Atheists believe man came from a ROCK. Do you actually believe this?

Question

A typical atheist would say that mankind evolved from a soup of chemicals billions of years ago. Where did that soup come from?

The sea?

Where did the sea come from?

The earth.

Water did NOT come from space. Water was formed from hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms that seperated after the earth cooled down when it first formed.

What is the earth made out of?

Your thoughts?

Answer 1

Straw man Argument!
ergo, worthless.
thanks for the 2

Answer 2

This is a little bit of an over-simplification, but except for the ROCK part is basically correct. Scientists have almost completely verified the first cause singularity theory by studying the wave lengths of distant galaxies. Computer models can easily demonstrate how the gases from a "big bang" would cool and coalesce forming the elements and eventually becoming stars, and planets and dark matter etcetera.

Decades ago, experimenters proved that given the kind of environment that existed on Earth billions of years ago, that simple proteins would form. And evolution has been observed at a microbial level thus proving that theory as well.

There is no need for God. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. The question is, how do we define what He is, and how do we know His purposes? Maybe the deists had it right back in the eighteenth century. Then again, maybe the ignosts are right and since there is no meaningful way to define God then the question of His existence becomes purely academic.

Answer 3

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy, and a technique used almost exclusively by christians.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

Some of the most likely contributing factors to the origin of the Earth's oceans are as follows:

* The cooling of the primordial Earth to the point where the outgassed volatile components were held in an atmosphere of sufficient pressure for the stabilization and retention of liquid water.
* Comets, trans-Neptunian objects or water-rich asteroids (protoplanets) from the outer reaches of the asteroid belt colliding with a pre-historic Earth may have brought water to the world's oceans. Measurements of the ratio of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and protium point to asteroids, since similar percentage impurities in carbon-rich chondrites were found to oceanic water, whereas previous measurement of the isotopes’ concentrations in comets and trans-Neptunian objects correspond only slightly to water on the earth.
* Gradual leakage of water stored in hydrous minerals of the Earth's rocks.
* Photolysis: radiation can break down chemical bonds on the surface.

It is likely that more than one of these factors contributed to the vast oceans, covering more than 70% of the Earth's surface that we have today.

When the earth was at the planetesimal stage, there was probably already water present. This water and other lightweight, fluid constituents such as Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4) and Nitrogen (N2) originated mostly from eruptions or outgassings of the primal earth and formed a young, water-vapour free primal earth atmosphere. These were, according to present models and simulations, carried away by the solar wind that at the time of the formation of the Earth was much stronger than today, and so escaped the Earth until it had about 40% its current radius (and gravity could retain the atmosphere). Later through volcanism came the creation of a newer atmosphere, which may also have contained water-vapour released from the earth’s interior. With the development of a solid earth’s crust and further cooling down, the water vapour condensed and hence formed the first oceans.

The large amount of water that is present on the Earth in comparison to other earth-like bodies cannot be alone explained by that released from the earth’s interior. The planetesimals formed in a period of the early Solar system, when there was relatively little water around. The closer to the sun one was, the higher the temperature and the less water present. First, outside the solar ‘snow line’, which lay roughly where the Asteroid belt is today, water could be found in considerable abundance. Carbonaceous chondrites, which it is generally agreed formed in the outer reaches of the asteroid belt, indicate a water content of sometimes more than 10% of their weight, whereas common chondrites or enstatite chondrites from the nearer regions of the asteroid belt comprise less than 0.1% of their weight in water.. Moreover it can be supposed that during the accretion of the planetesimals into planets and the loss of the primitive atmosphere would result in the larger proportion of the originally present water being lost. Hence it is in many cases assumed that the majority of the water present on the Earth today came from the outer regions of the Solar System.

Answer 4

No, a typical CREATIONIST says "Atheists believe man came from a rock".

Like everybody else who posts science questions in the religious section, I can tell you're insincere. You're not actually interested in hearing the answers and understanding science. You're just another pretentious armchair theologian who thinks he can debunk centuries of scientific research by just saying a few straw-man arguments.

"My thoughts", you ask? I think you should go research abiogenesis if it's a subject you want to learn more about.

