Atheism is a faith like anyone else

366 posts / 0 new
Last post
ferguson1951's picture
I am interested in LIFE, not

I am interested in LIFE, not logic. Life does not follow logic. The only logic I have ever found was in the math books.
That is why I like the Bible, because it is also an excellent school of life. You keep trying to find logic and rationality in religion but that is also because your university education has blunted your brains. The Bible does not follow logic, I keep telling you this.

This is what we Catholics believe in. I just do not know how to explain this to you. You seem to have only a one-track mind.
Our beliefs have nothing to do with logic, rationality, universities and degrees. You just seem to be unable to get that through your head.

Let’s see if this time I can make my point.
With your degrees, God cleans Himself.
The first true university, that is an institution called as such, was founded in Bologna, Italy in 1088. Christian religion is much much older.

The Creed

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father beyond all ages. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And he became flesh by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary: and was made man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. And of his kingdom there will be no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, and who spoke through the prophets. And one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And I await the resurrection of the dead. And the life of the world to come. Amen. (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed - Roman Missal)

I have been trying to make you understand that a true Christian refuses to follow the university language and thinking, but you are stuck on that and there is no way to widen your thinking.

Corinthians 1

 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d]

David Killens's picture
I am interested primarily in

I am interested primarily in life too. I wish to enjoy all of the wonders available in this life. But guess what, when I cross a street, I look both ways. When I want to buy something, I have to keep within my budget. When I plan anything, it is constrained by time and money. In fact, almost everything one does in their life is dictated by simple logic and common sense.

There are times when I step outside of rational logic, for example music and the arts. But even in those disciplines, there are rules and laws. I could listen to Beethoven for days, yet his compositions follow a few simple rules, one being repetition.

But I know the difference between the real world and fantasy. I work construction, a dump truck will kill you if you get in it's way. I also know that Harry Potter is not real, but a fantasy character, just like Spiderman and your god.

FYI the first known learning institution that issued degrees was the University of Al Quaraouiyine, founded in Morocco by Fatima al-Fihri in 859.

Tin-Man's picture
@Fergie Re: "You keep trying

@Fergie Re: "You keep trying to find logic and rationality in religion but that is also because your university education has blunted your brains. The Bible does not follow logic, I keep telling you this."

Two things real quick...

1. I do not have a University education/degree

2. I TOTALLY AGREE with you that the bible does not follow logic. Hell, to take it a step further, it does not even follow COMMON SENSE.

NewSkeptic's picture
As far as #2 goes, that seems

As far as #2 goes, that seems to end any pretense of "debate". Fergie will believe whatever he damn well wants to believe, let rationality be damned. By this standard, absolutely anything can be believed and Fergie can go blissfully along with his willful ignorance. God be with you Fergie.

Tin-Man's picture
@Everybody Re: The Sermon

@Everybody Re: The Sermon of Fergie on the Lump

...*choir singing softly in the background*... ("...He walks with me, and He talks with me, and He tells me I am His own...")... *booming evangelist voice*.... Brothers and sisters! I want to welcome you all here on this glorious day which our loving Lord and Savior has made for us! Praise God! And we want to give our humble THANKS to our dear and FAITHFUL Brother Fergie for sharing his DIVINELY inspired words of wisdom so that we may SEE the wonderful LIGHT of GOD, and follow in HIS footsteps on THE path of righteousness! Hallelujah!... *handing collection plates to the altar boys*... *voice becoming softer*... And now, my brothers and sisters, as the collection plates make their way toward you, I ask that you dig deep into your pockets. Dig deep into your very SOULS, and ask yourself how much your eternal salvation is worth to you. And I want you to GIVE! Praise the Lord! Give, my beloved family (for we are ALL one family in the eyes of our loving Father), so that you may show our Heavenly Father how much you truly love Him. For there is no price we can place on God's love for us. Hallelujah, hallelujah.... *head tilted back*... *eyes closed*... *hands above head in praise*...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Fergie

@ Fergie

Christian religion is much much older.

Christianity (your version) dates to its beginnings to about 349CE but really wasn't the "Catholic" church as we know it until about 620CE when its ascendancy was finally relatively unchallenged.

As usual you are sadly misinformed on your facts. The first University of the modern era was Islamic and predates Bologna by a couple of hundred years. Make Google your friend.

Some more study and less "lying for Jesus" would do you good. As it is you just look a fool for christ.

algebe's picture
@Old Man Shouts: The first

@Old Man Shouts: The first University of the modern era was Islamic

The House of Wisdom in Baghdad? I think Cordoba can also claim to predate Bologna as a university.

algebe's picture
@Ferguson1951: A synonym for

@Ferguson1951: A synonym for cynicism.

So you say in your ignorance and prejudice.

It's possible to live a good, humane life full of beauty, hope, love, idealism, decency, charity, and adventure without believing in fairy tales. In fact, I'd say the first step to living such a life is to escape from the clammy tentacles of religion and start taking full responsibility for yourself and your actions.

