the origin of the living cell
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2013, 08:20 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 08:14 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  There is a super law called the "Law of Cause and Effect." So the infinite variety of life on earth and the awesome universe was caused by SOMETHING or SOMEONE. Which of the two possibilities is more logical?

"Something" is a word with very broad definitional parameters. Again, you need to work on your words. Why are you ignoring me?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 08:21 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 08:11 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  What is god if not just speculation? There is loads more hard evidence for abiogenesis than there is for a magical sky man. You're pissing up the wrong tree.

Where is the evidence for abiogenesis?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 08:31 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 07:46 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 08:02 PM)Dom Wrote:  Atheists do not have beliefs. Atheist simply means a person with no belief in a god.

Oh yes atheists DO have a god. The god of blind, mindless, unthinking chance. Or put in another way: the god of good luck.

My goodness. So you are an atheist yourself and you believe in a god of luck? That is self contradictory.

Atheist means no god. None. Zero. No belief required. Please do learn what words mean before you discuss them.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
09-06-2013, 08:33 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 08:21 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 08:11 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  What is god if not just speculation? There is loads more hard evidence for abiogenesis than there is for a magical sky man. You're pissing up the wrong tree.

Where is the evidence for abiogenesis?

If you are going to refuse to look at the evidence that has been provided and/or use the tool called the internet which you are currently using to find out more about this wonderful, natural world (since you have so many questions) then there is hardly any merit to skipping around the bush with you. Your tactics are outdated and boring. You have no clear argument for anything better than"I don't know".

Learn something or go away.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 08:37 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
Jesus, Chas you're starting to rub off on me. Tongue

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like evenheathen's post
09-06-2013, 09:00 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 07:40 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, we don't. Scientists are working on it.


We present effort, the ongoing work of discovery. Your absolutism and childish need for answers is typical of the religious mindset.

A rational, mature person understands that an honest answer is "We don't know, but we're working on it".

So if you don't know the origin of life and "we're still working on it" why are you an atheist?

Do you know what atheist means? It means simply we don't believe in gods. Any of them. Again, read about abiogenesis.

Finally, just because "we" don't know, doesn't mean you know or that any god did caused it.

Shoo fly

The sun rises in the West and the bird shits on the coffeetable.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(08-06-2013 04:20 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  I have a question for atheists. Modern science now knows that the living cell is staggeringly and marvellously complex together with the DNA and RNA genetic code that replicates the cell. Microbiologists are only scratching the surface as regards their understanding of the complexity of the cell.

What scientific explanation can atheists offer as to how the cell came into existence and then became a LIVING cell? Because there is a great difference between a dead cell and a living cell. What was the guiding force that caused the cell to come into existence? Any structure, great or small, must have a solid foundation. Atheists must provide scientifically proven evidence that a cell could come into existence without the divine intervention of a Creator. So what evidence exists that this has happened? If they cannot present evidence that the cell came into existence without a designing Creator their atheistic beliefs are without foundation and are born dead, without any basis.[/u]

I'm sure this horse has been beaten thoroughly, but *no*, Atheists don't have to "provide scientifically proven evidence that a cell could come into existence without the divine intervention of a Creator"... no more than theists have to "provide scientifically proven evidence that a Creator could come into existence without the divine intervention of another Creator". I know that theists believe that God simply "always existed", but when you accept that as a standard, what requires us to do other than assume life "always existed"? God came from a dimension outside of time and space? Then so did life, for all we know. But you can accept the existence of either without a creator until there is actual evidence of creation, and even theists don't suggest a model for how something is created without materials to build from.

But your main problem with accepting the scientific view on this issue is that you seem to believe there's a hard line between life and death. It would appear that life arose from self-replicating peptides, like strands of RNA that reproduced themselves. Are those living? Not by our current definition of life, but they did continue to proliferate nonetheless, and we know this because we can still find them in seawater today. How about when that turned to DNA? How about modern viruses which act like life but don't die... they merely "turn off" when not in the presence of stimulus? Life isn't as clear as you may think it is, and the start of life would be a hard point to define rationally.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Starcrash's post
09-06-2013, 09:14 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 07:46 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 08:02 PM)Dom Wrote:  Atheists do not have beliefs. Atheist simply means a person with no belief in a god.

Oh yes atheists DO have a god. The god of blind, mindless, unthinking chance. Or put in another way: the god of good luck.

Do not presume that you, an anonymous person posting on an atheist forum knows what I, or anyone else thinks. It's vain and arrogant. You know nothing about any of us. Your assumptions, in regard to us are faulty. Your logic, again toward what we think or know, is nonexistent. Your language is divisive with an "us and them" mentality.

Shoo fly

The sun rises in the West and the bird shits on the coffeetable.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
09-06-2013, 09:20 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
It is interesting this question of why life exists. It can be difficult because currently there is no definitive answer. Creationists use the lack of an answer to their benefit.

Basically it is the lack of response to "why" that they use. If I may quote the late great Fankie Lymon "Why do Fools Fall in Love". Who knows certain things. Why did I get married and have two children. My answer would be that it is long and complicated but I do not have a definitive "why".

The religious use the question of "why" to their advantage. "What" is the more important question but "why" is what they utilize.

"Why" do you have morals is more important to them than "what" should moral behavior be. "Why" demands an external thingy to have validity. "What" demands an internal understanding of ones place in the world. I very much prefer "what" should I do do to "why" should I do it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JAH's post
09-06-2013, 10:43 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 07:40 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, we don't. Scientists are working on it.


We present effort, the ongoing work of discovery. Your absolutism and childish need for answers is typical of the religious mindset.

A rational, mature person understands that an honest answer is "We don't know, but we're working on it".

So if you don't know the origin of life and "we're still working on it" why are you an atheist?

Because there is no evidence for the existence of any gods, and lots of evidence against the existence of the gods of any religion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: