Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

[Alethe]

Atheists claim that life was created naturally and spontaneously from tiny chemicals into comparatively large, complex organisms (cells). They use "could have" a lot in theories, but when it's further explored, those theories run into scientific laws that say it "could not have". It is a massive jump from those tiny chemicals to cells and actually defies natural laws. Some of these laws include, but are not limited to:

• *Probabilities: The sheer number of permutations required for even the simplest of molecules (proteins or ribozymes) defies laws of mathematics.
  *Limited Materials: No experiment, no observation, nor study of any pre-biotic Earth conditions (including space) is able to come close to producing all the components required for life in the same place at the same time (amino acids, nucleic acids - particularly troublesome, sugars, and fatty acids).
  *Homochirality: All experiments that produce life-required components also produce their mirrored image (racemic mixture), which prevents them from forming anything useful.
  *Energy: The necessary energy required to create peptide or phosphodiester bonds is also used to break those bonds, preventing them from forming the long chains necessary for life. An example; any lightning strikes that would form bonds would break the bonds the very next strike (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics especially in an open system).
  *Oxygen: Oxygen prevents bonding, but also creates ozone, protecting from the sun's UV rays. Life can't form with oxygen and life would burn up without it.
  *Water: Water is a byproduct when peptide bonds form. Water also works in reverse to break down the bonds (hydrolysis). Therefore, proteins could not form in or around water (consistent with Le Chatelier's Principle).

You see, I like science. I can trust science because it performs in consistent ways. The natural laws above actually inhibit or prevent life from forming.

Atheists have to believe that to create life abiogenetically that these natural laws broke down and didn't work, that science didn't work. Since they have to believe that science doesn't work all the time, there must be some supernatural law that supersedes known scientific law.

That sounds a lot like faith. Why do atheists rely on faith? And what is it in the supernatural that they actually have faith in?

[Divine Insight]

You see, I like science.

Well for someone who likes science you sure don't understand it very well at all.

You say,

Atheists have to believe that to create life abiogenetically that these natural laws broke down and didn't work, that science didn't work.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

No science needs to break down for abiogenesis to have occurred naturally. That's a false claim on your behalf.

Let's look at some of the things you've already have wrong:

*Probabilities: The sheer number of permutations required for even the simplest of molecules (proteins or ribozymes) defies laws of mathematics.

This defies what "Law of mathematics"?

In fact, pure mathematics can say nothing about the probabilities of molecules forming until the laws of physics and chemistry are added to the mix. And when those laws are added to the mix it actually become inevitable that these molecules will form.

*Limited Materials: No experiment, no observation, nor study of any pre-biotic Earth conditions (including space) is able to come close to producing all the components required for life in the same place at the same time (amino acids, nucleic acids - particularly troublesome, sugars, and fatty acids).

All those thing didn't need to exist at once for abiogenesis to occur.

*Homochirality: All experiments that produce life-required components also produce their mirrored image (racemic mixture), which prevents them from forming anything useful.

Citations please?

Also, here you just confessed that there exist experiments that produce life-required components. Yet just a moment ago you denied that any such experience exist.

*Energy: The necessary energy required to create peptide or phosphodiester bonds is also used to break those bonds, preventing them from forming the long chains necessary for life. An example; any lightning strikes that would form bonds would break the bonds the very next strike (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics especially in an open system).

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is actually what makes evolution possible.

Also, once again, please cite your sources for this claim.

*Oxygen: Oxygen prevents bonding, but also creates ozone, protecting from the sun's UV rays. Life can't form with oxygen and life would burn up without it.

In the early stages life would have evolved under water and would not need an ozone atmosphere to protect it from UV rays. It also could have evolved in caves or other areas protected from direct sunlight so your objection here fails completely.

*Water: Water is a byproduct when peptide bonds form. Water also works in reverse to break down the bonds (hydrolysis). Therefore, proteins could not form in or around water (consistent with Le Chatelier's Principle).

