David Paszkiewicz's letter in the Observer

[Guest Guest]

I'm surprised at Paul making an obviously dumb remark like that. "Science" can refer to the study of a million different subjects, while Theology (God specifically) is an absolute, nothing else to be discovered. It's akin to saying, science is advancing, Mt. Everest is not.

But then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Atheists have nothing but that all encompassing word, evolution.

Actually, an apt parallel would be "science is advancing, the study of the tooth fairy is not." You can "study the tooth fairy" all you want, it's not going to get you anywhere. The same with theology. You can make up all the stories about all the gods you want, or you can imagine that you're proclaiming the truth about "the one true God," it's not going to buy you anything but a lot of ignorance, division and confusion.

Just because theology makes absolutist claims doesn't mean that it's about anything that is real. You can't compare it to Mt. Everest because Mt. Everest is demonstrably real, measurable, etc.

Theology hasn't advanced, and can't advance, because it's not about anything that can be shown to be true. Whatever we are going to learn, such as how life started, we will learn through science, not through theology. That's the historical record and it's the future.

What a childish remark about atheists. Did you put your fingers in your ears and say "nyah, nyah" to your computer as you wrote it? As Paul's latest post demonstrates, science has much more in its bag than evolution.

[Guest Paul]

I'm surprised at Paul making an obviously dumb remark like that. "Science" can refer to the study of a million different subjects, while Theology (God specifically) is an absolute, nothing else to be discovered. It's akin to saying, science is advancing, Mt. Everest is not.

But then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Atheists have nothing but that all encompassing word, evolution.

If you're going to claim that theology tells you how life began, then you can't properly compare theology to Mt. Everest. Mt. Everest doesn't make claims. Theology does. That's why your argument makes no sense.

You would like this to be about atheism, but it's not. Just because you think that's a pejorative term doesn't mean that it has anything to do with this discussion.

The fact remains that science makes testable claims, while theology does not. That is why science can uncover how life began while theology cannot. Theologians will claim to do it, but they will never succeed, and nothing they will ever tell us will contribute significantly to our knowledge of the subject.

[Guest Guest]

I'm surprised at Paul making an obviously dumb remark like that. "Science" can refer to the study of a million different subjects, while Theology (God specifically) is an absolute, nothing else to be discovered. It's akin to saying, science is advancing, Mt. Everest is not.

But then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Atheists have nothing but that all encompassing word, evolution.

You're still making the same false assumption that theology provides reliable answers about origins. The proper analogy you might have made is not to Mt. Everest but to the enormous invisible planet Jumbotron that is four times the size and twelve times the mass of Earth and is in orbit between Earth and Mars. Jumbotronology doesn't advance anything because there's no evidence that Jumbotron exists. You can't prove that it doesn't exist, just because you can't see it, and maybe its properties defy detection by the methods of science. You can't prove otherwise. There's your comparison to theology.

If religion answers questions in your personal life, that's fine, but don't then assume that it tells us anything about the universe. Science is the only vehicle we have to do that, and the proof is in the fact that all our scientific advances, including our discoveries about the cell, have come through science and not theology. Just because science can't prove an answer to all the questions doesn't mean that it makes sense to turn to something that doesn't prove anything.

[Guest Guest]

If you're going to claim that theology tells you how life began, then you can't properly compare theology to Mt. Everest. Mt. Everest doesn't make claims. Theology does. That's why your argument makes no sense.

You would like this to be about atheism, but it's not. Just because you think that's a pejorative term doesn't mean that it has anything to do with this discussion.

The fact remains that science makes testable claims, while theology does not. That is why science can uncover how life began while theology cannot. Theologians will claim to do it, but they will never succeed, and nothing they will ever tell us will contribute significantly to our knowledge of the subject.

You're spinning again. Mt. Everest was an analogy to your remarks. And it is about atheism, absolutely. Atheists (like yourself) are rabid about labeling any advances in science as further proof of a spontaneous beginning of life. Your remark "science can uncover how life began" is a little presumptuous, it just demonstrates your anxiety over the existance of God.

[Guest Guest]

You're spinning again. Mt. Everest was an analogy to your remarks. And it is about atheism, absolutely. Atheists (like yourself) are rabid about labeling any advances in science as further proof of a spontaneous beginning of life. Your remark "science can uncover how life began" is a little presumptuous, it just demonstrates your anxiety over the existance of God.

Yes, but an analogy is supposed to make sense. If you're going to respond when it's pointed out that it doesn't make sense, and you're told why it doesn't make sense, you have to take the argument a step ahead, not push it ten steps backward.

The same is true about an analysis of science and theology. When you challenge the statement that science has advanced and theology hasn't, and in response you're given a list of ways in which science has advanced - which you can't refute - then you have to provide some examples of advances in theology. But you don't.

In other words, you keep writing things but they don't mean anything.

And if that's too complicated for you, I'll make it simpler. You're an idiot.

[Guest Guest]

You're spinning again. Mt. Everest was an analogy to your remarks.

