132 replies to this topic

[Flushgarden]

How did the light switch get turned on? How did life come from inanimate objects in mud?

Maybe the question has been answered and proven and I'm not aware of it. If it has, please inform me. If it hasn't, what are some of the leading theories and what are your thoughts regarding those theories?

[avsfan]

42

[HangukMiguk]

42

[Flushgarden]

42

How many roads must a man walk down?

[avsfan]

Before you call him a man?

[brvheart]

How did the light switch get turned on? How did life come from inanimate objects in mud?

Maybe the question has been answered and proven and I'm not aware of it. If it has, please inform me. If it hasn't, what are some of the leading theories and what are your thoughts regarding those theories?

Where did the mud come from? An explosion in the middle of absolute nothingness?

[avsfan]

Well you see there where these branes......

[Flushgarden]

Where did the mud come from? An explosion in the middle of absolute nothingness?

Yeah that little unanswered (to my knowledge) question has been bugging me as well. Where did the exploding dot come from? How did it get there? How did it know when to explode? How were the laws of physics that caused it to explode created?

Do atheists just have faith that there is a factual explanation out there somewhere, yet to be found, that they're absolutely positive is devoid of any divine guidance?

I just want logical answers.

[avsfan]

The religious and the the atheist both rely on Blind Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground.

The best logical explanation currently is the collsion of two branes.

[Balloon guy]

I don't know how they got there,

but I do know they were named Adam and EVE

Not Adam and STEVE

[crowTrobot]

The religious and the the atheist both rely on Blind Faith.

atheists believe god is improbable for the same reason you believe unicorns are improbable. no faith involved.

[crowTrobot]

Where did the mud come from?

maybe the "mud" was always there. if you think it's possible that god can be eternal there's no reason to think matter/energy couldn't be.
no double standards allowed

[crowTrobot]

Do atheists just have faith that there is a factual explanation out there somewhere, yet to be found,

no, they believe the pattern of evidence indicates it's most likely that a god-free explanation
will be found for the origin of the big bang. faith has nothing to do with it.

that they're absolutely positive is devoid of any divine guidance?

unlike religious fundamentalists, the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists
don't pretend to be absolutely positive about anything. most atheists form their view of
reality based on evidence-based probability. the only time you really hear anyone
talk about hard atheism (absolute belief there is no god) is when theists are making
lame attempts to validate their own belief with straw man arguments, as in this thread.

[crowTrobot]

How did the light switch get turned on? How did life come from inanimate objects in mud?

nobody knows for sure, and the only people who pretend to know are religious fundamentalists.

Maybe the question has been answered and proven and I'm not aware of it. If it has, please inform me. If it hasn't, what are some of the leading theories and what are your thoughts regarding those theories?

it's not hard to research what science is learning about this stuff online yourself. just google abiogenesis or "origin of life".

here's a good place to start

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

[LongLiveYorke]

How did the light switch get turned on? How did life come from inanimate objects in mud?

Maybe the question has been answered and proven and I'm not aware of it. If it has, please inform me. If it hasn't, what are some of the leading theories and what are your thoughts regarding those theories?

The light didn't get switched on. There's no discrete jump between "life" and "non life." A human is alive. It can think, breath, cry, read, listen to music, etc. A chimp is alive. It can think, breath, cry, and listen to music, but it can't read. An ant is alive, but really all it can do is make several simple choices involving scents, moving around, and eating. A cellular organism is sort of alive. It can't think and doesn't know it exists. All it can do is absorb things through its cell walls, eat them, and create more of itself. It doesn't know it's doing that. Even though it's just one cell, it's still extremely complicated and has many, many moving parts. It has DNA, RNA, ribosomes, mitochondria etc.

