Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Alethe
Student
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:02 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #1

Post by 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? :confused2:

User avatar
KenRU
Guru
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:44 pm
Location: NJ

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #41

Post by KenRU »

[Replying to Alethe]

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.

And the jump to a belief in an all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, wish-granting supernatural entity is a smaller jump?

-all the best,
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

Jashwell
Guru
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:05 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #42

Post by Jashwell »

Alethe wrote: [Replying to post 16 by Jashwell]

Throwing around websites that do nothing but promote bad science just proves my point. After reviewing the website http://exploringorigins.org/protocell.html and reading a very lopsided viewpoint I want to set the record straight.

First, and foremost, it's all theory. They use "could have", "may have", "theoretically", a lot without actually showing what we actually observe in science. For example, there's a link to "Recent research" that takes us to a study "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions". Linked here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08013.html

I didn't have to search far to find a noted chemist and staunch evolutionist Robert Shapiro (recently deceased) had this to say about Sutherland's work,
  • 'Although as an exercise in chemistry this represents some very elegant work, this has nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth whatsoever,' he says. According to Shapiro, it is hard to imagine RNA forming in a prebiotic world along the lines of Sutherland's synthesis.

    'The chances that blind, undirected, inanimate chemistry would go out of its way in multiple steps and use of reagents in just the right sequence to form RNA is highly unlikely,' argues Shapiro. Instead, he advocates the metabolism-first argument: that early self-sustaining autocatalytic chemosynthetic systems associated with amino acids predated RNA. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/ ... 050902.asp
Dr. Shapiro basically says that these were NOT "prebiotically plausible conditions". It was a very controlled environment, one which took multiple steps by an "intelligent designer" in the lab. (My words not his. Shapiro was not an ID'er) They also "forgot" to mention the fact that only two of the four needed nucleobases were formed. AND that the reaction didn't use water (he had to evaporate the water to get a reaction). AND he had to zap them at the right time with UV to get the reaction (any earlier would have destroyed the molecules). #-o

The Murchison meteorite is also mentioned as "evidence" of RNA. This again, is just not true. The meteorite did not have all four nucleobases needed, and they were not homochiral - both "right-" and "left-handed" enantiomers were present. The meteorite is 4.95 Billion years old (500 Million years older than the earth). This proves that time and space have no chiral selectivity that eliminates one or the other. Dr. Shapiro also comments on the meteorite.
  • Robert Shapiro, a professor emeritus and senior research scientist in chemistry at New York University, says that because of their low concentration, extraterrestrial nucleobases were unlikely to have played much of a role in kick-starting life. "They're a subunit of a subunit of RNA/DNA," he says. "My opinion is that their amounts were utterly unimportant and insignificant." He says he would be more impressed if whole nucleosides—bases plus sugars—were found in meteorites in concentrations similar to those of amino acids.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... the-origi/
Can you tell this staunch evolutionist is really not a fan of the RNA World theory? He has his own, but he throughally debunks this one.

So, the order goes nucleobase -> nucleotide -> RNA (ribonucleic acid) -> ribozyme, which are orders and orders of magnitude to get there. All the RNA World theory has is a very tiny number a nucleobases (not even the required ones) without the necessary sugars and phosphates, an engineered and artificial nucleotide, and absolutely no way to stick them together, nor in the right order.

Takes atheists a lot of faith to believe in magic that they push as "science". Sorry, but the real science is against them.
When you say theory you mean hypothesis. If it were just a theory like gravity or evolution, we wouldn't need to discuss it.

I don't necessarily agree with him on RNA forming initially (as some of my earlier posts on vesicles forming first allude to). I've also said previously that "some chemicals provide reactions that are beneficial... such as catalysts" [no mention of RNA, paraphrasing], "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. "

I linked the site more in reference to natural vesicle formation.

EDIT: Actually, just read his wikipedia page "he proposed that life arose from some self-sustaining and compartmentalized reaction of simple molecules: "metabolism first" instead of "RNA first"." this is more in line with what I was saying, with the link merely being relevant for vesicle formation.

What's this about "the real science is against them"?

