The Ultimate Atheist Challenge Thread!

[Dragar]

In the absence of divine revelation, that is true. Divine revelation, I undersand, is outside the realm of scientific investigation.

And is notoriously unreliable. In fact, often 'divine revelation' has proven contradictory with basic observations of reality, not to mention a great deal of scientific understanding and even other 'divine revelations'.

'Divine revelation' is more often wrong than right, Matthew.

Providing evidence that abiogenesis happened would show that it is not impossible.

So you assume something is impossible without evidence?

What a wacky world you live in. I suppose that means god creating the universe is impossible? We are, after all, without evidence.

 

[Matthew777]

And is notoriously unreliable. In fact, often 'divine revelation' has proven contradictory with basic observations of reality, not to mention a great deal of scientific understanding and even other 'divine revelations'.

That depends on what kind of 'divine revelation' one is speaking of but that would belong in a different discussion.

So you assume something is impossible without evidence?

What a wacky world you live in. I suppose that means god creating the universe is impossible? We are, after all, without evidence.

Not necessarily impossible but certainly not worthy of belief, especially if it is counterintuitive.

If someone is able to show that abiogenesis is as well-evidenced as common descent, I will back down.

Peace.

 

[Dragar]

Not necessarily impossible but certainly not worthy of belief, especially if it is counterintuitive.

Why is this 'not necessarily impossible' but abiogenesis is?

I smell special pleading...

 

[Ryal Kane]

Oaky. I'll bite on this one.
I can't offer proof and I'm not a scientist. But I can offer you may opinion and the logic I use to reach that conclusion.

1- Elements form chemicals.
2- Some of these chemicals are more stable than others.
3- In an enviroment with constant energy in put, things will keep changing and new chemicals may be formed.
4- Some chemicals can replicate.
5- A chemical which can replicate may create more of itself than one that can't
6- Unless something critical changes, that chemical may continue to replicate.
7- Given constant energy input (sea vent) it is possible for more complex reactions to occur with our chemical.
8- If this new combination is better at replicating, there will eventually be more of it.

This process continues. So long as the more 'comlex' molecule is better at replicating than it's predecessor there will be more of it. In this manner, over time, what we define as life will develop.

This seems to me to be a logical framework.
There remaisn a quesiton of appopriate elements (which we have) and energy (which we have). There is also a quesiton of chance and time.
But long shots happen all the time.

Anyway. That's my take on it. It makes sense to me.
Whether or not the whole process was put in motion by God I cannot say but God is not neccesary in the naturla selection process.

 

[Matthew777]

Why is this 'not necessarily impossible' but abiogenesis is?

I smell special pleading...

As I just explained, it is not necessarily impossible. A concept as counterintuitive as abiogensis is wrong until shown otherwise.

Peace.

 

[Dragar]

As I just explained, it is not necessarily impossible. A concept as counterintuitive as abiogensis is wrong until shown otherwise.

How is it counterintuitive?

Show me where life is not chemistry, Matthew. In fact, tell me what 'life' is other than a label for an entirely arbitrary set of behaviours.

Edit: I should add that 'I don't know' - if that's your position - is pretty reasonable. I'm in that camp myself, though as I said, I do have a best guess.

 

[Phred]

Our ability to violate the natural order is part of what makes mankind unique.

There's no violation. Energy and matter are the same thing. If you lose some energy you gain some matter and vice-versa. The total amount of matter-energy in the universe is constant. That is, if the universe is closed.

As I've explained before, it would only be an argument from ignorance if I were to make a claim of absolute certainty. Outside of divine revelation, the best we can really say is that we don't know.

Aren't you absolutely certain that a deity exists and that this deity is/was Jesus?

Is the previous existence of the environment necessary for abiogenesis a fact?

Do you deny that the Earth exists and that there's life upon it? If not, and I don't see how you could, then your question is moot. Or are you just moving the goal posts?

 

[Matthew777]

How is it counterintuitive?

Assuming that life could arise from non-life is as counter-intuitive that matter arose from non-matter. The burdon of proof is on the one who claims that it happened. Would you care to take a try?

Peace.

 

[Dragar]

Assuming that life could arise from non-life is as counter-intuitive that matter arose from non-matter. The burdon of proof is on the one who claims that it happened.

Tell me what 'life' is, and how it is different from 'non-life'. To me, they're just chemistry with different degrees of complexity. I think once you examine what life is, you'll realise the distinction is really rather blurry.

 

[Matthew777]

Aren't you absolutely certain that a deity exists and that this deity is/was Jesus?

Genuine faith has room for doubt.

Do you deny that the Earth exists and that there's life upon it? If not, and I don't see how you could, then your question is moot. Or are you just moving the goal posts?