Really, you can zoom in and say that a particular ribosome is "alive." Processes amino acids into long protein strands, polypeptide chains, and RNA. It's just a smaller version of the one-cell organism. But now we're getting down to a fuzzy border. A ribosome is little more than a group of chemicals and proteins that work almost mechanically to do their job. So, is it alive, or is it a component? Is the engine in my car alive? Is a one cellular organism alive? Is a skin cell in my body alive? Is one neuron in my brain alive? It just takes chemical input, converts it into electrical signals, and then sends chemical output to other neurons.

If no cell in my body is "alive," then how do they make up something that is alive? If I lose 50% of the cells in my body, am I still alive, or am I less alive? Am I less alive if I lose a leg or an arm? If I can't digest food and need machines to do it for me, am I alive? If I have an artificial heart? If I become brain damaged and am afflicted with mental retardation, am I less alive? What if I'm a vegtable? What if every cell in my body dies except for one neuron, which becomes supported artificially in a lab. Is that neuron me? Am I that neuron? How many do I need for it to be me?

What if I write a computer program and design a machine that takes in protein and gives out waste? Is it alive? What if I build a tiny robot that does everything that an ant can do? Have I created life? It can't think, but neither can an ant. Where's the dividing line?

Okay, all these questions are getting annoying and obvious.

My point is this: pretty much every conflict between religion and science boils down to a conflicting view on whether life is a discrete or continuous thing. Is it yes/no, or is it a gradual increase in intelligence and functionality.

[Sal Paradise]

The light didn't get switched on. There's no discrete jump between "life" and "non life." A human is alive. It can think, breath, cry, read, listen to music, etc. A chimp is alive. It can think, breath, cry, and listen to music, but it can't read. An ant is alive, but really all it can do is make several simple choices involving scents, moving around, and eating. A cellular organism is sort of alive. It can't think and doesn't know it exists. All it can do is absorb things through its cell walls, eat them, and create more of itself. It doesn't know it's doing that. Even though it's just one cell, it's still extremely complicated and has many, many moving parts. It has DNA, RNA, ribosomes, mitochondria etc.

Really, you can zoom in and say that a particular ribosome is "alive." Processes amino acids into long protein strands, polypeptide chains, and RNA. It's just a smaller version of the one-cell organism. But now we're getting down to a fuzzy border. A ribosome is little more than a group of chemicals and proteins that work almost mechanically to do their job. So, is it alive, or is it a component? Is the engine in my car alive? Is a one cellular organism alive? Is a skin cell in my body alive? Is one neuron in my brain alive? It just takes chemical input, converts it into electrical signals, and then sends chemical output to other neurons.

If no cell in my body is "alive," then how do they make up something that is alive? If I lose 50% of the cells in my body, am I still alive, or am I less alive? Am I less alive if I lose a leg or an arm? If I can't digest food and need machines to do it for me, am I alive? If I have an artificial heart? If I become brain damaged and am afflicted with mental retardation, am I less alive? What if I'm a vegtable? What if every cell in my body dies except for one neuron, which becomes supported artificially in a lab. Is that neuron me? Am I that neuron? How many do I need for it to be me?

What if I write a computer program and design a machine that takes in protein and gives out waste? Is it alive? What if I build a tiny robot that does everything that an ant can do? Have I created life? It can't think, but neither can an ant. Where's the dividing line?

Okay, all these questions are getting annoying and obvious.

My point is this: pretty much every conflict between religion and science boils down to a conflicting view on whether life is a discrete or continuous thing. Is it yes/no, or is it a gradual increase in intelligence and functionality.

nah, that's too confusing. lets just say that god did it.

[brvheart]

maybe the "mud" was always there. if you think it's possible that god can be eternal there's no reason to think matter/energy couldn't be.
no double standards allowed

Everyone knows that this 'point' of yours is ridiculous. If there wasn't a beginning then scientists wouldn't be actively trying to figure out what it was. Also, you would need to get rid of the pesky red shift theory.

here's a good place to start

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

haha

The light didn't get switched on. There's no discrete jump between "life" and "non life." A human is alive. It can think, breath, cry, read, listen to music, etc. A chimp is alive. It can think, breath, cry, and listen to music, but it can't read. An ant is alive, but really all it can do is make several simple choices involving scents, moving around, and eating. A cellular organism is sort of alive. It can't think and doesn't know it exists. All it can do is absorb things through its cell walls, eat them, and create more of itself. It doesn't know it's doing that. Even though it's just one cell, it's still extremely complicated and has many, many moving parts. It has DNA, RNA, ribosomes, mitochondria etc.