It was an attempted analogy, but it didn't make any sense, which explains why you can't respond with anything but the above: you can't explain why the analogy makes sense, all you can do is repeat it.

And it is about atheism, absolutely.

Again, you have nothing but a conclusion, which isn't based on anything. It's about science and theology, and the contribution each makes to our understanding of life. Atheism has nothing to do with it, because putting atheism into the discussion doesn't change the contribution science makes and the complete lack of any contribution made by theology. See, that's how you reason a point. You think about its elements, look at the whole picture, put them all in perspective, then draw your conclusion. Well, you don't, but that's what reasonable and thoughtful people do

Atheists (like yourself) are rabid about labeling any advances in science as further proof of a spontaneous beginning of life. Your remark "science can uncover how life began" is a little presumptuous, it just demonstrates your anxiety over the existance of God.

Number one, that is a personal attack.

Number two, it's a bigoted lumping together of atheists.

Number three, it's not true. Advances in rocket science have nothing to do with the origins of life, and no one claims they do. This is called a straw man, where you make up a ridiculous argument, attribute it to your adversary (even though you're the one who said it) and then knock it down. Furthermore, "spontaneous beginning of life" is your characterization, and it's false. That is not what any of the current scientific theories say, or what any good modern scientist says.

Your remark "science can uncover how life began" is a little presumptuous, it just demonstrates your anxiety over the existance of God.

That is also a personal attack, which is an extremely presumptuous thing to do. You don't know that he has "anxiety over the existence of God." You just made it up, just like you made up your statement about all advances being claimed as proofs of "a spontaneous beginning of life."

Furthermore, there's nothing presumptuous about relying on evidence in forming one's beliefs about nature. When someone says that science can uncover how life begins, while theology cannot, I interpret that to mean that science is the only means we have for finding out. Science has the potential for making that discovery based on its history of having made discoveries in the past, and also based on the progress it has made in discovering enough things about cells and their components to allow scientists for formulate theories. Do we know for sure? No, but we have hard evidence that points in that direction, so that the conclusion is reasonable. But again, you can't understand that statement if you don't understand what a theory is. That's not based on anxiety or any emotion. It's based on the evidence. It appears that the anxiety and the hysteria are coming from you.

[Guest 2smart4u]

It was an attempted analogy, but it didn't make any sense, which explains why you can't respond with anything but the above: you can't explain why the analogy makes sense, all you can do is repeat it.

Again, you have nothing but a conclusion, which isn't based on anything. It's about science and theology, and the contribution each makes to our understanding of life. Atheism has nothing to do with it, because putting atheism into the discussion doesn't change the contribution science makes and the complete lack of any contribution made by theology. See, that's how you reason a point. You think about its elements, look at the whole picture, put them all in perspective, then draw your conclusion. Well, you don't, but that's what reasonable and thoughtful people do

Number one, that is a personal attack.

Number two, it's a bigoted lumping together of atheists.

Number three, it's not true. Advances in rocket science have nothing to do with the origins of life, and no one claims they do. This is called a straw man, where you make up a ridiculous argument, attribute it to your adversary (even though you're the one who said it) and then knock it down. Furthermore, "spontaneous beginning of life" is your characterization, and it's false. That is not what any of the current scientific theories say, or what any good modern scientist says.

That is also a personal attack, which is an extremely presumptuous thing to do. You don't know that he has "anxiety over the existence of God." You just made it up, just like you made up your statement about all advances being claimed as proofs of "a spontaneous beginning of life."

Furthermore, there's nothing presumptuous about relying on evidence in forming one's beliefs about nature. When someone says that science can uncover how life begins, while theology cannot, I interpret that to mean that science is the only means we have for finding out. Science has the potential for making that discovery based on its history of having made discoveries in the past, and also based on the progress it has made in discovering enough things about cells and their components to allow scientists for formulate theories. Do we know for sure? No, but we have hard evidence that points in that direction, so that the conclusion is reasonable. But again, you can't understand that statement if you don't understand what a theory is. That's not based on anxiety or any emotion. It's based on the evidence. It appears that the anxiety and the hysteria are coming from you.

Why is it that loony atheists (Paul) find the concept of Intelligent Design unbelievable, yet find it so easy to believe all the wonders of the human body (eye, brain, DNA, genes, etc. came about as a result of dumb chance. Most clear thinking people find dumb chance far more unbelievable.

One prominent scientist compares dumb chance/ evolution/ random selection/whatever, to building a rocket ship with your eyes closed and having never seen one nor understood what it's purpose was.

Zealots like Paul refuse to consider that evolution is the tool that God used to create man. Being an atheist he prefers to believe it's all serendipity in the mixture of acids and chemicals.

[Guest Guest]

Why is it that loony atheists (Paul) find the concept of Intelligent Design unbelievable, yet find it so easy to believe all the wonders of the human body (eye, brain, DNA, genes, etc. came about as a result of dumb chance. Most clear thinking people find dumb chance far more unbelievable.

One prominent scientist compares dumb chance/ evolution/ random selection/whatever, to building a rocket ship with your eyes closed and having never seen one nor understood what it's purpose was.

