+5

Listen to the famed Richard Dawkins say with his own mouth that "we are African apes" and that there is absolutely NO evidence where the first matter or molecule came from. Amirite?

This link has a 3 part discussion between Jon Stewart and Richard Dawkins. It is both informative and revealing. Stewart asks him some very pointed questions, and Dawkins answers them openly. It is not an argument or even in debate format. Just a good open discussion about the origins of life.
Many on this site have told me that science has proven where life and the beginnings of it came from, and that simply is not true. And many on this site have said we are not direct descendants of apes. Dawkins clearly says that we (humanity) are African apes and that he doubts that we will ever prove anything definite about the first molecules. He also says plainly that NOBODY has come close to re-creating that moment.
I will be interested to see how many people disagree with MY post of this matter, when all I am doing is exposing you to what he himself said. So if you disagree with my post, then you are also disagreeing with Richard Dawkins.
This should be fun!

Jon Stewart Challenges Atheist Richard Dawkins on His Claims About Science and Religion | Video | TheBlaze.comFamed atheist Richard Dawkins appeared on "The Daily Show" last night to discuss his new book, "An Appetite for Wonder," and his views on science and religion. From doubling down on his contention that "we are apes" to attempting to explain what happens after human beings die, the evolutionary...http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/25/we-are-apes-jon-stewart-challenges-atheist-richard-dawkins-on-his-claims-about-science-and-religion/
86%Yeah You Are14%No Way
freespeechfreelancers avatar Education
Share
0 21
The voters have decided that freespeechfreelancer is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Everything started/happen cause of magic, how about everybody agrees on that instead?

@ItsATrap Everything started/happen cause of magic, how about everybody agrees on that instead?

The point is, there is NO system of thought, beliefs, or ideas that all people will agree on when it comes to the matter of our existence [the how and why]. Since many people don't believe in magic, that won't work either.

The actual 2 things I refer to in my post are found in the very last segment of the discussion (part 3). I watched all 3 and enjoyed the whole thing.

@freespeechfreelancer The actual 2 things I refer to in my post are found in the very last segment of the discussion (part 3). I watched...

I was taught in school that, interestingly enough, there were experiments that recreated pre-life conditions on Earth and resulted in a primordial soup of biomolecules, which could then, over time, combine just right into a cell.

While we don't know how exactly that cell formed, it seems very plausible that a cell would form over hundreds of millions of years in that soup of increasingly complex biomolecules. Then, one cell ate another, and the ingested cell began to function as a mitochondria and provide energy. What do you think?

@Watchful_questioneer I was taught in school that, interestingly enough, there were experiments that recreated pre-life conditions on...

But still never observable or provable - therefore requiring the same "blind faith" that atheists like Dawkins accuse religionists of having.
If it has not or can not be observed, then whatever it may be called, it certainly is NOT science.

@freespeechfreelancer But still never observable or provable - therefore requiring the same "blind faith" that atheists like Dawkins...

Actually, it requires very little faith, and I see absolutely no relationship between the kind of faith these things are.

Faith in scientific theory and probability make people believe that if you move biomolecules around for millions of years, you'll eventually get a cell, like magnetic puzzle pieces would eventually form the complete puzzle in a sea of them, when they float in growing clusters of pieces.

Faith in religion is predicated on less factual evidence and more instinct and philosophical reasoning, with less objective credibility, though more subjective credibility and sense. I understand where religion is coming from, and have been fluctuating in faith throughout my life, so I understand it. But it is not the same kind of faith that people invest in science, and I believe they can be completely coexisting.

It is only unprovable because it happened so long ago- the same way we can't prove that all of history is true. It is supported by facts and probability, so we accept it as near fact called theory, and that is of a different magnitude of universal credibility than a belief in God. That's something that is subjective, and depends on how sound the theory of a God seems to a person. However far religion goes, it will never be proven nor will it ever be close to being proven. But science actually has a chance of proving its issues, and has proved very many so far. The origin of life is all but proven, and could potentially be proven someday, as were once many other scientific issues.

@Watchful_questioneer Actually, it requires very little faith, and I see absolutely no relationship between the kind of faith these...

