Why do atheists believe what some jerk wrote in a book as fact?

Question

very few atheists ever conduct experiements to back up their theories on life formation, so instead they just sit at home reading books and magazine articles written by "scientists" and hope that these experiments and theories they are reading are correct and proven in good faith. also, they pick and choose what they want to believe. they purposly avoid discussing peer-reviewed articles that contradict their beliefs, such as the problems with the famous urey-miller experiment and how it was conducted. basically, atheists have to have a whole lot of faith to believe this horse s**t they read so often. so why do they mock christians on an hourly basis for believing in a book written by disciples of jesus? seems like the pot is calling the kettle black to me.

Answer 1

Why do Christians believe a combination of mythology from nomadic tribes and what some jerk named Paul wrote in a book?

Answer 2

While I'm sure the objections to the Miller-Urey experiments were in a properly peer-reviewed journal, and not just some rubbish you found on answersingenesis.com, I do hope you taken into account the latest research on the matter.

Now that the nonsense about oxygen getting in the way of the formation of biochemicals has been discredited, you will no doubt be aware the re-runs of the Miller Urey have revealed that biochemical synthesis under these circumstances is in fact even *more* abundant than previous found.

Indeed, the new data promotes the natural synthesis of biochemistry in conditions of an early Earth atmosphere and incoming ionising radiation to practical certainty. The Primordial Soup model is back on the table in force, and anyone who objects to this as THE means whereby life arose on Earth is clutching at straws.

CD

Answer 3

No theist has ever conducted experiements to back up their theories on creation, so instead they just sit at home reading bibles, books and magazine articles written by popes, prophets and preachers and hope that these bibles, books and theories they are reading are correct and proven in good faith. also, they pick and choose what they want to believe from the bible. they purposly avoid discussing scholarly theological articles that contradict their beliefs, such as the problems with biblical contradictions. basically, theists have to have a whole lot of faith to believe this horse s**t they read so often. so why do they mock non-christians on an hourly basis for believing in a science and evolution? seems like the kettle is calling the pot black to me.

Answer 4

And yet you go to the doctor if you are sick. Did your doctor spend 2000 years learning about the human body, disease, did he research Cell Theory, or find All the bacteria and virii? Most likely, he read the science. Scientists read not just the article in the magazines, we read the evidence and experiment notes. Some scientists repeat the experiments and we read those notes too. I know how I conduct experimets and I know how other scientists conduct their experiments. There is no serious scientist in opposition to evolution. We do read the peer reviews, we also read the studies that those peers did. These are our colleagues. Very often, we may know one of the scientists doing the research or doing a peer review and that gives us a good idea of how accurate the research is. Not all scientists are atheists and most atheists are not scientists.

Answer 5

I haven't tried the Miller-Urey experiment. It's been done to many times, once down the hall from me. I have performed chemostat experiments and observed evolution. I've written two letters to journals asking for explanations. One was published with the reply. One paper has been withdrawn after I challenged the science at a seminar. No. Evolution is sound science.

By the way, I know a lot of authors of scientific books. Only a few are jerks.

Answer 6

so basically, all atheists have to be scientists now in order to conduct experiments usually undertaken by highly trained individuals? Those scientific journals and books are written by professionals in that field...they are already peer reviewed lol

bad bad comparison


mordent has a point too, if you are so against what certain scientific journals and books are stating, then why don't YOU conduct the experiements too? That's the beauty of scientific theories though, at least you CAN TEST them!

Answer 7

Oh dear.

One: peer reviewed means PEER review. Not reviewed by some pseudo-science preacher who wants to prove the Bible rather than find the truth.

Two: The articles atheists and theists with common sense read are based on established fact. They are not able to replicat the big bang, but they are able, through universal laws of the behavior of matter, to reconstruct what happened. You don't ask forensic scientists to murder someone to prove what killed a victim, do you? Those who deny evolution do so based on a story. Even if that story was told by God, it is in direct opposition to what we know happened, so God must have been using an analogy. (Wow! God can grasp something beyond the literal??! Who knew?)

Answer 8

I'm certain he is being ironic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

"At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and nucleic acids (such as DNA, RNA, and ATP when phosphate was present) were also formed."

Answer 9

> I propose, an finished e book written merely to say that Theists fall below an similar heading as insane human beings. He didn’t say that. He suggested conception in God is a delusion. Then he sponsored up his declare. with courtesy. Being deluded about some thing, and being insane, are 2 diverse issues. > per chance it really is knotted up in u . s . a ., yet bigotry would not ensue in eire, Greece or the european international places that are nevertheless non secular. the conception that a God exists is a delusion. It’s no longer depending in truth. many human beings in eire, Greece, and different eu international places (which includes Britain, Dawkins’ abode united states) agree. And it does no longer make one a bigot to say so. > And to the inhabitants, it really is merely considered an unprovoked attack. Why? Why can someone educate warfare of words together with your political evaluations, or your claims with regard to the nearby events crew, yet when someone factors out the topic matters on your non secular claims without note she or he's a bigot who’s attacking you in my opinion? even as did non secular claims get this particular privilege? > I propose, heavily, do not decide 2 Billion human beings by the movements of historic previous, or what a collection of Christians did. honest adequate. yet Dawkins doesn’t do this, does he?

Answer 10

Is your problem with Urey Miller that it doesn't have all of the answers? Do you like religion because it has all of the right answers, even though they are constantly being proved wrong?