Calling all atheists??!!?

Question

Haven't you heard of Louis Pasteur? He was the one who disproved ABIOGENESIS "once and for all"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AozmgKsPaPLe5bL6tYswX2nsy6IX?qid=20070303171026AAPqI6j

Answer 1

I know, his experiment (two flasks, one with a neck like a swan)

But like I said, under the primitive Earth's conditions, abiogenesis is definitely possible

Reposting this:
- Primitive Earth's atmosphere: mostly consists of 92.2 % of Carbon dioxide, instead of about 0.03% of today
- Ozone layer: There was no ozone layer, enormous amounts of energy, in the form of ultraviolet radiation, reached the surface of the Earth
- Lightning: Lightning storms in the atmosphere contributed great amounts of energy as well.
- Water vapor: Water filled in Earth's crust, carrying many nutritious dissolved compounds to the sea.
- Meteorites: Traces of amino acids and other compounds have been found inside them..

Read about Miller and Urey's apparatus, problems solved

Answer 2

I will answer this with a paste of my last asnwer

READ IT THIS TIME !


Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.

A primordial protoplasmic globule
So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria

No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

check out the link and educate yourself please

Answer 3

No, he disproved abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) as the source of common rots and vermin. He did not disprove that life could arise in a volume such as the oceans over hundreds of millions of years. Creationists are dishonest if they know this, or more likely, mindless parrots who repeat this.

Answer 4

How do you know that there is not some form of "life" forming molecules contained in dark matter? Or from certain forms of star nebula?

You are very ego-centric, just thinking, much like a cave man, of your reality on the teeny tiny speck of dust you know as the earth.

There is probably abundant life in the universe.............

But I'll tell you one thing that is MOST probable: there is not some big sky king who plopped only one form of soul creature on an obscure microscopic planet just to "test" them.

There may very well be some underlying or outer-lying creative force, but it's certainly not the ridiculous blood lusting, Jewish loving God of the Old Testament! LOL!

Answer 5

Alright you guys...Time outs for all of you.
Go to your corner and listen up.

The problem is really quite simple.

First, look at the quotes of Darwin himself when he studied the human eye, or when it became clear the fossil record had no answers for him. Many renown evolutionists have admitted quite clearly that spontaneous generation is impossible but they choose to be an atheist because they choose not to believe in God.

Second,
Evolution could only even try to happened if
1. The cosmos existed for ever
or
2. The cosmos came into existence through spontaneous generation from nothing. Thats No matter/ no energy/ no catalyst.

1-If the laws of thermodynamics are true, 1 is impossible because no matter or energy would be left even now.

2- is impossible because theres nothing/nothing and you gotta have something if you wanna be with me.

The atheist is an atheist because on the surface, its the only seemingly coherent alternative to no God for me.

So atheists, just like I can not prove to you God exists to your satisfaction, just be honest and say I choose not to believe in God but in a theory that can not be proven.

Answer 6

I suspect that you have heard of Louis Pasteur, and that is the extent of your knowledge. Your statement is wrong, illogical, and unscientific. If you have a serious point to make, perhaps you should ask someone else to help you make it.

Answer 7

Nonsense. Did he have an entire planet and 4 billion years to try it? No, he did not. We have the evidence that abiogenesis happened because we're here to talk about it.

ADDENDUM: Laughing at 'Monica' below... Ignorance is no defence you know! :-)

Answer 8

**rolls eyes** do you have link to something showing how he disproved it? did he test this conclusion multiple times in a controlled environment?

Even if evolution was proven false i would be an atheist. I just wouldn't believe in evolution

Answer 9

What the hell does he have to do with anything.

Really, if you make such wild claims, do they seem so self-evident to you that no further explanation is needed?

Answer 10

*looks around*

Ok... With a heading like that this could have been more interesting..