Atheism is impossible, I don't see how life can be created naturalistically.

[theVOID]

Cells were inanimate fact, and yes they did originally not have life unless that guy from NASA was lying on that programme I watched.

Cells were once inanimate, or there are both animate and inanimate cells? I doubt that for a number of reasons, for one all cells can die and death is something that can only happen to a system that was once alive, not only that but cells are considered the fundamental unit of life and the root of the field of biology which is specifically the study of life. Given both those points I don't know how a cell could possibly be considered inanimate.

I doubt that the NASA scientist was lying or that he was mistaken, it is more likely that you misunderstood him.

If you can explain how it went from inanimate to life you will be doing one better than him, according to him they still cannot work that bit out.

I specifically said that I could not account for it and that while we know how some of the constituents of cells can be produced via naturally occurring chemical processes we do not know the full process. Like I said I'm not well versed in biology beyond the fundamentals, if you want more detail you'll have to ask someone else.

I would have thought it was obvious, life is by definition is a struggle to survive, you've heard of the arms race phenomena? basically drove the variety of life we have .... Cambrian explosion (if I've spelt it right)?

Life is not defined as "the struggle to survive", it is (simply put) a descriptive term given to systems that display "the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." The definition you provided is extremely problematic, for starters it's circular reasoning; Seeing as survival is necessarily a goal of certain forms of life the "struggle to survive" as a definition of life can be restated as "The struggle for life to live", defining life as the struggle to live offers no insight into what it means to be 'alive' to begin with - Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that many forms of life lack the capacity to care or comprehend their existence, thus they cannot be said to be "Struggling".

The Cambrian explosion is simply a period of time in the evolution of life where there was an emergence of diversity for whatever reason, again, I'm not the person to ask about any great details regarding biology or evolution, but please do take a look at this knowledgebase; http://www.talkorigins.org/

Not so much ..... I am certainly not inserting the God element here at all, maybe Nicholas would but I am just playing devils advocate on his behalf.

If you are arguing on his behalf then you are defending the position that "Atheism is impossible" given that we can't explain certain aspects of abiogenesis, this is both an argument from incredulity AND something that necessitates that a deity is the alternative - seeing as not-atheism is by definition theism.

You simply can't escape that conclusion.

[The Grand Nudger]

The Cambrian can best be described as an explosion of life that fossilized well. There is, as of yet, no reason to postulate a designer. There really isn't anything else to say on this. (unless you have evidence?)

[Minimalist]

(unless you have evidence?)

Perish the thought. Why if they had EVIDENCE they wouldn't need FAITH!

[Diamond-Deist]

Well, lets just chill to this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yot2Z-Uyu...re=related

Not bad I did listen to it twice, this is better though.

This is my lay on the beach with a cigarette and beer song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYkVHFP53Do

---

Cells were once inanimate, or there are both animate and inanimate cells? I doubt that for a number of reasons, for one all cells can die and death is something that can only happen to a system that was once alive, not only that but cells are considered the fundamental unit of life and the root of the field of biology which is specifically the study of life. Given both those points I don't know how a cell could possibly be considered inanimate.

I doubt that the NASA scientist was lying or that he was mistaken, it is more likely that you misunderstood him.

I have it on DVD so no I was not mistaken, program called "How life began", I've got it in my hand right now, it's a good viewing.
Cells did not formulate alive it took thousands of years of combination elements, they then formed a cell wall and a chemical reaction took place , it settled then ta da life.
What I've always kept an eye on is that if you leave a pile of bricks on the floor, if you come back in a million years you don't expect to find a house do you? it takes intelligence to make things happen.
This whole world is coincidence after coincidence with life fighting for it's existence, it had a will, will does not come from inanimate objects .... think about that.

I specifically said that I could not account for it and that while we know how some of the constituents of cells can be produced via naturally occurring chemical processes we do not know the full process. Like I said I'm not well versed in biology beyond the fundamentals, if you want more detail you'll have to ask someone else.

Cool that's solved, you, I, we don't understand how life began, we know the mechanics but not the first spark ..... that's what the NASA guy said.

If you are arguing on his behalf then you are defending the position that "Atheism is impossible" given that we can't explain certain aspects of abiogenesis, this is both an argument from incredulity AND something that necessitates that a deity is the alternative - seeing as not-atheism is by definition theism.

You simply can't escape that conclusion.

Ok I can play that, as a deist I personally think one of two things either God started the Universe if i am to believe the Big Bang theory (lets not go there) but in all honesty I think that's the easy option and a childish one, "there was nothing then kaboom there was life" ...... no I don't think so.

In essence to help the OP's cause, for him to give up on any notion of God you would have to show him undoubtedly that something can come from nothing.

Until that time Nicholas you may confidently walk the path of the righteous with your head held high and take no notice of these disbelievers!!

..... I will revise those links you put out, it better not be about abiogenesis I know this already from the programme.

[Anomalocaris]

I just don't like it when I feel people are using put downs as a way of trying to win a factual argument, maybe he wasn't doing that ..... so let's just continue with the topic.

Put downs on a wonderful way of getting rid of irritants upon whom facts would be wasted.

[Diamond-Deist]

WAIT A COTTON PICKIN MINUTE ..... if you guy's are atheists ...... and you believe in the Big Bang (once again we don't need details, been there) how do you reconcile the proposed beginning of the Universe with your beliefs?

I can see how Nicholas could believe it but how do you?

Wiki - evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.

You know what I'm gonna ask right? my God I think I'm more Atheist than you lot ... i did try to help you before remember?

---

Put downs on a wonderful way of getting rid of irritants upon whom facts would be wasted.

Ahhhh ..... so your the reason why Adrian is leaving, hello!!!

I think you mean't to say "are" a wonderful way of getting rid of irritants?

I'm not looking for confrontation here but every time I'm around Chuck get's a hard on, control yourself!

[The Grand Nudger]

What needs to be reconciled? No ones proposing gods in cosmology. What exactly do you think atheist means?

[Minimalist]

how do you reconcile the proposed beginning of the Universe with your beliefs?

I don't. As a matter of fact, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in situations in which we "don't fucking know."

I see no need to invent a deity to soothe over your fears of not having instant answers to every question.

[Diamond-Deist]

I don't. As a matter of fact, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in situations in which we "don't fucking know."

I see no need to invent a deity to soothe over your fears of not having instant answers to every question.

Woah calm down kid I believe you, are you one of those God screwed up my life now I'm turning atheist types?? you get very angry and all assuming.

Rhythm the BB says the ^ on the primeval atom, so that question was where do you think that came from? I know you don't actually know but what do you believe as an atheist?

I'm not saying anything, you know I don't believe the BB anyway so i don't have an opinion on it.

[SleepingDemon]

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang. If in fact our models for all three are incorrect, it still isn't evidence of a creator.

Magic is not a sufficient explanation for anything. So what if our understanding of how the universe came into existence is incomplete, or even wrong "the lawd did it" is still not an alternative explanation because it is fucking magic.