Is there any evil in history that hasn't been justified by religion? How many millions have lived and died in wretched serfdom because they were deceived by empty promises of justice and bliss in the afterlife?

ferguson1951's picture

The oldest university in the world. A university in the sense of a higher-learning, degree-awarding institute, the word university (Latin: universitas) having been coined at its foundation. It received, in 1158, from Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa the "Authentica habita", which settled the rules, rights and privileges of universities.

David says:I am interested primarily in life too. I wish to enjoy all of the wonders available in this life. But guess what, when I cross a street, I look both ways. When I want to buy something, I have to keep within my budget. When I plan anything, it is constrained by time and money. In fact, almost everything one does in their life is dictated by simple logic and common sense.


Many people cross the street without logic and get killed. Many people go out to buy something and forget their wallets at home. Many people do not know how to plan something logically.

I speak for myself: when I went to India back in 1988 I did not plan anything. I did not know where I was going to live nor had I reserved a room or a flat anywhere. I travelled by plane. When we got to Kuwait City to change planes I was asked to pass through Customs. I had a mud brick in my bag. The officer saw it and asked what that was. I, totally illogically, replied "Hashish". And the officer added. "Funny this man", and let me go through. My belongings went by sea. I arrived in Calcutta and booked a room in a cheap hotel. I would go to and fro from Calcutta to a town 150 km away, where I wanted to settle. But I did not know anybody. The stuff was arriving I did not have a place. Eventually the small town Mayor wanted to meet me and he found me two rooms in the house of one of his accolites (caste system). I did not need logic, just CHANCE. Many things in the world go by chance. It is hard to define chance. We call it chance when things click without us having planned anything. I do not call it chance, I call it Providence. I never wanted to be limited by money problems. I always went where I felt I had to go without too much money calculations. There were times when I had money and times when I did not.
Once I was in London and I remained penniless. I said to myself: this time I stay here and go around begging. I went to a telephone booth to tell my she-friend back in Italy I was not going to go back. I did not have the time or chance:she told me my mother wanted to give me some money.

You do not know because, hating religion, you do not delve into it. But in a man constantly using his logic, his rationality, his mind, the Holy Spirit cannot enter, hence you are unable to follow His inspirations.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Fergie

@ Fergie

University of Karueein
The oldest existing, and continually operating educational institution in the world is the University of Karueein, founded in 859 AD in Fez, Morocco. The University of Bologna, Italy, was founded in 1088 and is the oldest one in Europe.

Fuck off Fergie. Wrong again...

Once I was in London and I remained penniless

So how did you buy the Times then?

the Holy Spirit cannot enter,

Don't be silly you fart, shiraz enters me regularly as does that holiest of spirits a good single malt.

Your preaching and treating facts as optional is such a great advertisement for atheism, you should post more.

David Killens's picture


"Many people cross the street without logic and get killed."

But an overwhelming majority do use logic and common sense when they cross the road and do not get hit or killed. A LOT more. In fact, it would be a safe bet to state that over 99.99% of those who cross a road survive.

And do you know why? They do not put their faith in their god, they look.

Discussing the unfortunates who get killed crossing a street is really grasping at straws. You are discussing less than one percent of one percent.

algebe's picture
@ferguson: Many things in the

@ferguson: Many things in the world go by chance.

Oh rubbish. Things happen by cause and effect. When people are ignorant of the causes they attribute the events to chance, and events that create opportunities are described as "luck". Decisions to take opportunities or let them go by can be governed by logic or emotion. But your view of life typifies the human tendency to see patterns in everything, even where they don't exist.

Calilasseia's picture
I see our latest

I see our latest supernaturalist arrival is still engaging in rectal vocalisation ...

Calilasseia's picture
Let's take a look at this

Let's take a look at this latest dumping of soiled nappy contents, shall we?

Atheists are adamant about the origin of life (3,5 billion years ago) by chance

Bollocks. If you're going to critique scientific postulates, at least learn what those postulate actually fucking ARE, instead of peddling the usual tiresome canards and misrepresentations thereof we've seen all too often from your smug, self-satisfied and ignorant ilk.

Scientists do NOT postulate that live arose by "chance", instead, they postulate that life was the product of testable natural processes, in this case, chemical reactions. Which they have good reason to postulate as the foundation for life as we know it, because life is manifestly chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, then you DIE. Indeed, scientists have documented in exquisite detail thousands of different chemical reaction pathways that are in operation inside living organisms ranging from amoebae to humans, and if you had ever bothered to pay attention in properly constituted science classes, you would have learned about this.

Furthermore, whenever particular reactions have been postulated to be implicated in the origin of life, scientists researching in the relevant field have performed laboratory experiments to determine if those chemical reactions work, and in every case thus far investigated, they HAVE worked. And in this vein, I now present ...

