The Ultimate Atheist Challenge Thread!

[Matthew777]

Without appealing to TalkOrigins or Internet Infidels, provide the best evidence you can of abiogenesis.


GO!


Peace.

 

[Deamiter]

So... why is it an ATHEIST challenge?

Lucaspa would have had some good things to say on the matter!

 

[Tomk80]

Since when do theists have to deny abiogenesis?

edited to add: please don't tell me that you have move the argument from ignorance from evolution to abiogenesis.

 

[Matthew777]

Since when do theists have to deny abiogenesis?

Atheists hold to abiogenesis, that life arose from non-living matter.

Peace.

 

[Matthew777]

edited to add: please don't tell me that you have move the argument from ignorance from evolution to abiogenesis.

Please don't tell me that spontaneous generation isn't defendable.

Peace.

 

[Tomk80]

Atheists hold to abiogenesis, that life arose from non-living matter.

Peace.

And many theists do to. In fact, given the biblical argument that man is made from dust, all theists do, although they will disagree on the matter of God's involvement. Why exclude theists from the argument?

And which theory of abiogenesis? Why would you assume that all atheists hold to the same argument? Why even assume that atheists think they know how abiogenesis happened? That they believe something like abiogenesis happened without God's help is based on the fact that they do not believe God exists, so God cannot be a causative agent (very hard for non-existing entities to create things).

 

[Tomk80]

Please don't tell me that spontaneous generation isn't defendable.

Peace.

Which do you want, current theories of abiogenesis of spontaneous generation. The latter usually refers to the theory that life (like flies and such) arose spontaneously out of rotting things (in stead of by flies laying eggs). It was falsified already by people like pasteur (IIRC).

And so you better understand my edit, the fact that you aim the thread specifically to atheists seems to indicate that you want to insert a 'god of the gaps' at the beginning of life. I'm not saying that abiogenesis is not defendable, I'm just very curious as to why you want to single out atheists as the 'defenders of abiogenesis'.

 

[Matthew777]

And many theists do to. In fact, given the biblical argument that man is made from dust, all theists do, although they will disagree on the matter of God's involvement. Why exclude theists from the argument?

You've missed the point. Theists believe that God created the first life or at least had some role in its creation whereas atheists believe that life arose spontaneously, on its own. This is your opportunity to show that life arose in such a non-thesitic way.

Peace.

 

[Tomk80]

You've missed the point. Theists believe that God created the first life or at least has some role in its creation whereas atheists believe that life arose spontaneously, on its own. This is your opportunity that life arose in such a non-thesitic way.

Peace.

Theists don't necessarily think that God-guided abiogenesis would in any way be distinguisable from not-god-guided abiogenesis. Just as theistic evolutionists don't think the theory of evolution can distinguish between God/non-god. For both, the theories are the same. So again, why exclude christians, if their defence of abiogenesis-theories would be the same?

 

[TheNewAge]

You could start with the spontaneous generation of proto-cells and basic amino acids as an argument. Using a few electrodes, some simple household compounds(methane and ammonia), tubing, water, and your kitchen sink, you can conduct a simple 6th grade experiment to simulate conditions present at the time that abiogenesis occurred. The excercise yields a list of simple sugars, amino acids, codons, and...protocells. A descent, detailed explanation of the process can be found at http://universe-review.ca/F11-monocell.htm

 

[mikeynov]

You could try reading this as a start.

I think the problem with arguing abiogenesis is that the information isn't readily understood or even commonly accessible outside of a post-graduate level of education. That and theist's over-willingness to resort to God of the gaps in any areas that seem gray or not thoroughly understood. Didn't you guys learn your lesson yet on this line of thinking? :-x

For reference, an atheist could simply answer "I don't know" as to how life arose. The only qualification for an atheist is that he or she has no belief in deities. An atheist could technically believe in magic as long as the source of said magic wasn't deities.

 

[mikeynov]

Also, I'd strongly recommend PMing Dr. GH to contribute to this thread, as he's posted a few dozen references on this topic in the past.