So then how do you account for all the water ice in comets and on Mars, etc.?

Like I say, you might like science, but you don't appear to know very much about science at all.

[Alethe]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Well for someone who likes science you sure don't understand it very well at all.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal attacks against me. Ad hominem is not a valid reason against a sound argument.

This defies what "Law of mathematics"?

In fact, pure mathematics can say nothing about the probabilities of molecules forming until the laws of physics and chemistry are added to the mix. And when those laws are added to the mix it actually become inevitable that these molecules will form.

Casinos and governments (lotteries) use mathematical laws of probabilities to predict revenues. They use those laws with pretty good accuracy (or they would go out of business). The chances of spontaneously creating the average protein (300 amino acids) is about the same chance as someone winning Powerball every single week for 47 weeks in a row. (And that doesn't even count adding the laws of physics and chemistry I mentioned which makes the chance zero.) That's for a single protein - which doesn't even begin to create life.

All these things (amino acids, nucleic acids, sugars, and fatty acids) are absolutely required to make a cell. They are the building blocks of hundreds of protiens, thousands of DNA/RNA, lipids for structure, sugars for food (energy), etc. all of which are the building blocks of a cell. No experiment can even begin to create them *all*.

And that's just it, certain experiments can create a few (like Miller-Urey created amino acids) by changing the conditions. But the conditions that create one set of building blocks are toxic to others.

Alethe wrote:

*Homochirality: All experiments that produce life-required components also produce their mirrored image (racemic mixture), which prevents them from forming anything useful.

Citations please?

This is a well known issue for the requirements for life. I can point you to any biology book for this. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racemic_mixture
or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality
Basically says that all life-forming enantiomers need to be "left-handed" or they won't work. But all mixes produce "right-handed" in pretty close to equal amounts.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is actually what makes evolution possible.

Also, once again, please cite your sources for this claim.

Well, that's a bit of an oversimplification of tSLoT, but we aren't talking about evolution. It's not possible to explain Thermodynamics in a paragraph, but it's the reason we can't put all the materials of a skyscraper on the ground and expect and earthquake to build it. If an earthquake were ever able to build the first floor of a skyscraper (creating potential energy), the next earthquake would knock it down (releasing that potential energy). That is why Stanley Miller had to move the materials out of the sparking chamber before the next spark (to the trap), or the amino acids would have been destroyed.

I don't know of many links to sites to show this intuitive principle of Minimum Total Potential Energy (which is based tSLoT), but you can start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_to ... _principle. It's also found in any textbook on Thermodynamics.

In the early stages life would have evolved under water and would not need an ozone atmosphere to protect it from UV rays. It also could have evolved in caves or other areas protected from direct sunlight so your objection here fails completely.

There's that famous "could have". Wondered how long it would take. Anyway, Le Chatlelier's Principle is the reason that it "could not have" evolved under water. (study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle) It's actually another principle of Minimum Total Potential Energy in which a system moves toward equilibrium. The water would "push" into the peptide bonds and break them down.

It "could not have" occur in a cave either, as a cave is a closed system. There would be no energy source to form the peptide bonds necessary and they would just sit there.

Remember, life formation requires energy. And like I said, all scientific scenarios point to the prevention of life, not it's formation. Where does this leave an atheist's faith?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Well for someone who likes science you sure don't understand it very well at all.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal attacks against me. Ad hominem is not a valid reason against a sound argument.

That was not a personal attack. It was based entirely upon the claims that you have made about science which are totally false.

This defies what "Law of mathematics"?

In fact, pure mathematics can say nothing about the probabilities of molecules forming until the laws of physics and chemistry are added to the mix. And when those laws are added to the mix it actually become inevitable that these molecules will form.

Casinos and governments (lotteries) use mathematical laws of probabilities to predict revenues. They use those laws with pretty good accuracy (or they would go out of business). The chances of spontaneously creating the average protein (300 amino acids) is about the same chance as someone winning Powerball every single week for 47 weeks in a row.