The Emergence Of Life On Earth

In the earliest period of the history of the planet, it was a body devoid of life, and conditions on the planet were far from conducive to the appearance of life, particularly during the episode termed "The Late Heavy Bombardment" [1] by scientists, which saw intense bolide impact activity taking place on the planet's surface. Once this episode, and subsequent episodes postulated to have taken place, were complete, the Earth cooled, a solid crust formed, and liquid water in quantity began to appear. Thus, the stage was set for the processes that were to result in the emergence of life.

It was Darwin himself who first speculated about the origins of life, with his short remarks about a "warm little pond" [2], but, in the middle of the 19th century, this would remain speculation, as the means to determine the mechanisms that might apply had not yet been developed. However, it made eminent sense to scientists following Darwin, to hypothesise that any natural mechanisms responsible for the origin of life would be based upon organic chemistry, since life itself is manifestly based thereupon - millions of organic reactions are taking place within your body as you read this, and indeed, the cessation of some of those reactions constitutes the end of life for any organisms affected. Alexander Oparin, the Soviet biochemist, was the first to publish hypotheses about the chemical basis of the origin of life [3], and based his own hypotheses on the notion that a reducing atmosphere existed on the primordial Earth, facilitating the production of various organic compounds that would then react further, producing a cascade of escalating complexity that would ultimately result in self-replicating entities. Back in 1924, his hypotheses remained beyond the remit of scientists to test, but that would soon change.

The first indications that Oparin had alighted upon workable ideas came in 1953, with the celebrated Miller-Urey Experiment [4], in which electrical discharges in a reducing atmosphere composed of simple molecules produced measurable quantities of amino acids. Miller himself only cited the presence of five amino acids, as he was reliant at the time upon paper chromatography as his primary analytical tool, which was only sensitive enough to detect those five amino acids cited. However, Miller had been more successful than he originally claimed: after his death, preserved samples of his original reaction mixtures were subject to state-of-the-art analysis, using gas chromatograph mass spectrometry, a technique millions of times more sensitive, and regarded as the 'gold standard' in modern organic analysis. That subsequent analysis yielded not five, but twenty-two amino acids [5].

Early criticism of Miller's work in the scientific community focused upon the requirement for a reducing atmosphere in accordance with the Oparin model. However, subsequent workers determined by repeat experimentation, that a range of atmospheric constitutions would be suitable for a Miller-Urey type synthesis on a prebiotic Earth [6], several of those constitutions being only mildly reducing, expanding the range of conditions for which the Oparin model would be viable. More recently, work has suggested that the prebiotic Earth could have developed an atmosphere containing considerably more hydrogen than originally thought [7], making the Oparin reducing atmosphere once again more plausible. Indeed, the range of conditions under which amino acids could be synthesised has since been expanded to include interstellar ice clouds, courtesy of more recent research [8 - 14], and the Murchison meteorite was found to contain no less than ninety amino acids, nineteen of which are found on Earth, which were obviously synthesised whilst that meteorite was still in space. Other data from meteorites adds to this body of evidence [10, 15, 16].

The formation of amino acids itself, whilst an important step in any naturalistic origin of life, would need to be accompanied by some means of linking those amino acids into peptide molecules [17] - the process by which proteins are formed. A significant step forward with respect to this, arose when researchers alighted upon the fact that carbonyl sulphide, a gas that is produced in quantity naturally by volcanoes, acts as a catalyst for the formation of peptides, increasing yields dramatically [18]. This would facilitate peptide formation not only in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, but in the vicinity of terrestrial volcanoes close to bodies of open water. Indeed, Miller had produced the 22 amino acids found in some of his reaction mixtures by extending the synthesis to include volcanic input, though not carbonyl sulphide - the addition of carbonyl sulphide would, however, facilitate peptide formation rapidly once the amino acids themselves were formed.

One additional problem to be overcome was the 'chirality problem'. Amino acids, with the exception of glycine, are chiral molecules, existing in two forms that are mirror images of each other in space (stereoisomers). Initially, methods for producing one form preferentially over another were something of a puzzle, but chemists working in an entirely different field established that a process called 'chiral catalysis' exists, indeed, this work led to a Nobel Prize for the researchers in question [19]. The demonstrated existence of working chiral catalysts [20] led abiogenesis researchers to seek such catalytic processes in their own field, and, in due course, these were alighted upon [15, 21- 24].

However, amino acids are not the only molecules required for life, important though they are. Some form of self-replicating molecule, providing the basis of an inheritance mechanism, is required. Given the difficulties involved in synthesising DNA as a total synthesis, researchers turned to RNA instead, a molecule that still forms the basis of the genomes of numerous extant taxonomic Families of viruses today. RNA, being easier to synthesise, was considered a natural first choice for the basis of primordial genomes, and thus, attention turned to the synthesis of RNA under prebiotic conditions. This was soon found not only to be possible, but to be readily achievable in the laboratory, and indeed, catalysis plays a role in these experiments. Natural clays formed from a mineral called montmorillonite provide a ready natural catalyst that would have been present in quantity on a prebiotic Earth, and the catalytic chemistry of RNA formation whilst adsorbed to such clays is now a standard part of the scientific literature [22- 42].

