The Genetic Code

[Hans Blaster]

My point is atheists all share a belief in abiogenesis from soup , despite how they deny it, and it is just a belief based on scant plausibility not actual evidence.

[Citation needed] Provide some evidence that "atheists all share a belief in abiogenesis from soup". I would suggest some sort of controlled public opinion survey.

Believing in no God cannot be in a vacuum, it comes with a credo as to where else the universe and life came from.

There are plenty of other things to believe in or accept. My transition to atheism* was so gradual I didn't even realize it at the time. The best tracer (in retrospect) was the number of times I went to Mass.

*I use "atheism" reluctantly, as being a non-believer isn't a creed or dogma "ism".

 

[Mountainmike]

Chemical accident? I don’t think so. It involved matter and energy. That would mean the applicable laws of science, both chemistry and physics. If you believe that G-d created the universe then you must believe that He created those laws. So, He either created life by saying so (rabbit/hat kind of thing) or by creating the conditions that resulted in its formation. Either way life came from G-d.

All chemistry is deemed to occur as an accident for two reasons.
First It contains more or less likely stochastic processes in thermodynamics and quantum processes which have truly random outcome. The complexity of minimum life also makes it staggeringly unlikely.

Second since the atheist adherents of abiogenesis believe the process is unguided , so life as an outcome is clearly is an accident in that sense too, it cannot be deliberate unless there was intent. Intent needs a creator.

In the theist view G-d can of course control all those underlying quantum outcomes. He created the laws. He can also create or resurrect life outside that process too. Your point.

 

[Mountainmike]

[Citation needed] Provide some evidence that "atheists all share a belief in abiogenesis from soup". I would suggest some sort of controlled public opinion survey.

I cannot speak for all. I can say all those that profess atheism here also appear to support abiogenesis because Atheists have limited options in considering origin of life.

I can believe that many waste no time considering origin of life, but they are not the kind of people who inhabit science forums discussing origin of life! And indeed some of the ones who don’t know or care how life started are probably better classed as agnostic anyway.

I do not think beliefs can be in a vacuum.
By analogy if X is convicted of murdering Y, you cannot oppose that in a vacuum. Because if X did not do it someone else did. It’s a consequential belief of believing X did not do it.

 

[partinobodycular]

So, He either created life by saying so (rabbit/hat kind of thing) or by creating the conditions that resulted in its formation. Either way life came from G-d.

The problem is that you end up either having an "abracadabra" kind of God, or you don't really need God at all...other than someone to turn the light switch on so to speak. But most theists don't really like to think of God as simply being God the Cause. They would prefer to give Him a more creative role. They want Him to actually care. They need the "abracadabra" kind of God.

 

[JohnPaul88]

Terrif. But that is belief.
You made a statement of fact about big bang.
Which is it, a belief or a fact?

Big Bang is science fiction, that’s my belief.

 

[ottawak]

All chemistry is deemed to occur as an accident for two reasons.
First It contains more or less likely stochastic processes in thermodynamics and quantum processes which have truly random outcome. The complexity of minimum life also makes it staggeringly unlikely.

I don't know how a person can study any chemistry at all and come to that conclusion. Let me ask you a question: When we combine hydrogen and oxygen sometimes we get water, sometimes we get hydrogen peroxide. Do you really think that is "an accident" or does it depend on initial conditions?

Second since the atheist adherents of abiogenesis believe the process is unguided , so life as an outcome is clearly is an accident in that sense too, it cannot be deliberate unless there was intent. Intent needs a creator.

"Intent" is an unfalsifiable proposition. Science doesn't address it, one way or the other. I'm surprised to hear this line of argument from a Roman Catholic. Aquinas resolved the issue centuries ago.

In the theist view G-d can of course control all those underlying quantum outcomes. He created the laws. He can also create or resurrect life outside that process too. Your point.

Another unfalsifiable proposition.

 

[AV1611VET]

Big Bang is science fiction, that’s my belief.

As usual, science has it backwards.

