The Barrier

The context of the Morowitz quote. I have not been able to find a copy online so I can actually read the actual text. Richard Carrier is a bit of mess as a person, but I have no reason to question is research and conclusions.

quote:

---

Scientific ignorance also leads to the abuse of such citations, and you have to carefully pay attention to context. Coppedge, for instance, also cites (on p. 235) Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (p. 99), who reports that (paraphrased by Coppedge) "under 'equilibrium' conditions (the stable state reached after initial reactions have balanced), the probability of such a fluctuation during Earth's history would be...1 chance in 10^339,999,866." In particular, this is "the probability of chance fluctuations that would result in sufficient energy for bond formation" needed to make a living cell. This statistic is laughable not only for its outrageous size, but for the mere absurdity of anyone who would bother to calculate it--but what is notable is that it has nothing to do with the origin of life. For notice the qualification: these are not the odds of the first life forming, but the odds of enough energy being available for any life to grow at all, in an environment which has reached an effective state of thermal equilibrium--a condition which has never existed on Earth. It is obvious that in an equilibrium state, with no solar or geothermal input, it would be impossible for life to gather enough energy to go on. Who needs to calculate the odds against it? Morowitz was demonstrating a fact about the effects of maximized entropy on a chemical system, not the unlikelihood of life originating in a relatively low entropy environment like the early or even current Earth. The fact is that life began in, and has always enjoyed, an active chemical system that is not only far from equilibrium, but receiving steady energy input from the sun and earth. So this statistic has no bearing on the question of the odds of life.

---

Addendum B: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? » Internet Infidels

Most creationists and fundies are ok with being Liars for Jesus.

There are no historical reports of this. There are no historical reports of this.The only reports on these, not historical reports, are from the your bible. You cannot use the bible as evidence for itself. There is no independent, historical evidence for any of these events.

Nope

Stile has already defeated that crap. I can easily say why goodness exists. I do not have to rationalize. My life is immensely joyful because goodness exists. I and a lot of people like me try to bring goodness and happiness into this world, every day.
See how easy that was.
How about you move this to the thread that is not off topic? I think we will have fun with this.

Please provide the passage. I don't think it says what you think it says. Also, just because someone makes a claim does not make it true. Without corroboration any statement is meaningless. Sounds insidiously evil to me.

You cannot use the bible to corroborate itself. Show me some independent sources. There are none. Why do no writers or historians of the day make no mention of this character? The gospels and acts are not historical documents. We have no idea who wrote them. We have no idea what their provenance is.
You mention Paul. Why does he not mention anything about the life of Jesus. He does not refer to any biographical details and does not use any of the gospel teachings to support his own teachings.Palestine was a back water. Jesus was not presented as a historical figure until at least 40 years after the supposed execution. It was a minor cult for the first couple hundred years. You might want to try more than PRATTs

As I said before you cannot use the bible to corroborate itself. All of the 1st century Christian writings are anonymous except for 7 of the Pauline epistles. Paul makes no mention of the Jesus as a historical entity. But then again you have no evidence to support this do you? They were not contemporaries and they do not attest to him being a real person.Remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Care to support your assertions with evidence?

Yes. The passage I assumed you were referring to. This does not say that any of these people were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus or his crucifixion. This states that these people had a vision of the Jesus character. Nothing more. Nothing about where the crucifixion was, who the 500 were or when. Remember Paul is the same guy that said that he has learned of Jesus from no person, just divine revelation. Galatians 1:16, Ephesians 3:4-5. In Romans 1:2 and Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul talks about how scripture is the source of his knowledge of Christ and Salvation. He was not talking about the Christian gospels. They were not written for decades after his death. He was talking about the Hebrew bible.
Setting that aside, why does it conflict so much with the gospels and acts?Why is it if Jesus was a historical figure does Paul not mention any of that history? Nothing about the miraculous birth of Jesus, or his famous career, astounding miracles, bold new teachings, circumstances of his death. Nothing about Bethlehem, Nazareth or even Jerusalem and its ties to Jesus.
There are no writings from the Jerusalem church or anyone that claimed to be a personal disciple of Jesus. Everything we know about the leaders of the Jerusalem church, Cephas/Peter, James and John comes from Paul. Paul says absolutely nothing about any of them or anyone else traveling around with Jesus.Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling, formatting

