Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


Showing Original Post only (View all)


(82,333 posts)
Sat Sep 24, 2016, 07:41 PM Sep 2016

Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah [View all]

SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 6:38 AM
by Moshe Averick

"Despite the widespread view that Darwinian Evolution has been able to explain the emergence of biological complexity that is not the case…Darwinian theory does not deal with the question how (life0) was able to come into being. The troublesome question still in search of an answer is: How did a system capable of evolving come about in the first place?…Nature just doesn’t operate like that! Nature doesn’t spontaneously make highly organized…purposeful entities…And here precisely lies the (origin of) life problem…it is not just common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about. Certain basic laws of physics (coupled with mathematical probability) preach the same sermon – systems tend toward chaos and disorder, not toward order and function… Biology [i.e. a naturalistic origin of life] and physics seem contradictory, quite incompatible” – What is Life: How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Oxford University Press, 2012 – Dr. Addy Pross, professor of chemistry, Ben-Gurion University, Israel.

Dr. Pross echoes the words of distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel, who wrote the following in 2006, in his review of Richard Dawkins atheistic magnum opus, The God Delusion: “The entire apparatus of evolutionary explanation therefore depends on the prior existence of genetic material with these remarkable properties…since [the genetic system] is a precondition of the possibility of evolution, evolutionary theory cannot explain its existence. We are therefore faced with a problem…we have explained the complexity of organic life in terms of something that is itself just as functionally complex as what we originally set out to explain. So the problem is just pushed back a step; how did such a thing come into existence?”

In other words, despite the prodigious amounts of energy invested by people like Richard Dawkins in spreading propaganda to the contrary, Darwin provided exactly zero evidence to support an atheistic view of biology. Nothing has changed at all; the awe and wonder of the miraculous design and engineering that characterizes every single living creature on earth points as clearly to Divine creation in our day as it did in the period before Charles Darwin published his famous treatise.

In their heart of hearts, non-believers like Richard Dawkins understand that the Origin of Life problem means that their so called “scientific atheism” stands on a foundation of thin air and wishful thinking. That is why they longingly cast their eyes towards the horizon in hope of the imminent arrival of the atheist Origin of Life messiah who will finally explain how life can come from non-life without the involvement of that annoying Creator.