Would you happen to have information that:
A) natural abiogenesis is impossible (not "there aren't any successful models")
B) supernatural abiogenesis without a God is impossible
C) supernatural abiogenesis with a God is possible

Oh, and making reference to B, no there isn't a required "supernatural law", all that is required if natural law is insufficient, is for it to not be thoroughly consistent or be violable.
If there were supernatural law... we'd end up having the same discussion about how we need supersupernatural law.

Alethe
Student
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:02 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #43

Post by Alethe »

[Replying to post 36 by Goat]
Please provide support for this claim. Show your source, or, explain how this is so. There seems to be a large misunderstanding on how chemistry works and probability works.
I'm assuming you want support that amino acids do not form long chains in a sterile (non-living) environment? Yes, chemistry works. From the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_bond:
A peptide bond can be broken by hydrolysis (the adding of water). In the presence of water they will break down and release 8–16 kilojoule/mol (2–4 kcal/mol) [1] of free energy. This process is extremely slow (up to 1000 years).
Proteins could not have formed in or around water. Even if it takes 1000 years to "break down", they certainly aren't "forming more". (Water won't simultaneously "form" and "break down" peptides.) Sorry, oceans are out (along with lakes, ponds, rain, damp caves, etc.)
The wavelength of absorbance for a peptide bond is 190–230 nm[2] (which makes it particularly susceptible to UV radiation).
Without oxygen to form ozone for protection, UV radiation from the sun would have destroyed peptides, too.

That's chemistry. That's natural and scientific laws working against the spontaneous formation of life (abiogenesis).
Alethe - A "not"/léthó "concealed" – literally, "what can't be hidden."

Alethe
Student
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:02 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #44

Post by Alethe »

[Replying to post 38 by KenRU]
And the jump to a belief in an all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, wish-granting supernatural entity is a smaller jump?
Actually, for me it is a smaller jump. I don't have the faith it takes to be an atheist. I don't have to have the belief in "magic" working against the known physical and natural laws for no purpose or reason. To an atheist, science cannot be consistent or dependable, it being able to "stop working" at times to satisfy their existence.

As a creationist I can believe that science works in consistent, dependable ways. That a "creator" used his knowledge of those scientific law to create us for a reason and purpose. Comes down to Occum's Razor, what is simpler is usually true.
Alethe - A "not"/léthó "concealed" – literally, "what can't be hidden."

User avatar
KenRU
Guru
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:44 pm
Location: NJ

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #45

Post by KenRU »

[Replying to post 41 by Alethe]

Actually, for me it is a smaller jump.
In what way is the belief in a supernatural entity a smaller jump than to (at least) say, "I don't know?"

I don't have the faith it takes to be an atheist.
This is a silly assertion. The faith you are putting in a divine being trumps any (supposed) faith an atheist has in science. Are you seriously arguing that atheists have more faith then theists???

I don't have to have the belief in "magic" working against the known physical and natural laws for no purpose or reason.
No, you create a designer who controls the magic. Um, wouldn't this be an example of the faith you have that atheists don't? And, isn't this a greater leap of logic then anything put forth by a scientist?

To an atheist, science cannot be consistent or dependable, it being able to "stop working" at times to satisfy their existence.
You have yet to prove this or show believable data.

Comes down to Occum's Razor, what is simpler is usually true.
In what reasonable way does a god become a simple answer? God is the most complex answer imaginable. I don't think you quite understand the word simple.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

Artie
Prodigy
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #46

Post by Artie »

Alethe wrote:As a creationist I can believe that science works in consistent, dependable ways. That a "creator" used his knowledge of those scientific law to create us for a reason and purpose. Comes down to Occum's Razor, what is simpler is usually true.
What kind of creationist are you?

2 Types of creationism
2.1 Young Earth creationism
2.1.1 Creation science
2.2 Old Earth creationism
2.2.1 Gap creationism
2.2.2 Day-age creationism
2.2.3 Progressive creationism
2.3 Neo-creationism
2.3.1 Intelligent design
2.4 Obscure and largely discounted beliefs
2.5 Omphalos hypothesis
3 Theistic evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Alethe
Student
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:02 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #47

Post by Alethe »

[Replying to post 42 by KenRU]

Are you seriously arguing that atheists have more faith then theists???

