The issue with atheism

a reply to: noonebutme

Just one minor point I need to interject... regar.dless of which hypothesis is favored fro the origin of life on earth, we are indeed talking about organic molecules, not inorganic. They've been found (they as in the basic building blocks of life i.e. organic matter has been found in the Oort cloud analogues of other star systems and in the atmospheres of some exoplanets. This implies, despite the objections of people who seem to hate science when it offends their religious proclivities but openly embrace that same science when it allows them to be anonymous internet tough guys wallowing in willful ignorance whose only retort seems to be ad hominem's and blatant slander.

www.popularmechanics.com...

www.smithsonianmag.com...

www.space.com...

www.cfa.harvard.edu...

a reply to: peter vlar

Okay we have organic molecules and
inorganic molecules float'n around out there.
They do' n anything else?

originally posted by: randyvs
Under the right conditions?
The conditions made up from an
assumption. And performed in
a lab by scientists.

You're right. Assumption. Because we don't know for certain. But you know what, science is trying to answer the question. It doesn't know for sure, but makes every attempt to investigate and learn how things could have happened.

And at least I'm trying to demonstrate the possibilities of how life started and why it didn't need a supreme creator to start it, based on experiments that prove different theories.

You on the other hand, are so intellectually devoid that you're only, ONLY argument is.. God did it. Or at least that's what you say, whether to actually believe that and are simply being intentionally obstinate, who knows.

How do you ignore the fact we don't see molecules producing amino acids right now somewhere under the right conditions?

How do you know we don't? Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. I'm not a chemical biologist.

a reply to: noonebutme

Well I never implied I hate science and
of course I do not expect the search
for answers to end. I have eluded to
only one true goal here. And it isn't for
anyone to throw thier hands up and say
The Big R is right. As I see it you yourself
for one sling way to much mud in my opinion.

To me it just seems way over the top for a
person I know ga damn well is better than
that on a cognitive level. Don't take this as
whining either. But to ridicule others seems
like the last thing you and so many others
should be doing. No reason to say it goes
both ways everyone knows that. But can you
honestly say atheists don't jump on every one
who posts in the religious forum like a pack
of wolves? I know it won't stop but why does
a person of your stature enjoy somthing that
does nothing for thier image. Is it because
Dawkins said to that? Didn't he recently
concede to agnostic? I couldn't care less
what you believe but trying to be a negative
force against others for not being like
minded? You aren't any where near that
at all based on what you've said. It seems
cowardly to mock and ridicule others who
put it all out there saying what they believe
when atheism doesn't believe anything. Some
seem possessed even as it's all they do. What
is that? Certainly not intelligence.

It looks like insecurity not a judgement
just an observation.

That's my issue.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: noonebutme

I'm not being stupid at all esse. I asked for observable evidence that life can come from
some place other than life in a hostile
environment?

And you give me a lab experimemt. That
claims to duplicate earths environment at
what time? How many billions of years ago
would that have to be? For this just to happen
somewhere on a molten piece of rock flying
away from a big bang.

You don't see how impossible all this sounds
and you call me stupid?

The impossibilities of it all should tell you
there has to be a God.

it tells me you settle too quickly for answers that are too lazy. fortunately there are generations of folks who dedicated their entire lives to this mystery and produced actual information.

www.bbc.com...

the big bang theory is a little more complicated given the nature of outer space and the tools at our disposal. but we continue to make progress with each day we pursue the question.

www.space.com...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: noonebutme

I'm not being stupid at all esse. I asked for observable evidence that life can come from
some place other than life in a hostile
environment?

And you give me a lab experimemt. That
claims to duplicate earths environment at
what time? How many billions of years ago
would that have to be? For this just to happen
somewhere on a molten piece of rock flying
away from a big bang.

You don't see how impossible all this sounds
and you call me stupid?

The impossibilities of it all should tell you
there has to be a God.

it tells me you settle too quickly for answers that are too lazy. fortunately there are generations of folks who dedicated their entire lives to this mystery and produced actual information.

www.bbc.com...

the big bang theory is a little more complicated given the nature of outer space and the tools at our disposal. but we continue to make progress with each day we pursue the question.

www.space.com...

I have no problem with any of that.

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: noonebutme

I'm not being stupid at all esse. I asked for observable evidence that life can come from
some place other than life in a hostile
environment?

And you give me a lab experimemt. That
claims to duplicate earths environment at
what time? How many billions of years ago
would that have to be? For this just to happen
somewhere on a molten piece of rock flying
away from a big bang.

You don't see how impossible all this sounds
and you call me stupid?

The impossibilities of it all should tell you
there has to be a God.

it tells me you settle too quickly for answers that are too lazy. fortunately there are generations of folks who dedicated their entire lives to this mystery and produced actual information.

www.bbc.com...

the big bang theory is a little more complicated given the nature of outer space and the tools at our disposal. but we continue to make progress with each day we pursue the question.

www.space.com...

I have no problem with any of that.

then the content i just linked doesnt strike you as impossible?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Why would I say that you're not saying it's
fact. I don't even have a problem with the
lazy part. Probably true I'm not that big of
a thinker.

a reply to: TzarChasm



You know that genesis Chapter one actually states that:......And God said, "Let the waters" bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Regardless of what these christian fools think it is written in god damn inck that God said: let earth bring forth.....and so on.