Zealots like Paul refuse to consider that evolution is the tool that God used to create man. Being an atheist he prefers to believe it's all serendipity in the mixture of acids and chemicals.

True to your own distorted form, you're missing the point because you don't want to see it. And of course, you're making stuff up, without attribution, just like you always do. The vast majority of scientists do not subscribe to so-called intelligent design. Just because a crackpot becomes prominent by "virtue" of making news with his crackpottery doesn't make him credible - except of course in the eyes of boneheads like you who made up their minds in advance to believe anything that supports a belief in "God." The remarks about building a rocket ship with your eyes closed assume things about current scientific theories that aren't true and completely ignore the likelihood of a cell being generated from proteins interacting in the appropriate medium. You don't address the point, you just use disparaging words to distort the point. But of course the person who cares about the evidence is the zealot, not you.

Fantasizing about a god who created life isn't going to help anything. You can imagine it along with an unlimited number of other possibilities. None of them gets you anywhere. And of course you don't address the fact that you have no explanation at all for the origins of this God you insist on believing in. You can't have it both ways, asserting the improbability of a single unexplained cell but at the same time believing in an unexplained god, who would be far more complex than one cell. Your argument is a self-contradiction. You will never address that point. You can't. All you can do is ignore it.

What does get us somewhere is the continued work scientists are doing to discover more about the origins of life. If you had your way, that research would not be done and we would never find out. In fact, if people like you had your way, we wouldn't have computers or an internet to have this discussion; and it's likely that one or both of us would be dead by now because medicine wouldn't have gotten to where it is. That's why this is important.

Or, to put it in terms you might understand, we cannot afford to do things the way ignorant people like you want them done.

[Guest Paul]

Why is it that loony atheists (Paul) find the concept of Intelligent Design unbelievable, yet find it so easy to believe all the wonders of the human body (eye, brain, DNA, genes, etc. came about as a result of dumb chance. Most clear thinking people find dumb chance far more unbelievable.

One prominent scientist compares dumb chance/ evolution/ random selection/whatever, to building a rocket ship with your eyes closed and having never seen one nor understood what it's purpose was.

Zealots like Paul refuse to consider that evolution is the tool that God used to create man. Being an atheist he prefers to believe it's all serendipity in the mixture of acids and chemicals.

You're lying again. I never said that intelligent design is unbelievable, only that there is no evidence for it and no reason to believe it. It's unworthy of belief because there's no evidence for it, but that doesn't render it unbelievable, if there was evidence to support it. But since there isn't any evidence to support it, there is no reason to believe it. It's certainly not science. And if you're going to argue complexity, then your entire argument is defeated by the complexity of the God you propose. You can lie all you want about the current state of scientific opinion, the scientific community across the world would not endorse what you're saying. Now maybe I'm being too harsh calling you a liar, maybe this is just too complicated for you, but I'm inclined to think there's at least a little bit of lying going on since you don't seem to care about the truth.

There's no secret that most people wish to believe that someone wonderful and powerful is in charge, but that doesn't make it so. Most of us had parents who loved us and kept us safe when we were little, so it's easy to project that state of affairs onto the universe. It's pretty obvious that this is how ideas of God began. You can shake, wiggle and dance all you want; the entire world can convert to Christianity, or any other religion. It's not going to give you life after death if there is no such thing, or a god or any other hope you care to engage in. On the other hand, I would love to wake up after I die and find that it's not over after all. But I don't know that it's going to happen, and have no good reason to think that it will; neither do you. So the main reason I discuss this subject is that I live in a culture in which people make a great many mistakes because they insist on believing things based on a wish, not based on the evidence and reason.

What you don't understand about scientific and evidence-based belief systems is that they are not based on preferences. That's how you come to believe things, but that's not how I do it, or how any broadly well-educated person does it. Instead, I follow the evidence where it most reasonably leads, regardless of what I prefer. If I'm wrong, I've still followed the best method, so in the end I'm going to be right more often than you are. And as a result, more progress will be made on my path than on yours. That's how the scientific method works. Since you don't understand or care about science, it doesn't mean anything to you.

You can play all the word games you want (serendipity, dumb chance, etc.), if the first cell formed as a result of amino acids combining to form proteins, then being subjected to an electrical or other interaction - then that's how it is. All your word games and fantasies won't change it. Meanwhile, neither of us knows for sure. But I do know that science has a real chance of getting us to a reliable answer, while your theology does not. Regardless of whether you agree with me, how many times do I have to tell you the same thing before you understand what I'm saying? Are you just 2dim2getit or are you deliberately lying - or both?

Let's play some more. I enjoy smacking you around. Gives me a little break from trial prep.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You're lying again. I never said that intelligent design is unbelievable, only that there is no evidence for it and no reason to believe it. It's unworthy of belief because there's no evidence for it, but that doesn't render it unbelievable, if there was evidence to support it. But since there isn't any evidence to support it, there is no reason to believe it. It's certainly not science. And if you're going to argue complexity, then your entire argument is defeated by the complexity of the God you propose. You can lie all you want about the current state of scientific opinion, the scientific community across the world would not endorse what you're saying. Now maybe I'm being too harsh calling you a liar, maybe this is just too complicated for you, but I'm inclined to think there's at least a little bit of lying going on since you don't seem to care about the truth.

