A few questions for atheists...

[quatona]

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

"Chance", as opposed to what?

 

[Larniavc]

Okay, but if that is what's happening on Earth, then there would have to some giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there was such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Don't look at the sun.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, but if that is what's happening on Earth, then there would have to some giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there was such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

That is one of the greatest mysteries in science.

 

[Sylarv]

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

No. Not a single chance merging in one swoop giving rise to life. If I had to describe abiogenesis as I understand it, I'd call it a long process of chemical interactions with many intermediate steps. However, how exactly life arose is irrelevant to my atheism.

 

[Sylarv]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

Homeostasis exists in purely physical systems too. "Homeostasis can be defined as a property of an organism or system that helps it maintain its parameters within a normal range of values." Chemical equillibrium is a very basic example of a physical system maintaining its state within some bounds given outside influence. However, this is irrelevant to my atheism.

 

[Sylarv]

Question 4: After evolving for hundreds of millions of years, why does a life form start to degenerate just after birth only to destroy itself in a short period of time?

I don't understand the question. It seems to imply that evolution would have produced an immoral organism. But there's no reason to assume that. Also, the unit of importance in evolution is the gene, evolution has no mind and doesn't care about the individual organism. Reproduction and death is much better for adaptation. Also, aging is a problem of entropy. The very chemical reactions of life cause irreparable damage over time.

However, this is irrelevant to my atheism.

 

[Paul Finch]

Anyone who thinks magic must have been involved has given up thinking completely.

More species of flora and fauna have gone extinct since life began than are alive today.

Where will we be when a large asteroid hits and destroys the earth?

 

[Paul Finch]

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

What has this question got to do with atheism?

 

[Paul Finch]

Question 2: Do you believe in the existence of some form of intelligence that controls homeostasis in organisms?

Again what has this question got to do with atheism.
People who claim that Gods exist have not met their burden of proof which means no one has any basis for believing in Gods, that's atheism, what else do you believe in for which there is no evidence? let me guess... NOTHING.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

The way you've phrased this makes it sound like a singular, convergent event, so no. I don't believe that. Nor is that what is proposed in abiogenesis.

Question 2: Do you believe in the existence of some form of intelligence that controls homeostasis in organisms?

I am an intelligence. I control the homeostatic conditions of the tank I keep my pet snake in. So, yes, as stated in the question, I do believe that.

But what I think you mean to ask is, do I believe there is something analogous to that, for all life forms, including humans? No. I do not.

I will point out, as others have, that neither of these questions are relevant to my atheism. I'm waiting to see the point.

 

[jayem]

Getting in a bit late here. I haven't read every post, and this may have already been said.

Yes, chance is involved. But the element of chance was that the Earth had the right chemical makeup (including liquid H2O,) temperature, atmosphere, gravity, and astronomic history. Given those conditions, and enough time, I believe the appearance of life was inevitable.

 

[Kylie]

Getting in a bit late here. I haven't read every post, and this may have already been said.

Yes, chance is involved. But the element of chance was that the Earth had the right chemical makeup (including liquid H2O,) temperature, atmosphere, gravity, and astronomic history. Given those conditions, and enough time, I believe the appearance of life was inevitable.

And given the huge number of planets in the galaxy (more than 3500) and also given the fact that quite a few have been found in the habitable zone, it seems certain that such conditions would have arisen somewhere!

 

[And-U-Say]

I'd like to ask the atheists here a few questions, one at a time, and get your responses to them. I have no "agenda" or big buildup to a "gotcha" at the end, I would just like your responses to each of the questions in this thread if you don't mind. I won't be arguing/debating what you say; they're just questions. Ok? Let's start...

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

No, I do not believe in a chance merging. The laws of Physics and Chemistry combined with the elements and environment on the early Earth made life inevitable. A 100% chance. This is no different than placing Hydrogen and Oxygen gases in a vessel and the igniting them to form water. It is no surprise, it is what Chemical reactions do. The Origin of Life is simply a complex chemical reaction. Period.

Side note: There are no "gotcha" questions. If your position is subject to "gotcha" questions then either you don't know your own position or your position is untenable.

 

[And-U-Say]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. As promised, here's question 2. I've also included Google's definition of homeostasis to ensure we're all talking about the same thing...

homeostasis -- the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes. (Google)

Question 2: Do you believe in the existence of some form of intelligence that controls homeostasis in organisms?

No. Homeostasis is an evolved property which did not require any external intelligence. Current homeostasis in organisms does not require the constant tweaking of an outside intelligence to be maintained. There is no evidence that there is an outside intelligence nor that one is necessary.

 

[And-U-Say]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

There is no such thing as "the initial spark of life". Life is an emergent property, not something external. Homeostasis evolved, it did not "take over". Your line of questioning needs help.

 

[And-U-Say]

Here's the last question. It's a "why" question so I won't be surprised to see a variety of answers. It's also obviously an essay question, so knock yourselves out. Thanks.

Question 4: After evolving for hundreds of millions of years, why does a life form start to degenerate just after birth only to destroy itself in a short period of time?

1) It doesn't begin to decay. There are bacteria that are billions of years old. The bacteria in your very own gut once lived inside the guts of dinosaurs. The vast majority of life on this planet is immortal even by your definition.

2) Even you don't decay. Or more precisely, the part of you designed not to decay does not decay. Your body is nothing more or less than a transport mechanism for your reproductive cells. The rest is disposable. You may not like it, but the part of you that is immortal is not the part that you want to be immortal. Too bad.

 

[dysert]

1) It doesn't begin to decay. There are bacteria that are billions of years old. The bacteria in your very own gut once lived inside the guts of dinosaurs. The vast majority of life on this planet is immortal even by your definition.

2) Even you don't decay. Or more precisely, the part of you designed not to decay does not decay. Your body is nothing more or less than a transport mechanism for your reproductive cells. The rest is disposable. You may not like it, but the part of you that is immortal is not the part that you want to be immortal. Too bad.

"designed"?

 

[Speedwell]

"designed"?

Absolutely. In this case the operational definition of "designed" is "organized towards a particular function." There is no implication of intelligent intervention, one way or the other.

 

[And-U-Say]

"designed"?

Let me clarify. The part of you which is immortal and is the evolved result of billions of years of evolution does not decay.

 

[Kylie]

Let me clarify. The part of you which is immortal and is the evolved result of billions of years of evolution does not decay.

And which party would that be?