The "big bang" occurs at the END of the universe, not the BEGINNING.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 

[Mountainmike]

I have no idea why you are arguing. Anybody paying attention during chemistry education comes to that conclusion.
At the base level quantum events are random.
A single quantum event is random.
Bulk properties are a superposition of random events.

The first reproducing and evolving cell was the first.
Everything prior to that was dead. ( using the accepted definition of life) . Therefore first life evebt was a random event. QED,

I am arguing the atheist philosophy not theist . not that I agree with it.. They consider that there was no designer or design. Therefore life cannot have been deliberate. Deliberate is defined as “ conscious with intent”
So in atheist belief life must be an accident since it had no agent and therefore cannot have had intent. .
All A matter of logic and definition. Look them up in the dictionary.

I don't know how a person can study any chemistry at all and come to that conclusion. Let me ask you a question: When we combine hydrogen and oxygen sometimes we get water, sometimes we get hydrogen peroxide. Do you really think that is "an accident" or does it depend on initial conditions?

"Intent" is an unfalsifiable proposition. Science doesn't address it, one way or the other. I'm surprised to hear this line of argument from a Roman Catholic. Aquinas resolved the issue centuries ago.

Another unfalsifiable proposition.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I cannot speak for all. I can say all those that profess atheism here also appear to support abiogenesis because Atheists have limited options in considering origin of life.

No one is asking you to "speak for us", we want evidence for your claim about atheists. As we've already discussed, the "faith labels" on this site are a distraction. Since some of us came here to discuss (psuedo)science and not anything faith related, we are preselected to be supporters of traditional scientific results if we aren't here for "Christian" reasons.

So -- proper survey of atheists (or other non-believers) in the general population or drop the "atheist" tagging of all the scientific positions you don't like.

 

[partinobodycular]

They consider that there was no designer or design. Therefore life cannot have been deliberate. Deliberate is defined as “ conscious with intent”
So in atheist belief life must be an accident since it had no agent and therefore cannot have had intent. .
All A matter of logic and definition.

Except that it's not actually logical.

A lack of intent doesn't by default mean accidental, it could simply mean inevitable. Logic and Occam's razor would suggest that we don't invoke an intentional agent where none is necessary.

 

[ottawak]

I have no idea why you are arguing. Anybody paying attention during chemistry education comes to that conclusion.
At the base level quantum events are random.
A single quantum event is random.
Bulk properties are a superposition of random events.

And...?

The first reproducing and evolving cell was the first.
Everything prior to that was dead. ( using the accepted definition of life) . Therefore first life evebt was a random event. QED,

I think you will find that the distinction between non life and life is not so well defined as that.

I am arguing the atheist philosophy not theist . not that I agree with it.. They consider that there was no designer or design.

Right

Therefore life cannot have been deliberate. Deliberate is defined as “ conscious with intent”

Faulty conclusion. I'm surprised you don't attack them on that point. Even your own church does not subscribe to ID.

So in atheist belief life must be an accident since it had no agent and therefore cannot have had intent.

What else would you expect from an atheist?

All A matter of logic and definition. Look them up in the dictionary.

That might be good advice for you too. In scientific discouse, random merely means unpredictable. It carries no implications whatever about intent or the lack of it.

 

[Mountainmike]

No one is asking you to "speak for us", we want evidence for your claim about atheists. As we've already discussed, the "faith labels" on this site are a distraction. Since some of us came here to discuss (psuedo)science and not anything faith related, we are preselected to be supporters of traditional scientific results if we aren't here for "Christian" reasons.

So -- proper survey of atheists (or other non-believers) in the general population or drop the "atheist" tagging of all the scientific positions you don't like.

“ all scientific positions I don’t like”.?

Hardly.

I simply note all the atheists commenting here also believe in abiogenesis. As beliefs for origin of life, their options are limited.

 

[Mountainmike]

And...?

I think you will find that the distinction between non life and life is not so well defined as that.

Right Faulty conclusion. I'm surprised you don't attack them on that point. Even your own church does not subscribe to ID.
What else would you expect from an atheist?
That might be good advice for you too. In scientific discouse, random merely means unpredictable. It carries no implications whatever about intent or the lack of it.

