How did life begin?
 

Before I start the main part of this post I'd just like to say a little something about where I'm coming from. I have been lurking this forum for a little while now and have made a couple of posts but this is my first post of any significant content.

I am a Christian and am currently an engineering student in Sheffield, England. I would like to think that in general I'm a logical person and up to now I have had no major problems with accepting Christianity as logical. There are certain aspects that I'm unsure of but there have been other things I have experienced/seen happen that have made it seem illogical not to believe.

Anyway, enough about me and onto what I wanted to post about. I'm obviously familiar with the theory of evolution and how it postures that life evolved from single celled organisms and eventually led to what we have now (this is an area I am actually slightly unsure of what I think/believe but for now I'd rather it wasn't too involved in this thread). What I don't know so much about is an atheist viewpoint on how the very first life form was created.

From what I have read (admittedly a lot of biased material, but all with seemingly strong references) it seems that the chance of life occuring spontaneously is all but zero. There is the overused analogy of it being as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a boeing 747 but from what I know that doesn't seem absurd. Life is immensely complex, far more so than a 747, requiring as many as 200 proteins each made up of a string of 100+ amino acids for even the simplest form of life.

What then is the atheist explanation for life on Earth? The only theory I've ever heard is panspermia which frankly seems slightly off the wall and in any case just shifts the problem to somewhere else in the universe. If you could give me any further insight as to current theories and any evidence for them that would be greatly appreciated.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Before I start the main part of this post I'd just like to say a little something about where I'm coming from. I have been lurking this forum for a little while now and have made a couple of posts but this is my first post of any significant content.

I am a Christian and am currently an engineering student in Sheffield, England. I would like to think that in general I'm a logical person and up to now I have had no major problems with accepting Christianity as logical. There are certain aspects that I'm unsure of but there have been other things I have experienced/seen happen that have made it seem illogical not to believe.

Anyway, enough about me and onto what I wanted to post about. I'm obviously familiar with the theory of evolution and how it postures that life evolved from single celled organisms and eventually led to what we have now (this is an area I am actually slightly unsure of what I think/believe but for now I'd rather it wasn't too involved in this thread). What I don't know so much about is an atheist viewpoint on how the very first life form was created.

From what I have read (admittedly a lot of biased material, but all with seemingly strong references) it seems that the chance of life occuring spontaneously is all but zero. There is the overused analogy of it being as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a boeing 747 but from what I know that doesn't seem absurd. Life is immensely complex, far more so than a 747, requiring as many as 200 proteins each made up of a string of 100+ amino acids for even the simplest form of life.

What then is the atheist explanation for life on Earth? The only theory I've ever heard is panspermia which frankly seems slightly off the wall and in any case just shifts the problem to somewhere else in the universe. If you could give me any further insight as to current theories and any evidence for them that would be greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a terrible analogy, first off, although its not your fault for using it. Its very popular. Honestly, I don't think anyone, currently, is in a good position to postulate what the odds of the first life coming together randomly were. A few majors reasons for this: We don't REALLY know what conditions on Earth were like, then, and we don't really know what the first life form was. If the first life-form was an extremely simple version of RNA, or even simpler, some sort of silicon or inorganic replicator, then obviously the odds of this randomly occurring increase greatly. If the world just happened to be in a state that facilitated exactly this sort of random occurrence, our odds go way up again. I don't know very much about the actual science or data of abiogenesis (although I am under the assumption that there isn't much of it to know about) but, strictly logically speaking, the metaphor of a tornado in a junkyard is about as arbitrary as me saying the odds were about the same as flipping a coin and getting heads. The mathematics used to support the tornado metaphor are based on a whole host of assertions that have no support.

If the history of evolutionary discovery has taught us anything, the likely right answer is that some extremely gradual, slow process guided the development of the first life, in many stages that were themselves not extremely unlikely, possibly over millions of trials in which the failures were excluded. All of this is, of course, conjecture on my part.