185 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A silly post ArtD48 Sep 2016 #1
That's kind of his point. rug Sep 2016 #2
"Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah" - Nope LongtimeAZDem Sep 2016 #3
"Yet" is what makes it messianic. rug Sep 2016 #5
"Yet" means "not so far"; there is no other implication, despite your desperate longing for one (nt) LongtimeAZDem Sep 2016 #11
Oh, good. So, do you expect that answer to be forthcoming? rug Sep 2016 #17
Probably not in my lifetime, which doesn't bother me at all LongtimeAZDem Sep 2016 #20
Contemplating the limits of scientific knowledge is hardly "childish superstition". rug Sep 2016 #24
Contemplating the limits of scientific knowledge is hardly "childish superstition". AlbertCat Oct 2016 #165
"Scientists have been doing that from the beginning." rug Oct 2016 #167
And here you are, blithely pretending that's not an offensive AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #79
Who are you talking to? rug Oct 2016 #94
The quote starts with a run-on sentence. Brettongarcia Oct 2016 #91
Your second "sentence" lacks a verb. rug Oct 2016 #93
Blogs and everyday speech usually allow sentence fragments. Brettongarcia Oct 2016 #97
Hardly. Show an implication of biology (which is not a proper noun) that rebuts him. rug Oct 2016 #99
"Hardly" is a sentence fragment. Brettongarcia Oct 2016 #103
You haven't posted even a fragment on what implication biology has to this article. rug Oct 2016 #104
See # 8, # 19, # 30 Brettongarcia Oct 2016 #106
That's wise since you have nothing to offer on the subject. rug Oct 2016 #107
You posted someone else's work.... Brettongarcia Oct 2016 #110
See #148. The chemistry professor was quoted out of sequence, with vital phrases and pages missing muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #150
Everything is supernatural. Trouble is, it's too banal-seeming Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #159
Okay ... and who created God? hmm. YOHABLO Sep 2016 #4
That's an excellent question and here is the answer. rug Sep 2016 #6
Empty assertions. It's purely speculative to assert existence has a cause. immoderate Sep 2016 #13
The flip side is what is speculative and unfounded. rug Sep 2016 #14
What is known, doesn't tell us what is unknown. immoderate Sep 2016 #22
It doesn't tell what will and won't be known either. rug Sep 2016 #23
How convenient for you. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #80
Describe it then in natural terms. rug Oct 2016 #102
You don't need to know that. Ni tampoco hablar tal tonterias. Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #153
Dr Pross may need to learn thermodynamics better: struggle4progress Sep 2016 #7
Pross is a professor of chemistry. Jim__ Sep 2016 #19
The video may portray his motives well; and he may be a good scientist; but that does not imply struggle4progress Sep 2016 #30
See #148; Averick took certain phrases from different chapters of Pross, reordered them muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #149
That could be -- but it all rapidly falls into an uninteresting category of literary criticism IMO. struggle4progress Oct 2016 #164
A plausible response. (No gods.) immoderate Sep 2016 #8
Is there any good cosmological evidence for the inevitability of life? struggle4progress Sep 2016 #9
I would not say that. Depends on what you consider 'evidence.' immoderate Sep 2016 #12
The only definite conception I could have of "life" would resemble "life-as-we-know-it" struggle4progress Sep 2016 #18
Why would you assume life needs oxygen, or water? immoderate Sep 2016 #21
Our atmospheric O2 has biological origins. O2 is reactive so one might not expect struggle4progress Sep 2016 #29
If we stop spending all our money bombing brown people AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #81
This is less about the creation of life than it is about the creation of matter in the first place, rug Sep 2016 #15
If we assume there's a creator. immoderate Sep 2016 #25
I could have said the genesis of life but that might upset you. rug Sep 2016 #26
Not really. It's about the arrangement of matter - ie the arrangement of atoms muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #38
"the atoms are all there in the first place" rug Sep 2016 #42
It's not 'novel'. It's at the link. muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #43
"the atoms are all there in the first place" rug Sep 2016 #56
"You start with a random clump of atoms". Yes, it is there. muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #63
Starting a process with atoms does not mean "the atoms are all there in the first place". rug Sep 2016 #66
'coulda, woulda, shoulda... inexorably acquires key physocal attributes associated with life.' Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #152
A question outside the expertise of a chemist. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #82
Lol, an appeal to authority. rug Oct 2016 #101
Part of the perceived problem ZombieHorde Sep 2016 #10
The question of where the atoms come from is what remains unanswered. rug Sep 2016 #16