For that matter, wake up to the fact that 1) you don't have to be an atheist to accept what science has to say, and 2) even if science didn't have an answer, that does not lend one ounce of credibility to the claim that a big invisible man formed people out of clay and a rib.

Answer 5

My thoughts are that you haven't bothered to touch on science nearly as much as you are expounding here.
Aren't the fundamentalists arguing that man came from a pile of dirt? Not much better. However, you're asumption about the typical nonbelievers beliefs on the origin of life are far off the mark. According to many religious believers, and especially by proponents of Intelligent Design, there can't be any scientific explanation for the beginning of life. Fortunately scientists aren't listening to such nonsense and are actively engaged in an effort to discover how life began. They've made a lot of progress in recent decades and we have every reason to think that progress will continue.

Answer 6

Sadly, you have shown that you have a rather tenuous grasp of the actual science behind evolution and have forced that little that you do know to fit a rather weak argument of your own design.

I would suggest you do some more intensive research on paragraphs 5 and 6. To help you, here's an informative site that will give you some strong scientific answers that you need to become acquainted with: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

I also highly recommend Bestanswer do some similar research as well seeing the Koran isn't a scientific document.

Answer 7

Quote from Cardiff University

Recent probes inside comets show it is overwhelmingly likely that life began in space, according to a new research paper by Cardiff scientists.

Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe and colleagues at the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology have long argued the case for panspermia – the theory that life began inside comets and then spread to habitable planets across the galaxy. A recent BBC Horizon documentary traced the development of the theory.

Now the team claims that findings from space probes sent to investigate passing comets reveal how the first organisms could have started.

The 2005 Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1 discovered a mixture of organic and clay particles inside the comet. One theory for the origins of life proposes that clay particles acted as a catalyst, converting simple organic molecules into more complex structures. The 2004 Stardust Mission to Comet Wild 2 found a range of complex hydrocarbon molecules – potential building blocks for life.

The Cardiff team suggests that radioactive elements can maintain water in its liquid form inside comets for millions of years, making them potentially ideal “incubators” for early life. They also point out that the billions of comets in our solar system and across the galaxy contain far more clay than the early Earth did. The researchers calculate the odds of life starting on Earth rather than inside a comet at one trillion trillion (1024) to one against.

Professor Wickramasinghe said: “The findings of the comet missions, which surprised many, strengthen the argument for panspermia. We now have a mechanism for how it could have happened. All the necessary elements – clay, organic molecules and water – are there. The longer time scale and the greater mass of comets make it overwhelmingly more likely that life began in space than on earth.”

The new paper, The Origin of Life in Comets, by Professor Wickramasinghe, Professor Bill Napier and Dr Janaki Wickramasinghe is to be published shortly by the International Journal of Astrobiology.

Answer 8

I talk to rocks every day, rock minds/heads and stone hearts. I talk to dead people too who walk around thinking they are alive. How about you?

The purifying water of knowledge and understanding flows out of the mouths and hearts of those imbued with wisdom and slakes the thirst of millions.

The earth and heavens are made new and change for people every day when they make a paradigm shift from drinking the water of knowledge. That same water of knowledge and understanding dissolves and tears down mountains of rock and resistance and literally reshapes the earth as we apply what we come to know and understand individually and collectively.

Answer 9

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Doesn't Genesis clearly state that the Lord made Adam out of dust of the earth? Isn't that exactly what you are making fun of? It does not state how God did it. The Bible is not a history book. It just says that He did it. If Science fills in the blanks, that works for me.

Answer 10

No matter how impossible or incredible as it sounds this in general makes more sense than 'god did it'.
How did god do it? Don’t know do you?
You ask: Where did that soup come from?
I ask: Where did god come from?
Who made god?
AND, did god wave his arms or a wand or think it all into existence or did he pass wind to animate all of it into existence?

By the way, who said "man came from a ROCK"?
No atheist I know believes such a thing.
You and your evil kind are knowingly spreading vicious lies about us.
Why? Do you fear us because we don’t fear what you fear?

[edit]
Oh, and all my questions were *rhetorical.