I will leave your comments as stated. I do wish another person besides myself would comment on the actual things that Dawkins said in the link. Did you watch all of it? If so, did I misquote what he said? Did I in any way change what he said? He is not the first expert that I have heard or read about that claims there simply are no hard fast answers. All of us would like there to be, but there aren't. And it just steams me to hear people who are casual learners and observers (like myself and most people on the planet) boldly claim or assert things that simply have not been proven or observed. I fully understand the concept of what Evolution tries to assert, but probability + billions of years + chance do NOT automatically equal or guarantee life! And if anyone is being completely and totally honest, I have just as good and equal a chance as being correct in believing in an eternally existent God who Created everything as He said, as does the top scientist in any field believing in Evolution or the Big Bang. For those who will not admit that both possibilities are equally credible, then I simply have no respect or use for their ideas or belief system. At least Dawkins admits the flaws and weaknesses in his belief system, and I respect him for that. That was my point and purpose in posting what he said.

@freespeechfreelancer I will leave your comments as stated. I do wish another person besides myself would comment on the actual things...

Well, no matter how much proof you have of where life originated, one can assert that God could just as likely have created it all, and created the world, having built in false evidence. We could have been created by God an instant ago with false memories.

I think that this needs a little more scientific depth to illustrate how life actually formed- chemist have replicated the chemicals found in early Earth seas, recreated temperature, and so on. What resulted were biomolecules resembling base structures of DNA, basic membranes the likes of which cells have even today, and other parts that could form cell organelles. It's not like puzzle pieces in a jar- these biomolecules are polar, and so they form around each others in patterns. It seems unlikely that these patterns can resemble life until one remembers that life itself is (presumably) formed from such a soup, and so was based on such patterns of biomolecule structure. Eventually, membranes formed around random things until something self sufficient emerged, that basically fueled itself on harnessing the energy of breaking bonds of adenosine triphosphate (ATP- our cell's main energy source, and the product of respiration), and grew from the biomolecules around it. It's like an ocean of Mr. Potato Head parts, but that are all magnetic- it is extremely difficult to refute the likelihood of the right combination eventually being reached.

@Watchful_questioneer Well, no matter how much proof you have of where life originated, one can assert that God could just as likely have...

Maybe, maybe not. Do you actually hear what you and every other scientist says as they study the world they live in? There is a common thread of repeated words such as: "design," "structure," "pattern," "rhythm," "detail," "order," "precision," "beauty" - among others that constantly appear and display themselves. Take all the randomness and time you wish to say these things could have just accidentally occurred, and even the best probability models ever calculated could not begin to produce what we see in our world or Universe. Every atom, molecule, gene, and chromosome all have specific "codes" and orders that they follow. It would be the height of ignorance to suggest that somehow billions of years just accidentally or mysteriously figured out its own way to create life and a Universe. The magnetism and gravity you mention had to have origins. And for the life of me and intelligent minds, I can not understand or believe that people can actually think that if you just leave atoms or molecules somewhere and come back in a million years you will somehow be able to observe life and created things.
Science would love to take credit for explaining how everything came in to existence, but if you really stop and think about it, they already start with a ready made world and Universe. Everything they need to study and observe was/is already here. They had absolutely nothing to do with its origin or the sustaining of anything. Tell me what group of scientists has aided the sustenance of atoms or molecules? What group of scientists has anything to do with the precision and accuracy of the four seasons, the sun performing its duties, the Earth staying on axis spinning at a constant speed and staying at a perfect distance from the sun? What scientist has anything to do with the air we breathe or the beating of the heart within our chest? And yes, we have accomplished some pretty incredible and amazing things - but we have not even scratched the surface of what is actually out there. We are still finding new things on our own Earth that amazes us. And while we eagerly explore and research what is already here, there is a force at work behind the scenes that keeps the whole thing in motion and doing what it is supposed to do. Clearly, that force is not mankind or Evolution.

@freespeechfreelancer Maybe, maybe not. Do you actually hear what you and every other scientist says as they study the world they live...

You don't actually understand the universe completely, so offering any concrete descriptions of what caused it is borderline insane in the realm of assumption.

The reason this seems so unlikely to you is that you refuse to see it on the true scale of the universe. It is, in fact, so unfathomably and incomprehensibly vast that taking its full magnitude into account measuring probability, scientists predict hundreds and thousands of planets able to foster life to be in existence, and that's only as far as we can see, and speculate a considerable number of them to do so.