Re: How did life begin?
 

I only want to make a couple comments..since I don't know much about this specifically..and I don't think that a whole lot is known about it anyway.

There is no "atheist viewpoint"...there may be a viewpoint that is what most atheists believe..probably because it logically follows when you don't shove a god in there, but atheism does not demand that you hold any "alternative" beliefs..alternative to religious beliefs that is.

I believe that the only thing that is necessary as a "first life form" is a replicator..from there, it seems that the evolution that we know is inevitable...

I don't know about the specific estimations of likelihood that something like this would be formed...but there are a couple things that I think should be considered...1) the nature of the situation we are talking about...for instance, conditions that this occurrence is dependent on may have been more ideal at other times..and 2) whether there are even "smaller" steps that replicators..prehaps there are other, more easily formed, things that would help to bring about a replicator..but again, I don't know enough about the subject to be confident that what I am saying is true...just some random thoughts

Re: How did life begin?
 

isn't this a good example of where agnosticism is perfectly correct, unlike over-polite fence sitting atheists talking about the Holy Trilogy.

I'm agnostic on this issue, I don't know the answer. That doesn't in any way suggest one of the popular religious mythologies might have as good a chance of being correct as anything else, btw (just common sense needed for that)

I think I'd be right in assuming most (all?) of the scientific community is currently agnostic on this, which is a hugely significant aspect if you have ever heard anyone suggest science is as faith based as religion.

Re: How did life begin?
 

Gradually developed over millions of years though trillions of random chemical reactions.

My guess is that given the initial starting conditions of the earth, the development of life in some form was either very likely or a virtual certainty. The basic building blocks might have need a lot of luck to get created by chance, but over many billions of years it becomes a virtual certainty. Roll the dice enough times and eventually they will all come up sixes.

Of course I might be misjudging this, but we are here and that has to count for something.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
isn't this a good example of where agnosticism is perfectly correct, unlike over-polite fence sitting atheists talking about the Holy Trilogy.

I'm agnostic on this issue, I don't know the answer. That doesn't in any way suggest one of the popular religious mythologies might have as good a chance of being correct as anything else, btw (just common sense needed for that)

I think I'd be right in assuming most (all?) of the scientific community is currently agnostic on this, which is a hugely significant aspect if you have ever heard anyone suggest science is as faith based as religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post.

Re: How did life begin?
 

What vhawk and Alex said.

The plain and simple fact is that we don't know how life originated, and we don't know how likely it was. Some people have manipulated what limited data we have in an attempt to describe some "likelihood" of life occurring spontaneously, but it's all based on hot air. Not only have there been no mathematically and scientifically consistent conjectures, but it's not even possible to formulate such a conjecture yet.

What I'll say is that the main argument of the scientists is careful analysis and reasoned speculation, while the main argument of the creationists is that it doesn't seem intuitive. In these kinds of debates, the scientists almost always win - the workings of our universe are simply counterintuitive sometimes, especially when based on incomplete information.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What vhawk and Alex said.

The plain and simple fact is that we don't know how life originated, and we don't know how likely it was. Some people have manipulated what limited data we have in an attempt to describe some "likelihood" of life occurring spontaneously, but it's all based on hot air. Not only have there been no mathematically and scientifically consistent conjectures, but it's not even possible to formulate such a conjecture yet.

What I'll say is that the main argument of the scientists is careful analysis and reasoned speculation, while the main argument of the creationists is that it doesn't seem intuitive. In these kinds of debates, the scientists almost always win - the workings of our universe are simply counterintuitive sometimes, especially when based on incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is really amazing to me that people still consider 'counterintuitive' to be a valid criticism of any sort of explanation. Haven't the last hundred years or so of evolutionary biology given us a pretty decent understanding of exactly how counterintuitive reality can be, and exactly WHY so many things are counterintuitive? Is this just a harkening back to the good old days of mathematical discovery, where the best proofs were always intuitive and elegant and beautiful?