But therein lies your flaw. You are presuming nothing more than mere random chance. Which doesn't apply at all. In fact, you'd be 100% correct if that were indeed the case. But it's not the case at all.

(And that doesn't even count adding the laws of physics and chemistry I mentioned which makes the chance zero.) That's for a single protein - which doesn't even begin to create life.

And this is where you are flat out wrong. Once you added in the physics of chemistry these things naturally bind together via the natural laws of physics.

Where do you get off claiming that this makes matters "worse"?

All these things (amino acids, nucleic acids, sugars, and fatty acids) are absolutely required to make a cell. They are the building blocks of hundreds of protiens, thousands of DNA/RNA, lipids for structure, sugars for food (energy), etc. all of which are the building blocks of a cell. No experiment can even begin to create them *all*.

And what exactly do you think that supposed to prove?

And that's just it, certain experiments can create a few (like Miller-Urey created amino acids) by changing the conditions. But the conditions that create one set of building blocks are toxic to others.

So? No one has yet claimed to have explained abiogenesis in its entirety. But just because they haven't yet explained it doesn't even remotely suggest that it can't be done.

Alethe wrote:
*Homochirality: All experiments that produce life-required components also produce their mirrored image (racemic mixture), which prevents them from forming anything useful.

Citations please?

This is a well known issue for the requirements for life. I can point you to any biology book for this. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racemic_mixture
or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality
Basically says that all life-forming enantiomers need to be "left-handed" or they won't work. But all mixes produce "right-handed" in pretty close to equal amounts.

Did you bother to actually read those articles?

It says right in the article that something as simply and natural as crystallization can separate these.

From Wiki:

The separation of a racemate into its components, the pure enantiomers, is called a chiral resolution. There are various methods, including crystallization, chromatography, and the use of enzymes. The first successful resolution of a racemate was performed by Louis Pasteur, who manually separated the crystals of a conglomerate.

So there you go. The problem is solved naturally.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is actually what makes evolution possible.

Also, once again, please cite your sources for this claim.

Well, that's a bit of an oversimplification of tSLoT, but we aren't talking about evolution. It's not possible to explain Thermodynamics in a paragraph, but it's the reason we can't put all the materials of a skyscraper on the ground and expect and earthquake to build it. If an earthquake were ever able to build the first floor of a skyscraper (creating potential energy), the next earthquake would knock it down (releasing that potential energy). That is why Stanley Miller had to move the materials out of the sparking chamber before the next spark (to the trap), or the amino acids would have been destroyed.

I don't know of many links to sites to show this intuitive principle of Minimum Total Potential Energy (which is based tSLoT), but you can start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_to ... _principle. It's also found in any textbook on Thermodynamics.

I don't need a book on Thermodynamics. I'm very well-versed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What I was asking is why this would violate evolution. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is actually what makes evolution possible in this universe.

Your example of expecting an earthquake to build a building demonstrates that you do not understand how either chemical or biological evolution occur. You don't just shake up random stuff and expect it to miraculously stick together in complex ways.

You speak of chemistry but you don't appear to have clue how it works. Do you think that chemical reactions are the result of pure random chance of things just randomly bumping into each other and sticking or not sticking for no other reason than pure chance?

If that were the case, then there would be no such thing as "chemistry". You could never know what you might get when you randomly mix two different chemicals together.

That's clearly NOT how chemistry works.

So don't you think there's something wrong with your analogy of an earthquake randomly shaking debris together to build a building? That's not an analogy for a chemical reaction.

So what you speak of is not "science". What you are speaking of is "ignorance of science" (no personal attack implied) But, hey, if you are going to misrepresent science it needs to be pointed out.

In the early stages life would have evolved under water and would not need an ozone atmosphere to protect it from UV rays. It also could have evolved in caves or other areas protected from direct sunlight so your objection here fails completely.