Having established that RNA was synthesisable under prebiotic conditions, researchers then turned to the matter of establishing the existence of self-replicating species of RNA molecules. This was duly successful [30, 43, 45 - 47], establishing that such species could have arisen among the extant RNA molecules being synthesised on a prebiotic Earth, and of course, once one self-replicating species exists, the process of evolution can begin, which has also since been demonstrated to apply to replicating RNAs in appropriate laboratory experiments [48].

Once a self-replicating molecule that can form the basis of an inheritance mechanism exists, the next stage scientists postulate to be required is encapsulation within some sort of selectively permeable membrane. The molecules of choice for these membrane are lipids, which have been demonstrated repeatedly in the laboratory to undergo spontaneous self-organisation into various structures, such as bilayer sheets, micelles and liposomes. Indeed, in the case of phospholipids, they can be stimulated to self-organise by the simple process of agitating the solution within which they are suspended - literally, shake the bottle [49 - 53]. Moreover, research has established that these lipids can encapsulate RNA molecules, and selectively admit the passage of base and sugar molecules to facilitate RNA replication [54, 55]. With the advent of this discovery in appropriate laboratory research, protocell formation is but a short step away, and indeed, the latest research is now actively concentrating upon the minimum components required in order for a viable, self-replicating protocell to exist. Prebiotic lipid formation is also a part of the repertoire of the literature in the field, and some papers now extant document the first experiments aimed at producing viable self-replicating protocells [55 - 70].

Whilst scientists naturally accept that 'joining the dots' between these individual steps is entirely proper, particularly on a body the size of a planet over a 100 million year period, the absence of experiments actively coupling these stages is a matter remaining to be addressed, though such experiments will be ambitious in scope indeed if they are to produce complete working protocells at the end of a long production line starting with a Miller-Urey synthesis. A 'grand synthesis' of this sort in the laboratory is not high on the scientific agenda at the moment, which is more concerned with validating the individual hypothesised steps, but once those steps are accepted as valid in the field, doubtless one day a 'grand synthesis' will be attempted, and the success thereof will establish beyond serious doubt that our pale blue dot became our home courtesy of well-defined and testable chemical reactions. Even so, no one conversant with the literature seriously considers any more that magical forces are required to produce life: just as vitalism was refuted by Wöhler's classic experiment, that gave rise to organic chemistry as an empirical science in the first place, so it is likely to be rendered ever more irrelevant in abiogenesis research, as the steps leading to life's blossoming on our planet are traversed and studied in ever greater detail.


[1] An apposite paper (among many) covering the Late Heavy Bombardment is:

Origin Of The Cataclysmic Late Heavy Bombardment Period Of The Terrestrial Planets by R. Gomes, H. F. Levison, K. Tsiganis and A. Morbidelli, Nature, 435: 466-469 (26th May 2005)

[2] Cited in The Life And Letters Of Charles Darwin, Including An Autobiographical Chapter, edited by Francis Darwin, 1887

[3] The Origin And Development Of Life by Alexander Oparin, 1924 (English translation: NASA TTF-488)

[4] A Production Of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions by Stanley L. Miller, Science, 117: 528-529 (15th May 1953)

[5] The Miller Volcanic Discharge Spark Experiment by Adam P. Johnson, H. James Cleaves, Jason P. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Antonio Lazcano and Jeffrey L. Bada, Science, 322:404 (17th Ocotber 2008)

[6] Amino Acid Synthesis From Hydrogen Cyanide Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions by J. Oró and S. S.Kamat, Nature, 190: 442-443 (1961)

[7] A Hydrogen Rich Early Earth Atmosphere by Feng Tian, Owen B. Toon, Alexander A. Pavlov and H. de Sterck, Science, 308: 1014-1017 (13th May 2005)

[8] A Rigorous Attempt To Verify Interstellar Glycine by I. E. Snyder, F. J. Lovas, J. M. Hollis, D. N. Friedel, P. R. Jewell, A. Remijan, V. V. Ilyushin, E. A. Alekseev and S. F. Dyubko, The Astrophysical Journal, 619(2): 914-930 (1st February 2005)

[9] Interstellar Glycine by Yi-Jehng Kuan, Steven B. Charnley, Hui-Chun Huang, Wei-Ling Tseng, and Zbigniew Kisiel, The Astrophysical Journal, 593: 848-867 (20th August 2003)

[10] Prebiotic Materials From On And Off The Early Earth by Max Bernstein, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

[11] Racemic Amino Acids From The Ultraviolet Photolysis Of Interstellar Ice Analogues by Max P. Bernstein, Jason P. Dworkin, Scott A. Sandford, George W. Copoper and Louis J. Allamandola, Nature, 416: 401-403

[12] A Combined Experimental And Theoretical Study On The Formation Of The Amino Acid Glycine And Its Isomer In Extraterrestrial Ices by Philip D. Holtom, Chris J. Bennett, Yoshihiro Osamura, Nigel J Mason and Ralf. I Kaiser, The Astrophysical Journal, 626: 940-952 (20th June 2005)

