Total Posts:160|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Sign that Trumps Atheism: Life and Death

Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life? And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 12:51:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life? And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?

1. Abiogenesis seems to be best explanation
2. Line between life/non life is not black & white, with many borderline examples
3. Telomers explain why euchariotic animals are not immortal, it's likely a defence mechanism that curbs cancer (which occurs by telomerase reactivation in most examples). So having programmed self-destructive mechanisms in our cells actually helps us survive.
4. Death is a driving factor for natural selection. I'll quote Morgan Freeman in 'War of the Worlds'

"By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

Ergo death is necessary and we should be grateful for it.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:00:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 12:51:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life? And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?

1. Abiogenesis seems to be best explanation
2. Line between life/non life is not black & white, with many borderline examples
3. Telomers explain why euchariotic animals are not immortal, it's likely a defence mechanism that curbs cancer (which occurs by telomerase reactivation in most examples). So having programmed self-destructive mechanisms in our cells actually helps us survive.
4. Death is a driving factor for natural selection. I'll quote Morgan Freeman in 'War of the Worlds'

"By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

Ergo death is necessary and we should be grateful for it.
Response: Non-life has never become life ever . So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.
And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:04:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:00:30 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:51:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life? And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?

1. Abiogenesis seems to be best explanation
2. Line between life/non life is not black & white, with many borderline examples
3. Telomers explain why euchariotic animals are not immortal, it's likely a defence mechanism that curbs cancer (which occurs by telomerase reactivation in most examples). So having programmed self-destructive mechanisms in our cells actually helps us survive.
4. Death is a driving factor for natural selection. I'll quote Morgan Freeman in 'War of the Worlds'

"By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

Ergo death is necessary and we should be grateful for it.

Response: Non-life has never become life ever . So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.

Prove it.

And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.

Non sequitir.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:10:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:04:32 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:00:30 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:51:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life? And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?

1. Abiogenesis seems to be best explanation
2. Line between life/non life is not black & white, with many borderline examples
3. Telomers explain why euchariotic animals are not immortal, it's likely a defence mechanism that curbs cancer (which occurs by telomerase reactivation in most examples). So having programmed self-destructive mechanisms in our cells actually helps us survive.
4. Death is a driving factor for natural selection. I'll quote Morgan Freeman in 'War of the Worlds'

"By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

Ergo death is necessary and we should be grateful for it.

Response: Non-life has never become life ever . So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.

Prove it.

And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.

Non sequitir.

Response: Failed responses. Debunked.

Response: Did you prove abiogenesis? NO. So your redundancy to make claims with no evidence and demand evidence for others fails.

And you are asking for proof that something does not occur. So the onus is on you to prove that it does occur since you are making the claim. The fact that you can't is the proof.
ZMowlcher
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:22:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:10:59 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:04:32 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:00:30 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:51:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life? And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?

1. Abiogenesis seems to be best explanation
2. Line between life/non life is not black & white, with many borderline examples
3. Telomers explain why euchariotic animals are not immortal, it's likely a defence mechanism that curbs cancer (which occurs by telomerase reactivation in most examples). So having programmed self-destructive mechanisms in our cells actually helps us survive.
4. Death is a driving factor for natural selection. I'll quote Morgan Freeman in 'War of the Worlds'

"By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

Ergo death is necessary and we should be grateful for it.

Response: Non-life has never become life ever . So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.

Prove it.

And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.

Non sequitir.

Response: Failed responses. Debunked.

Response: Did you prove abiogenesis? NO. So your redundancy to make claims with no evidence and demand evidence for others fails.

And you are asking for proof that something does not occur. So the onus is on you to prove that it does occur since you are making the claim. The fact that you can't is the proof.

You can't prove your case either.
Always angry, All the time.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:22:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:10:59 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:04:32 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:00:30 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:51:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life? And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?

1. Abiogenesis seems to be best explanation
2. Line between life/non life is not black & white, with many borderline examples
3. Telomers explain why euchariotic animals are not immortal, it's likely a defence mechanism that curbs cancer (which occurs by telomerase reactivation in most examples). So having programmed self-destructive mechanisms in our cells actually helps us survive.
4. Death is a driving factor for natural selection. I'll quote Morgan Freeman in 'War of the Worlds'

"By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

Ergo death is necessary and we should be grateful for it.