I cannot be bothered with nit pickers.
So it seems you do agree the underlying of chemistry are random. Why argue?

I use other peoples definitions of life. Ask NASA or Harvard.

I did not equate randomness or lack of it with intent. Read what is written.

 

[ottawak]

I cannot be bothered with nit pickers.
So it seems you do agree the underlying of chemistry are random. Why argue?

I use other peoples definitions of life. Ask NASA or Harvard.

I did not equate randomness or lack of it with intent. Read what is written.

So in the end your only point was that atheists don't believe in God. OK, you're right, they don't.

 

[ottawak]

“ all scientific positions I don’t like”.?

Hardly.

I simply note all the atheists commenting here also believe in abiogenesis. As beliefs for origin of life, their options are limited.

But not because of their belief in a naturalistic abiogenesis, which is entirely consistent, theologically, with a belief in God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

All chemistry is deemed to occur as an accident for two reasons.
First It contains more or less likely stochastic processes in thermodynamics and quantum processes which have truly random outcome. The complexity of minimum life also makes it staggeringly unlikely.

Oh boy. Seems like you need to study up on chemical kinetics.

Chemistry is anything but random. Why, because the number of copies of each reactant is so large that the process is statistical. It really doesn't matter what happens in any particular collision of molecule A and molecule B, what matters is the rate of those collisions (set by the density, distribution of momenta, etc.) to initiate the interaction and make an AB* excited state and the various channels that lead out from the AB* excited state.

Now quantum mechanics will certainly influence the possible excited states (including effects due to the orientation of the two reactant molecules), and the output channels, but, again, this is a statistical property for large numbers of reactant molecules interacting.

(The same principles apply for nuclear interactions as well. Nucleus A and B collide at a rate set by the density of nuclei and the momentum distribution to form excited nucleus AB* which then decays via a quantum mechanically allowed channel. This happens in nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, and stars.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know how a person can study any chemistry at all and come to that conclusion. Let me ask you a question: When we combine hydrogen and oxygen sometimes we get water, sometimes we get hydrogen peroxide. Do you really think that is "an accident" or does it depend on initial conditions?

Minor correction -- just mixing (or reacting) hydrogen and oxygen won't give you hydrogen peroxide in any quantity (small amounts may form). Even if you have a 1:1 H:O ratio, you'll just get water and molecular oxygen. This is because the reaction pathways energetically favor that outcome. Production of hydrogen peroxide is by organic catalysts.

(High concentration hydrogen peroxide is sometimes used as a rocket fuel. It becomes water and oxygen when consumed. It is also used as an oxidizer for other fuels.)

 

[ottawak]

Minor correction -- just mixing (or reacting) hydrogen and oxygen won't give you hydrogen peroxide in any quantity (small amounts may form). Even if you have a 1:1 H:O ratio, you'll just get water and molecular oxygen. This is because the reaction pathways energetically favor that outcome. Production of hydrogen peroxide is by organic catalysts.

Yes, and if the chemistry was indeed random sometimes unpredictably, the catalysis would produce water and oxygen, at other tmes, again unpredictably, it would produce hydrogen peroxide, or maybe random unpredictable ratios of water to peroxide.

 

[ruthiesea]

All chemistry is deemed to occur as an accident for two reasons.
First It contains more or less likely stochastic processes in thermodynamics and quantum processes which have truly random outcome. The complexity of minimum life also makes it staggeringly unlikely.

Second since the atheist adherents of abiogenesis believe the process is unguided , so life as an outcome is clearly is an accident in that sense too, it cannot be deliberate unless there was intent. Intent needs a creator.

In the theist view G-d can of course control all those underlying quantum outcomes. He created the laws. He can also create or resurrect life outside that process too. Your point.

Depending on the chemicals and energy involved only certain outcomes can result.
I am not an atheist but accept the scientific view that abiogenesis resulted in life.
G-d can do anything, but He created a universe that operates according to certain scientific laws. If He ignores His own laws then reality would not exist. Our universe would be a confusion of unpredictability.

 

[Kylie]

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

That's a claim, not evidence.