And it also sort of exposes peoples misunderstanding of what 'intuitive' really means. There are probably hundreds of papers that instantly make intuitive sense to Boro or Rduke about their respective subjects that seem counterintuitive to me. Once fully explained, this disappears. Counterintuitive is really just another way of saying "I am currently pretty ignorant about this." It probably works as a general, practical rule for getting through your day, but it has a dodgy track record in sussing out truth.

Re: How did life begin?
 

I think there was a couple possible scenarios listed in The Blind Watchmaker that were really basic replicators. I think crystals was one of them.

btw, the primordial ooze theory was proven to be false, wasn't it?

Re: How did life begin?
 

Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you abused by atheists or scientists as a kid? Show me where anyone has said the things you claim to have been told.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you abused by atheists or scientists as a kid? Show me where anyone has said the things you claim to have been told.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just the last 24 hours, lol.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you abused by atheists or scientists as a kid? Show me where anyone has said the things you claim to have been told.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just the last 24 hours, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, dodging the question. I am nearly certain that no one on this forum has told you that your religious beliefs are impossible.

The fact that you discriminate between your set of beliefs with no support whatsoever and some other set of beliefs with no support whatsoever is entirely up to you. Its just when you present them as if they had any validity whatsoever that you run into dissention.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you abused by atheists or scientists as a kid? Show me where anyone has said the things you claim to have been told.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just the last 24 hours, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, dodging the question. I am nearly certain that no one on this forum has told you that your religious beliefs are impossible.

The fact that you discriminate between your set of beliefs with no support whatsoever and some other set of beliefs with no support whatsoever is entirely up to you. Its just when you present them as if they had any validity whatsoever that you run into dissention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know the difference between an agnostic and an athiest sir? And what type of Athiest do you consider yourself to be?

As far as your question, thats the impression I get, tell me where it says anybody here says its possible(who is an athiest). I must of skipped that part or forgot it, im not gonna reread all the posts, ha..

Re: How did life begin?
 

I should ask are you a gnostic athiest? An agnostic athiest? a gnostic theist?, etc.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

SitNHit..a friendly suggestion..

you really need to take your time when writing..it's very hard to understand your english..I have close to no clue what any of this post is supposed to mean..

that's not a hate on you..just a warning that people may (and I think already are) misunderstanding your points because it is not worded correctly.

Re: How did life begin?
 

Believe me I know, sometimes I read what I type and am mystified. I dont know what it is but I will be more careful and run in grammer and spell check on word. I appreciate the critique.

I agree that lots of things are being misunderstood cause of it.

Thanks again.

Re: How did life begin?
 

There's no currently satisfying explanation of the origin of the first cells. I can imagine how it could happen, though. From my limited understanding, I think it would be sufficient if the first cells had a lipid wall (easy), with working ion pumps (possible) embedded in the wall to automatically maintain cell pressure/integrity. These "cells" could have been produced in a number of microsites, such as the microscopic spaces in a porous structure. Introduce replicating molecules into the cell (easy) that can produce protein-like substances to automatically perform various functions (pre-RNA type molecules such as simple self replicating polymers could easily be formed in the early earth), and you have the beginnings of life.

That's not to say any of this proven, or even plausible. But you can roughly sketch how it could work.

Most of evolution requires a strong imagination to intuitively join the dots and grasp the way events occur. For example, I can propose a credible path as to how an eye could evolve from a flat patch of light sensitive cells. Those who can't see the eye as impossible or irreducibly complex, which is amusing.

[ QUOTE ]
Life is immensely complex, far more so than a 747, requiring as many as 200 proteins each made up of a string of 100+ amino acids for even the simplest form of life.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not exactly. Don't forget there are a large number of ways to make a cell - what you see today is just a handful at the end of 3 billion years of evolution. What you're doing is analagous to looking at a computer today, and wondering how they could ever have made a computer with the technology they had in 1950. Obviously they couldn't, so the first computers must have been made by aliens/God!