There's no secret that most people wish to believe that someone wonderful and powerful is in charge, but that doesn't make it so. Most of us had parents who loved us and kept us safe when we were little, so it's easy to project that state of affairs onto the universe. It's pretty obvious that this is how ideas of God began. You can shake, wiggle and dance all you want; the entire world can convert to Christianity, or any other religion. It's not going to give you life after death if there is no such thing, or a god or any other hope you care to engage in. On the other hand, I would love to wake up after I die and find that it's not over after all. But I don't know that it's going to happen, and have no good reason to think that it will; neither do you. So the main reason I discuss this subject is that I live in a culture in which people make a great many mistakes because they insist on believing things based on a wish, not based on the evidence and reason.

What you don't understand about scientific and evidence-based belief systems is that they are not based on preferences. That's how you come to believe things, but that's not how I do it, or how any broadly well-educated person does it. Instead, I follow the evidence where it most reasonably leads, regardless of what I prefer. If I'm wrong, I've still followed the best method, so in the end I'm going to be right more often than you are. And as a result, more progress will be made on my path than on yours. That's how the scientific method works. Since you don't understand or care about science, it doesn't mean anything to you.

You can play all the word games you want (serendipity, dumb chance, etc.), if the first cell formed as a result of amino acids combining to form proteins, then being subjected to an electrical or other interaction - then that's how it is. All your word games and fantasies won't change it. Meanwhile, neither of us knows for sure. But I do know that science has a real chance of getting us to a reliable answer, while your theology does not. Regardless of whether you agree with me, how many times do I have to tell you the same thing before you understand what I'm saying? Are you just 2dim2getit or are you deliberately lying - or both?

Let's play some more. I enjoy smacking you around. Gives me a little break from trial prep.

"No evidence for it and no reason to believe it". We could be talking about the spontaneous creation of life that you so fervently defend.

I must say, your smugness and superiority complex is a source of amusment for me. Because I believe in I.D., you assume I'm not a "broadly well-educated person". Wrong again, Paulie, I won't put my resume here but I am well-educated.

If you don't believe in INTELLIGENT Design, then you must believe in DUMB Design, that's not word play, that's logic. And acids making proteins while being hit by lightning is not science, it's nonsense to the extreme.

So you keep "smacking me around" with your far-fetched theories and I'll continue to believe in I.D.

[WilliamK]

Because I believe in I.D., you assume I'm not a "broadly well-educated person". Wrong again, Paulie, I won't put my resume here but I am well-educated.

Because of the deep ignorance and general dishonesty that you've exhibited here, I won't take your word for it. But it hardly matters. Well educated or not, it is painfully obvious that whatever education you have hasn't stopped you from being supremely ignorant.

If you don't believe in INTELLIGENT Design, then you must believe in DUMB Design, that's not word play, that's logic.

Oh my. What a remarkably stupid comment from one who deems himself "2smart4u".

And acids making proteins while being hit by lightning is not science, it's nonsense to the extreme.

Abiogenesis is much more speculative than evolution (which, contrary to your protestations, is firmly established), but it is very much in the domain of science. It has multiple competing theories, at least some of which will no doubt eventually join the likes of phlogiston theory on the scientific scrap heap. But far from meaning that it isn't science, that is exactly how science is done.

So you keep "smacking me around" with your far-fetched theories and I'll continue to believe in I.D.

Of course you will. When your central goal in life is to prop up your faith, reason and knowledge are your enemies.

There are three paths when it comes to the balance between reason and faith.

1. Give reason precedence over faith. (the path of the atheist/agnostic)

2. Compartmentalize reason and faith, giving each authority over its own domain. (the path of the rational believer)

3. Give faith precedence over reason. (the path of the ignorant and superstitious)

It's obvious which path you've chosen.

[Guest Paul]

"No evidence for it and no reason to believe it". We could be talking about the spontaneous creation of life that you so fervently defend.

I must say, your smugness and superiority complex is a source of amusment for me. Because I believe in I.D., you assume I'm not a "broadly well-educated person". Wrong again, Paulie, I won't put my resume here but I am well-educated.

If you don't believe in INTELLIGENT Design, then you must believe in DUMB Design, that's not word play, that's logic. And acids making proteins while being hit by lightning is not science, it's nonsense to the extreme.

So you keep "smacking me around" with your far-fetched theories and I'll continue to believe in I.D.

No, the alternative to designed is not designed. Life started the same way everything happens in nature. There's no reason to think otherwise, and that's why I don't need a final proof to know that I'm on the right track. I'm following the methods of science. You're the one who needs the proof because you're arguing for a deep mechanism that isn't known to exist.