Really, you can zoom in and say that a particular ribosome is "alive." Processes amino acids into long protein strands, polypeptide chains, and RNA. It's just a smaller version of the one-cell organism. But now we're getting down to a fuzzy border. A ribosome is little more than a group of chemicals and proteins that work almost mechanically to do their job. So, is it alive, or is it a component? Is the engine in my car alive? Is a one cellular organism alive? Is a skin cell in my body alive? Is one neuron in my brain alive? It just takes chemical input, converts it into electrical signals, and then sends chemical output to other neurons.

If no cell in my body is "alive," then how do they make up something that is alive? If I lose 50% of the cells in my body, am I still alive, or am I less alive? Am I less alive if I lose a leg or an arm? If I can't digest food and need machines to do it for me, am I alive? If I have an artificial heart? If I become brain damaged and am afflicted with mental retardation, am I less alive? What if I'm a vegtable? What if every cell in my body dies except for one neuron, which becomes supported artificially in a lab. Is that neuron me? Am I that neuron? How many do I need for it to be me?

What if I write a computer program and design a machine that takes in protein and gives out waste? Is it alive? What if I build a tiny robot that does everything that an ant can do? Have I created life? It can't think, but neither can an ant. Where's the dividing line?

Okay, all these questions are getting annoying and obvious.

My point is this: pretty much every conflict between religion and science boils down to a conflicting view on whether life is a discrete or continuous thing. Is it yes/no, or is it a gradual increase in intelligence and functionality.

Nice tangent. (since you're really the only one that bothered to answer the OP directly.) You make an interesting point though.

nah, that's too confusing. lets just say that god did it.

You didn't even read his post... did you!

[Sal Paradise]

You didn't even read his post... did you!

nope. jesus wouldn't, so I didn't.

[vbnautilus]

Very crudely described the basic theory (or theories more accurately) of abiogenesis is that organic molecules (arrangements of atoms) formed out of what was here on earth due to natural forces and a whole lot of time. Eventually there were molecules with resemblances to RNA which replicated themselves, and once this replication process happens you have the whole principle that things which replicate themselves more successfully become more abundant, and things become more and more complex over time. The wikipedia page is pretty good.

To drive home LLY's point, the things that living things are made of were here before there were living things; they are just arranged in different ways. The core of every atom in every molecule in every living cell is the same stuff that makes up rocks and rivers. We are made of the earth.

[vbnautilus]

Do atheists just have faith that there is a factual explanation out there somewhere, yet to be found, that they're absolutely positive is devoid of any divine guidance?

The religious and the the atheist both rely on Blind Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground.

This is an issue worth clearing up.

People use the word "faith" in a lot of different contexts colloquially. But in the religious context, it describes a belief which does not hold itself to the standards of evidence. In other words, a faithful believer typically does not arrive at his belief through reason or evidence, and needs no logical or reasonable evidence for holding the belief. The corollary to this is that evidence which does not support the belief may be ignored -- since the belief has nothing to do with evidence. Framed this way you can see that faithful belief is precisely the opposite of the scientific approach to understanding the world.

The scientific point of view does not have to choose between not knowing something, and having faith. This is a false choice. It is perfectly reasonable to not know, and in fact the whole venture of science would make no sense if it weren't based on the understanding that there is so much we do not know. There is a lot we do not know about the origins of life. However, it is reasonable to think that we may learn more about the origins of life by studying it, by gathering evidence and applying our faculties of reason. There is no faith involved in this process, nor is there any absolute certainty.