CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
A challenge for my atheist friends... If God doesn't exist...
why don't these models just come together randominly? Shouldn't I be able to go to a recycling center and find a couple billion of them floating around?
Oh, here is a little 10m x 10m hemoglobin sculpture, I'm sure the artist is just planning on putting all the pieces in a concrete mixer, giving it a couple good spins, and hope for the best.
Evolution is not random no, I understand that. The events that cause mutation are, but the propagation of those mutations is based on its success in the environment.
Evolution though, comes after the beginning of life. First, you have to get a functional, living cell before any kind of evolution can take place.
It is just that such a complex structure could not be put together randomly.
If by random, you mean "all possibilities have an equal chance of occurring", then no. Its not random at all. The laws of physics and chemistry, combined with available quantities of specific atoms/molecules and the environmental conditions determine the likeliness of such an occurrence. In the right conditions, it would be impossible for certain proteins NOT to form.
I consider the complexity of life to be evidence of a higher power.
People who don't know the first thing about probability, chemistry and physics usually do.
As I mentioned somewhere else... yes, given enough time chances are somewhere at some time one of these could have formed... but one protein molecule is not life... you have to multiply it by, what, a hundred, a thousand. How many different proteins need to come together to form a basic living cell? I don't even know. So over a FINITE amount of time, there had to be a very small window of time, in an infinitesimally small space, hundreds of randomly assembled proteins had to come together to form ONE living cell.
In addition, that space had to be in an environment where the one living cell can obtain energy and live... we have not even gotten into the very rare events that formed our planet and kept it habitable for this long.
I think you are up to about 1 in a trillion trillion trillion chance of the most basic kind of life forming.
I say, either God exists, or the odds of our existence is so incredibly small it is completely rational to falsely assume there is a God.
There are two fundamental misunderstands here. One that it is random (in the sense that all possibilities have an equal chance of happening) which is quite far from the truth. Some simple proteins and aminos can be formed by pouring common naturally occurring elements on a cookie sheet, putting it in the oven and baking at a few hundred degrees for a few hours. You and I can literally make these things in our kitchens. And as long as we have the proper amount of these ingredients and set it at the right temperature it WILL happen precisely because it is NOT random. It is worth noting that the proper ingredients, temperatures and time frames have been available at undersea volcano sites for billions of years.
The second fundamental misunderstanding is that the percentage chance should never be calculated from "base constituent elements" directly to complicated form. You go incrementally. What are the chances of forming the simplest proteins and aminos? Well, in the right conditions, its going to be in the high 90s, but even if you spread it out globally, the number of opportunities you have over the course of billions of years practically guarantees it. So now that we have those, we estimate FROM THAT point (not from the very beginning) the chances of them forming more complex structures, which still are high enough in contrast to the number of opportunities to practically guaranty this formation, at least at certain points (again undersea volcanoes and steam vents).
Here's a real quick and simple description. If you desire something more complex, let me know.
Its also worth bearing in mind that chemical reactions usually take up very little space and can happen EXTREMELY quickly. One singular volcano could create millions or maybe billions of opportunities in a few minutes under the right conditions.
In addition, that space had to be in an environment where the one living cell can obtain energy and live
This is true. The earliest protobionts had to store energy until they could develop far enough to kickstart their own metabolism. Even then, with no hunting and feeding adaptations they wouldn't go far or live long, although it is likely they could reproduce very quickly. It is for this reason that undersea volcanoes and steam vents would be sufficient, as they are a constant source of energy. It is considered possible that each volcano and vent could have had their own protobiont ecosystems evolving for millions of years before any encountered each other.
we have not even gotten into the very rare events that formed our planet and kept it habitable for this long.
Rare means nothing here. VERY RARE means nothing here. There are BILLIONS of galaxies in KNOWN Space, each with billions or more of stars, most of which would appear to have planets (and multiple planets at that). Don't forget, space isn't our only way to have lots of chances. We also have more than 13 billion years to work with. With these kind of large numbers, even the rarest of circumstances can be expected to happen on at least one planet if there is even a remote chance of occurance. ALSO: our understanding of life might not be the only kind available in the cosmos.
I think you are up to about 1 in a trillion trillion trillion chance of the most basic kind of life forming.
What do you think the chances of God, who is infinitely more complex than anything we've encountered, coming into existence?