 

[Matthew777]

You could start with the spontaneous generation of proto-cells and basic amino acids as an argument.

That could be a start but it would not explain how DNA, photosynthesis, sex, etc. came into being.

I don't know too much about this Hubert Yockey but I find his words to be rather interesting:
"Information theorist Hubert Yockey argued that chemical evolutionary research raises the question:

Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. (Yockey, 1977. A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377–398, quotes from pp. 379, 396.) In a book he wrote 15 years later, Yockey argued that the idea of abiogenesis from a primordial soup is a failed paradigm:

Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. … The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life. (Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, ISBN 0-521-80293-8).

Yockey, in general, possesses a highly critical attitude toward people who give credence toward natural origins of life, often invoking words like "faith" and "ideology". Yockey's publications have become favorites to quote among creationists, though he is not a creationist himself (as noted in this 1995 email [2])."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Yockey

Peace.

 

[Matthew777]

That and theist's over-willingness to resort to God of the gaps in any areas that seem gray or not thoroughly understood.

How is appealing to God any less rational than Crick's appeal to intergalactic space aliens? While Panspermia begs the question of how life arose somewhere else in the universe, the position that God created the first life isn't a stretch at all for a theistic believer.
Furthermore, if there are laws of conservation of matter and energy then it should follow that there is a law of conservation of life.

Peace.

 

[Tomk80]

Both photosynthesis and sex would be topics for evolution, not abiogenesis. For example, life has been hypothesized to arise near hydrothermal vents. The energy for biological processes would come from the heat of these vents, so no photosynthesis would yet be necessary. Photosynthesis would arise later, due to evolution.

Similarly, what do you mean with sex. The first organisms were probably single celled organisms that were very similar to archaebacteria. They reproduce asexually. Sexual reproduction is just an evolutionary adaptation, and not a very early one either.

Regarding Yockey: I would be interested what his current statements regarding abiogenesis are. The article you cited is from 1977, the book from 1992. Abiogenesis research has made a lot of progress in the past 15 years, and is a very vibrant field of research. So it would be advisable to find a more current criticism, if that is what you want to find.

 

[Ophis]

Furthermore, if there are laws of conservation of matter and energy then it should follow that there is a law of conservation of life.

Interesting leap there. I agree with you about panspermia though. It explains nothing, just adds an extra stage.

 

[TheNewAge]

Both photosynthesis and sex would be topics for evolution, not abiogenesis. For example, life has been hypothesized to arise near hydrothermal vents. The energy for biological processes would come from the heat of these vents, so no photosynthesis would yet be necessary. Photosynthesis would arise later, due to evolution.

Similarly, what do you mean with sex. The first organisms were probably single celled organisms that were very similar to archaebacteria. They reproduce asexually. Sexual reproduction is just an evolutionary adaptation, and not a very early one either.

Very true. I think Matthew777 should refrase his challenge as: prove that unicellular and simple colonial lifeforms can develope from the primordial sauce. Sex and photosynthesis ARE adaptations gained during the process of evolution, which IS a well evidenced scientific fact that requires no further proof.

 

[Tomk80]

How is appealing to God any less rational than Crick's appeal to intergalactic space aliens? While Panspermia begs the question of how life arose somewhere else in the universe, the position that God created the first life isn't a stretch at all for a theistic believer.

You do recognize the argument from ignorance in that statement right? Crick's 'solution' isn't much better in my opinion by the way.

Furthermore, if there are laws of conservation of matter and energy then it should follow that there is a law of conservation of life.

Peace.

Explain.

 

[Matthew777]

Both photosynthesis and sex would be topics for evolution, not abiogenesis.

Nonetheless, the concept of abiogenesis begs the question of how such change from non-living matter to complex living organisms could take place.
I will not propose that a deity must have been involved because that would be an appeal to ignorance. But assuming that abiogensis must be true due to the lack of a better explanation is also fallacious.

Peace.

 

[Matthew777]

Interesting leap there.

If matter cannot be created or destroyed and energy cannot either then neither can life. How is that too much of a leap?

Peace.