Only when you get to sufficiently complex intelligences can you get into the realm of design. You posit a God who supposedly designed the first cell, but you don't have any evidence for that hypothesis; and as the person who posted before me predicted, you don't address where God supposedly came from. Your argument is a contradiction. Was yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow. You insist that a cell is too complex to spring into existence but somehow an even greater complexity is right where you want him to be. How convenient. You said it, so it's true. You want absolute proof from me and aren't willing to provide any yourself - and you don't have any. As predicted, you ignore that problem, even though it's fatal to your entire argument.

I know you're going to continue to believe it. You choose ignorance. You'll do anything so you don't have to change your mind. You do it over and over again. All you're going to do is what you always do: stick to your conclusion even though it's anti-scientific and there's no evidence for it. I'm not surprised. Your religion teaches you to do that. That's one reason why I'm not a fan of your religion.

It's a choice, though not a good one. Fortunately, that is not the choice our scientists have made. If you were a broadly educated person, you wouldn't ignore a fatal defect in your argument, you wouldn't beg the question by assuming that nature is designed and you wouldn't be so cavalier as to dismiss scientific progress. Maybe you have a resume, but you've wasted whatever education you obtained. I don't care how smug it sounds to you. You're scientifically illiterate and utterly unconcerned about logic and reason. I can certainly see why you don't want anyone to know who you are.

The odd thing is, you don't worship God at all. All you worship is your own opinion. Look at how you make your arguments. All commitment to reason and evidence fall away when that's what you need to do so you don't have to think or change your mind.

Prove me wrong. Apply the same standard to yourself that you demand of me. You won't because you can't.

[Guest keith]

"No evidence for it and no reason to believe it". We could be talking about the spontaneous creation of life that you so fervently defend.

I must say, your smugness and superiority complex is a source of amusment for me. Because I believe in I.D., you assume I'm not a "broadly well-educated person". Wrong again, Paulie, I won't put my resume here but I am well-educated.

If you don't believe in INTELLIGENT Design, then you must believe in DUMB Design, that's not word play, that's logic. And acids making proteins while being hit by lightning is not science, it's nonsense to the extreme.

So you keep "smacking me around" with your far-fetched theories and I'll continue to believe in I.D.

Of course your right because the first man simply appeared from nowhere and then the first woman is made from his rib. Totally plausible?

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, the alternative to designed is not designed. Life started the same way everything happens in nature. There's no reason to think otherwise, and that's why I don't need a final proof to know that I'm on the right track. I'm following the methods of science. You're the one who needs the proof because you're arguing for a deep mechanism that isn't known to exist.

Only when you get to sufficiently complex intelligences can you get into the realm of design. You posit a God who supposedly designed the first cell, but you don't have any evidence for that hypothesis; and as the person who posted before me predicted, you don't address where God supposedly came from. Your argument is a contradiction. Was yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow. You insist that a cell is too complex to spring into existence but somehow an even greater complexity is right where you want him to be. How convenient. You said it, so it's true. You want absolute proof from me and aren't willing to provide any yourself - and you don't have any. As predicted, you ignore that problem, even though it's fatal to your entire argument.

I know you're going to continue to believe it. You choose ignorance. You'll do anything so you don't have to change your mind. You do it over and over again. All you're going to do is what you always do: stick to your conclusion even though it's anti-scientific and there's no evidence for it. I'm not surprised. Your religion teaches you to do that. That's one reason why I'm not a fan of your religion.

It's a choice, though not a good one. Fortunately, that is not the choice our scientists have made. If you were a broadly educated person, you wouldn't ignore a fatal defect in your argument, you wouldn't beg the question by assuming that nature is designed and you wouldn't be so cavalier as to dismiss scientific progress. Maybe you have a resume, but you've wasted whatever education you obtained. I don't care how smug it sounds to you. You're scientifically illiterate and utterly unconcerned about logic and reason. I can certainly see why you don't want anyone to know who you are.

The odd thing is, you don't worship God at all. All you worship is your own opinion. Look at how you make your arguments. All commitment to reason and evidence fall away when that's what you need to do so you don't have to think or change your mind.

Prove me wrong. Apply the same standard to yourself that you demand of me. You won't because you can't.

"Life started the same way everything happens in nature". Really? And you know this how?

"you've wasted whatever education you obtained". My belief in God leads you to that conclusion?

"If you were a broadly educated person". There you go again.

"You're scientifically illiterate". Because I don't believe in acids/proteins/electricity? Call me crazy.

"you don't worship God at all. Right! I go to church every sunday to inflate my ego.

Paul, you have nothing. You hang your hat on "scientific progress" as a disguise for atheism. When your "science" gets beyond pond scum, let me know.

[Guest Paul]

"Life started the same way everything happens in nature". Really? And you know this how?

Same way I know that things don't fall up. That's not how things work in nature. If you want to posit a novelty, you need evidence and you don't have any.

"you've wasted whatever education you obtained". My belief in God leads you to that conclusion?

No, your unwillingness to adhere to the methods of science and your apparent disdain for and disinterest in science lead me to that conclusion, along with your consistent refusal to address any fact that doesn't fit your pre-drawn conclusions.

"If you were a broadly educated person". There you go again.

And there shall I go so long as you keep ignoring science and everything else that doesn't fit with what you decided in advance (of the evidence) to believe.