You've missed the point. Abiogenesis proposes that life arose from a primordial soup, no? Please show that this environment existed.

Peace.

 

[Loudmouth]

Our ability to violate the natural order is part of what makes mankind unique.

Everything man does is in line with natural laws. The condensation of energy into matter is the same mechanism that created the first matter in our universe. Man is simply recreating what nature has already done.

As I've explained before, it would only be an argument from ignorance if I were to make a claim of absolute certainty. Outside of divine revelation, the best we can really say is that we don't know.

What is wrong with "We don't know"? It would seem that ignorance is a good place to start an investigation but a poor place to find support for an argument.

Is the previous existence of the environment necessary for abiogenesis a fact?

Peace.

We don't know where life started, so it's really a moot point at this time. Life could have started on a comet for all we know. It could have started in an intertidal zone, deep sea vents, anoxic environments such as in wet soils, or even on Mars. The first step is to see if life can be created in the lab and work back from there.

 

[Matthew777]

It would seem that ignorance is a good place to start an investigation but a poor place to find support for an argument.

Divine revelation exists for the enlightenment of mankind.

Life could have started on a comet for all we know. It could have started in an intertidal zone, deep sea vents, anoxic environments such as in wet soils, or even on Mars.

You've simply moved the origin of life to elsewhere in the universe.

The first step is to see if life can be created in the lab and work back from there.

If humans were able to create life in a lab, that would be intelligent design.
The purpose of abiogenesis is to show that life arose without the intervention of intelligence.
Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.

Peace.

 

[Matthew777]

Oaky. I'll bite on this one.
I can't offer proof and I'm not a scientist. But I can offer you may opinion and the logic I use to reach that conclusion.

Thank you for your response. If abiogenesis were shown to be true, it would not be detrimental to my faith. When I asked my AP Biology teacher, a devout Catholic and professional biologist, why he believes in abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution, he said it's because we live in a universe where God made it possible.

Peace.

 

[Loudmouth]

Divine revelation exists for the enlightenment of mankind.

Revelation alone can not explain the natural world, or at least it has been inadequate to this point.

You've simply moved the origin of life to elsewhere in the universe.

I have moved it to places where it might have started. Comets and meteors from Mars have impacted the Earth, so these are viable options.

If humans were able to create life in a lab, that would be intelligent design.

The purpose of abiogenesis is to show that life arose without the intervention of intelligence.
Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.

Peace.

The purpose of abiogenesis is to show that life can arise through chemistry. Humans are merely creating models for possible pathways. These models are then tested against possible environments that existed in the past. This is no different than recreating the conditions that cause tornadoes. Recreating a tornado in a lab does not mean that tornadoes are intelligently designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you for your response. If abiogenesis were shown to be true, it would not be detrimental to my faith. When I asked my AP Biology teacher, a devout Catholic and professional biologist, why he believes in abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution, he said it's because we live in a universe where God made it possible.

Peace.

That's the way I viewed it when I was a christian. Like you, I feel sorry for christians who are afraid of science. Science really is bad-ass!!

 

[Matthew777]

The purpose of abiogenesis is to show that life can arise through chemistry. Humans are merely creating models for possible pathways. These models are then tested against possible environments that existed in the past. This is no different than recreating the conditions that cause tornadoes. Recreating a tornado in a lab does not mean that tornadoes are intelligently designed.

Please forgive me if I am mistaken. A scientist attempts to create the environment where abiogenesis occurred and to do so he must assume that it occurred beforehand. If it takes an intelligent designer (a human being) to recreate such an environment then how could it not have taken an intelligent designer (God, for example) to create the original environment? I doubt that you can have it both ways.

Peace.

 

[Matthew777]

That's the way I viewed it when I was a christian.

Then why are you no longer a Christian?

Science really is bad-ass!!

It is not badass to use a hyphen in "badass".

Peace.

 

[MartinM]

If it takes an intelligent designer (a human being) to recreate such an environment then how could it not have taken an intelligent designer (God, for example) to create the original environment?

If it takes an intelligent designer to create a near-perfect vacuum within the Earth's atmosphere, then how could it not have taken an intelligent designer (God, for example) to create the near-perfect vacuum of space?

 

[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.

^^^

If you really want a good answer, you should PM Dr. GH to contribute.

 

[Matthew777]

If it takes an intelligent designer to create a near-perfect vacuum within the Earth's atmosphere, then how could it not have taken an intelligent designer (God, for example) to create the near-perfect vacuum of space?

Essentially, you've given me a red herring. What you could do is actually answer the question - If random chance could produce the first life, why does it take human intelligence to recreate it?
Have we even succeeded in creating a living cell from non-living matter?

Furthermore, you've committed the fallacy of begging the question - We have no reason to believe that the universe is a closed system.

Peace.