[13] The Lifetimes Of Nitriles (CN) And Acids (COOH) During Ultraviolet Photolysis And Their Survival In Space by Max P. Bernstein, Samantha F. M. Ashbourne, Scott A. Sandford and Louis J. Allamandola, The Astrophysical Journal, 601: 3650270 (20th January 2004)

[14] The Prebiotic Molecules Observed In The Interstellar Gas by P. Thaddeus, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (7th September 2006)

[15] Molecular Asymmetry In Extraterrestrial Chemistry: Insights From A Pristine Meteorite by Sandra Pizzarello, Yongsong Huang and Marcelo R. Alexandre, Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(10): 3700-3704 (11th March 2008)

[16] Organic Compounds In Carbonaceous Meteorites by Mark A. Sephton, Natural Products Reports (Royal Society of Chemistry), 19: 292-311 (2002)

[17] Peptides By Activation Of Amino Acids With CO On (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications For The Origin Of Life by Claudia Huber and Günter Wächtershäuser, Science, 281: 670-672 (31st July 1998)

[18] Carbonyl Sulphide-Mediated Prebiotic Formation Of Peptides by Luke Leman, Leslie Orgel and M. Reza Ghadiri, Science, 306: 283-286 (8th October 2004)

[19] Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 2001, was awarded to William S. Knowles, Ryoji Noyori and K. Barry Sharpless, for their work establishing the existence of asymmetric catalysts and chiral catalysis - see the Nobel Lecture by William S. Knowles [url=

[20] Homogeneous Catalysis In The Decomposition Of Diazo Compounds By Copper Chelates: Asymmetric Carbenoid Reactions by H. Nozaki, H. Takaya, S. Moriuti and R. Noyori, Tetrahedron, 24(9): 3655-2669 (1968)

[21] Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151 (20 February 2004)

[22] Homochiral Selection In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed And Uncatalysed Prebiotic Synthesis Of RNA by Prakash C. Joshi, Stefan Pitsch and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications (Royal Society of Chemistry), 2497-2498 (2000) [DOI: 10.1039/b007444f]

[23] RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

[24] Catalysis In Prebiotic Chemistry: Application To The Synthesis Of RNA Oligomers by James P. Ferris, Prakash C. Joshi, K-J Wang, S. Miyakawa and W. Huang, Advances in Space Research, 33: 100-105 (2004)

[25] Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

[26] Ligation Of The Hairpin Ribozyme In cis Induced By Freezing And Dehydration by Sergei A. Kazakov, Svetlana V. Balatskaya and Brian H. Johnston, The RNA Journal, 12: 446-456 (2006)

[27] Mineral Catalysis And Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalysed Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris, Elements, 1: 145-149 (June 2005)

[28] Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

[29] Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

[30] Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

[31] Prebiotic Chemistry And The Origin Of The RNA World by Leslie E. Orgel, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39: 99-123 (2004)

[32] Prebiotic Synthesis On Minerals: Bridging The Prebiotic And RNA Worlds by James P. Ferris, Biological Bulletin, 196: 311-314 (June 1999)

[33] RNA Catalysis In Model Protocell Vesicles by Irene A Chen, Kourosh Salehi-Ashtiani and Jack W Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 127: 13213-13219 (2005)

[34] RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

[35] RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

[36] RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

[37] RNA Evolution And The Origin Of Life by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 338: 217-224 (16th March 1989)

[38] Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

[39] Synthesis Of 35-40 Mers Of RNA Oligomers From Unblocked Monomers. A Simple Approach To The RNA World by Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1458-1459 (2003)

[40] Synthesis Of Long Prebiotic Oligomers On Mineral Surfaces by James P. Ferris, Aubrey R. Hill Jr, Rihe Liu and Leslie E. Orgel, Nature, 381: 59-61 (2nd May 1996)

[41] The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 418: 214-221, 11th July 2002

[42] The Roads To And From The RNA World by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

[43] A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

[44] Emergence Of A Replicating Species From An In Vitro RNA Evolution Reaction by Ronald R. Breaker and Gerald F. Joyce, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 6093-6097 (June 1994)

[45] Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

[46] Self-Sustained Replication Of An RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, ScienceExpress, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856 (8th January 2009)

[47] The Origin Of Replicators And Reproducers by Eörs Szathmáry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

[48] Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

[49] Formation Of Bimolecular Membranes From Lipid Monolayers And A Study Of Their Electrical Properties by M. Montal and P. Mueller, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 69(12): 3561-3566 (December 1972)

[50] Lipid Bilayer Fibres From Diastereomeric And Enantiomeric N-Octylaldonamides by Jürgen-Hinrich Fuhrhop, Peter Schneider, Egbert Boekema and Wolfgang Helfrich, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 110: 2861-2867 (1988)

[51] Molecular Dynamics Simulation Of The Formation, Structure, And Dynamics Of Small Phospholipid Vesicles by Siewert J. Marrink and Alan E. Mark, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 125: 15233-15242 (2003)

