One problem cause by Religion

Post Reply New Topic

I came across this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

It came up early in the search, and it talks about abiogenesis and favors it occurring naturally.

I also found a youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo

A website. http://darwiniana.org/abiogenesis.htm

Another website. http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionab ... bility.htm

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... ogenes.php

I think the talkorigins webpage is likely the best given that other sources would often link to that source and praise it. However, I don't see any reason off-hand to say that people are just covering up the matter.

The site names may have scared me off a bit too quick then. If 32-amino length sequences can self-replicate that does change the story completely. I'd be curious to check into Uracil also, see if it really does have a nineteen day half-life. Admittedly though, sometimes I have too much faith in people not to make things up out of whole cloth and that may have gotten me into some trouble here.

Look, I can't evaluate your source one way or another. At all. So, you neither need to apologize nor anything like that. I just am cynical towards ID because they are often accused of questionable practices. Does this mean that every claim they make is a lie? No. But I am in my rights to doubt a claim from a questionable source, even if I cannot evaluate the claim itself.

Of two of the jobs I've have had that I've been fired from, one made the accusation that I was insubordinate, the other that I somehow committed a "violent act". However, only the one about insubordination is true, and Wal-Mart's excuse is the excrement of masculine bovines.... On the other hand, I accuse you of having a brain, and therefore I will be cynical of you now because you have been accused of owning a device which is capable of formulating questionable practices.

Well, honestly, having a brain can go two ways. The basic idea though is that towards some groups we will be untrusting despite the ability to evaluate claims. For instance, if you received claims from neo-Nazis about some racial matter, and you can't evaluate what they say but you currently disagree with their point, it seems rational that you can dissent from their claims without putting forward evidence. Neo-Nazis are generally not known for their intellectual honesty after all. This can go for a lot of other groups.

Now, this does not mean that ID is necessarily wrong, just that, despite the inability to evaluate claims, based upon my limited knowledge, I have doubts about the reasonableness of their claims, and I think that these doubts can be considered legitimate.