Response: Non-life has never become life ever . So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.

Prove it.

And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.

Non sequitir.

Response: Failed responses. Debunked.

Yeah right.

Response: Did you prove abiogenesis? NO. So your redundancy to make claims with no evidence and demand evidence for others fails.

And have you proven 'divine genesis'? No. Fortunately one has been studied scientifically and found a number of plausible pathways for the generation of the first self-replicating systems. The other... sadly lacks anything to substantiate it. Ergo abiogenesis is the better explanation of the two.

And you are asking for proof that something does not occur. So the onus is on you to prove that it does occur since you are making the claim. The fact that you can't is the proof.

Actually you made the positive claim stating "non-life has never become life". So it's your BoP to prove it. I only offered it as the best current explanation.

Considering we see a trend in the fossil record and genetic tree of life moving from simple to complex, it's pretty clear life had simple, chemical, beginnings. A God unfortunately for you does not fit that description.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Dwint
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:24:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Response: Non-life has never become life ever . So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.
And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.

Miller-Urey experiment proved the Earth had the proper conditions for amino acids to form. Amino acids form proteins. Proteins form living cells(prokaryotes, simple, unicellular organisms with to nucleus) Also, you don't understand natural selection at all. Individuals that survive longer and reproduce more pass their genes and over time change the characteristics of a certain species.
Hitchens is the way!
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:29:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:22:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:10:59 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:04:32 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:00:30 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:51:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life? And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?

1. Abiogenesis seems to be best explanation
2. Line between life/non life is not black & white, with many borderline examples
3. Telomers explain why euchariotic animals are not immortal, it's likely a defence mechanism that curbs cancer (which occurs by telomerase reactivation in most examples). So having programmed self-destructive mechanisms in our cells actually helps us survive.
4. Death is a driving factor for natural selection. I'll quote Morgan Freeman in 'War of the Worlds'

"By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

Ergo death is necessary and we should be grateful for it.

Response: Non-life has never become life ever . So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.

Prove it.

And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.

Non sequitir.

Response: Failed responses. Debunked.

Yeah right.

Response: Did you prove abiogenesis? NO. So your redundancy to make claims with no evidence and demand evidence for others fails.

And have you proven 'divine genesis'? No. Fortunately one has been studied scientifically and found a number of plausible pathways for the generation of the first self-replicating systems. The other... sadly lacks anything to substantiate it. Ergo abiogenesis is the better explanation of the two.

And you are asking for proof that something does not occur. So the onus is on you to prove that it does occur since you are making the claim. The fact that you can't is the proof.

Actually you made the positive claim stating "non-life has never become life". So it's your BoP to prove it. I only offered it as the best current explanation.

Considering we see a trend in the fossil record and genetic tree of life moving from simple to complex, it's pretty clear life had simple, chemical, beginnings. A God unfortunately for you does not fit that description

Response: And you failed to prove it is the best explanation. So the BOP is on you. Of course no one expects you to because that is always what you do. Make an unsupported claim then tell others who respond to prove their response, while you avoid backing your claim.

Moving from simple to complex is not non-life becoming life. That's like saying because I move from elementary to college that new life came as a result. Weak.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:31:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:29:26 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:22:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:10:59 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:04:32 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:00:30 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:51:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life? And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?

1. Abiogenesis seems to be best explanation
2. Line between life/non life is not black & white, with many borderline examples
3. Telomers explain why euchariotic animals are not immortal, it's likely a defence mechanism that curbs cancer (which occurs by telomerase reactivation in most examples). So having programmed self-destructive mechanisms in our cells actually helps us survive.
4. Death is a driving factor for natural selection. I'll quote Morgan Freeman in 'War of the Worlds'

"By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

Ergo death is necessary and we should be grateful for it.

Response: Non-life has never become life ever . So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.

Prove it.

And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.

Non sequitir.

Response: Failed responses. Debunked.

Yeah right.

Response: Did you prove abiogenesis? NO. So your redundancy to make claims with no evidence and demand evidence for others fails.

And have you proven 'divine genesis'? No. Fortunately one has been studied scientifically and found a number of plausible pathways for the generation of the first self-replicating systems. The other... sadly lacks anything to substantiate it. Ergo abiogenesis is the better explanation of the two.

And you are asking for proof that something does not occur. So the onus is on you to prove that it does occur since you are making the claim. The fact that you can't is the proof.

