Question for atheists

[grimbly]

Jamie, please go back to the wiki article and read for comprehension this time. They are differentiating between the old theory of maggots spontaneously arising from rotting flesh and the current theories of self replicating polymers eventually forming that would result ultimately in the life processes we see today.

 

[Elduran]

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same thing. Read hypotheses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

No, they're really not the same thing at all. I haven't even formally studied either as hypotheses, and I know full well from informal personal study that your comment is incorrect.

Abiogenesis: a modern scientific theory that very simple life arose gradually from non-living material via self-replicating molecules over a period of almost a billion years. Becoming more and more evidenced, at least as a possibility.

Spontaneous Generation: if you leave meat out long enough, maggots and flies form directly from it. Utterly refuted.

 

[yasic]

Evolutionists seem to believe that life first started by abiogenesis. But this thoery was disproven by Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur.

I am not an expert on this disproof, however to the best of my knowledge...

This would be the same thing as people disproving creation by showing that when you mix a handful of dirt, no man arises.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Evolutionists seem to believe that life first started by abiogenesis. But this thoery was disproven by Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur.

evidence?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same thing. Read hypotheses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

no they are not.
the link you provided even shows that they are not the same thing.

now abiogenesis has several versions. the one evos refer to is not the spontaneous generation. It is clear you are playing games and should not be taken seriously anymore.

 

[jamie4418]

I've posted this in another thread. All the sites that I have gone to have said abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same thing. But it seems that evos mean it for something else.

Regardless of the meaning, what I am saying is that Louis Pasteur proved that life cannot come from nonliving organisms.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Regardless of the meaning, what I am saying is that Louis Pasteur proved that life cannot come from nonliving organisms.

He never proved any such thing. If you think he did, please explain how his experiments show that life didn't evolve in the conditions of pre-biotic Earth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elduran]

I've posted this in another thread. All the sites that I have gone to have said abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same thing. But it seems that evos mean it for something else.

Scientists mean it for something else. They use the definitions correctly. The only places where I can recall seeing the two terms confused are all creationist sources.

The difference has been explained enough already, please work from genuine scientific sources, preferably life science sources from within the last decade or so.

Regardless of the meaning, what I am saying is that Louis Pasteur proved that life cannot come from nonliving organisms.

No, no he didn't. What he did was show that life forms don't arise fully formed from non-living organisms, which ironically is more of a disproof of the creation model than the abiogenesis one.

Essentially what you're doing here is seeing proof that man can't throw a rock 5 miles in one go and assuming that this means that man can't throw a rock at all, and certainly can't throw that rock 5 miles by working in small successive steps.

 

[lemmings]

The search tools on several websites are combining spontaneous generation with abiogenesis.

Jamie, spontaneous generation is the theory that large, complicated organisms can arise from dead mater. We now know that this dead mater was just food that attracted the animals and encouraged them to raise their young where they would be provided with food. Objects such as grain, meat, and waste where often believed to produce these organisms because people either where not observant or where ignorant of the biological processes such as laying eggs.

Abiogenesis is usually considered Chemical Evolution. This is used to describe the processes to build the fundamental building blocks of cells such as the membrane and DNA. With the recent discovery of nanobacteria and the mimivirus, it is likely impossible to disprove abiogenesis currently.

 

[plindboe]

2) How do atheists believe the universe and all life on earth came into being?

Depends on the atheist in question. If you ask me I would say "I don't know". The fact is that none of us does, you don't either. The difference between me and the fundy, is that I don't convince myself that I know something when I actually don't. My position is the most humble and honest one can take, while that of the fundy is of arrogance and willful ignorance.

I applaude my fellow atheists, agnostics, people with various beliefs or no beliefs who are capable of uttering the words "I don't know". As to the rest, I feel ashamed to belong to the same species as them.

Peter

 

[GoSeminoles!]

1) Do most or all atheists believe in evolution?

I accept evolution as a fact based on verifiable evidence. Most atheists probably do.