I think that only has ZombieHorde Sep 2016 #36
Yes, closing one's mind is always an option. Trouble is, to close on the truth Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #154
Until I have good reason otherwise, I will regard smacking a human with a hammer struggle4progress Sep 2016 #37
I do too because I generally value nonviolence ZombieHorde Sep 2016 #41
The difference is, in some sense, "subjective" -- but the "subjectivity" involved struggle4progress Sep 2016 #49
The difference may be objective, ZombieHorde Sep 2016 #60
For one thing, it takes a lot of pounding to piss off a rock. ChairmanAgnostic Oct 2016 #108
Theists Sill Waiting for the Origin of God Messiah. Doodley Sep 2016 #27
Scroll upthread. rug Sep 2016 #32
I gather the question of where God came from is not mine and mine alone. Doodley Sep 2016 #33
The real question: Did God have consent to ChairmanAgnostic Oct 2016 #109
And people complain about athiest militants. Eko Sep 2016 #28
Do you think the time will come when science will "finally prove" it? rug Sep 2016 #31
I think humans will destroy themselves before that. Doodley Sep 2016 #34
Of course. Eko Sep 2016 #35
So you have faith that scientists will discover the answer? guillaumeb Sep 2016 #40
Ha, Ha. Eko Sep 2016 #44
But all of your response still avoided thr fact that science can only go so far..... guillaumeb Sep 2016 #46
Sure, if you say so Eko Sep 2016 #48
Using "belief" and "faith" in place of evidence is a common tactic of the believer. cleanhippie Sep 2016 #54
Assertion of a fact without evidence is faith. rug Sep 2016 #57
Yeah, No evidence!!! Eko Sep 2016 #58
History is littered with scientific predictions that failed. rug Sep 2016 #59
Yes science is littered with dead theories... uriel1972 Sep 2016 #64
"Science will find the answer" is a statement of faith without evidence. rug Sep 2016 #65
I agree... uriel1972 Sep 2016 #67
I would instead say, 'science is the only credible tool for finding the answer to that question' AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #89
Post removed Post removed Oct 2016 #88
I know enough to deduce that there is no "we" at your keyboard. rug Oct 2016 #95
There's also historical track record that has your God of the gaps AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #87
The only gap here is in your education on the subject. rug Oct 2016 #96
Science can only go so far... says you. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #86
So does anyone who understands the scientific method is not infinite. rug Oct 2016 #98
Actually, some of us understand math, physics and cosmology AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #85
Is that a yes? rug Oct 2016 #157
We've already shown how organic chemicals are spontaneously AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #83
You haven't at all. rug Oct 2016 #100
Where did the matter come from that was affected by the Big Bang? guillaumeb Oct 2016 #115
lol.. opiate69 Oct 2016 #121
But being a non-scientist, and a believer in the Creator, guillaumeb Oct 2016 #122
Simply put, we don't know. opiate69 Oct 2016 #124
Understood. My belief is that the answer is alreasdy here. The Creator. guillaumeb Oct 2016 #125
Do you expect these hypotheses to be proven? rug Oct 2016 #128
Do I expect "these hypotheses" to be proven? opiate69 Oct 2016 #141
That's a hope not an expectation. rug Oct 2016 #142
Bzzt.. wrong again, sir carpet. opiate69 Oct 2016 #143
Nice paraphrase of hope, opiate. rug Oct 2016 #144
*sigh* opiate69 Oct 2016 #145
"The belief or expectation that something wished for can or will happen." rug Oct 2016 #146
Because I'm bored... opiate69 Oct 2016 #185
Sure, I can see these lads and lassies sitting in a rockng-chair and, Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #155
In the sweet bye and bye. rug Oct 2016 #158
Thanks, rug. That's beautiful. One for my Favourites. Did you notice Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #161
The sig line? It's from Acts 4. rug Oct 2016 #163
Yes. But I tend not memorise chapter and verse. The great Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #168
The issue does come down to this: guillaumeb Sep 2016 #39
What? Eko Sep 2016 #45
Proof is not something that is addressed by faith. Faith does not require faith, guillaumeb Sep 2016 #47
Why cant it prove Eko Sep 2016 #50
That the Big Bang happened can be deduced from the movement of the universe. guillaumeb Sep 2016 #51
Yes, Eko Sep 2016 #52
My argument is that one either postulates that there is a Creator, guillaumeb Sep 2016 #68
Well, Eko Sep 2016 #70
Faith does not require proof. guillaumeb Sep 2016 #71
How can belief in something without evidence be positive? cleanhippie Sep 2016 #75
Explain how belief is positive or negative. guillaumeb Oct 2016 #113
Being that this is the Religion group, I figured the type of belief were talking about was implied. cleanhippie Oct 2016 #147
Belief in a deity is an affirmation. guillaumeb Oct 2016 #166
Until one postulates that there is a creator, there is no disagreement. cleanhippie Sep 2016 #74