[52] Simulation Of The Spontaneous Aggregation Of Phospholipids Into Bilayers by Siewert J. Marrink, Eric Lindahl, Olle Edholm and Alan E. Mark, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 123: 8638-8639 (2001)

[53] The Lipid World by Daniel Segré, Dafna Ben-Eli, David W. Deamer and Doron Lancet, Origins of Life And Evolution of the Biosphere, 31: 119-145, 2001

[54] Replicating Vesicles As Models Of Primitive Cell Growth And Division by Martin M. Hanczyc and Jack W. Szostak, Current Opinion In Chemical Biology, 8: 660-664 (22nd October 2004)

[55] RNA Catalysis In Model Protocell Vesicles by Irene A Chen, Kourosh Salehi-Ashtiani and Jack W Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 127: 13213-13219 (2005)

[56] Coevolution Of Compositional Protocells And Their Environment by Barak Shenhav, Aia Oz and Doron Lancet, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1813-1819 (9th May 2007)

[57] Computational Models For The Formation Of Protocell Structures by Linglan Edwards, Yun Peng and James A. Reggia, Artificial Life, 4(1): 61-77 (1998)

[58] Coupled Growth And Division Of Model Protocell Membranes by Ting F. Zhu and Jack W. Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 131: 5705-5713 (2009)

[59] Evolution And Self-Assembly Of Protocells by Ricard V. Solé, The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology, 41: 274-284 (2009)

[60] Formation Of Protocell-Like Structures From Glycine And Formaldehyde In A Modified Sea Medium by Hiroshi Yanagawa and Fujio Egami, Proceedings of the Japan Academy, 53: 42-45 (12th January 1977)

[61] Formation Of Protocell-Like Vesicles In A Thermal Diffusion Column by Itay Budin, Raphael J. Bruckner and Jack W. Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 131: 9628-9629 (2009)

[62] Generic Darwinian Selection In Catalytic Protocell Assemblies by Andreea Munteanu, Camille Stephan-Otto Attolini, Steen Rasmussen, Hans Ziock and Ricard V. Solé, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1847-1855 (2007)

[63] Kin Selection And Virulence In The Evolution Of Protocells And Parasites by Steven A. Frank, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part B, 258: 153-161 (1994)

[64] Nutrient Uptake By Protocells: A Liposome Model System by Pierre-Alain Monnard and David W. Deamer, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 31: 147-155 (2001)

[65] Synchronisation Phenomena In Internal Reaction Models Of Protocells by Roberto Serra, Timoteo Carletti, Alessandro Filisetti and Irene Poli, Artificial life, 13: 123-128 (2007)

[66] Synchronisation Phenomena In Protocell Models by Alessandro Filisetti, Roberto Serra, Timoteo Carletti, Irene Poli and Marco Villani, Biophysical Reviews and Letters, 3(1-2): 325-342 (2008)

[67] Synthetic Protocell Biology: From Reproduction To Computation by Ricard V. Solé, Andreea Munteanu, Carlos Rodriguez-Caso and Javier Macia, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1727-1739 (October 2007)

[68] Template-Directed Synthesis Of A Genetic Polymer In A Model Protocell by Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krisnamurthy, Sylvia Tobé, Douglas A. Treco and Jack W. Szostak, Nature, 454: 122-125 (4th June 2008)

[69] The Emergence Of Competition Between Model Protocells by Irene A Chen, Richard W. Roberts and Jack W. Szostak, Science, 305:1474-1476 (3rd September 2004)

[70] Thermostability Of Model Protocell Membranes by Sheref S. Mansy and Jack W. Szostak, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(36): 13351-13355 (9th September 2008)

Since I wrote that original exposition, several thousand more scientific papers documenting relevant experiments have been published, and scientists researching in the field are now actively experimenting with model protocells constructed in the laboratory. You can find examples of the most recent research here, and learn about more successful investigations in the field.

So before you post yet more bullshit that merely demonstrates your ignorance of the subject, I suggest you learn some actual facts about the subject.

Right, moving on from this, let's continue deploying the decontamination ordnance ...

because it is convenient to them

Bollocks. What part of "the above scientific papers, and many others besides, provide evidence for the requisite postulates" do you not understand?

This isn't about "convenience", it's about rigorously tested postulates validated by laboratory experiments. Do learn this elementary concept before posting yet more fatuous drivel.

it fits into their scheme that God does not exist.

Actually, if you bothered paying attention to what we actually state here, instead of your own fabricated misrepresentations thereof, what we actually postulate is that if a god type entity actually exists, it won't be any of the fatuous candidates presented in pre-scientific mythologies, such as the one you clearly adhere to. Oh, speaking of which, if your imaginary magic man actually existed, why did your magic man allow fatuous and absurd errors to be included in the mythology in question? Especially in the light of assertions about the purported "omniscience" of said entity, which if true, would mean that said entity would know in advance that these errors would be discovered by humans in the future?