Things can start from very simple beginnings and accumulate changes over a long period of time. If you can visualize a blob of liquid surround by a lipid wall (very doable) with ion pumps in the cell wall made from simple proteins, you're on your way to imagining the first cells.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you abused by atheists or scientists as a kid? Show me where anyone has said the things you claim to have been told.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just the last 24 hours, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, dodging the question. I am nearly certain that no one on this forum has told you that your religious beliefs are impossible.

The fact that you discriminate between your set of beliefs with no support whatsoever and some other set of beliefs with no support whatsoever is entirely up to you. Its just when you present them as if they had any validity whatsoever that you run into dissention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know the difference between an agnostic and an athiest sir? And what type of Athiest do you consider yourself to be?

As far as your question, thats the impression I get, tell me where it says anybody here says its possible(who is an athiest). I must of skipped that part or forgot it, im not gonna reread all the posts, ha..

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, there is a difference? We have about a thread/week about the difference, so if I said I was crystal clear on it I'd be lying. I don't consider myself an atheist, really, except when the situation calls for it. The terms mean different things in different contexts. I am an atheist in the same sense I am an a-unicornist, but I am not an atheist in the sense that I am 100% and have faith in the idea that no type of God can possibly exist.

What type of atheist are you talking about? Do you find that the type who claims 'it is 100% impossible that any type of God can exist' actually exists? I've never met such an atheist, although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, importantly, the gnostic atheist doesn't exist.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, importantly, the gnostic atheist doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a gnostic thing to say, are you sure about that?

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, importantly, the gnostic atheist doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a gnostic thing to say, are you sure about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I am gnostic about many things. Atheism isn't one of them. Have you ever met a so-called gnostic atheist? Someone is 100% that no type of God could exist? I'm going to guess the answer is an obvious no. Until you have, don't you think it is incredibly dishonest to prop up this strawman?

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, importantly, the gnostic atheist doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a gnostic thing to say, are you sure about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I am gnostic about many things. Atheism isn't one of them. Have you ever met a so-called gnostic atheist? Someone is 100% that no type of God could exist? I'm going to guess the answer is an obvious no. Until you have, don't you think it is incredibly dishonest to prop up this strawman?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive met those who have said such, whether or not I truly know if they know is up for debate.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, importantly, the gnostic atheist doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a gnostic thing to say, are you sure about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I am gnostic about many things. Atheism isn't one of them. Have you ever met a so-called gnostic atheist? Someone is 100% that no type of God could exist? I'm going to guess the answer is an obvious no. Until you have, don't you think it is incredibly dishonest to prop up this strawman?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive met those who have said such, whether or not I truly know if they know is up for debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then make fun of them I guess. I am suspicious of this, since I am positive I encounter more atheists than you on a monthly or yearly basis and I've never met one. Even the more assertive atheists on this board do not come close to such a statement.

Re: How did life begin?
 

An impossibility is defined as having a probability of zero.

Is the probability of molecules being in exactly the right spot at the right time to start a self-replicating chain reaction greater than zero? Yes. Absolutely. Without a doubt. This means it is possible.

500 million years is the most conservative time window for the creation of life. Many people have trouble conceptualizing the amount of time that is. A molecule in liquid or gas phase has about 10^10 collisions per second. Scale that for years and the time window in question and each molecule makes something on the order of 10^27 collisions during that period. Each molecule also moves about 10^17 meters, which is the same as traversing the earths orbital circumference 1000 times. Now consider how many hydrogen, carbon, orxygen and nitrogen atoms there are on the earth. The number of permutations of chemical arrangements in 500 million years in a baryonic soup is magnitudal orders greater than astronomical, it is just inconcievable.