You don't know that when you switch the living-room light on, it will Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #156
ummm no... uriel1972 Sep 2016 #61
I don't need a basis to reject an unfounded and unprovable claim. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #84
Good luck with that, as far as science will take you. guillaumeb Oct 2016 #114
Linguistic bullshit to justify belief in sky fairies Roland99 Sep 2016 #53
Lackadaisical meme to promote bullshit. rug Sep 2016 #55
You're just filling in gaps with a fictional character Bradical79 Sep 2016 #72
And you're just regurgitating tired, inaccurate and unoriginal memes. rug Sep 2016 #73
It's entirely accurate Bradical79 Sep 2016 #76
I'll assume "an intelegent being" is a typo. rug Sep 2016 #78
Contemplate away, sir. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #90
"fucking prove it"? rug Oct 2016 #92
It's a long-winded god of the gaps argument. pokerfan Sep 2016 #62
Ayup. Pure mental laziness. A desire and willingness to suspend critical thinking... Roland99 Sep 2016 #69
Pretty much Bradical79 Sep 2016 #77
Yes it is a silly post. rogerashton Oct 2016 #105
Well, that was a complete waste of time . . . hatrack Oct 2016 #111
Thanks for that insight. rug Oct 2016 #117
What?? deathrind Oct 2016 #112
The first describes many forms of life. rug Oct 2016 #116
The Universe is huge or infinite. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #118
That begs the question. How did the (natural) dumb matter and energy get there? rug Oct 2016 #119
It's a brute fact of nature that dumb matter and energy exist. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #120
The nature of those things belies that. rug Oct 2016 #123
You're arguing against the existence of a god unless you can explain who or what made god. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #126
No. The argument of infinite regression misses the point. rug Oct 2016 #127
Inventing a completely different and massively complex reality is no solution. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #129
You're asking fior a natural explanation for an event that would have to be supernatural. rug Oct 2016 #130
OK, I can play your game. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #131
"does not have to be explained" is a piss-poor answer, especially when science strives to explain it rug Oct 2016 #132
I don't think that is an answer, but you do. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #133
You miss again the difference between "doesn't have to" and "can't". rug Oct 2016 #134
If it can't be explained then it can be disregarded since the "can't" be explained cpwm17 Oct 2016 #135
Define the evidence required. rug Oct 2016 #136
Show me that we live in a world that does not work through natural processes cpwm17 Oct 2016 #137
No, the question at hand is how the world got here in the first place. rug Oct 2016 #138
I wrote: "You still need an answer for the problem of god's existence cpwm17 Oct 2016 #139
If you reject both the idea of a creator and the idea of an infinte eternal universe, what's left? rug Oct 2016 #140
Early in this sub thread I wrote: cpwm17 Oct 2016 #169
No matter how many (purely hypothetical) universe and multiverses, rug Oct 2016 #170
You have much the same issue concerning an always existing god. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #171
If the rationale is a natural one. rug Oct 2016 #172
But you are then claiming if reality is difficult to explain then it must be by magic cpwm17 Oct 2016 #173
Magic is not logic. I'm sorry your difficulty in explaining has led you to that error. rug Oct 2016 #174
The arguments you make are arguments against your god. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #183
It's time people see how Moshe Averick manipulated the quotes from Professor Pross muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #148
Last I heard, rug, Dawkins now describes himself as an agnostic. The facts Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #151
He allows a 0.0142 chance that he's wrong. rug Oct 2016 #160
Absolutely. He's been making more and more of an ass of himself, lately. Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #162
You do know that Einstein was an agnostic pantheist, right? He didn't believe in a personal god... Humanist_Activist Oct 2016 #176
Not believing in a personal God is not to be an agnostic. It is Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #184
Oh look, Rug posting a post that dishonestly quote-mines a scientist to support creationism... Humanist_Activist Oct 2016 #175
Rug's OP is an inside-joke. A reply to another over-the-top OP by another DUer. DetlefK Oct 2016 #177
You have it backwards. Check the time stamps on the OPs. rug Oct 2016 #179
Oh look. Humanist Activist is upset. rug Oct 2016 #178
Face it, rug, you're promoting an infamous intelligent design advocate muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #181
I'm not promoting anything, muriel. rug Oct 2016 #182
This is the way things work anoNY42 Oct 2016 #180
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Atheists Still Waiting fo...»Reply #0