2) How do atheists believe the universe and all life on earth came into being

All the evidence indicates the universe began with the Big Bang. What caused the BB is not known at this time. The origin of life on Earth is also not known at this time.

 

[Tomk80]

I've posted this in another thread. All the sites that I have gone to have said abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same thing. But it seems that evos mean it for something else.

The wiki site you quoted does not.

Regardless of the meaning, what I am saying is that Louis Pasteur proved that life cannot come from nonliving organisms.

No, that is not what he disproved. He disproved that (for example) flies form spontaneously from the processes of rotting meat.

Homework assignment for you: describe the difference between the concept Louis Pasteur disproved and the concept that is currently investigated by scientists.

 

[shernren]

The wiki site you quoted does not.


No, that is not what he disproved. He disproved that (for example) flies form spontaneously from the processes of rotting meat.

Homework assignment for you: describe the difference between the concept Louis Pasteur disproved and the concept that is currently investigated by scientists.

Ten-to-one some kind evo is going to do his homework for him.

 

[Shemjaza]

1) Do most or all atheists believe in evolution?

Almost all, I would imagine.

2) How do atheists believe the universe and all life on earth came into being?

It's quite possible that it isn't even possible to know how the universe actually began... but we have good evidence that very, very soon after the beginning the expansion called the Big Bang began forming the universe into the structure we see today.

There is no one theory of Abiogenesis that is beyond doubt... but it seems like a sensible hypothesis given all the other evidence we have. (E.g. Organic molecules forming naturally all over the universe, proto Earth having condition that would be compatible with RNA formation.)

 

[shernren]

To reply the OP: there were atheists before Darwin, and there are and will be Christians after Darwin. Evolution is a matter of accepting (or rejecting) physical evidence accessible to all, and hence accepting or rejecting it should have no correlation with one's religious or irreligious standings. So to ask "do atheists accept evolution" is a little like asking "are horses white?": some horses are white, and some horses are not, for reasons that often have little or nothing to do with their horsiness.

 

[shernren]

2) How do atheists believe the universe and all life on earth came into being?

Why, the whole galaxy knows the answer to that one. It's 42. But don't tell The Universe that we've found the Answer, or else It will ... Oh wait. I see what you did there!

 

[levi501]

yes, since atheists don't have the hang up of god getting in the way of reason.

 

[Bombila]

The evidence for evolution seems pretty concrete and reasonable to me. I accept that evolution is the most likely explanation for the diversity of life.

I think abiogenesis is very probable, the odd little bacteria which scientists are beginning to find in odd hot places have made me think this more likely than other theories.

Beginning of the universe? My dears, I barely passed grade 12 physics, and subsequently went to art colleges. I just accept what the most recent science tells me, as in my experience, science seldom fails to reach for and teach the truth.

Jamie, do you really not understand the differences between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, or are you just funnin' people?

 

[ENominiPatri]

1) Do most or all atheists believe in evolution?

Most or all atheists know evolution to be a valid theory that accounts for the diversity of life on this planet. We don't believe. We know. Many theists also know, the more important question should be: Why don't you?

2) How do atheists believe the universe and all life on earth came into being?

Atheism is not a subscription to a subset of rules, laws, or theorems. It is a state of disbelief in a deity. Losing your belief in God does not instantly subscribe you to an immoral, evolution touting, big bang preaching person. You need to lose the labels girl.

Personally, I think that the big bang and abiogenesis are promising ideas to answer your question. I don't know for a fact though so good thing science is taking care of that for me.

 

[camanintx]

1) Do most or all atheists believe in evolution?

2) How do atheists believe the universe and all life on earth came into being?

Thanks.

Since most of the responses appear to agree, could we explore the flip side of this question for a minute?

Can a Christian believe in evolution?

If one believes that Christ is the son of God and died on the cross for our sins, then wouldn't they also have to believe the whole creation and original sin story laid out in Genesis?