In addition to underestimating the scale of the universe as a whole, you underestimate the probability of a cell forming under the right conditions. While you continue to stubbornly and rigidly deny that it is possible, you have yet to use any logical evidence to do so, aside from your own hunches about what seems right about a universe you pretend to understand the size and properties of. You don't seem to have an in-depth knowledge of what life really is. Today's cells can be pretty complicated, but they started off simpler.

Earth is rich in water, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and other various elements. Those are fairly small elements (and have smaller atomic numbers), making that fairly unremarkable. The larger elements are in the center of the earth, like gold (fun fact- there's enough gold inside the earth that we can't yet tap into to cover the entire surface of the earth in 2 meters of it. the gold we actually have is all from meteors). So the lighter stuff is on the surface. So these chemicals interact with each other, and back in the days before life, seas were extremely toxic and full of dangerous chemicals. Carbons became hydrated (chains formed with hydrogen on the outside) and attracted to each other, forming spherical membranes. It's not that coincidental when you think about it- cohesive molecules that repel water cling to themselves in spheres to touch water as little as possible- and inside was another membrane that, in one of these seas of membrane-bubble filled primordial soups, happened to catch some amino acids inside it. Meanwhile, a lot of membranes nearby catch other random stuff and nothing really happens. But over almost a billion years, one of these membranes happens to get the right amino acids in it that react with enzymes to create another one of those cells.

The reason it seems so unlikely is because cells seem more like little humans than robots. They're just a clump of amino acids that happens to have enzymes that, when run across its DNA, trigger a duplication of its organelles and split in two. And then evolution takes over once there are enough of it.

It's a crappy crash course, but that's the gist of what a cell does.

An even simpler example is a virus. It's just a floating membrane with it's own codes inside it that lands on a cell, joins its membrane into the cell's, and throws its DNA into the cell's, getting the cell to replicate the virus.

Think of how simple the DNA has to be for that- encode the size of the membrane and some basic shape factors. You might want to research DNA a little more, I'm a bit rusty on it and how it actually leads to the building of a cell. But the point is, scientists know and you don't, and reject it as unlikely nonetheless, based on an innate mindset that something about life spiritually transcends it's chemical foundation. While we are sentient, that's no proof of God. And it's certainly no disproof of science.

@Watchful_questioneer You don't actually understand the universe completely, so offering any concrete descriptions of what caused it...