Actually you made the positive claim stating "non-life has never become life". So it's your BoP to prove it. I only offered it as the best current explanation.

Considering we see a trend in the fossil record and genetic tree of life moving from simple to complex, it's pretty clear life had simple, chemical, beginnings. A God unfortunately for you does not fit that description

Response: And you failed to prove it is the best explanation. So the BOP is on you. Of course no one expects you to because that is always what you do. Make an unsupported claim then tell others who respond to prove their response, while you avoid backing your claim.

It was your claim. You said "non life has never become life". Which is a positive claim, therefore the BoP is on you.

Moreover we are comparing 2 explanations, abiogenesis and 'divine genesis'. Clearly the former has much more evidence to support it than the latter.

Moving from simple to complex is not non-life becoming life. That's like saying because I move from elementary to college that new life came as a result. Weak.

It's evidence life had simple beginnings, which is what abiogenesis mandates/predicts. The same cannot be said for 'divine genesis'.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:36:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:22:35 PM, ZMowlcher wrote:


You can't prove your case either.

Response: My case is you don't have one, which you just demonstrated.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:41:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:24:26 PM, Dwint wrote:
Response: Non-life has never become life ever . So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.
And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.

Miller-Urey experiment proved the Earth had the proper conditions for amino acids to form. Amino acids form proteins. Proteins form living cells(prokaryotes, simple, unicellular organisms with to nucleus) Also, you don't understand natural selection at all. Individuals that survive longer and reproduce more pass their genes and over time change the characteristics of a certain species.

Response: Yet no experiment showed non-life becoming life. So the experiment fails. And the traits that are passed on develop from survival. Yet the fact that they still die shows no survival which means evolution is false.
ZMowlcher
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:42:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:36:29 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:22:35 PM, ZMowlcher wrote:


You can't prove your case either.

Response: My case is you don't have one, which you just demonstrated.

I'm simply pointing out that you're making baseless claims and expecting people to go along with it.
Always angry, All the time.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:45:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life?

There are a few things that we see that make us fairly confident of abiogenesis. Here's an incomplete list:
1). If we organize life by their shared characteristics, we get an unviolated nested set that we call the "tree of life". One important thing about it is that everything converges at one point at the bottom of the tree, which probably points to a common ancestor of sorts (but not necessarily). However, it does point to a simpler ancestor for all organisms.
2). We have done tests based on the chemicals and conditions that were present on primordial Earth (the point when we think abiogenesis happened). We have done tests to see if the basic organic molecules needed to form life could form in these conditions. So far, we have found:
a) That phospholipids, when in water, will assemble themselves into a bilayer membrane similar to our own cell membrane. This shows order from disorder.
b) Stanley Miller and Harold Urey made a small-scale simulation of primordial Earth and ended up with a bunch of organic molecules, including amino acids and some bases found in RNA.
c) We've managed to synthesize activated ribonucleotides using prebiotic conditions. This study was relatively recent, being published in Nature in 2009.
d) We've managed to demonstrate how a metabolism could appear in primordial conditions without cells. This was a fairly recent study, only being published a week ago.

Given this evidence, abiogenesis is an entirely reasonable explanation. We may not have all of the pieces, but from what we have, we can tell what it is going to look like.

And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?

You're misunderstanding natural selection. Natural selection doesn't pick the organisms that stay alive, it picks the organisms that stay alive long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes. After they have reproduced a satisfactory amount, it doesn't matter if they die, since as far as natural selection is concerned, they have done everything they needed to do to prove their superiority. Does this make sense?

Response: Non-life has never become life ever.

Not according to your holy book:
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7

So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.

Actually, it is the best explanation. We have plenty of evidence to support it, and it answers things in such a way where it actually explains more than it leaves unanswered. We are filling in the gaps very quickly, and I can say with some confidence that we will have a full model of abiogenesis by 2030 if things keep progressing at this rate.

And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.

Again, natural selection only depends on an organism's ability to live long enough to reproduce. They can die any time after they reproduce, or they can even die in the process of reproducing if they end up having many offspring. Nothing says that they have to come back to life or live forever. However, if an organism does die before reproducing, then their genes do not get passed on. If they died before reproducing because of their genes, then it ends up improving the gene pool by reducing the amount of available bad genes.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:51:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:31:53 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

It was your claim. You said "non life has never become life". Which is a positive claim, therefore the BoP is on you.