If you sent 10^500 tornadoes at piles of scrap metal, You would end up with a fleet of 747s, a few M1 Abrams tanks, a few bentleys and most certainly a few cellular organisms.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I should ask are you a gnostic athiest? An agnostic athiest? a gnostic theist?, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the term "Gnostic" was effectively hijacked hundreds of years ago. There is relevant terminology for atheists and agnostics. Those on this forum are primarily weak atheists - as are the majority of atheists. There are strong atheists out there (sorry vhawk), but they're relatively rare, typically young and rebellious and bright but emotional. Agnostics of various types exist on this forum. Personally I'm a strong agnostic, but I often present as an agnostic atheist due to intricacy (that's another way to say "convolution") of my beliefs.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should ask are you a gnostic athiest? An agnostic athiest? a gnostic theist?, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the term "Gnostic" was effectively hijacked hundreds of years ago. There is relevant terminology for atheists and agnostics. Those on this forum are primarily weak atheists - as are the majority of atheists. There are strong atheists out there (sorry vhawk), but they're relatively rare, typically young and rebellious and bright but emotional. Agnostics of various types exist on this forum. Personally I'm a strong agnostic, but I often present as an agnostic atheist due to intricacy (that's another way to say "convolution") of my beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, I will concede that there may be these strong atheists out there. I still maintain I've never met one, and I feel confident that in the event I do, a quick 5 minute discussion, including a definition of terms, would cure them of their problem. Same can't be said for the strong theists. It is really almost inconceivable to me that someone could be certain that no form of God could exist, just like its absurd to think that no invisible unicorns could possibly be hiding under my bed. Logically, being a strong theist is just as absurd, but it doesn't seem nearly as unlikely to me. I have a sneaking suspicion that the strong atheists are exactly as you have described, willful, ignorant young kids who like the idea of sticking it to their parents more than thinking about what they call themselves.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, I will concede that there may be these strong atheists out there. I still maintain I've never met one, and I feel confident that in the event I do, a quick 5 minute discussion, including a definition of terms, would cure them of their problem. Same can't be said for the strong theists. It is really almost inconceivable to me that someone could be certain that no form of God could exist, just like its absurd to think that no invisible unicorns could possibly be hiding under my bed. Logically, being a strong theist is just as absurd, but it doesn't seem nearly as unlikely to me. I have a sneaking suspicion that the strong atheists are exactly as you have described, willful, ignorant young kids who like the idea of sticking it to their parents more than thinking about what they call themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, being fair to them, most that I met (primarily in Salt Lake City) had been raised in a religious environment (and all were young). When a young person decides to abandon a religion that basically posits invisible unicorns, it's natural for their first beliefs to coalesce into a similar mode.

I think they grow out of it consistently.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]

It is really almost inconceivable to me that someone could be certain that no form of God could exist, just like its absurd to think that no invisible unicorns could possibly be hiding under my bed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the statement were, that someone is certain that God does exist, just like someone is certain that invisble unicorns exist under their bed.

You feel the same way? I assume you do which is why its a bad analogy. To relate unicorns with God is not reasonable, and lets keep the discussion reasonble please.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is really almost inconceivable to me that someone could be certain that no form of God could exist, just like its absurd to think that no invisible unicorns could possibly be hiding under my bed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the statement were, that someone is certain that God does exist, just like someone is certain that invisble unicorns exist under their bed.

You feel the same way? I assume you do which is why its a bad analogy. To relate unicorns with God is not reasonable, and lets keep the discussion reasonble please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its entirely reasonable. Explain to me why it isn't and I will refrain from using the analogy.

Re: How did life begin?
 

Anything is possible, but a God is different then a Unicorn. One is a Godly person, another a Godly animal. Billions dont worship a unicorn, they do worship a God. So if your goal is to discuss with others that dont share your opinion, you might want to use a better analogy, one that might make some sense to one who thinks of a God with a bit more importance and affection then a unicorn.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anything is possible, but a God is different then a Unicorn. One is a Godly person, another a Godly animal. Billions dont worship a unicorn, they do worship a God. So if your goal is to discuss with others that dont share your opinion, you might want to use a better analogy, one that might make some sense to one who thinks of a God with a bit more importance and affection then a unicorn.

