Could life really have just "happened"? Atheists typically argue that the Universe and subsequent life could..

Question

have randomly begun after the right amino acids combined together to form the first single celled creatures, then evolved eg. evolution. Religious people (Intelligent Design)argue that the diversity of life is so great that the chance of it just occuring by accident is so small as to be effectually impossible. Atheists counter that given an infinite amount of time any possibility no matter how unlikely will eventually occur. Mathematically this is true. However, I would argue that we are not dealing with an infinite amount of time. Most scientists agree that the best explanation for the begining of the Universe is the Big Bang. Life could not have existsed before that time and survived, so even though we are talking about a very long time, it is still not infinite. Therefore, is the Intelligent Design argument not correct. The likelyhood of life just happening is so unlikely as to be effectually impossible, therefore there had to be an intelligent plan in place before hand, i.e. God.

Answer 1

Evolution provides an excellent answer to the diversity of species. When you said"Religious people (Intelligent Design)argue that the diversity of life is so great that the chance of it just occuring by accident is so small as to be effectually impossible."That is really putting apples into the orange cart,evolution mixing with Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the formation of the first life form,Evolution takes it from there. regardless of an above posters quite ignorant,non-researched at all notion that a bird will grow half a wing according to evolution,TOE is actually irrefutable,if one takes the time to learn it and realise what TOE says,but many don't,preferring creationist websites that can ONLY appeal to the ignorant,as they are full of half-truths,omissions,and outright lies. Evolution is predictable,and has been successfully predicted and observed. I'm not very computer savvy,but if you want,mail me. I will show you some very recent studies confirming my assertion.Amino acids have been observed in interstellar clouds,so the fundamental building blocks are not uncommon. Ther really is no way to predict "odds" with only one source of reference,The Earth. Any "statistics"or "odds" are meaningless,simply pulled out of thin air.It is sort of like the weatherman standing there telling you "20% chance of rain"while it is raining. Once it rains,the chance is 100%. The odds of getting a "royal flush" are a long shot. I,myself have gotten a royal on the very first hand. Google "multiple lottery winners",The odds of winning the lottery are less than that of a royal flush,yet many have won it more than once. That is in the past 20 years alone. "odds" are meaningless,we are here,evolution is not a debate,only a few fringe nutjobs,who prey on the ignorant,would have you think there is not almost universal consensus as to it's validity.One more thing about "odds" The odds can be a trillion,trillion,trillion to one,and the event with the "odds" stacked against it can still occur on chance #1,just as much "odds" as it occurring on chance # 100,000,000,000,000,000. It happened,so now the "chance" is 100%. Let no one decieve you.

Answer 2

Even if a single-celled organism was created it can't evolve into a multi-celled organism. Evolution is simply impossible.

"The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense."

Answer 3

You use the words "randomly" and "unlikely" very freely and incautiously. Evolutionists (not atheists) do not claim that the process of evolution was random, that its component processes were unlikely nor that infinite time was either necessary or available.

Leaving aside your ignorant straw-man caricature of evolution, all you can hope to accomplish by this line of argument is to show that what you say your opponents believe is flawed, leaving no explanation - you've neither proved nor even supported your alternative.

Answer 4

Infinite doesn't mean it didn't start it just means it has no end, current thinking on the universe is that it will continue to expand forever so technically time is infinite.

also to address the wing statement
Half a wing can have any of several uses:

* In insects, half a wing is useful for skimming rapidly across the surface of water (Marden and Kramer 1995; Kramer and Marden 1997; Thomas et al. 2000).
* In larger animals, half a wing is useful for gliding. Airfoils for gliding appear in several different forms in many different animals, including
o skin between legs on flying squirrels (Petauristinae), scaly-tailed squirrels (Anomaluridae), flying phalangers, and flying lemurs
o flattened body of the flying snake (Chrysopelea)
o large webbed feet on gliding tree frogs (Rhacophorus and Polypedates)
o fins on flying fish (Exocoetidae) and flying squid (Onychoteuthis)
o expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated flexible ribs on gliding lizards (e.g., Draco)
o expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated jointed ribs on the Kuehneosauridae from the late Triassic
o lateral membrane supported by bones separate from the rest of the skeleton on Coelurosauravus jaekeli, an Upper Permian flying reptile (Frey et al. 1997)
o even an ant (Cephalotes atratus), when it falls, uses its hind legs to direct its aerial descent back to its home tree's trunk (Yanoviak et al. 2005).
* In immature chickens, wing-flapping enhances hindlimb traction, allowing the chickens to ascend steeper inclines. This function could be an intermediate to the original flight of birds. (Dial 2003)
* In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.
* In some flightless birds, wings are probably used for startling potential predators.
* Black herons use their wings to shade the water in which they fish.
* Some owls use their wings to hold their prey against the ground.
* Nighthawks, woodcocks, riflebirds, and several species of manakins make noises with their wings as part of sexual displays.
* Partial wings may have other useful functions that nobody has thought of yet.

Answer 5

There's nothing random about the process of natural selection. Intelligent design is a pseudoscience. It's not real science.

Answer 6

The probability of an event that already occurred is 1.

Answer 7

Of course it is false, we need a god to create everything ..... so it solve all the problem except for the fact if this god created everything, what created the god? Why is there a double standard?