Some simple proteins and aminos can be formed by pouring common naturally occurring elements on a cookie sheet, putting it in the oven and baking at a few hundred degrees for a few hours. You and I can literally make these things in our kitchens.
If you honestly think baking creates more complex molecules or takes matter closer to creating life you are not worth my time to talk to. Cooking something can only break down organic material into simpler and simpler molecules until you are left with ash.
Let me put it this way, I have a salt water fish tank. If I take a water sample, thoroughly sterilize it with UV light, and then put it in the oven and baked it... you think I will eventually create new life?
If you honestly think baking creates more complex molecules or takes matter closer to creating life you are not worth my time to talk to.
If you can't read what I said, you aren't worth my time, homie. I repeat: Some simple proteins and aminos can be formed by...
Cooking something can only break down organic material into simpler and simpler molecules until you are left with ash.
This is not true. Adding energy to the interaction can form all kinds of molecules.
You want more complex ones you have to manipulate more aspects of the environment. You can order kits that simulate Urey-Miller Experiments, but you can adjust all kinds of factors and get proteins the original experiments never got. Of course the first experiment has since been shown to have not simulated early conditions on Earth properly, subsequent trial and error has corrected a lot of their mistakes.
Also, ask an astronomer how much organic matter is formed in the conditions of space. Some of it came to earth, although we didn't need it too since volcanoes and steam vents can simulate the proper conditions, especially in the environment earth had billions of years ago.
If I take a water sample, thoroughly sterilize it with UV light, and then put it in the oven and baked it... you think I will eventually create new life?
You haven't been listening to what I'm seeing. Its not coming from the water, its from the various elements spewing out of undersea volcanoes and steam vents.
The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.
... Please explain, what non-living material behaves according to natural selection? Whatever precedes life is non-living. Non-living things do not function on a level where natural selection takes place.
Please explain, what non-living material behaves according to natural selection?
A materiel that can reproduce but is not living because it does not have its own metabolism. In the contexts of early Earth, these are called protobionts, who probably existed for millions of years right at the edges of volcanoes, using the energy and materiels of the volcano to reproduce. During this time, the molecules involved gradually got more and more complex as the protobionts existed longer and/or reproduced more often. If something can naturally reproduce, it is subject to natural selection and does not need to be alive. Eventually they got complex enough to produce simple RNA, which eventually would foster life and evolve into DNa.
For a modern example: See viruses. Protobionts were probably very simple version of viruses. Other protobionts may have evolved into bacteria and archea, the simplest forms of life.
By the way, I am a senior electrical engineering student. I know a little more about probability, chemistry, physics, and even biology than the average person.
HA! which reminds me. Silicon is one of the most common elements on our planet... have you ever walked along the beach and stumbled across a naturally formed microprocessor?
Are there laws of physics and chemistry fostering that natural formation of microporocessors? If there were, we could farm them, not make them in a factory. You don't get to say "bats don't fly" just because mice can't fly.
The laws of physics and chemistry also don't support the formation of complex organic molecules without the preexisting condition of a functioning living cell.
The laws of physics and chemistry also don't support the formation of complex organic molecules without the preexisting condition of a functioning living cell.
Look, mankind though Gods made lightning, but that was only because we didn't understand electricity. We thought Gods made the sun rise, but we didn't understand gravity (well, really we still don't). But we understand a lot about chemistry but it fails to explain how life can begin from nothing. We understand genetics but it has a lot of difficulty accounting for biodiversity. Even physics is getting confounding (google the two slit experiment). I believe science has moved from being able to account for the gaps to a place where we are only discovering how big those gaps are.
But we understand a lot about chemistry but it fails to explain how life can begin from nothing.
The only people in these debates who believe life came from nothing are the Christians. You believe an impossibly complex being, the only thing in the universe that doesn't have limits (and whose origin conveniently doesn't have to be explained, nor do his functionings), SPOKE life into existence, full formed and independent. We, on the other hand, look long and hard, attempting to find the conditions at the beginning of the chain of life, ask what the ingredients are and how they would get mixed together.
We understand genetics but it has a lot of difficulty accounting for biodiversity.
Excuse me, what?
You need to get your understandings of science from actual scientists, not creationist propagandists.
Fair point, if our side is correct it complicates the universe while simplifying this problem. However, language in the bible indicates God exists outside the universe. I am completely comfortable having no scientific knowledge of something outside of our reality.