[/ QUOTE ]

The amount of people who worship the unicorn is irrelevant. Its the unprovable and unverifiable nature of the invisible unicorn that makes the analogy appropriate. The absurdity of the unicorn is just what makes the analogy poignant.

And billions of people don't worship the vast majority of possible Gods either...do you want to dismiss all of them? Do you have any basis for doing so?

Re: How did life begin?
 

I will dismiss the importance of all of them accept the Biblical God and his son Jesus Christ. I will do that, and the basis is that there is no written consequence that I know of for not believing in the others. Not that personally it would matter to me if there were, just saying objectivley. So I can dismiss them cause it doesnt matter if they existed or not for us, but it does matter if the Bible is real.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anything is possible, but a God is different then a Unicorn. One is a Godly person, another a Godly animal. Billions dont worship a unicorn, they do worship a God. So if your goal is to discuss with others that dont share your opinion, you might want to use a better analogy, one that might make some sense to one who thinks of a God with a bit more importance and affection then a unicorn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. What's your problem with unicorns, dude?

(Of course no real gods have ever been animals, right?)

Re: How did life begin?
 

of course Gods evolved from animals, DA!

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will dismiss the importance of all of them accept the Biblical God and his son Jesus Christ. I will do that, and the basis is that there is no written consequence that I know of for not believing in the others. Not that personally it would matter to me if there were, just saying objectivley. So I can dismiss them cause it doesnt matter if they existed or not for us, but it does matter if the Bible is real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong you are sir. I wrote a book just the other day, inspired by Kwahv, the one true God, that wearing pants is guaranteed to send you to hell for eternity.

After all, being written down in a book is all we need to seperate the obviously bogus unverifiable beliefs from the legitimate ones, right? I can ship you a copy, if you'd like, $7.99 S&H.

Re: How did life begin?
 

I finally stumped ya. Yippi. You have no answer to that. Your human after all. Lol.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Before I start the main part of this post I'd just like to say a little something about where I'm coming from. I have been lurking this forum for a little while now and have made a couple of posts but this is my first post of any significant content.

I am a Christian and am currently an engineering student in Sheffield, England. I would like to think that in general I'm a logical person and up to now I have had no major problems with accepting Christianity as logical. There are certain aspects that I'm unsure of but there have been other things I have experienced/seen happen that have made it seem illogical not to believe.

Anyway, enough about me and onto what I wanted to post about. I'm obviously familiar with the theory of evolution and how it postures that life evolved from single celled organisms and eventually led to what we have now (this is an area I am actually slightly unsure of what I think/believe but for now I'd rather it wasn't too involved in this thread). What I don't know so much about is an atheist viewpoint on how the very first life form was created.

From what I have read (admittedly a lot of biased material, but all with seemingly strong references) it seems that the chance of life occuring spontaneously is all but zero. There is the overused analogy of it being as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a boeing 747 but from what I know that doesn't seem absurd. Life is immensely complex, far more so than a 747, requiring as many as 200 proteins each made up of a string of 100+ amino acids for even the simplest form of life.

What then is the atheist explanation for life on Earth? The only theory I've ever heard is panspermia which frankly seems slightly off the wall and in any case just shifts the problem to somewhere else in the universe. If you could give me any further insight as to current theories and any evidence for them that would be greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]Life begining is simple compared to matter/time/space begining. Life began when matter formed into structures that replicated, simple, right? Why is there matter to form into replicating structures, no idea. Why did matter form into structures that replicated, because it was possible for matter to do so.

If you are a non literalist xtian you probably want to cheer on the carins-smith(sp) model. Silicon was the replication model that life arrived from. Silicon is founf heavily in dirt.

Re: How did life begin?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I finally stumped ya. Yippi. You have no answer to that. Your human after all. Lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

To what? Did I miss something? Restate your question and I will take a crack at what is bound to be a real stumper.