How does this contridict science?

Pay no attention to these christian fools who have no IQ to think with. WHen God said let there be light. God actually formed the firmament.....The seed that we call the singularity. When this firmament/singularity was formed all the properties to form life was present. Even man...as male and female.
It is not until genesis chapter two that man (Adam) is actually formed from the dust on the ground by Lord God. In chapter one man is formed as male and female....at the same time. Just like every other animal that was present at that time.

Evolution is a predeterminded cycle. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to actually know that. You just need a bit of IQ to grasp the concept.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

Why would I say that you're not saying it's
fact. I don't even have a problem with the
lazy part. Probably true I'm not that big of
a thinker.

the articles i shared contain a list of facts indicating the probability of evolution. there is also a map of the observable universe exhibiting traces of the big bang.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The only problem I have with big bang is we
should only see kaos from an explosion.

a reply to: randyvs

The B.B. wasn’t an actual explosion though. It’s referred to that in print for the average public as a metaphor or an analogy for the rapid expansion of matter and space time from the infinitely dense singularity.

a reply to: peter vlar

K but is there a way to account for so much
order?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You mentioned it so you brought it up.

noonebutme who brought it up to explain life

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Consciousness evolved just like any other aspect of life, so no evolution isn't irrelevant to consciousness.

Based on what evidence? You don't have fossil records for consciousness.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Life was likely started through abiogenesis but how it changed over time since then is what evolution is.

I've already said, Evolutionist can't answer what was common ancestor to human-ape species leading back to most primitive cell. Evolution can't answers how many changes it needed for this original primitive cell to evolve into human being. Evolution stated slow gradual process. And you come up with believe that it takes only 3.x billion years for single cell primitives to transform in human being?

As far as I can tell, you have neither scientific data, nor fact to prove it. Point me complete evolution chain from single cell microorganism to modern human, then we talk whether your 3.x billion years is possible. Until then, all you have is just faith.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But evolution doesn't even make that claim.

That is why I suggest you to stay out. But you refused. This is the subject of creation under Biochemistry, Biology and Anthropology, Cosmology and Theology study. It has no place for evolution.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Atoms developing is part of fusion in stars. Then the creation of heavier atoms is created through star supernovas. Atoms turning into molecules is chemistry.

Just skip the introduction. We know how atom create matter.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Next molecules turning into proteins and other basic building blocks of life is abiogensis.

That is what we are talking about until you chime in.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Finally, evolution took over from there. You literally just sandwiched several different scientific processes into one to describe evolution. You are wrong and it shows that you didn't adequately research the topic to even understand it properly let alone research it with an open mind to see if it is true or not.

Point to me complete evolution stages from single cell primitive to unknown common human ape ancestor to modern day human with their evolution timeline, then we can have discussion. The reason is I want to know whether abiogenesis have enough time for inorganic matter to evolve into basic primitive organic living cell.

Until then, I don't find your input useful. Sorry, if that offend you. I'm just trying to be honest. Evolution has no relevant in creation. So why don't you just leave this to Biochemist, Biologist, Anthropologist, Cosmologist and Theologist to deal with?

a reply to: EasternShadow

Hi there, I'm a Chemist and Biochemist. Specifically I've studied Bioinformatics. You will NEVER get a complete cell to modern complex animal timeline which is indisputable. Until we can time travel that is


There is a reason abiogensis and other hypotheses of how life began are separate from evolution, and that is because we don't have much evidence yet. WE may never have much evidence, because its something you'd have to observe to have indisputable proof. Unlike evolution (which yes we have observed, including speciation).

People who insist biogeneses (the many options) and evolution should be in the same theory, don't really understand why they are demanding. One is a start and one is a change there of.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: EasternShadow

Hi there, I'm a Chemist and Biochemist. Specifically I've studied Bioinformatics. You will NEVER get a complete cell to modern complex animal timeline which is indisputable. Until we can time travel that is

There is a reason abiogensis and other hypotheses of how life began are separate from evolution, and that is because we don't have much evidence yet. WE may never have much evidence, because its something you'd have to observe to have indisputable proof. Unlike evolution (which yes we have observed, including speciation).

People who insist biogeneses (the many options) and evolution should be in the same theory, don't really understand why they are demanding. One is a start and one is a change there of.

Thank you Noinden.
Now that is true opinion from Chemist and Biochemist.

a reply to: EasternShadow

Its more than opinion. We can't prove how it started. It could be a God, several Gods, random etc. It in no way influences evolution. Which is a common straw man creationists create.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: EasternShadow

Its more than opinion. We can't prove how it started. It could be a God, several Gods, random etc. It in no way influences evolution. Which is a common straw man creationists create.

At this point everyone should notice one fact.
Scripture recognizes this mystery long before
the first petri dish. The Bible could've just as
easily gave a less detailed account and been
done with it. Instead what confounds science
today. Has already been claimed thousands
of years ago.


Life comes only from life.

 The climax of God’s creative work was His extraordinary creation of man. “The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7)

a reply to: randyvs

The bible is not the only holy text out there. It is just one of hundreds of choices. Science recognizes that any of those COULD be an answer (no matter how unlikely). Does your faith admit that "it just happened" is an option?