"You're scientifically illiterate". Because I don't believe in acids/proteins/electricity? Call me crazy.

I don't think you're crazy. But if you don't believe in acids, proteins and electricity, then you're scientifically illiterate, because they do exist. There's no doubt about it in the mind of any well-educated person. In fact, you're so illiterate on this subject that you neglected to add the appropriate qualifier: amino acids is the most apt term in this context.

"you don't worship God at all. Right! I go to church every sunday to inflate my ego.

That's entirely possible. You certainly won't be the only hypocrite in church, or outside church either to be fair. My point is that everything you write is centered around one thing: your opinion. Not the facts, not any objective reality, but your opinion. So that's what you worship because that's your final test for everything: what you have decided to believe. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but that's the one constant in your writing.

Paul, you have nothing. You hang your hat on "scientific progress" as a disguise for atheism. When your "science" gets beyond pond scum, let me know.

On the contrary, I'm not saying anything that isn't widely accepted by the scientific community all over the world. By contrast, you wish for your theology to be true, so you insist that it is true. You are the one who has nothing but your wish to believe. So when you get beyond name calling, childish and juvenile remarks and other flights of unreason and illogic, and are willing to look at science and address the points that are actually being made to you, you let us know. And by the way, the reason atheism appears to be disguised is that you can't see it; and the reason for that is that atheism has nothing to do with it, even if you assume that I am one.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Same way I know that things don't fall up. That's not how things work in nature. If you want to posit a novelty, you need evidence and you don't have any.

No, your unwillingness to adhere to the methods of science and your apparent disdain for and disinterest in science lead me to that conclusion, along with your consistent refusal to address any fact that doesn't fit your pre-drawn conclusions.

And there shall I go so long as you keep ignoring science and everything else that doesn't fit with what you decided in advance (of the evidence) to believe.

I don't think you're crazy. But if you don't believe in acids, proteins and electricity, then you're scientifically illiterate, because they do exist. There's no doubt about it in the mind of any well-educated person. In fact, you're so illiterate on this subject that you neglected to add the appropriate qualifier: amino acids is the most apt term in this context.

That's entirely possible. You certainly won't be the only hypocrite in church, or outside church either to be fair. My point is that everything you write is centered around one thing: your opinion. Not the facts, not any objective reality, but your opinion. So that's what you worship because that's your final test for everything: what you have decided to believe. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but that's the one constant in your writing.

On the contrary, I'm not saying anything that isn't widely accepted by the scientific community all over the world. By contrast, you wish for your theology to be true, so you insist that it is true. You are the one who has nothing but your wish to believe. So when you get beyond name calling, childish and juvenile remarks and other flights of unreason and illogic, and are willing to look at science and address the points that are actually being made to you, you let us know. And by the way, the reason atheism appears to be disguised is that you can't see it; and the reason for that is that atheism has nothing to do with it, even if you assume that I am one.

You know how life began? Great! You've had an epiphany and I can now call you a Christian. Maybe I can pick you up Sunday morning and we can go to

church together.

[Guest Paul]

You know how life began? Great! You've had an epiphany and I can now call you a Christian. Maybe I can pick you up Sunday morning and we can go to church together.

You're not even being a Christian. The Christianity I respect doesn't consist of smart comebacks whose sole purpose is that you don't have to be responsible for what you posted. The Christianity I respect is humble, self-reflective and generous. It doesn't make fun of people or constantly try to shift the burden away from the self. In that respectful Christianity that two fine Roman Catholic parents taught me is an ethic of personal responsibility and generosity, which is completely lacking in your posts. Its absence is why no one one this board likes you. It's not because your smarter than everyone else here, or even anyone else here. It's because on this forum at least you act like a jerk. WWJD?

Read the interchange again and advance the argument, don't just drop it when you're caught dead to rights and don't have an intelligent response. Be responsible for what you wrote. The discussion is still sitting right where you dropped it, as anyone can plainly see.

[Guest Lincoln Logger]

You're not even being a Christian. The Christianity I respect doesn't consist of smart comebacks whose sole purpose is that you don't have to be responsible for what you posted. The Christianity I respect is humble, self-reflective and generous. It doesn't make fun of people or constantly try to shift the burden away from the self. In that respectful Christianity that two fine Roman Catholic parents taught me is an ethic of personal responsibility and generosity, which is completely lacking in your posts. Its absence is why no one one this board likes you. It's not because your smarter than everyone else here, or even anyone else here. It's because on this forum at least you act like a jerk. WWJD?

Read the interchange again and advance the argument, don't just drop it when you're caught dead to rights and don't have an intelligent response. Be responsible for what you wrote. The discussion is still sitting right where you dropped it, as anyone can plainly see.

Paul, your comment is again a false one because there is someone on this board who does like 2smart4u, and it is me. Both Paul and 2smart4u refuse to budge and the irony of this website lives on. Paul believes that everything can be explained by Science, but like the information being feed into Science, it is only as good what facts go in. The world’s best scientist of the time once believed the world was flat and so we know how that ended up. Paul cannot except that some things just cannot be explained and maybe some of those might be in religion. 2smart4u believes that religion is the answer and even if there is hard evidence, it doesn't matter. So the inherent name calling between these two will go ad nauseam.

It again makes me wonder about Paul and how his parents must have felt. As he mentioned both fine devout Catholic parents watching their son abandon the religion that they have guided their life by. Just wonder how he must have made them feel? Sure must have been proud.

But anyway thanks to both of you for what you both bring makes great reading in my spare time.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You're not even being a Christian. The Christianity I respect doesn't consist of smart comebacks whose sole purpose is that you don't have to be responsible for what you posted. The Christianity I respect is humble, self-reflective and generous. It doesn't make fun of people or constantly try to shift the burden away from the self. In that respectful Christianity that two fine Roman Catholic parents taught me is an ethic of personal responsibility and generosity, which is completely lacking in your posts. Its absence is why no one one this board likes you. It's not because your smarter than everyone else here, or even anyone else here. It's because on this forum at least you act like a jerk. WWJD?

Read the interchange again and advance the argument, don't just drop it when you're caught dead to rights and don't have an intelligent response. Be responsible for what you wrote. The discussion is still sitting right where you dropped it, as anyone can plainly see.

Sorry Paul, I'm just not into refuting, line by line, your long-winded dissertations of false accusations and inaccurate remarks. You're an atheist who believes we all came about as a result of serendipity/happenstance and that's fine with me, there are many "broadly educated people" who believe such nonsense.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry Paul, I'm just not into refuting, line by line, your long-winded dissertations of false accusations and inaccurate remarks. You're an atheist who believes we all came about as a result of serendipity/happenstance and that's fine with me, there are many "broadly educated people" who believe such nonsense.

Then don't criticize the scientific argument in the first place, moron.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry Paul, I'm just not into refuting, line by line, your long-winded dissertations of false accusations and inaccurate remarks. You're an atheist who believes we all came about as a result of serendipity/happenstance and that's fine with me, there are many "broadly educated people" who believe such nonsense.

But of course, you could answer them all if you wanted to. That’s your version. Here’s the truth:

Guest: Feb 18 2009, 08:09 PM

When you challenge the statement that science has advanced and theology hasn't, and in response you're given a list of ways in which science has advanced - which you can't refute - then you have to provide some examples of advances in theology. But you don't.

Guest: Feb 21 2009, 12:29 PM

And of course you don't address the fact that you have no explanation at all for the origins of this God you insist on believing in. You can't have it both ways, asserting the improbability of a single unexplained cell but at the same time believing in an unexplained god, who would be far more complex than one cell. Your argument is a self-contradiction. You will never address that point. You can't. All you can do is ignore it.

Paul: Feb 22 2009, 06:53 PM

Your argument is a contradiction. Was yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow. You insist that a cell is too complex to spring into existence but somehow an even greater complexity is right where you want him to be. How convenient. You said it, so it's true. You want absolute proof from me and aren't willing to provide any yourself - and you don't have any. As predicted, you ignore that problem, even though it's fatal to your entire argument.

I know you're going to continue to believe it. You choose ignorance. You'll do anything so you don't have to change your mind. You do it over and over again. All you're going to do is what you always do: stick to your conclusion even though it's anti-scientific and there's no evidence for it. I'm not surprised.

Yet again, minds committed to science and knowledge make accurate predictions, while dimwits unwittingly confirm them. The prediction was that 2dim4words would ignore all the points that don’t fit his preferred conclusions, and of course that is exactly what 2dim just did.

Isn't science marvelous!

[Guest 2smart4u]

Then don't criticize the scientific argument in the first place, moron.

I see I've raised the ire of Paul's minions. They've risen his his defense.

[Guest 2smart4u]

But of course, you could answer them all if you wanted to. That’s your version. Here’s the truth:

Guest: Feb 18 2009, 08:09 PM

When you challenge the statement that science has advanced and theology hasn't, and in response you're given a list of ways in which science has advanced - which you can't refute - then you have to provide some examples of advances in theology. But you don't.

Guest: Feb 21 2009, 12:29 PM

And of course you don't address the fact that you have no explanation at all for the origins of this God you insist on believing in. You can't have it both ways, asserting the improbability of a single unexplained cell but at the same time believing in an unexplained god, who would be far more complex than one cell. Your argument is a self-contradiction. You will never address that point. You can't. All you can do is ignore it.

Paul: Feb 22 2009, 06:53 PM

Your argument is a contradiction. Was yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow. You insist that a cell is too complex to spring into existence but somehow an even greater complexity is right where you want him to be. How convenient. You said it, so it's true. You want absolute proof from me and aren't willing to provide any yourself - and you don't have any. As predicted, you ignore that problem, even though it's fatal to your entire argument.

I know you're going to continue to believe it. You choose ignorance. You'll do anything so you don't have to change your mind. You do it over and over again. All you're going to do is what you always do: stick to your conclusion even though it's anti-scientific and there's no evidence for it. I'm not surprised.

