NCclimber

That seems to happen a lot around here.

This thread illustrates why personal injury litigation is booming. A whole lot of people in this country think if someone gets hurt, someone else is to blame and should be held accountable. What so many people seem to be overlooking is this young man did this to himself. The officer shackled and secured him in a safe place. It was the boy's unwise actions that led to his death. Using terms like guardian and custodian to put an unreasonable expectation on the officer just doesn't cut it, in my book. The young man died by his own actions. Case closed.

So what's the scientific answer to "how did life on Earth begin?"? Incredibly stupid question. I'll pass that on to Bill Von. I notice you asked him a different question, one that wasn't loaded. Actually, he responded to the very question that you called "incredibly stupid." Nice turn around. Instead addressing the topic you try to make it about alternative thinking. I notice that throughout this exchange, you've repeatedly tried to make it about superstition or outdated incorrect beliefs or making up answers. It's like you want to make this into a Science vs. Religion issue, when I've just been asking about the science aspect of it. Since the title of this thread is "The God Delusion ..." why is it inappropriate to bring up deluded and now debunked religious explanations of natural phenomena? What were once considered acts of the gods is now just physics. Life's origins will soon be in the same category if the religious right doesn't cut off research funding. I am at a loss at how your posts frequently display a major disconnect from the posts they are responses to. It's like you're only interested in beating the other person by whatever means possible. I sometimes don't respond to your posts because I can't help wondering "what the fuck is he talking about??? This has nothing to do with my previous post." In the quoted post above, I was asking you questions about science. You responded by deriding religious beliefs... like that's gives you a win by default . Then you use the original topic of thread to justify your answer, which was irrelevant to the previous post. In case you didn't know, threads (and conversations in general) drift. Offshoot tangential conversations begin and sometimes even take over the thread. Really. This happens on a regular basis. I'm not shittin' you. The thing is... most people go with these offshoot discussions and parlay the actual issues in them or find a credible way to bring the discussion back to the original topic, instead of saying "Well... this is what the original thread is about. Who cares if it's irrelevant to the current discussion.

Now we know. Getting back to the OP, I have never met anyone who professed an "end of days" belief. Whenever I do hear about these types, it always comes from a non-religious person... typically someone who has a chip on their shoulder about Christianity. Maybe it's one of those karmic/spiritual connections that these "the end is near" types seek out non-believers, but pass by everyone who has any level of faith.

My point was I never brought anything religious to the discussion. In other words, his points about superstition and such were irrelevant to my posts, which he was responding to. This part is funny. Can you provide a post where I said "I believe God created life on Earth"? It's about reading comprehension... not just of what those you agree with say.... but also those who you may disagree with.

I'm still not sure how placing someone under arrest makes the officer wholly responsibe for preventing that person from doing themselves harm???

In other words - the Founding Fathers were opposed to a national religion... that might require mandatory church attendance... which was fairly common before we told England to piss off. Funny how that has come to mean manger scenes are prohibited on community property or traditional Christmas plays in elementary schools are a form of federal religious indoctrination. Silly.

Not even close to a similar situation and not enough information to form a sound opinion. Goes to the point about law enforcement being responsible for our welfare once we're arrested. Speaking of "not enough information" - do we have any information as to why the arresting officer would have had any indication that the arrestee would make a break and jump off a 60 foot high bridge. I think the thead title sums this situation up, nicely.

When you are handcuffed and in a police cruiser, you are generally not free anymore, but in the custody and control of a police officer, which also means they are responsible for you. With the power of arrest and detention also comes the responsibility to care for that person. I don't get why people are okay with organizations taking away freedom but not take the accompanying responsibility. Hypothetically speaking... let's say you get throw in a crowded holding cell and start spouting racist crap to the bruthas. Are the officers in the next room to blame for you getting pummelled?

Nice turn around. Instead addressing the topic you try to make it about alternative thinking. I notice that throughout this exchange, you've repeatedly tried to make it about superstition or outdated incorrect beliefs or making up answers. It's like you want to make this into a Science vs. Religion issue, when I've just been asking about the science aspect of it. Don't you get it dude, he's making a great point!! You are doing the same thing that religous people like you have been doing for thousands of years. When something can't be explained, you say God did it, that is until someone can prove that it is a natural occurance. Just because we can't explain yet how life on earth was created, doesn't mean that we never will and it also doesn't mean that a God created life. Where did I use the "God did it" rationale? You might want to pay attention to what people actually say before accusing them of saying things they didn't say. This whole thing reminds of how people who question our involvement in Iraq get labelled terrorist sympathizers.

Seems like this is a situation where people think law enforcement should have anticipated behavior that they had no prior experience with. Or can someone produce other examples where drunk, speeding teenagers have tried to escape off bridges, after being hancuffed, secured by a seatbelt and locked in a cruiser? What will probably happen is law enforcement nationwide will have new additional procedures placed on them, to prevent this from happening a second time. Meanwhile, thousands of 991 requests for help (every year) will go be responded to more slowly because officers will have to babysit criminals, while waiting for backup.

Thanks Bill. Got any links for a layman like myself? I like this one, but it doesn't seem to strongly favor your claims. [url]http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

So what's the scientific answer to "how did life on Earth begin?"? Incredibly stupid question. I'll pass that on to Bill Von. Nice turn around. Instead addressing the topic you try to make it about alternative thinking. I notice that throughout this exchange, you've repeatedly tried to make it about superstition or outdated incorrect beliefs or making up answers. It's like you want to make this into a Science vs. Religion issue, when I've just been asking about the science aspect of it.

are suggesting engineers should all be judged by counting how many bridges/balconies/buildings collapse? I am completely in disagreement that doctors that go to church should have their licenses to practice revoked - for the sole reason of their church attendance. I didn't write anything about bridges. YOU brought up the topic of human sacrifices by religions. Nice tangent attempt, though. And you compared them to the Crusades. Nice tangent attempt.