Moreover we are comparing 2 explanations, abiogenesis and 'divine genesis'. Clearly the former has much more evidence to support it than the latter.

Moving from simple to complex is not non-life becoming life. That's like saying because I move from elementary to college that new life came as a result. Weak.

It's evidence life had simple beginnings, which is what abiogenesis mandates/predicts. The same cannot be said for 'divine genesis'.

Response: And it was you who stated abiogenesis is the best explanation which you failed to prove. And since proving something does not occur requires showing that there is no evidence that it does occur, your own failure to prove abiogenesis is my proof.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:56:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:22:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:10:59 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:04:32 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:00:30 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:51:46 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life? And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?

1. Abiogenesis seems to be best explanation
2. Line between life/non life is not black & white, with many borderline examples
3. Telomers explain why euchariotic animals are not immortal, it's likely a defence mechanism that curbs cancer (which occurs by telomerase reactivation in most examples). So having programmed self-destructive mechanisms in our cells actually helps us survive.
4. Death is a driving factor for natural selection. I'll quote Morgan Freeman in 'War of the Worlds'

"By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

Ergo death is necessary and we should be grateful for it.

Response: Non-life has never become life ever . So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.

Prove it.

And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.

Non sequitir.

Response: Failed responses. Debunked.

Yeah right.

Response: Did you prove abiogenesis? NO. So your redundancy to make claims with no evidence and demand evidence for others fails.

And have you proven 'divine genesis'? No. Fortunately one has been studied scientifically and found a number of plausible pathways for the generation of the first self-replicating systems. The other... sadly lacks anything to substantiate it. Ergo abiogenesis is the better explanation of the two.

My take on abiogenesis is that since it's trying to find the biological origin of life, it will still point to a creator. Intelligent beings were there to simulate the conditions for their abiogenesis experiments, ergo, who are we to say that an intelligent being isn't responsible for abiogenesis in real time or at the beginning of the universe?

That's just my take on it for now. I agree abiogenesis seems probable.

And you are asking for proof that something does not occur. So the onus is on you to prove that it does occur since you are making the claim. The fact that you can't is the proof.

Actually you made the positive claim stating "non-life has never become life". So it's your BoP to prove it. I only offered it as the best current explanation.

Considering we see a trend in the fossil record and genetic tree of life moving from simple to complex, it's pretty clear life had simple, chemical, beginnings. A God unfortunately for you does not fit that description.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:03:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:42:15 PM, ZMowlcher wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:36:29 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:22:35 PM, ZMowlcher wrote:


You can't prove your case either.

Response: My case is you don't have one, which you just demonstrated.

I'm simply pointing out that you're making baseless claims and expecting people to go along with it.

Response: Yet I don't expect anything and your lack of a rebuttal shows your position is actually baseless.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:08:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:51:01 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:31:53 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

It was your claim. You said "non life has never become life". Which is a positive claim, therefore the BoP is on you.

Moreover we are comparing 2 explanations, abiogenesis and 'divine genesis'. Clearly the former has much more evidence to support it than the latter.

Moving from simple to complex is not non-life becoming life. That's like saying because I move from elementary to college that new life came as a result. Weak.

It's evidence life had simple beginnings, which is what abiogenesis mandates/predicts. The same cannot be said for 'divine genesis'.

Response: And it was you who stated abiogenesis is the best explanation which you failed to prove. And since proving something does not occur requires showing that there is no evidence that it does occur, your own failure to prove abiogenesis is my proof.

No. You made the anti-claim. That life has never come form non-life. The onus is on you to substantiate that. And I said we are comparing 2 theories for the purposes of this topic, 'divine genesis' and 'abiogenesis'.

The latter has mountains more evidence for it than the former. I never claimed it was proven, only that it's he most plausible/likely theory we have./

In other words, you lose.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:13:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:45:47 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/1/2014 12:47:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
How do atheists explain the cause of original life and the inevitable fact that all living things die without believing in God? No God means that the original life on Earth was not a chosen creation. That by chance, life came to be from non-life. How do you justify that when nothing in science ever shows non-life becoming life?

