Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Are atheists (materialists?) obliged to accept that the organic sprung naturally from the inorganic? i.e., that a rock (sealed off from all alien particles) could, in theory, produce bacteria from itself?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 6 by liamconnor]

Atheists are not obliged to follow anything. There was an atheist on this forum last year that spoke out against abiogensises and evolution. Not believing in gods and not believing supernatural and "spiritual" things are two different things.

[marco]

Are atheists (materialists?) obliged to accept that the organic sprung naturally from the inorganic? i.e., that a rock (sealed off from all alien particles) could, in theory, produce bacteria from itself?

Atheists are not obliged to come up with explanations of how things happened; they simply don't accept an all-powerful, loving God. Abiogenesis is an area that is being researched and as I understand some progress has been made:

" In 1952, Miller and Urey combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials to tray and replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. The reaction did produce a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and so life itself."

So abiogenesis may well be possible, and why not? All things rise from the same basic elements. It would seem we are more likely to find inorganic producing organic long, long before we find evidence of God.

[McCulloch]

Are atheists (materialists?) obliged to accept that the organic sprung naturally from the inorganic?

Two things about abiogenesis I think we all can agree on:

1. It happened. Once there was no life. Now there is life. Therefore life came from non-life.
2. It is very rare.

Many theists argue that because it is rare and we don't understand the process, it must have been a supernatural event. Atheists necessarily deny supernatural intervention and claim that it must have been a natural event, albeit one we don't yet understand.

[H.sapiens]

Are atheists (materialists?) obliged to accept that the organic sprung naturally from the inorganic?

Two things about abiogenesis I think we all can agree on:

1. It happened. Once there was no life. Now there is life. Therefore life came from non-life.
2. It is very rare.

Many theists argue that because it is rare and we don't understand the process, it must have been a supernatural event. Atheists necessarily deny supernatural intervention and claim that it must have been a natural event, albeit one we don't yet understand.

Item (2) is likely incorrect. The precursors and immediate products of subsequent abiogenic events would likely be gobbled up by the previous event rather rapidly. A head-start goes a long way.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 14 by H.sapiens]

Well, there's actually evidence that specific conditions are sufficient, and perhaps necessary to give formamide the ability to transform into the 4 nucleotide bases used in RNA. And these conditions involve powerful, sustained seismic impacts and electrical shocks. If abiogenesis were an event that occurred due to an accumulation of RNA nucleotide bases into a replicating molecule, it seems as if it would require an event like that to occur.

[Kenisaw]

Are atheists (materialists?) obliged to accept that the organic sprung naturally from the inorganic? i.e., that a rock (sealed off from all alien particles) could, in theory, produce bacteria from itself?

Liam, I think you might have made an assumption about chemistry which is erroneous.

First off, I understand the general point you are tying to make here. I don't agree with it however, because it is an oversimplification of many concepts out there about the origin of life. Some people believe life has always existed. Some think there is a generic unorganized consciousness that structures can tap into. Some think a god created the universe, but life happened accidentally anyway. There are all kinds of postulated things.

To the meat of the matter however, it appears to me that you think there is some kind of magic dividing line between "organic" and "inorganic". As if the atoms and molecules themselves experienced some kind of a change. That's simply not the case.

Let's look at the definition of organic molecules chemically speaking. It is the study of carbon compounds. That's all it is. In fact some carbon compounds, like carbide salts, are considered inorganic. Regardless, the term organic doesn't refer to life, it refers to carbon. Since carbon has such an array of possible combinations, and in particular can make very large molecular structures, it is a vital atom in molecule formation. Life on Earth is made up of many carbon molecules, but that is not the only thing that matters to life. For instance, H2O (water) is absolutely vital to life, but it is not an organic compound.

Furthermore, if you were to take an amino acid from a comet or meteorite (and yes we've found them on/in those things), it wouldn't be any different than the same amino acid in your body. You could switch the two out and it would have zero affect on you.

The point is, there is nothing different about the "organic" carbon molecules in you compared to the same molecules in the Andromeda Galaxy. They are not chemically different, and they don't change in some way just because they are part of a living thing. You are made up of the same stuff that the rest of the universe is made up of, and it is all the exact same.