Don't you mean "which, if any, is correct? Which theory has the most evidence to support it? Do any of thses theories go beyond conjecture?

Priceless!

Just because something cannot be explained does not mean the best explanation is God did it or any other supernatural explanation. It just means we don't understand it yet and it needs to be investigated. You mean like "how life on Earth began"? 100 years ago we didn't understand the origin of earthquakes and tsunamis. Some societies attributed them to angry gods. 300 years ago we didn't understand lightning and thunder - most societies attributed them to angry gods. 400 years ago we didn't understand that gravity controlled the dynamics of the solar system and galaxy - many societies believed in crystal spheres placed in the heavens by gods. Explain how incomplete (but growing) understanding of the origin of life REQUIRES the invocation of a supernatural explanation, as opposed to more scientific research. I wasn't saying anything against scientific advancement. My point was about the dogmatic hostility by the more zealous types to attack those who question certain (percieved) weaknesses of certain scientific theories. Incomplete understanding is not a justification for claiming the science is a fraud, and is not proof of supernatural intervention. Over the centuries as knowledge expanded, the claimed role of the supernatural has diminished. Since "past is prologue" we have every reason to think that this will continue; science did not stop with the election of G.W. Bush. Incomplete knowledge of what happened 3 billion years ago is not evidence of the weakness of science, it is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem since we have not yet developed time travel. Sometimes I have a hard time figuring out what happened just last week. So asking questions is bad? Asking questions and finding answers is called "science". Making up answers and invoking the supernatural is called "religion". So what's the scientific answer to "how did life on Earth begin?"?

Now let's compare Christians to non-religious groups. I'm sure you can guess I'm referencing those godless commies. Wanna talk about the folks that ordered the bombing of Warsaw, Coventry, Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The builders of Treblinka and Auschwitz-Birkenau? I see. Since that "who killed more" angle just ain't gonna cut it, you want to redirect to a tit-for-tat exchange. How about the look at death tolls for the last 100 years??? Why did you start with a comparison with non-religious groups then? Whatever Mao and Stalin did, it was not in the name of religion. I think it was after you compared a hypothetical comprison to historical occurences. BTW, nice backtrack.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner, folks. If the OSU/Michigan game was played in August, everyone would be talking about the greatly anticipated rematch.

Turn up your hot water heater.

Just because something cannot be explained does not mean the best explanation is God did it or any other supernatural explanation. It just means we don't understand it yet and it needs to be investigated. You mean like "how life on Earth began"? 100 years ago we didn't understand the origin of earthquakes and tsunamis. Some societies attributed them to angry gods. 300 years ago we didn't understand lightning and thunder - most societies attributed them to angry gods. 400 years ago we didn't understand that gravity controlled the dynamics of the solar system and galaxy - many societies believed in crystal spheres placed in the heavens by gods. Explain how incomplete (but growing) understanding of the origin of life REQUIRES the invocation of a supernatural explanation, as opposed to more scientific research. I wasn't saying anything against scientific advancement. My point was about the dogmatic hostility by the more zealous types to attack those who question certain (percieved) weaknesses of certain scientific theories. Incomplete understanding is not a justification for claiming the science is a fraud, and is not proof of supernatural intervention. Over the centuries as knowledge expanded, the claimed role of the supernatural has diminished. Since "past is prologue" we have every reason to think that this will continue; science did not stop with the election of G.W. Bush. Incomplete knowledge of what happened 3 billion years ago is not evidence of the weakness of science, it is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem since we have not yet developed time travel. Sometimes I have a hard time figuring out what happened just last week. So asking questions is bad?

The attacks on evolution (and life's origins) from creationists are overwhelmingly based on ignorance and deliberate suppression/ misinterpretation of the evidence and theories we have. What attacks of the origin of life are based on ignorance and deliberate suppression/ misinterpretation of the evidence and theories? What is being suppressed and/or misinterpreted on this subject?

Now let's compare Christians to non-religious groups. I'm sure you can guess I'm referencing those godless commies. Wanna talk about the folks that ordered the bombing of Warsaw, Coventry, Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The builders of Treblinka and Auschwitz-Birkenau? I see. Since that "who killed more" angle just ain't gonna cut it, you want to redirect to a tit-for-tat exchange. How about the look at death tolls for the last 100 years???

Now let's compare Christians to non-religious groups. I'm sure you can guess I'm referencing those godless commies.

Just because something cannot be explained does not mean the best explanation is God did it or any other supernatural explanation. It just means we don't understand it yet and it needs to be investigated. You mean like "how life on Earth began"? 100 years ago we didn't understand the origin of earthquakes and tsunamis. Some societies attributed them to angry gods. 300 years ago we didn't understand lightning and thunder - most societies attributed them to angry gods. 400 years ago we didn't understand that gravity controlled the dynamics of the solar system and galaxy - many societies believed in crystal spheres placed in the heavens by gods. Explain how incomplete (but growing) understanding of the origin of life REQUIRES the invocation of a supernatural explanation, as opposed to more scientific research. I wasn't saying anything against scientific advancement. My point was about the dogmatic hostility by the more zealous types to attack those who question certain (percieved) weaknesses of certain scientific theories.