My college biology teacher gave it a good try. He was totally your stereotypical biology professor. Day 1 was pretty much a pep talk of, "You all need to learn these things because the fucking Christians are too dumb to understand it." I played along, aced his class. He congratulated me in front of his 150 person class for getting 100% on one of his tests because "no one gets 100."
The subject of the test; genetics and evolution.
At the same time, I left the class with more faith than when I started, because, despite their very best efforts, their explanation for the beginning of life and the emergence of two species is completely inadequate. I enjoy discussing and researching the subject because time and time again, creationism endures the arguments against it.
I am not a biology major, no. I am sorry but I like the idea of graduating and making more than minimum wage. But I have had some formal education.
Actually, it makes the problem more complex. If your side is true, than God either lied to us or allowed to be massively deceived, in every major field of science, in every country that has contributed to genetic or fossil records, in our very ability to abstractly come upon the truth. If you are right, God gave us the tools needed to become atheists, then let us burn in Hell for being better at those skills then his followers. Your version simplifies stuff that shouldn't be simplified. It gives up before answers can be gleaned. That is foolish.
their explanation for the beginning of life and the emergence of two species is completely inadequate.
How? You do realize there are numerous people working who would have lost their jobs decades ago if they couldn't get results or properly account for the majority of skepticism.
creationism endures the arguments against it.
No it does not. It is clearly falsified by the evidence supporting natural selection. The only way you can portray otherwise is to misrepresent or straight up lie about the evidence and change definitions and statistics to suit your own purposes. Both honesty and scientific inquiry are missing from "creation science".
If your side is true, than God either lied to us or allowed to be massively deceived, in every major field of science, in every country that has contributed to genetic or fossil records, in our very ability to abstractly come upon the truth.
How do you figure?
If you are right, God gave us the tools needed to become atheists
He equally gave you the tools to be a follower. Are you upset you have a choice?
then let us burn in Hell for being better at those skills then his followers.
Maybe the real danger is arrogance.
Your version simplifies stuff that shouldn't be simplified. It gives up before answers can be gleaned. That is foolish.
I never said "This is the answer, so scientists everywhere can just give up." That would be foolish.
How? You do realize there are numerous people working who would have lost their jobs decades ago if they couldn't get results or properly account for the majority of skepticism.
Are you honestly trying to claim the academic community doesn't look out for its own?
It is clearly falsified by the evidence supporting natural selection.
What have I said that is falsified? Two people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions. A conflict doesn't necessarily indicate someone is lying.
Both honesty and scientific inquiry are missing from "creation science".
The scientific community is "all in" on the claim that there is no God. Any counter argument is not investigated, it is simply discarded in language similar to what you are using. The scientific community's unwritten prime directive is that anything that is supported by religion is de facto non-scientific.
Where would you like me to start? Biological evidence or geological? Physics and chemistry perhaps? Recorded cases of speciation? Universal phylogeny and the eerie match-up between morphological taxonomy and genetics? Fossil records? Bacteria resistance? The ability to use evolutionary theory to create medicines and technology, even utilize the principals in the field of engineering to create better designs than human engineers?
Are you upset you have a choice?
Quite the opposite. It is quite unlikely that choice had anything to do with either of our religious perspectives. That's my point. The only way I could have different beliefs at this exact point in my life is to be a different person.
Maybe the real danger is arrogance.
Its been supported with studies. And arrogance is not so dangerous as ignorance.
That would be foolish.
Do you believe there are possibilities other than God?
Are you honestly trying to claim the academic community doesn't look out for its own?
Are you honestly trying to claim there is a scientific conspiracy?
Two people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions.
Only if all they are interested in is opinions. If they are interested in facts, those facts will be true for both parties. We call this phenomenon reality.
The scientific community is "all in" on the claim that there is no God.
That isn't true at all. My uncle is a very respected physicist and his wife is a corporate scientist. They are both very active in their Church. There are numerous well known religious scientists who support concepts like evolution and deep time and big bang because these notions survived the rigor of the scientific method, and they realize that method is infinitely more suitable to analyzing reality than faith and "intuition", and even so-called "common sense". God cannot be included in this because the scientific method is only appropriate for naturalistic studies. The super-natural can not be measured, manipulated or even demonstrated to definitely exist. Whenever they do, they end up being reclassified as natural phenomenon, from disease, to the aurora borealis, to toads raining from the sky.