They cannot prove (produce evidence) that it went like that: they just BELIEVE it.

Bullshit. I just listed 70 scientific papers containing relevant evidence from laboratory experiments above. Your lie is busted.

They come up with junk theories that presumably make that rational, logical, "scientific".

The world's chemists are pointing and laughing at you for describing their working laboratory experiments as "junk theories". Enjoy the sound thereof as it rings in your ears.

They spend their lives and money to look for that one evidence that can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, just because they have to prove that there was nothing supernatural in it.

Guess what? Those laboratory experiments establish this conclusively. Game over for your infantile attachment to a mythology written by piss-stained Bronze Age incels, who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses.

They are simply biased.


Don't you just love the way in which preference for working empirical test is summarily dismissed as "bias", by supernaturalists who are manifestly biased in favour of an evidence-free, assertion-laden mythological view of the world?

Here's a clue for you. Your mythology asserts all manner of ridiculous notions that were tossed into the bin by diligent scientific enquiry a long time ago. Your mythology is, to be brief, full of shit. Though perhaps not quite as full of shit as the diseased rants you post here.

Here's a little test you can conduct, just to see how full of shit your mythology is. Turn to Genesis 30:37-39. Read it. Then, perform the following tasks, without outside assistance:

[1] Work out what this passage asserts;

[2] If you have successfully conducted [1] above, work out why it's utter drivel. Bonus points if you can work out who first demonstrated experimentally that it was drivel.

Care to take up that challenge, or are you going to follow the precedent set by every other supernaturalist I've dropped this on, and chicken out?

ferguson1951's picture
If I study all that, I will

If I study all that, I will probably become like you, and that is outside the question,

Testable natural processes that do not guarantee one bit that things actually went that way.

In addition, why do you carefully avoid to test "extraordinary" events?
When a rational scientist is asked about miracles he will say that science is not concerned with miracles.
But when a miracle occurs they go any length to give a natural explanation.

To me, you do nothing else but reinforce my dislike for science and the like.

LostLocke's picture
If I study all that, I will

If I study all that, I will probably become like you...

Translation: If I read scientific papers I might learn something new that may actually cause me to change my mind.

Wanna test miracles? Great, let's do it.
Tell us where and when. Set up the parameters for the miracle, and make sure you have a control or "placebo" group too. Then when it's done, repeat a couple more times to make sure we have enough data to collate it and can separate any anomalies or "stray points" from the actual data cluster.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Fergie

@ Fergie

You are great advertisement for the theory that the last refuge of religion is the ignorance of their adherents.

David Killens's picture


"To me, you do nothing else but reinforce my dislike for science and the like."

Do you even understand what science is? It is just a process, proven to be the most effective at discovering the truth. That is all it is, just a proven methodology. From science mankind has advanced in every discipline, from communications to medicine to improved crop growing.

You flat-out reject science because it disproves a lot of the whacko crap filling your beloved bible. Which is interesting because the Vatican does not reject science, it embraces it. They may be the biggest coven of child rapists ever, but at least they understand reality.

So you would rather believe the ramblings from barbaric goat herders from over two thousand years ago, who just made up shit?

Tin-Man's picture
@Fergie Re: "To me, you do

@Fergie Re: "To me, you do nothing else but reinforce my dislike for science and the like."

...Says the guy who uses a computer and/or cell phone to post that very message on an Internet site. The same guy who claims to have used various methods of modern transportation (including airplanes) to travel around the world. Yep, that damned science shit is The Devil!... Oh, the irony!... LMAO...

Calilasseia's picture
And it's soiled nappy dumping

And it's soiled nappy dumping time again ...

If I study all that, I will probably become like you, and that is outside the question

Translation: "I'm not going to change my mind, no matter how much data is presented that conclusively demonstrates that I am wrong".

In short, your position consists of "if reality and my favourite mythology differ, reality is wrong and my favourite mythology is right". Let's see how long it takes you to work out what a spectacle you're presenting here by adopting this position.

Testable natural processes that do not guarantee one bit that things actually went that way.

Ha ha ha ha ha. They're a damn sight more reliable than assertions from a pre-scientific mythology. Let's see, who shall I run with here? The choices on offer are:

[1] Tenured professional scientists, who have not only spent decades learning how to treat observational data in a proper, rigorous manner, but learning how to apply said treatment of data to working laboratory experiments;

[2] Piss-stained Bronze Age incels who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, and the fatuous assertions they scribbled in a diseased mythology, which includes such joys as gleeful celebration of bloody Lebensraum wars and the taking of underage sex slaves afterwards.

Wow, this choice is so hard ...

Oh, and the reliability of testable natural processes forms the basis of your comfortable, famine-free, disease-free life surrounded by expensive electronic toys. None of this was the product of your sad little mythology and its moronic assertions.

In addition, why do you carefully avoid to test "extraordinary" events?

Which "extraordinary" events would these be? Only the scientists cited above, found the answers to questions you didn't even know fucking existed, until I brought the paper citations here. Put up or shut up.

