thepete.tumblr.com

Experiences, opinions, politics, puppets, scifi, toys and other stuff from my every-day life. Check out my main blog, follow me on Twitter or buy the stuff in the sidebar! THANKS!

Posts tagged Living

Jun 30

atheist-overdose:

Creationist lies at dictionary.comfollow for the best atheist posts on tumblr

I just checked out Dictionary.com’s entry for abiogenesis and it still says this.
Merriam-Webster calls abiogenesis: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter—called alsospontaneous generation;
RationalWiki defines abiogenesis: …the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules.
Finally, Wikipedia seems the most balanced by defining abiogenesis this way: is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
Seems Dictionary.com is seriously in the wrong.
Besides, how can you “discredit” a theory? Either there is evidence for it or not. My understanding is that scientists have yet to find hard proof of abiogenesis, but it is the most logical explanation for how life became, well, life. Certainly more logical than “God created it!”

Creationist lies at dictionary.com

follow for the best atheist posts on tumblr

I just checked out Dictionary.com’s entry for abiogenesis and it still says this.

Merriam-Webster calls abiogenesis: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter—called alsospontaneous generation;

RationalWiki defines abiogenesis: …the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules.

Finally, Wikipedia seems the most balanced by defining abiogenesis this way: is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.

Seems Dictionary.com is seriously in the wrong.

Besides, how can you “discredit” a theory? Either there is evidence for it or not. My understanding is that scientists have yet to find hard proof of abiogenesis, but it is the most logical explanation for how life became, well, life. Certainly more logical than “God created it!”

Jun 16

atheistoverdose:

If it doesn’t fit the criteria then it isn’t life.

follow for the best atheist posts on tumblr

I’m going to be the fly in the ointment and say that replacing one dogma with another is a mistake. The universe is filled with shades of gray that we need to interpret. A single cell is life, but should that single cell of life have as much value as a newborn baby in a crib? Or a full-grown adult? Saying “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” just fights one weak argument with another weak argument.

It’s not even that hard to make a strong argument!

We need to stop having these pithy, black & white arguments filled with absolute declarations, when it’s fairly obvious that the universe is a bit more subtle than most of us want to admit.

Just my ¥2…

(via atheist-overdose)