Absolutely, positively, yes!

No, you create a designer who controls the magic. Um, wouldn't this be an example of the faith you have that atheists don't? And, isn't this a greater leap of logic then anything put forth by a scientist?

I would rather believe in a designer who controls the magic (i.e. has knowledge of how to use natural and physical laws to create life), than the uncontrollable magic that atheists believe in that randomly formed it. How is that a greater leap?

You have yet to prove this or show believable data.

Nobody has given any scientific evidence refuting any data I've provided here. All that has been done is provided other "hypotheses" for me to debunk; using, yup, science. Let's start with the easy ones. I'm still waiting for someone to debunk the fact that water breaks down peptide bonds... Please show it's unbelievable data, or retract your statement.
Alethe - A "not"/léthó "concealed" – literally, "what can't be hidden."

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #48

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 44 by Alethe]
I would rather believe in a designer who controls the magic (i.e. has knowledge of how to use natural and physical laws to create life), than the uncontrollable magic that atheists believe in that randomly formed it. How is that a greater leap?

Lets just apply a bit of logic here for a second.


Magic = 1 God = 1 no god =0 the leap of logic is the total value of the parts involved.


No God

1+0=1

God

1+1=2

Put simply no matter which way you slice it god will always be a greater leap of logic than no god.


Now that's a poor representation of my position lets get a bit more accurate

natural world=1 supernatural/magic=1 god=1


total measure of leap by adding the parts

1+0=1`

1+1=2`

1+1+1=3`

so the first leap is accepting we exist in the natural world. As this can't really be avoided it is the default position

now adding magic/supernaturalism is the first leap. This doesn't really require a god so it is the second leap

the god hypothesis is the last leap of logic as it requires the acceptance of the previous two

so my position

the natural world exists rendering my leap of logic by 1`

another position that neither you nor I hold is the natural world+ supernatural/magic

that leap is a value of 2

your position

the natural world + magic/supernatural+ god has a value of 3


your leap is three times bigger than mine.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

Alethe
Student
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:02 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #49

Post by Alethe »

[Replying to post 45 by DanieltheDragon]

Really? I ask for scientific evidence that atheists don't rely on faith and you give me arbitrary numbers for logic?

I can just as easily apply arbitrary numbers. Let's see. I'm going to say no god = 5,492,493,992.24219649. There. Now using your "logic" I win. Your leap is exponentially bigger than my leap because, because, because, my dad can beat up your dad. Neener, neener. :roll:

Seriously, tho. Let's stick with the topic at hand. The deafening silence of scientific evidence against my original list (especially water) appears to demonstrate how little atheists understand how serious the problem of their own existence is.
Alethe - A "not"/léthó "concealed" – literally, "what can't be hidden."

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

Post #50

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 46 by Alethe]

Other people have thoroughly debunked your claims no sense in beating a dead horse.

Try and be a bit more civil I did not insult you, you made a claim:

It is a bigger leap of faith to be an atheist than a theist.



When you look into that claim what is involved

Atheist: Nature

Theist: Nature, supernaturalism, a god

its not arbitrary it is the basic grammar involved in your specific claim compared to my specific claim. One is bigger than the other and its not hard to deduce you just count them. You pointed to Occam's razor yet it appears that was just a fancy word you heard on the internet because one sentence has more claims in it than the other. One is more complicated than the other.

Me: I exist.

You: I exist, magic created me, god used the magic.

Which one is a more complicated claim please enlighten me?

Lets just for the sake of argument assume you are right. That science as we understand it prevents abiogenesis.

How do you get from that to there is a god and not just any god a specific god.

You are ruling out quite a few possibilities along the way just to get there. Without even considering them.

Could trans-dimensional sentient beings from another universe where the laws of chemistry physics and biology allow for abiogensis to occur have created everything in our universe?

Or maybe abiogenesis specific to Carbon based life couldn't occur but another type of abiogenesis occurred first providing the stability needed for carbon based life?

Isn't " we exist, but I don't know how we got here" simpler than " We exist, magic provided that existence, and it was guided by a specific god"
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

Post Reply