If you were following we were talking about Paul and his writings. You should know that since you are the one that quoted Paul. As we have no idea who wrote Acts or when it was written, it cannot be used as a historical source. You might want to rethink your post because I made it very clear I was talking about Paul and his writings.Since the writings af Acts are decades after Paul and they conflict with Pauls we can ignore them.Again. We are talking about the writings of Paul, not Acts.So. Wrong. Read what Paul wrote not what you want him to have written.

Who? When? Well how about you provide that evidence? No the crucifixion of this character is not an accepted historical event. There is absolutely no historical evidence. The bible cannot be evidence for itself. It is obvious that non of the writers of the bible stories were eyewitnesses. Mark, the first gospel, was written by someone not even familiar wth Palestinian geography. Luke tells us he is not an eyewitness and he makes the same blunders on geography that Mark does. Primarily because Luke uses 50% of Mark's text. Matthew uses 90%, though he does fix some of the geographic blunders. If by copies you mean tiny fragments.Josephus - Even if the James reference is legitimate it is not proof of a historical jesus. Just that 60 years after the supposed execution people believed there was.Pliny - No one disagrees he was talking about some sect of Christians. Not proof of a historical jesus. Simply proof that a group called Christians existed. We have no idea what their beliefs were and just because they existed does not mean jesus did. So using this logic you agree that John Frum was a real person. Also, the Heaven's Gate Aliens must be real too. Because after a certain point there can not be any original evidence. If people started writing now claiming they believed Ned Ludd was real, that is evidence for him?You claim there is legitimate historical evidence for jesus. Present it. You seem to accept that there is no contemporary evidence, present what you have. Like who? Maybe people already have. Other ancient mythical figures don't have followers fucking up the world and making my life more difficult like this jesus figure.

Acts was written decades after the death of Paul. It is not history. It does not have anything to corroborate it. You can not use it to claim Paul said he met apostles or that he spoke of a historical Jesus. Paul never speaks of a historical Jesus. It doesn't matter what it says in Acts. We have no idea who wrote Acts or when it was written. I clearly stated that I was talking about Paul's writings. You are arguing a strawman. Paul mentions nothing about the historical Jesus. I have extensive knowledge of your bible. I have read it numerous times. I am quite knowledgeable of Christian history. I have worked at archaeological digs in Israel. Do not presume what I have knowledge of. The historicity of the jesus character has nothing to do with atheism. If you cannot have a civil debate without insult and using fallacies and lies maybe you should not try to debate.Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling

Acts and Luke are irrelevant to this conversation. We are discussing Pauls writings. They date to at least 30 years after Paul and may actually date to 60 years after Paul. That you cannot tell us who wrote them or when just validates their irrelevance. That's it? No Bethlehem, no Nazareth, no moneychangers, nothing from the Gospels? Read some Philo you will see that this crucifixion was on a spiritual plane. Nothing he writes here puts it into a historical context. Paul never uses anything from the gospels to support his arguments. Never. We are discussing what Paul wrote and you keep bringing up Acts. Acts is irrelevant and not the conversation. I could say the same of you. You might want to try reading the bible completely and in context instead of as a collection of pithy verses. Your faith is the only reason you state this, because there is no historical evidence. And the only author we can kind of identify is Paul. The rest are anonymous of unknown provenance. All the other gospels copy Mark. We know Mark and Luke were ignorant of Palestine. We know the gospels were ignorant of Judaism. We have no reason to believe they are based on anything factual. There is no corroboration. You cannot use them to corroborate each other. There was no early rise. It was a minor mystery cult for hundreds of years after Paul founded his sect.