Yet again, minds committed to science and knowledge make accurate predictions, while dimwits unwittingly confirm them. The prediction was that 2dim4words would ignore all the points that don’t fit his preferred conclusions, and of course that is exactly what 2dim just did.

Isn't science marvelous!

I'm curious to know why the discussion between God vs. serendipity/happenstance always gets diverted to "science". There are two choices here and neither concerns science. You either believe all the incredibly complicated life forms on earth came about from a chance encounter between some random amino acids and various chemicals (serendipity/happenstance) or you believe there's more to it than that. If you're an atheist, you believe in serendipity/happenstance. If you believe blind evolution can't possible account for the human body (like building a rocket ship when you don't know what the finished product is supposed to look like or what it's function is) and all it's incredibly complicated organs, then you believe there was intelligence involved in the process, ergo God.

Scientific advances vs. theology is not involved here, although Paul always tries to muddy the waters with it.

[Guest Paul]

I'm curious to know why the discussion between God vs. serendipity/happenstance always gets diverted to "science". There are two choices here and neither concerns science. You either believe all the incredibly complicated life forms on earth came about from a chance encounter between some random amino acids and various chemicals (serendipity/happenstance) or you believe there's more to it than that. If you're an atheist, you believe in serendipity/happenstance. If you believe blind evolution can't possible account for the human body (like building a rocket ship when you don't know what the finished product is supposed to look like or what it's function is) and all it's incredibly complicated organs, then you believe there was intelligence involved in the process, ergo God.

Scientific advances vs. theology is not involved here, although Paul always tries to muddy the waters with it.

Good, I'm glad you're curious. I'll explain it to you for the umpteenth time.

The choice you posit is the applicable choice only if you assume that the natural state of affairs is for us to know the answer as between your two options, and if you also assume that either a supreme being created the first cell or the first cell came into existence as a result of an interplay between chemicals and their environment. Both assumptions are false. We don't know the answer as a matter of direct proof, and many people who believe in a very traditional concept of God also accept the current leading scientific theory, as stated in the previous sentence. There is no necessary contradiction, as someone like Kenneth Miller (whom I admire greatly) would tell you. Only if you insist in something like a literal interpretation of biblical creation do you face the choice you suggest. (Yet again you assume that the rest of the world is confined by your limited understanding and fund of knowledge.) That is why I would never say, and have never said that a person who believes in a supreme being is therefore not broadly educated. Such a statement would be demonstrably untrue, I would never make it and have never made it.

The applicable choice here is in how we are most likely to gain knowledge in the future, including knowledge about the origination of cells and all the building blocks of life. That's what matters to me and is important to our lives, and that is the subject I raised. The best guide to a reliable answer comes from how we have gained knowledge in the past. We have learned virtually everything we know about biology, astronomy, physics and every field of knowledge about the physical world and the universe from science, and virtually none at all from theology. Therefore, the most fruitful and reliable way to pursue knowledge about the beginning of life is through science.

Now of course, you can insist that such questions don't interest you or that you've already made up your mind or that you're going to believe in your theology, all the evidence and the science be damned; or all of the above. That is your prerogative, but if you do that, then you are likely to be and remain scientifically illiterate, which is the point I was making and you have proved.

I doubt that you're fooling anyone. You did exactly what I said you would do, as one person noted earlier today and another seems to have suggested. If you were so disinterested in the subject matter, you wouldn't have bothered posting on it again. The fact is, exactly as I stated, that you may never change your mind; but far from being a badge of honor, that is the essence of your bountiful ignorance.

To be clear then, you are not scientifically illiterate and educationally limited because you believe in God, but because you dismiss and disparage science and shut out every bit of knowledge that does not fit with your pre-conceived conclusions. Say it as many times as you like, it has nothing to do with atheism.

To those who think I'm beating a dead horse: I don't think so. Beliefs like these are widespread in this country, and if we do not take a stand against them, we give them a free pass.

[WilliamK]

The world’s best scientist of the time once believed the world was flat and so we know how that ended up.

An interesting assertion. Do you believe it's true? Can you back it up?

Sometime around 250BC, the greek scientist Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth with good precision. But he already knew that it was a sphere. This seems to have been common knowledge among scientists, even 2200+ years ago.

Still, it is possible that some scientist at some time might have believed that the earth was flat. It might be hard to prove, since the further back you go, the fewer scientists you're likely to find, much less to find good information about what they believed. But still, it is not implausible. But what is implausible is that such a belief could have been a product of science itself, as evolution is. If any scientists ever did believe that the world was flat, it was more likely just a case of an assumption that they had not thought to test. Sort of like the assumption that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones. In the distant past, many scientists believed that. It seemed intuitively obvious. But when Galileo decided to investigate that idea scientifically, the assumption was revealed false.

My point is that just because some scientist somewhere, sometime, believed something, that does not mean that that belief is the product of science. Yours is an apples to freight trains comparison. Comparing evolution, a scientific theory supported by a vast body of knowledge and research, to some non-scientific and untested assumption that some unnamed scientist hundreds or thousands of years ago *might* have believed.