|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
The Begining
Posted on: August 2, 2007 - 10:39pm
 Offline
The Begining
Whenever I talk to Christians they always tell me that evolution is impossible because life always has to come from somewhere, and that life can’t just come from nowhere, And that without a god it is impossible. What is the atheist answer to this question? Keep in mind I’m not that scientifically inclined. Thank you.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
Just ask them where their sky daddy came from, if life must come from something else.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
I would explain to them they are confused.. Evolution is the study of change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation, it assumes life exist and does not formulate an opinion on it's origins.
What they want to discuss actually is Abiogenesis and since they are not aware of this fact, how objective and valid is their opinion?
They might also like to throw the odds of even a simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113.
This assumes a dichotomy is being established Abiogenesis vs Biblical Genesis.
Abiogenesis: Is the formation of life from non-living matter.
Biblical Genesis:The first book in the Tanakh regarding creation.
Where are the other set of odds we are comparing, where are the odds of God creating spontaneuosly?
Let's compare the two sets of odds and see what's more likely...
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
The quick, non-jargony answer that makes sense for non-scientists is this:
Our best evidence right now suggests that natural, non-random processes produced molecules that were able to make copies of themselves (called "replicators"
. Once things start making copies of themselves, the selection process takes over it only takes time to lead to the higher levels of complexity that we call "life."
The exact mechanism of how it happened isn't known for sure yet, but there are good theories being tested out right now. It won't be too long before some bright kid does the experiment that finally demonstrates exactly how it happened.
There's a lot more information available on this question if you have time to look into it.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Scientists are very narrow -minded to dismiss all forms of evidence that do not fit their narrow criteria.
Time is interlinked with space, so time began when space begin.
really?so how the awesome big bang knows how to create time and space ?
may be the same way Flying Spaghetti Monster decided it?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Yea like antedetol evidence? Yea thats real relable. The bible? Thats shown to be true so many times so far.
So what evidence do you speak of?
Like untestable theories and supernatural claims?
I wouldn't really call that narrow minded, I would call that reality based.
You shouldn't be looking for the Ahteist answer, but for the intelligent answer; what these Christians you talk to say is just not intelligent. There are several problems with what Christians have been asking you. Some of these problems have been pointed out. A simple answer is to tell them that life didn't come from nowhere. It most definitely came from somewhere. Life wasn't just born of, well, nothing. It took atoms forming ogranic molecules and so on to bring forth life. Atoms are not nothing. If they insist God set evolution in motion, they still aren't saying God created life (evolution starts after life forms), but they probably mean that. Many arguments can be used to counter the necessity of God. At least one has been presented. It's just not more probable than life forming on it's own. It's especially not more probable, because life could form on it's own naturally in this universe, and look we're here! Perhaps they believe God created the universe and that's it. In any case, they still haven't found a shred of evidence to support the exitence of God. I don't think you're trying to prove them wrong on that. That's not necessary. Telling them why their questions are difficult to answer, how they could better ask their questions, correcting them when they're wrong and presenting them with the scientific facts are more helpful. Don't bother telling them God doesn't exist. It's difficult enough to explain to them evolution and abiogenisis without attempting to also explain reasons for the improbable (indeed, enormously improbable) existence of God. Plain and simple: God had nothing to do with life forming or the process of evolution.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Avoiding the questions isn't going to help. It will look like you are simply trying to avoid their questions.
And we have observed this how? Even scientists working with optimal-condition environments have not been able to get life to form naturally.
To conclude, tell them that it is impossible to prove a god exists. If they give you the "because a cannot be disproven, then a must be true" argument, then give them some examples of things that cannot be disproven, such as santa clause living inside pluto with his elves, or a soccer ball is floating around in the universe somewhere. Obviously, these are absurd ideas, just like a god is.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
I think I've been taken out of context. Blasphemer! Very well, we're not avoiding the questions by telling them they're asking stupid questions. You can't answer a question like, 'I don't believe in evolution because life doesn't come from nothing.' without first explaining to them why the question is invalid, redirecting them, and explaining to them the answer to the question they mean to be asking. Perhaps that is avoiding their original question.
I know, and you clearly know, that no experiment and no observation has ever been made on the formation of life. Just because it hasn't been observed doesn't remove the probability that it did (form by abiogenisis), and life did form by some mechanism and it wasn't God... so?! God isn't the only option, that much we agree on. I know very well why I don't believe, but telling that to the people asking these questions is not helping. They're clearly rather ignorant on the subject to being with and additionally arguing against their belief won't help them understand that even if they do believe in God, it hasn't got to be responsible for life or evolution. Leave destroying belief till later.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
This is simple. Evolution does not cover the creation of life. Evolution covers the change of life through mutations of proteins. To put it in lamens terms:
Evolution is why we can create breeds of dogs. Evolution is why those moths/butterflies in England changed to a much darker shade of brown within a life time.
Evolution is not the reason to why we are here nor does it have anything to do with creation. The arguement he is proposing is abiogensis VS. creation. If he brings up the "Everything has to have a creator" crap, then reply in a number of ways.
1. Ask if the puddlemancer conjured up a puddle, or other similar things (such as clouds, grass, etc).
2. Ask who made cancer, disease, etc.
3. Demonstrate that there isn't a gravity man pulling you down whenever you jump.
4. Reference him to a study going on that will (probably) reproduce life from nothing here in a few years.