There's that famous "could have". Wondered how long it would take. Anyway, Le Chatlelier's Principle is the reason that it "could not have" evolved under water. (study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle) It's actually another principle of Minimum Total Potential Energy in which a system moves toward equilibrium. The water would "push" into the peptide bonds and break them down.

The article you pointed to here does not support your claims. Le_Chatelier's principle does not state that chemistry can not take place in water. On the contrary there are countless examples of chemistry that takes place underwater.

In fact, there are countless chemical reactions that require water molecules as part of the reaction. They simply won't talk place until you add water.

~~~~~~

Moreover, what do you honestly think you are arguing for here? That all of modern science is wrong, and you have it right?

I don't think you're going to convince anyone of that.

Especially after your earthquake example claiming that since earthquakes don't build building chemical and biological evolution cannot have occurred.

In fact, there's no reason for anyone to take anything you say seriously after that one.

It "could not have" occur in a cave either, as a cave is a closed system. There would be no energy source to form the peptide bonds necessary and they would just sit there.

Remember, life formation requires energy. And like I said, all scientific scenarios point to the prevention of life, not it's formation. Where does this leave an atheist's faith?

I think most atheists probably know quite a bit more science than you think.

A cave is not a "closed system" by the way.

[Jashwell]

Probabilities: The sheer number of permutations required for even the simplest of molecules (proteins or ribozymes) defies laws of mathematics.

It would be nice for you to show this.

*Limited Materials: No experiment, no observation, nor study of any pre-biotic Earth conditions (including space) is able to come close to producing all the components required for life in the same place at the same time (amino acids, nucleic acids - particularly troublesome, sugars, and fatty acids).

100 years of observation of small laboratories (that don't even simulate comets) does not constitute half a billion years of planetary development.

They are not "components required for life", they are "components required for modern life". We would expect to see early life use much fewer of these chemicals, and we know life itself can play a roll in producing them.

It may not even be the case that the majority of modern 'components of life' were in early life.

*Homochirality: All experiments that produce life-required components also produce their mirrored image (racemic mixture), which prevents them from forming anything useful.

There are multiple ways in which chirality can be selected.
One example is radiation, which can preferentially destroy chiral structures.

Not to mention that while modern life uses many chiral molecules, initial life may not have. (and we know life can produce chiral molecules later on)

*Energy: The necessary energy required to create peptide or phosphodiester bonds is also used to break those bonds, preventing them from forming the long chains necessary for life. An example; any lightning strikes that would form bonds would break the bonds the very next strike (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics especially in an open system).

Long chains necessary for modern life does not constitute long chains necessary for initial life. Especially DNA and RNA, which likely may not even have existed at the time.

*Oxygen: Oxygen prevents bonding, but also creates ozone, protecting from the sun's UV rays. Life can't form with oxygen and life would burn up without it.

The early atmosphere is known to have been low in o2 and ozone.
In fact, the best explanation for why we have so much oxygen is because of early (and current) life.

As for "life would burn up without it", this simply isn't true. Negative effects on modern life (esp the genome) and complete unviability for early life are two different things.

*Water: Water is a byproduct when peptide bonds form. Water also works in reverse to break down the bonds (hydrolysis). Therefore, proteins could not form in or around water (consistent with Le Chatelier's Principle).[/list]You see, I like science. I can trust science because it performs in consistent ways. The natural laws above actually inhibit or prevent life from forming.

I don't see why proteins would have needed to exist in early life.

Atheists have to believe that to create life abiogenetically that these natural laws broke down and didn't work, that science didn't work. Since they have to believe that science doesn't work all the time, there must be some supernatural law that supersedes known scientific law.

That sounds a lot like faith. Why do atheists rely on faith? And what is it in the supernatural that they actually have faith in?

I don't need to explain abiogenesis to not believe in God, you need to explain why we should believe in God.