Since God is pretty much the MOST SUPERNATURAL thing conceivable, it is the last thing you could possibly use the scientific method on. So we aren't saying God is impossible, we're saying we can't do anything with the notion until you demonstrate it to actually BE POSSIBLE.
The scientific community's unwritten prime directive is that anything that is supported by religion is de facto non-scientific.
No. Only when what the religion is supporting is supernatural.
The scientific community as a whole is not opposed to religion. The just can't practice it when they are on the clock. After hours they can pray in as many churches as they wish, and numerous great scientists have been inspired by their religious or spiritual beliefs. That's perfectly fine as long as the use the scientific method properly, which creation scientists invariably fail to do. They only way it can possibly sound valid is if they let it deteriorate into pseudoscience. That crap convinces people who either don't know jack about science or are so blinded by religious fervor, they are incapble of being proper scientists any more.
Its a shame too. Behe was a good biochemist before the irreducible complexity debacle.
I am completely comfortable having no scientific knowledge of something outside of our reality.
At the same time, I left the class with more faith than when I started, because, despite their very best efforts, their explanation for the beginning of life and the emergence of two species is completely inadequate. I enjoy discussing and researching the subject because time and time again, creationism endures the arguments against it.
This is what causes my Atheism. People like you say you have a better understanding with Creationism, and no understanding whatsoever about something outside our reality. Look what you gave up.
have you ever asked yourself why people refuse to believe in God or a supreme deity...well if you haven't simply put it is because God said no and now they do not want to accept his answer and that is why they are so set to prove that He does not exist. is it just a coincidence that some of the most commited atheist were once theists
i knew that film would smear crap on the walls. lyrik, you almost quoted it perfectly. Now go join criminal minds you pathetic pretentious plagiarising moronic insentient blob
dude listen up i did write that because i watched it in a movie and thats because i saw it there, we all acquire information in different ways i just watched a movie that made sense and how does me quoteing a movie have anything to do with and you want to call me pathetic well psalms 14:1 says The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. and yeah ithe movie did smear crap on thewall it smeared crap all over the walls and all up in your faces " how can you say there is no god when all aroud creation shos it " oh a FYI thats also a song fool
You are correct. The plastic models don't require large amounts of energy to create those structures. The actual molecules do. So the model should be easier to come across.
Except that the actual proteins are, get this, microscopic. It actually doesn't take any where near as much energy as it would take for those full-on macro size models to get tossed around. Additionally, the amount of energy needed to get that kind of activity from the models would probably destroy them. Also, the molecules are directly influenced by laws of physics and chemistry and at that scale the effect guarantees the formation of certain molecules.
The models are purely for conceptual purposes. They aren't meant to actually have the properties of what they model. Of course the models aren't going to do what they model. They are models of microscopic objects and super fast reactions!
This is a concept that should NOT be foreign to an electrical engineering major.
It doesn't take energy to manufacture products in plastic? That's news to me. Why is there so much pollution if energy isn't needed to manufacture goods?
This guy doesn't address the heart of the argument, the origination of these complicated molecules. He just kind of pokes fun of it and moves on. The argument is adequate if I was trying to say God is sitting inside all living cells assembling proteins. I completely understand that is not the case.
Let me break it down here, proteins can not be made without a living cell producing them. Living cells need to "know" how to produce proteins to... well... live. Classic chicken and the egg. Even simple proteins are too complicated to just happen to form naturally, but then, even if our protocell happens to absorb one of the many many proteins it needs to survive, it wouldn't have the genetic information to actually produce the protein it needs.
I thought I had replied to this already... Here is a shorter response...
RNA or DNA is still information. To have a living cell you would need to almost simultaneously stumble across a lot of correct information to make all the proteins needed for a living cell.
Interesting read, but I would have one question for the author. If these predecessors to modern cells can just pop up out of nowhere, why don't we see any of them around us? Would new ones not always be coming into existence all the time?
If these predecessors to modern cells can just pop up out of nowhere, why don't we see any of them around us? Would new ones not always be coming into existence all the time?
Because the current conditions are drastically different than those that were required for abiogenesis.
We wouldn't expect them to under modern conditions. The very presence of life drastically changed the environment.
But even if those situations exist, any proto-life would probably get consumed by microorganisms such as bacteria, archea, protists, molds etc. Remember that life is virtually everywhere, and hungry.