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.........you are talking DOWN to me again as if you actually know something. I can see it is pointless going any further with you on this topic.
I don't claim to know it all. I know I don't. The people who claim to know it all (scientists), or at least act like they do, have put together a nice little fantasy that has been sold to gullible young people searching for answers. You base your entire analogy on what THEY supposedly know, when in fact, they themselves do not fully understand how it all works. And as stubbornly and rigidly as I supposedly deny certain possibilities, you are doing exactly the same thing.
"scientists predict hundreds and thousands of planets able to foster life to be in existence, and that's only as far as we can see, and speculate a considerable number of them to do so."
An extremely big statement by a teenager who has no proof whatsoever of such. Scientists may predict and surmise anything they wish, but where is the scientific proof? There is not any. If we knew of life on other planets, it would be well known. They have to hope and speculate that life exists elsewhere in order to help their flawed theory sound better than it really is.
"So these chemicals interact with each other, and back in the days before life, seas were extremely toxic and full of dangerous chemicals."
Do you honestly and seriously KNOW what was back in the days before life? Of course not! And neither does/do any scientists alive today or from the past. What book are you getting this crap out of? You are writing your own little fairy tale without one shred of scientific proof to back it up. And you expect me to believe that you are speaking scientifically! Show me the observation and data to support what happened in the days before life - then I just might not be so stubborn or rigid. Talking big and sounding smart does not mean a damn thing. Lawyers and Politicians are extremely well known for their fancy talk. Salesmen have a nasty reputation for being able to hustle people by saying what they want to hear. I have been alive long enough to realize and see through all the facades and charades that the scientific community has tried to pass off on the "ignorant" masses. I simply don't and won't buy it. You obviously believe there is merit in surmising what "might" or "could" have happened over millions and billions of years of time - and in my book, that is just as credible or equal to believing in the "imaginary friend."
"But over almost a billion years, one of these membranes happens to get the right amino acids in it that react with enzymes to create another one of those cells."
Really? Show me the proof. What's that? It happened too long ago? Oh, I see. So there is NO proof and nothing on record to prove or demonstrate that it did or even could have happened. It can not be reproduced in a lab and yet all of the so called educated giants expect everyone to just swallow it whole. Why? Because they said so and it sounds good.
The thing that none of your kind are willing to even contemplate is that WE live in the realm of time right now. Every year that passes, is a billionth year from some starting point. IF time alone is all it takes for these transformations to occur, then somewhere on the Earth since history and science has been recording data, there would be a record of something that would lend credibility and proof to what you say occurred. And yet the over educated intelligent wonders of science can not produce one shred of such information. Their ultimate cop out is that it is happening too slowly to observe. And that cop out alone makes it impossible for it to be called science. If it can not be observed (and it can't), then you can call it anything you wish - but it is not true science. The scientific community fills in the blanks and gaps to suit their own pleasure and purposes. THAT is the honest ugly truth that you will NEVER hear them say. Why? Because what they have and are doing is no better or different than those who believe in an eternally existent Creator who created everything.
"An even simpler example is a virus. It's just a floating membrane with it's own codes inside it "
I made this point in my previous comment. It's own codes. Hmmm.......so, if these are the cells that are the stuff of evolution, then these cells had to have a beginning and had to be coded by someone or something. Or I guess I am to just blindly believe and accept that cells, genes, atoms, and such automatically appeared out of thin air (where did the air come from?) already programmed and coded to know what to do to cluster, gravitate, mutate, or whatever else they "decided" to do. Sounds just about as fairy taleish as that so called Creation account in the Bible! And again, you or no one else, can offer one shred of proof of where those codes came from, how they got there, or why they even exist. Science makes huge assumptions and presumptive conclusions about many things. Who was observing all of these formulations over those billions of years? Why are there no pieces of written records of anything throughout human history documenting or explaining such processes? Isn't it quite curious that all of the thrust about science being superior to any religious explanation has only occurred within the past 60-70 years max? What is that on a time scale of millions or billions of years? You are actually willing to stake your entire existence and claim on a study that is not even a pin point on the scale of the Universal time span. I find that extremely fascinating and naive.

@freespeechfreelancer Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.........you are talking DOWN to me again as if you actually know something. I can see it is pointless...

You seem to think that the only way to prove something is to have a firsthand witnessing of it. What we have is not concrete proof, but an assumption that without any outside interference the likes of which we cannot perceive or detect, life could only have formed in such a way.

There are several reasons why such an outlook makes sense in this context- we have to assume that no perceivable or detectable influence has occurred, and reflect that in out margin of error.

But because the conclusions reached with that margin of error seem so likely, we assume that either:
1. Life formed from primordial soup.
2. Something created life and fulled the seas with failed attempts of it, whether to throw us off, or because it failed to make life initially.

Our margin of error accounts for ignoring the second one. And I know you're going to say that those two are equally possible, but think about this:
That second possibility, that outside influence has done something and intentionally covered its tracks, is a possible explanation for absolutely anything and everything. Why did you wake up this morning?
Maybe your alarm woke you up.
Or, maybe God tapped you on the shoulder and then generated a beeping noise from your alarm clock.

And yet in this instance, you will unfailingly always chose to believe that it was the first possibility. But when it comes to something a little more complicated that you don't understand, and that you generalize to be more divine and complicated than truly is, you question the understanding of people who have done infinitesimally more research and study on the subject than yourself. And THAT seems fascinatingly naive to me.

@Watchful_questioneer You seem to think that the only way to prove something is to have a firsthand witnessing of it. What we have is not...