None of these problems would demand a God if they were sound (and they aren't).

[Divine Insight]

I don't need to explain abiogenesis to not believe in God, you need to explain why we should believe in God.
None of these problems would demand a God if they were sound (and they aren't).

Exactly.

I hold also that these types of arguments are often made by theists specfically because they cannot support their theism directly and thus they need to resort to alterantive claims. Like trying to claim that abiogenesis could not possibly have occurred. Which is an absurd argument for anyone who genuinely understands chemistry and physics.

If this universe were designed at all, it was designed to evolved into living beings all on its own.

Also, why are religious people so determined to limit their God into not being able to do that?

At least the Eastern mystics have no problem with a God who can create a universe that's on autopilot.

These other religions seem to think that would be too much for their God to do.

In fact, according to Alethe God must be putting together and holding together ever single atom in the universe. Seems like an omnipotent God would have figured out a way for the universe to hold itself together without the need for every molecule to be baby sat by God.

Another fact that would fall out of the type of God that Alethe is proposing would be that every single genetic defect would necessarily be an "Act of God".

Alethe's God, as Alethe is currently suggesting, would need to be personally responsible for every birth defect and genetic deformity in the universe. This would necessarily need to be the case if this God is assembling and holding every single molecule together on his own.

People who make these kinds of theistic arguments can't be stopping to actually think about the consequences of what they are actually proposing.

[wiploc]

Atheists claim that life was created naturally and spontaneously from tiny chemicals into comparatively large, complex organisms (cells).

Some atheists may claim that. Some theists may too. Claiming that is not a part of atheism.

They use "could have" a lot in theories,

Where as theists never think anything "could have" happened?

but when it's further explored, those theories run into scientific laws that say it "could not have".

Yeah, right.

Atheists have to believe that to create life abiogenetically that these natural laws broke down and didn't work, that science didn't work.

No, they don't. I'll bet you can't find one atheist who believes that abiogenesis requires natural laws to break down or science not to work. I think you just made that up.

Since they have to believe that science doesn't work all the time, there must be some supernatural law that supersedes known scientific law.

No, they don't. That's an absurd claim. You're not doing your side any favors by making this kind of argument.

[H.sapiens]

Atheists claim that life was created naturally and spontaneously from tiny chemicals into comparatively large, complex organisms (cells). They use "could have" a lot in theories, but when it's further explored, those theories run into scientific laws that say it "could not have". It is a massive jump from those tiny chemicals to cells and actually defies natural laws. Some of these laws include, but are not limited to:

• *Probabilities: The sheer number of permutations required for even the simplest of molecules (proteins or ribozymes) defies laws of mathematics.
  *Limited Materials: No experiment, no observation, nor study of any pre-biotic Earth conditions (including space) is able to come close to producing all the components required for life in the same place at the same time (amino acids, nucleic acids - particularly troublesome, sugars, and fatty acids).
  *Homochirality: All experiments that produce life-required components also produce their mirrored image (racemic mixture), which prevents them from forming anything useful.
  *Energy: The necessary energy required to create peptide or phosphodiester bonds is also used to break those bonds, preventing them from forming the long chains necessary for life. An example; any lightning strikes that would form bonds would break the bonds the very next strike (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics especially in an open system).
  *Oxygen: Oxygen prevents bonding, but also creates ozone, protecting from the sun's UV rays. Life can't form with oxygen and life would burn up without it.
  *Water: Water is a byproduct when peptide bonds form. Water also works in reverse to break down the bonds (hydrolysis). Therefore, proteins could not form in or around water (consistent with Le Chatelier's Principle).

You see, I like science. I can trust science because it performs in consistent ways. The natural laws above actually inhibit or prevent life from forming.

Atheists have to believe that to create life abiogenetically that these natural laws broke down and didn't work, that science didn't work. Since they have to believe that science doesn't work all the time, there must be some supernatural law that supersedes known scientific law.

