4 ms·

To those downvoting this comment, can you please clarify why you're downvoting? This is also how I see it, and I'd like to know the counter-argument.

by brink 7y ago

Valmar 7y ago
The Neo-Darwinists are downvoting me, no doubt. I don't buy the Christian fairytale, either. In fact, I'm happy to accept that none of us know what the origin of life is. Life is just too complicated to be an accident of random, purposeless matter. Life is also too complex and multi-faceted to be explained by any religion's mythos.
- nurettin 7y ago
  It is great that you've found a way to feel superior to others with your purpose narrative.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, and please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - nurettin 7y ago
      Fair enough
  - Valmar 7y ago
    So... you flagged me because you think I'm making some supposed statement of superiority? Also, what "purpose" narrative? Is contradicting the Neo-Darwinist model of life somehow not allowed? Does contradicting it make me a closet Christian, in your eyes? Because I don't see an answer in Neo-Darwinism or any religion. I'm happy not knowing, just as I'm happy to criticize people who claim to know.
    - nurettin 7y ago
      I didn't flag you, dang flagged me for criticising your character instead of an idea. In any case, I think there is a case of false dichotomy going on here.
lisper 7y ago
Because the first two sentences in the GP comment are false and the third is a non-sequitur.
toasterlovin 7y ago
See my response above. Neo-Darwinianism has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life. It was strictly concerned with explaining the mechanism (genetics) underpinning Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. And the fact that the OP has engaged in name calling that isn't even correct kind of implies that their objection is ideological rather than merely logical.
bediger4000 7y ago
Dragging "Darwinism", which is a theory of evolution, into an argument about abiogenesis, which is life coming from non-living stuff, is a hallmark of Creationism. Creationist are known to argue in bad faith. Best just to rid the space of Creationist arguments. Like Mark Twain once wrote, if you wrestle with pigs, you'll get very dirty, and the pigs just might enjoy it.

To those downvoting this comment, can you please clarify why you're downvoting? This is also how I see it, and I'd like to know the counter-argument.

by brink 7y ago

To those downvoting this comment, can you please clarify why you're downvoting? This is also how I see it, and I'd like to know the counter-argument.

Valmar 7y ago

The Neo-Darwinists are downvoting me, no doubt. I don't buy the Christian fairytale, either. In fact, I'm happy to accept that none of us know what the origin of life is. Life is just too complicated to be an accident of random, purposeless matter. Life is also too complex and multi-faceted to be explained by any religion's mythos.

nurettin 7y ago
It is great that you've found a way to feel superior to others with your purpose narrative.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, and please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - nurettin 7y ago
    Fair enough
- Valmar 7y ago
  So... you flagged me because you think I'm making some supposed statement of superiority? Also, what "purpose" narrative? Is contradicting the Neo-Darwinist model of life somehow not allowed? Does contradicting it make me a closet Christian, in your eyes? Because I don't see an answer in Neo-Darwinism or any religion. I'm happy not knowing, just as I'm happy to criticize people who claim to know.
  - nurettin 7y ago
    I didn't flag you, dang flagged me for criticising your character instead of an idea. In any case, I think there is a case of false dichotomy going on here.

lisper 7y ago

Because the first two sentences in the GP comment are false and the third is a non-sequitur.

toasterlovin 7y ago

See my response above. Neo-Darwinianism has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life. It was strictly concerned with explaining the mechanism (genetics) underpinning Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. And the fact that the OP has engaged in name calling that isn't even correct kind of implies that their objection is ideological rather than merely logical.

bediger4000 7y ago

Dragging "Darwinism", which is a theory of evolution, into an argument about abiogenesis, which is life coming from non-living stuff, is a hallmark of Creationism. Creationist are known to argue in bad faith. Best just to rid the space of Creationist arguments. Like Mark Twain once wrote, if you wrestle with pigs, you'll get very dirty, and the pigs just might enjoy it.