Where do we come from

This is condescension:

“I don’t think, therefore I’m religious…”

“Salvation guaranteed, or triple your money back!”

“I can not help thinking Rene Descartes was a drunk.”

“In my view then, no need to quibble about a picayune detail like life getting started on some scrubby planet, but to each their own.”

“Any kind of God is an almighty answer to all of questions we could have. It can give peace of mind for those who need an absolute answer to everything.”

“I come from a beautiful country in Europe full of idiots, but it could be worse, many people here come from USA.”

On the other hand, if you find my description of the prevailing theory of the origin of life, “lightening repeatedly striking seawater over billions of years,” inaccurate and condescending I’d be interested in hearing why.

Where do we come from is a science question, not a religion question.

1 Like

The question is what it is: a question. Science may or may not be the right tool for answering it.

I suggest reading a bit more Douglas Adams. :wink:

2 Likes

It’s an inaccurate strawman for sure. Using it sarcastically to make a naturalistic position look ridiculous “Either God or lightening repeatedly striking saltwater over billions of years.” is definitely condescending.

Read him, not as impressive as lead to believe. I prefer Scott Adams.

1 Like

I’d say it’s both, but one will probably end up providing a more accurate answer.

Inaccurate is one thing, but what’s condescending about invoking lightning? It’s not as majestic as the popular conception of divinity, ergo it’s insulting? :cloud_with_lightning:

About invoking lightning? Nothing in itself. Using it to paint a ridiculous picture of abiogenisis for the purpose of mocking it in comparison to one’s preferred theory is condescending however, and more to the point, for someone accusing other people of being condescending :2cents:

1 Like

The classic Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the basic chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions have been proposed, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches (“metabolism-first” hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[20] Complex organic molecules have been found in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.[21][22][23][24]

Now I’m confused. What’s inaccurate about that?

They’ve suggested many ideas with “various external sources of energy” which undoubtedly include lightning, but “lightning striking seawater over billions of years” is a ridiculous characterization.

Because it only takes a millisecond?

Because there are myriad other possibilities, and choosing one ridiculous sounding one for sarcastic effect is condescending.

“Lightning” sounds more ridiculous than “Big Bang”? Or “Man in the Sky”? :thinking:

Now I have no idea what you’re talking about. I think I’ve explained myself pretty clearly.

You mean it’s like these?

They’re drawn in a silly way, but that’s what cartoons are for. They still reflect the theory of evolution accurately enough – or at least the second one does.

The way I see it, if the theory is that life started with a lightning strike (or multiple lightning strikes), then fine, that’s the theory, and there’s nothing cartoonish about it. :idunno:

But it’s not, and certainly not “lightning striking seawater over billions of years”.

It’s not the whole theory, but you might say “God” isn’t the whole theory of creationism either.

I think I’d say God is essentially the whole story. He might have used different tools such as straight-up six-day magic, a quick poof followed by a long period of evolution, or abiogenesis for that matter. But you can’t have creationism without a creator, right?

Aha! Are not words like “magic” and “poof” condescending? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I think they’re fair characterizations. I don’t think I need to use some kind of sacred terminology for it. I’m also recognizing the possibility that God could have been part of the equation, tacitly. But anyway, I’m not the one who was accusing people of being condescending.