That sounds a lot like faith. Why do atheists rely on faith? And what is it in the supernatural that they actually have faith in?

I don't know who sold you this load of tripe, but I hope you did not pay much.

1. Probabilities: what, exactly, are you calculating the probability of? What steps? Are you sure what steps fit in there? If you do, please come forward and claim your Nobel Prize, and a McArthur while your at it.

2. Limited Materials. what, materials exactly, are you looking for? Are you sure of the materials needed for life? If you are, please come forward and claim your Nobel Prize, and a McArthur while your at it.

3. Homochirality is actually evidence for abiogeneisis. Amazing no one told you that. Wiki: It is also entirely possible that homochirality is simply a result of the natural autoamplification process of life[citation needed] —that either the formation of life as preferring one chirality or the other was a chance rare event which happened to occur with the chiralities we observe, or that all chiralities of life emerged rapidly but due to catastrophic events and strong competition, the other unobserved chiral preferences were wiped out by the preponderance and metabolic, enantiomeric enrichment from the 'winning' chirality choices[citation needed]. The emergence of chirality consensus as a natural autoamplification process has been associated with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.[3]

4. Pretty simple there, don't you know that lightning never strikes twice in the same place?

5. Oxygen. No life does not need oxygen, in fact the primordial atmosphere was oxygen poor and dominated by carbon dioxide. Plants changed this and oxygen requiring life came into being because of the abundance of oxygen ... a early plant waste product.

I'm going to stop there because your "thoughts" are much better debunked here: http://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/page/2/ (after the Game of Thrones stuff).

[Divine Insight]

It seems to me that if the argument is "Religion" versus "Science" we ought to talk about the religious aspect of Alethe's arguments.

Forget about debunking all the false scientific claims that are being made. Let's assume that it's true. Let's assume that it's impossible for atoms to naturally come together to form complex molecules on their own.

What then?

Well, this would mean that some God must necessarily be guiding the movement of every single atom and molecule in the entire universe. Especially those that make up living beings. He must be guiding them and holding them together individually at all times. Otherwise according to Alethe they would all quickly deteriorate.

So what must we conclude from this? We have no choice but to conclude that this God is personally responsible for every genetic screw up. Every birth defect. Every genetic disease. Every chemical reaction that takes place in this universe.

If you get burned from acid it had to be God personally guiding all of those atoms in that chemical reaction.

Just think about the religious consequences of such a universe.

God would be completely responsible for EVERYTHING.

Even your very thoughts. Because thoughts themselves are created by chemical reactions in the neurons of your brain. So if you have a bad thought. God did it!

Some religion that would be!

So even if Alethe were right about physics and chemistry imagine what that would mean in terms of a controlling God. A God who even controls your every thought. Not to mention every birth defect, disease, any everything else. Nothing could happen without this God specifically guiding the atoms to make it happen.

[Divine Insight]

Here yet some more thoughts on Alethe's proposed universe.

Alethe has suggested that the physical laws of the universe actually exist and WORK toward tearing the universe down. This means that if there is a creator God this God designed a universe that acts against God's desire to construct complicated living beings and that this God has to work against his very own universe constantly just to maintain things that his universe would otherwise be naturally tearing apart.

Why would a God design a universe that is so hostile to his very own purposes?

Alethe has claimed the following:

*Water: Water is a byproduct when peptide bonds form. Water also works in reverse to break down the bonds (hydrolysis). Therefore, proteins could not form in or around water (consistent with Le Chatelier's Principle).

Not only couldn't proteins form but according to this view of the universe you couldn't even take a bath without your body basically being disassembled by the bath water. Skin itself is made of proteins.

So God would need to hold the proteins of your body together every time you take a bath, or go swimming, or get caught in the rain.

No wonder God never answers any prayers he clearly has his hands full just trying to keep the universe from disintegrating due to the destructive laws of physics that this God has supposed designed.