When a rational scientist is asked about miracles he will say that science is not concerned with miracles.

Correction, what any competent scientist will tell you, if you actually bother to ask one, is that any genuine evidence for a miracle will almost certainly result in a re-writing of the laws of physics. Since the laws of physics underwent a wholesale rewrite during the transition from Newton to Einstein and the various pioneers of quantum mechanics, there's a precedent to take into account here. But then you've openly declared your complete and wilful ignorance of even the basics, let alone the fine detail, in past posts of yours.

But when a miracle occurs they go any length to give a natural explanation.

Correction - when a "miracle" is asserted to occur, the provenance of that assertion is subject to proper test, and either [1] the assertion is found to be untestable, and discardable on that basis, [2] is found to be false, and discardable on that basis, or [3] is found to be a misrepresentation of a natural phenomenon. I've already dealt with the Fatima bullshit in an earlier post in this thread, as an example of the sort of analysis that is brought to bear, and you can go back here and re-read that dissection in full, for which you never had anything even remotely resembling an answer.

Here's a clue for you: those of us who paid attention in class, are aware of the existence of observational consequences for a host of asserted phenomena, and if those observational consequences don't show up, those asserted phenomena were precisely that - merely asserted.

To me, you do nothing else but reinforce my dislike for science and the like.

Encountering pedlars of manifest lies such as yourself, is what led me to regard your mythology as poison. Though your mythology isn't unique in this respect. However, I am minded to note how ready adherents of your mythology are, to jettison the Ninth Commandment thereof, if they think doing so will further their apologetics, and as a corollary of noting this, point you to Matthew 7:5.

Oh, by the way, I see you chickened out of that challenge re: Genesis 30:37-39. Quelle fucking surprise. I've never met a supernaturalist yet with the balls to face that one.

Moving on to another contributor ...

You are great advertisement for the theory that the last refuge of religion is the ignorance of their adherents.

You forgot, the ignorance and duplicity of their adherents. :)

ferguson1951's picture
You clumsily think the world

You clumsily think the world revolves thanks to logic.

Hahaha, you have not been to Italy!!!

David Killens's picture
"P.S. Calilasseia must be a

"P.S. Calilasseia must be a woman, I think I can guess by her arrogance and acidity, hahaha"

Wow, just wow. I will refrain and allow Calilasseia the honor in divulging the truth.


LostLocke's picture
You clumsily think the world

You clumsily think the world revolves thanks to logic.

"Logic" is a human concept. The world revolves thanks to physics.

Nyarlathotep's picture
ferguson1951 - P.S.

ferguson1951 - P.S. Calilasseia must be a woman, I think I can guess by her arrogance and acidity, hahaha

Forum rules - 8. No homophobic, or sexist comments

[from a moderator: Either you or I will be removing (with an edit) your sexist comment from our forums. If I have to do it, I'll remove you while I'm at it]

ferguson1951's picture
Nor you have been to India.

Nor you have been to India.

They worship cows, they have no idea about bacteria, they believe in reincarnation, karma and snakes and rats being gods. But all they really strive for is money.

If the world is run by logic I am Einstein's reincarnation.

Rohan M.'s picture


"Nor you have been to India.

They worship cows, they have no idea about bacteria, they believe in reincarnation, karma and snakes and rats being gods. But all they really strive for is money.

Wow. More incoherent word salad that has literally nothing to do with any of this. You clearly hadn't bothered to read LostLocke's above response dismembering your absurd strawman of how we allegedly believe that "the world is run according to logic", so I'll quote it for you:

"Logic" is a human concept. The world revolves thanks to physics."

Since the 15% of what you said that actually was even close to coherent seems to hinge on said strawman, it doesn't even need addressing.

ferguson1951's picture
But you do not have to go

But you do not have to go that far: look around you.

All that people mainly want to do is get a job and a partner (some sex). And they call that life, hahaha

Sheldon's picture
ferguson1951 "All that

ferguson1951 "All that people mainly want to do is get a job and a partner (some sex). And they call that life, hahaha"

So you're unemployed, and not getting any?

My sympathies to you then. Though your smug, sneeringly arrogant tone seems oddly incongruous alongside this new information if I'm honest? It must be a front, bless.

ferguson1951's picture
From the WHO

From the WHO
Mental disorders affect one in four people
Treatment available but not being used
Geneva, 4 October— One in four people in the world will be affected by mental or neurological disorders at some point in their lives. Around 450 million people currently suffer from such conditions, placing mental disorders among the leading causes of ill-health and disability worldwide.

ferguson1951's picture
Conspiracy theories are far

Conspiracy theories are far from a new phenomenon. They have been a constant hum in the background for at least the past 100 years, says Prof Joe Uscinski, author of American Conspiracy Theories.

They are also more widespread than you might think.

"Everybody believes in at least one and probably a few," he says. "And the reason is simple: there is an infinite number of conspiracy theories out there. If we were to poll on all of them, everybody is going to check a few boxes."


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.