There are a few things that we see that make us fairly confident of abiogenesis. Here's an incomplete list:
1). If we organize life by their shared characteristics, we get an unviolated nested set that we call the "tree of life". One important thing about it is that everything converges at one point at the bottom of the tree, which probably points to a common ancestor of sorts (but not necessarily). However, it does point to a simpler ancestor for all organisms.
2). We have done tests based on the chemicals and conditions that were present on primordial Earth (the point when we think abiogenesis happened). We have done tests to see if the basic organic molecules needed to form life could form in these conditions. So far, we have found:
a) That phospholipids, when in water, will assemble themselves into a bilayer membrane similar to our own cell membrane. This shows order from disorder.
b) Stanley Miller and Harold Urey made a small-scale simulation of primordial Earth and ended up with a bunch of organic molecules, including amino acids and some bases found in RNA.
c) We've managed to synthesize activated ribonucleotides using prebiotic conditions. This study was relatively recent, being published in Nature in 2009.
d) We've managed to demonstrate how a metabolism could appear in primordial conditions without cells. This was a fairly recent study, only being published a week ago.

Given this evidence, abiogenesis is an entirely reasonable explanation. We may not have all of the pieces, but from what we have, we can tell what it is going to look like.

And how do you justify that different species come from a survival process called natural selection, when every species that survives still dies? Why are they still dying if they came about from surviving?

You're misunderstanding natural selection. Natural selection doesn't pick the organisms that stay alive, it picks the organisms that stay alive long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes. After they have reproduced a satisfactory amount, it doesn't matter if they die, since as far as natural selection is concerned, they have done everything they needed to do to prove their superiority. Does this make sense?

Response: Non-life has never become life ever.

Not according to your holy book:
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7

So Abiogenesis is the worst explanation.

Actually, it is the best explanation. We have plenty of evidence to support it, and it answers things in such a way where it actually explains more than it leaves unanswered. We are filling in the gaps very quickly, and I can say with some confidence that we will have a full model of abiogenesis by 2030 if things keep progressing at this rate.

And if death is the driving force in natural selection, that means that death causes new life. Yet no one has died and come back. So natural selection is utterly false.

Again, natural selection only depends on an organism's ability to live long enough to reproduce. They can die any time after they reproduce, or they can even die in the process of reproducing if they end up having many offspring. Nothing says that they have to come back to life or live forever. However, if an organism does die before reproducing, then their genes do not get passed on. If they died before reproducing because of their genes, then it ends up improving the gene pool by reducing the amount of available bad genes.

Response: So you have basically seen everything accept what needs to be seen, which is non-life becoming life. Therefore, science has no answer.

And in natural selection, what is selected still dies. Death is not proof of survival. So saying certain traits come about from survival when those same traits die is invalid and shows natural selection is false.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:16:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:08:12 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

No. You made the anti-claim. That life has never come form non-life. The onus is on you to substantiate that. And I said we are comparing 2 theories for the purposes of this topic, 'divine genesis' and 'abiogenesis'.

The latter has mountains more evidence for it than the former. I never claimed it was proven, only that it's he most plausible/likely theory we have./

In other words, you lose.

Response: And you proved my claim that non-life does not become life when you failed to show abiogenesis is the best explanation. Debunked as usual.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:29:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:16:09 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 2:08:12 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

No. You made the anti-claim. That life has never come form non-life. The onus is on you to substantiate that. And I said we are comparing 2 theories for the purposes of this topic, 'divine genesis' and 'abiogenesis'.

The latter has mountains more evidence for it than the former. I never claimed it was proven, only that it's he most plausible/likely theory we have./

In other words, you lose.

Response: And you proved my claim that non-life does not become life when you failed to show abiogenesis is the best explanation. Debunked as usual.

Non-sequitir. And the fact you did not respond to the fact we are comparing 2 theories pretty much undermines the credibility of your own case.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:31:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:13:30 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:45:47 PM, drhead wrote:
Response: So you have basically seen everything accept what needs to be seen, which is non-life becoming life. Therefore, science has no answer.

Again, a non-sequitir. Please show me a single instance of 'divine genesis', of life being created by a divine being. Just one.

You can't?

Then your lack of evidence proves it never happened, according to your logic.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:40:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:29:13 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


Non-sequitir. And the fact you did not respond to the fact we are comparing 2 theories pretty much undermines the credibility of your own case.