Ever heard of reap what you sow? If you do something later on you'll reap the consequences of your actions on what you did that is wrong. Also if you don't repent from your sins then you're sins aren't forgiven. So you basically are being punished.
But, either way you are trying to argue that my stance is worthless because that's not how God works. Well, I am just pointing out that this debate is about plastic working in a different way than it is supposed to and this is ridiculous.
the bible does say God is love and it also says love is patient .....bingo so if love equals X, then God equals X and patience equals X then God has to be patient
Uncreative! Ha! He created every animal, every fish every bird from his imagination! I know you probably don't believe in him, but you have to admit that if someone or something created all the wonders of nature he is infinitely creative!
I am sure he had his reasons. My theory is another method may leave behind too much evidence. If God were to make his existence too obvious, following him would cease to be a matter of faith and more a matter of submission and pragmatism.
I believe it is possible to sin in heaven. Even though heaven will be a place without needs or temptation it will still be possible. So for heaven to be without sin he needs to only allow certain people in. If someone makes the choice to come to Jesus on faith and repent everything you have done wrong, while that person may very well sin in this fallen world, he or she would probably not in heaven.
They are not innocent as no one is innocent and all are worthy are death. God gave his only Son up for over 33 years to die a horrible death for your sins.
No one knows for sure who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. In addition, no one really knows for sure what hell is really like. We only have bits and pieces of the picture. Reality is though, no one is really innocent, or at least very few are. You yourself, can you say you were not warned? I'm here warning you, if only to remind myself that I too am in danger. That is where the Christian phrase "good news" comes from. The good news is God can forgive you. You can take it or you can decline. You make the choice... but claiming to be innocent is not an option.
I can't really choose wether or not I believe in God, for that I would have to be convinced.
Now, I might or might not take the forgiveness. With all the different interpretations of the Christians God, that really would be the deciding factor. Preferably, I would; however, I am not sure if I can do that without even believing in the first place.
You make the choice... but claiming to be innocent is not an option.
To an extent, yes, a choice can be made. Also, what exactly happens to the people who haven't (and probably never will) hear of God? Will the be counted as guilty, even though they never had the chance?
I can't really choose wether or not I believe in God, for that I would have to be convinced.
But you know that if you do come to the point of believing in God it will be a matter of faith. To claim otherwise would be pretty controversial. At best, we have circumstantial evidence. To make the choice "i'm only going to believe in God if I see hard evidence," is still a choice. It is one with a known outcome.
With all the different interpretations of the Christians God, that really would be the deciding factor.
It is incredibly unfortunate the church is so fragmented. But if you look at churches that try to change God to suit pubic opinion, it looks to me like they are believing in nothing. God is either immutable or he doesn't exist, there is no middle ground to conform to progressive causes.
Also, what exactly happens to the people who haven't (and probably never will) hear of God?
Very good question, and something I don't claim to have the answer to. Im very cautious not to claim someone is going to hell because I don't know. The same rule applies to them. I do think it would be uncharacteristic of God to condemn people who never had a chance, but ultimately it is not a question I am supposed to ponder.
There is one exception, I am fairly confident muslims go to hell. There is one unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the holy spirit, and islamic doctrine makes some pretty wild claims about the holy spirit that I think are very likely to be wrong... Not to mention, islam was made to appeal to the darkest desires of men.
God desires an honest victory. If he were to strike you down, two things would happen. First of all, you would be doomed. You have to come to him in this life to be saved. Secondly, you wouldn't believe in God through a matter of faith, you would essentially be forced to obey.
Freewill is an important aspect of humanity, because only a person with complete freewill can love completely.
You can simply beat a child until he obeys you, but when he obeys is he doing so out of love or out of fear? The more difficult and more rewarding path is to be a good example to the child, to earn his respect through patience and resolve. The latter approach of course, opens you up to pain and failure, but it is the only approach that can result in love.
But like you said, he has done it over and over again in the bible, so you should be able to learn from others' mistakes without ever experiencing his wrath.
God is just not necessary.We don't need any God.Ancient people who didn't knew how things work as eclipse,sunrise,thunder,storm,rain etc. created Gods for them like joshua,ra,thor etc.We have now started to learn things,we now know that why eclipses happen,why sun rises,why rain does happen.They don't need any supernatural cause,they are simple science,nothing more.We all are atheists to most Gods humans created,some of us go just one God further.