You are obviously completely satisfied and content with a science that does not provide you a hard core, factual, observable, proof for your belief system. One of the core tenets of real science is that is MUST be observable - so yes, first hand witnessed accounts are extremely important. You are willing to accept without question a system of teaching that SAYS things happened a certain way - and you have not seen or observed any of the processes yourself. You rely solely on the opinions and studies of the "experts."
At the same time, you have no trouble chiding me for believing in an "unseen" God who says He created everything from nothing. At least I have a written record from the God who says He did all this. I also have a Savior and Messiah who came to this Earth to confirm and verify the writings of Scripture. He fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies and the Law. Science has no ancient documents or eyewitnesses to any of the stages their evolutionary theory offers. Someone with your intelligence can surely understand that at some point along the way in all of history, somebody would had to have observed something to connect the entire evolutionary process and chain. If it existed, we would all certainly know about it.
I understand far more than you give me credit for, but you fail to see it. I am truly glad that you have found all the answers to life's most complicated questions, and can assume with all probability that you are in fact correct. You continue on your pathway with that confident knowledge, and I will continue walking through life as a naive ignorant half wit. If you have a Bible or can get your hands on one, I challenge you to look up I Corinthians 1:19-21. See what you think.

@freespeechfreelancer You are obviously completely satisfied and content with a science that does not provide you a hard core, factual...

Something can be credible without being witnessed firsthand by yourself. You believe that there is a world around you every moment of the day and night, but you aren't usually there to see most of it. For all you know, everybody but you is a robot and you've no reason to accept it as fact when you've never dissected anybody or really looked into their minds. However, context shows that because the results of people and the world being there are present, and what was needed for it to exist in your absence was there, then it is credible. The same goes with life- the results are there, the means for it to happen were there. The only difference is that it happened longer ago and there isn't anybody to tell you it did happen.

And I know you talk to a lot of people on this site, so I understand the confusion, but I have never chided anyone for believing in a god. I have fluctuated in and out of faith for most of my life, and that fluctuation has recently dampened to a middle ground of agnosticism. The bible was not written BY god, although it is claimed to be his message. That is something of more subjective credibility. To some it feels credible, as does the notion of a god, but to others is seems illogical. It's more to do with gut feeling than evidence. The way I see it, there are two possibilities for the universe: science explains it, or god explains science, which explains the universe.

Science can seem that way, too, when you look at it from afar, as you're doing. Looking at life and its complexities makes it seem impossible for it to come about naturally, I agree. However, when you look closely, analyze, and really piece it together, it is visible. Perhaps there's something in between the steps of life coming about that could be filled by unprovable, divine force, and nobody can prove the absence of them, but it makes sense to go with the least complicated solution available (that's a quote from somebody, but I forget who). We should hold the possibility in the back of our minds, or whatever, but our knowledge of what primordial soup was made of, what composes cells, how cells act and grow, and other knowledge of biology is understood differently than the divine. I agree that neither is 100% credible, but one is based on accurate, though potentially flawed observation and research (you've yet to make a case against this, despite criticizing scientific methodology on numerous occasions), and the other is instinctual.

I don't really see you proving much in this. You claim to understand biology, but I ask you to show me how much you know. And please explain why you consider scientists so corrupt, and how you know they are.

@Watchful_questioneer Something can be credible without being witnessed firsthand by yourself. You believe that there is a world around...

That's cool with me. You might want to jump over to this post and the thread there. I was kind of surprised that you never jumped in on that one.
http://www.amirite.com/773502-i...ly-can-in-fact

This comment of mine is in that thread, and would kind of be my whole summation and culmination of the entire debate on the topic. Scroll down to the comment that begins with:
"At least we are talking rationally now and finding some common ground."

That is pretty much the entire issue in a nutshell, and makes it clear that there are really only 2 choices. I have made mine, and you appear to have made yours. I can live with both, but science seems unable to live with mine.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1944802

I won't debate you any more because you always cop out saying you can't read or watch the links. I did watch them, and I heard exactly what he said. I won't let you spin his words and try to claim something he did not. You act like you know more than some of the best experts in their respective fields, and you simply do not.
And yes, Dawkins is one man, but he is one of the great champions that everyone loves to quote as THE expert. I would dare say that he "owns evolution" far more than you will ever come close to. And when the experts admit openly that there are NO real or solid conclusive answers, then you are just showing your ass by still maintaining it has all been proven.
I would appreciate in the future that you make a general comment about something I may post or say, and leave it at that. I know that you are not going to budge on any of your ideas, nor am I. It is pointless to talk with such a person.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.