertion before you know the degree of its accuracy or correctness? And since you raised it, what did you believe its point to be?
”I ask again: Other than a "gotcha" to me for being a bit lax in my memory, ”
We’ve now twice gone all the way around the mulberry bush on the rather simple question I raised. Stop the dancing, or end this discussion.
” what point towards the OP does this provide for you?”
Why, simply the degree of the reliability of your assertion. What was the point towards the OP you believed you were providing when you made your assertion?
”Are you saying that scientists are less Christian? If you are merely saying you don't know one way or the other then you make my point.”
Trying to change the subject won’t work with me, so don’t put words in my mouth. If I wanted to know the truth of an issue, I certainly would be interested in the reliability of its data. More dancing.
”And to reiterate, my point is to counteract the suggestions (overt and implied) that scientists are atheists and wish to push the mystical atheist agenda on schoolchildren.”
Why didn’t you say so in the first place?
”You have upbraided me on my imprecision and for that I thank you.”
I don’t know how a simple question can be thought a rebuke, but you’re welcome just the same.
”But it still makes no point in the context of the discussion.”
I don’t know how an inquiry into the accurateness of a statement could have no point, but if your statement had no point in the context of the discussion then it’s for you to explain why you made it.
”Other than diminishing a post of mine, what is your point? There are two stands on one of the many subtopics here: Scientists are "all" atheists or they are no more or less atheists than the general populace.”
OK. Which stand is it? I assume by now you would have hashed that out (but, come to think of it, you’re still talking about it).
”I thank you for pointing out I have a bit lax in my posts -- I should have started with my thesis instead of a blatant assertion. Had I merely asked why anyone would think Scientists are atheists we would not be having this digressive discussion. I will be more careful in the minefields of rhetoric in the future.”
I’m not inclined to stand off and sharp-shoot anyone. I just wanted to know the accurateness of an assertion I had seen often enough that it piqued my interest. By the way, I’ve discovered to my own regret that those rhetorical minefields are too often of our own making.
”But, now that we have run that gamut together, what is your point vis a vis the OP? Are scientists who understand TToE atheists who hate God (which was what started this entire sub-topic)? Or are they just intelligent men who understand that there is no conflict between faith and science?”
Well, I guess that’s what you were trying to establish. I get a sense that you somehow want to transfer ownership of your assertion to me. You made the assertion. It’s your baby.
Anyhow, thanks for writing.
Well, I had a few minutes free and did use my Google-fu and found.... (wait for it)... I was wrong.
There are a bunch of studies, none of which appeared comprehensive and at least some of which appear to have an agenda. But the scan looks like the number of scientists who are agnostic or atheistic is around 60% — certainly not in line with the general populace. I can fire up the SuperDuperLinkerator if you wish, but I need to find that hatpin and the dwarf with the cantaloupe.
I like my crow with a light Bearnaise and could you be kind enough to remove the feathers, feet and beak?
Now that we have that behind us, I am not sure that one can conclude that because the large % is atheistic/agnostic (many of the studies seem to agree that the survey answers could be interpreted either way) that they are pushing an agenda and using science as a club to beat God out of the children.
But I certainly need to frame my arguments around facts.
As a final note: Did you know that 87.5% of all statistics posted on a message board are pulled out of the poster’s butt?
;)
I don’t think crow is fit for human consumption. But I appreciate the offer.
”There are a bunch of studies, none of which appeared comprehensive . . .”
I thought there would be . . . and I am not surprised to hear the results of your analysis. I could have turned to Google and found the same thing, but I chose not to. I prefer to let people find things for themselves – cuts down on the “’tis so – ‘taint neither” exchanges (and every now and then I get a surprise).
”I am not sure that one can conclude that because the large % is atheistic/agnostic . . . that they are pushing an agenda and using science as a club to beat God out of the children.”
I’m not sure either. I am suspicious of scientists who declare themselves atheists. If they truly understand science, the most they can do is declare themselves agnostic. An Atheist can no more cite science as the cause for his belief than can any other religious person . . . for the same reason.
”As a final note: Did you know that 87.5% of all statistics posted on a message board are pulled out of the poster’s butt?”
I had heard that. Sounds unsanitary. { 8^D
Thanks for your reply.
That kind of pressure and heat would destroy the necessary chemical bonds for all of the other things that go into a living cell.
By crushing the existence out of all the other molecules of whatever kind in the vicinity, you have your source for other materials to form appropriate base pairs.
How they would get into the new water molecule double-helix matrix I have no idea.
It is possible fully functional DNA or RNA springs to "life" fully formed and ready to roll ~
Besides, there's more to DNA than a double-helix of water. You also need all the good ol' ACTG, and it can't survive, let alone form, at the kinds of pressures and temperatures you're talking about.
Fail.
No, you don't need a cell to have life.
BTW, read the article I referenced. The ice crystals were INSIDE carbon nano-tubes.
I think Fijord didn’t accept the bail out
The ice crystals were INSIDE carbon nano-tubes.
Which has exactly what to do with the temperature tolerances of DNA?
Good question. DNA is pretty doggone hardy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.