Response: Yet the fact that you can't present any evidence of non-life becoming life debunks your own theory and shows the absurdity of atheism. Debunked as usual.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:42:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:40:21 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 2:29:13 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


Non-sequitir. And the fact you did not respond to the fact we are comparing 2 theories pretty much undermines the credibility of your own case.

Response: Yet the fact that you can't present any evidence of non-life becoming life debunks your own theory and shows the absurdity of atheism. Debunked as usual.

Ignoring the points made against you isn't going to get you anywhere. And tbukoh already presented the evidence pretty much as I would have. So that's the evidence for abiogenesis, where is your evidence for 'divine genesis'?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:43:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:31:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


Again, a non-sequitir. Please show me a single instance of 'divine genesis', of life being created by a divine being. Just one.

You can't?

Then your lack of evidence proves it never happened, according to your logic.

Response: A repeating pattern can only originate from a choice. The proof is your own inability to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so. Thus the evidence is clear that the patterns in the universe and life itself originated from a choice, which indicates an Intelligent Designer, who is Allah (God). Debunked as usual.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:50:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:42:03 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


Ignoring the points made against you isn't going to get you anywhere. And tbukoh already presented the evidence pretty much as I would have. So that's the evidence for abiogenesis, where is your evidence for 'divine genesis'?

Response: Ignoring the points won't get you anywhere. So the fact that you keep ignoring that your own abiogenesis argument is an utter failure will get you no where.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:51:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:43:32 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 2:31:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


Again, a non-sequitir. Please show me a single instance of 'divine genesis', of life being created by a divine being. Just one.

You can't?

Then your lack of evidence proves it never happened, according to your logic.

Response: A repeating pattern can only originate from a choice. The proof is your own inability to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so. Thus the evidence is clear that the patterns in the universe and life itself originated from a choice, which indicates an Intelligent Designer, who is Allah (God). Debunked as usual.

Huh?

Natural ordered repeating patterns:

http://ipsb.epfl.ch...

http://t3.gstatic.com...

http://www.mpg.de...

Natural lipid membranes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Maybe a natural fission reactor to top things off?:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or the water cycle?
http://water.usgs.gov...

Seems like your arguments fall flat on their face.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:56:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:51:14 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


Huh?

Natural ordered repeating patterns:

http://ipsb.epfl.ch...

http://t3.gstatic.com...

http://www.mpg.de...

Natural lipid membranes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Maybe a natural fission reactor to top things off?:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or the water cycle?
http://water.usgs.gov...

Seems like your arguments fall flat on their face.

Response: All of which just proved my point. For if a non-choice caused patterns in them, then it would have done the same for you to create a checkerboard, but didn't. Proving once again that a choice was behind every example you mentioned. Debunked as usual. Try again.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 2:58:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:56:26 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 2:51:14 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


Huh?

Natural ordered repeating patterns:

http://ipsb.epfl.ch...

http://t3.gstatic.com...

http://www.mpg.de...

Natural lipid membranes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Maybe a natural fission reactor to top things off?:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or the water cycle?
http://water.usgs.gov...

Seems like your arguments fall flat on their face.

Response: All of which just proved my point. For if a non-choice caused patterns in them, then it would have done the same for you to create a checkerboard, but didn't. Proving once again that a choice was behind every example you mentioned. Debunked as usual. Try again.

LOL! Head I win tails you lose ey?

I pretty much debunked your assertion that choice is the only thing that causes repeating patterns, and you have provided NIL evidence that it requires it.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 3:00:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 2:58:05 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 2:56:26 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 2:51:14 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


Huh?

Natural ordered repeating patterns:

http://ipsb.epfl.ch...

http://t3.gstatic.com...

http://www.mpg.de...

Natural lipid membranes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Maybe a natural fission reactor to top things off?:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or the water cycle?
http://water.usgs.gov...

Seems like your arguments fall flat on their face.

Response: All of which just proved my point. For if a non-choice caused patterns in them, then it would have done the same for you to create a checkerboard, but didn't. Proving once again that a choice was behind every example you mentioned. Debunked as usual. Try again.

LOL! Head I win tails you lose ey?

I pretty much debunked your assertion that choice is the only thing that causes repeating patterns, and you have provided NIL evidence that it requires it.

Response: Yet the fact that you failed to draw a simple checkerboard without choice debunks your own idiocy and shows a repeating pattern can only originate from choice and you are a witness to it. Debunked as usual. Try again.