Forgive me if this has been discussed before but I want to ask those who do not believe in any Gods or creators, what do they think is the driving force behind life. What I'm trying to say is, we argue about evolution v creation as regards the evidence we have but, say if evolution is true, then what is the intelligence behind the cells changing and re-organising themselves, who or what is directing them?
This question in fact contains a logical fallacy known as "begging the question". Why do you assume that there is some kind of "intelligence" behind the development of natural organisms? The closest are the processes of natural selection and genetic drift, but they can hardly be said to possess "intelligence", considering that they are concepts, and not living things that possess brains.
I directed the question towards atheist because anyone else would most probably belief in a higher force of some kind. I am interested in genuine answers from people who believe that everything was just a big accident and all came into being through pure chance.
Again, you beg the question by using the word "accident". To say that everything was an "accident", you would be stating that a being caused such an accident, implying there to be a god/superpowerful organism, something that atheists don't accept.
Also, "pure chance" may be the wrong term. For instance, abiogenesis was not a result of "chance", but biochemical processes, which utilize chemical reactions and interactions. And evolution is guided by natural selection, the opposite of chance.
"There's no intelligence involved" WOW! That's a bold statement! Are you sure you mean that?
There is no need for him to prove a negative, as there is no evidence that intelligence guided the development of life on Earth, or the development of the Earth in general. If you believe otherwise, than it is your job to present arguments that prove such.
I know what natural selection is, it's simply survival of the fittest or most efficient which then prosper.
Since there is a huge misunderstanding in regards to what "survival of the fittest" means in a Darwinian context, I think it might be best if I clarify.
"fittest", in this instance, doesn't necessarily mean most endowed, physically or mentally. It means organism that is most adapted to it's environment, which can come through strength, intelligence, natural defense mechanisms, etc. This allows for creatures to be able to spread their genes to their offspring, therefore allowing that genetic line to continue through the population.
However, I'm talking how life suddenly appeared and evolved.
As noted, abiogenesis is not "random". Exactly what evidence does you possess that demonstrates that intelligence would be necessary?
There is no credible evidence that intelligence guided abiogenesis or the evolution of organisms. Therefore, it is sensible to retain that position until credible evidence emerges.
I didn't ask for proof of a lack of divine intervention, I asked for proof of the theory that we all came from a soup of chemicals that just hapened to react and fuse into 'life'.
You show a woeful lack of information on how exactly science works. There is no "proof" is science, only evidentiary support. This is because scientific theories, even those believed to almost certainly be true, can be overturned in science if solid enough contrary evidence presents itself.
After all there are enough people who throw the 'show me the proof' argument at people who do believe in the supernatural, why shouldn't it be the same the other way around? Is there definitive proof or is it just a case of having 'faith' in the soup theory?
Again, you throw around the word "proof", which is absolutely meaningless in discussions of science. In addition, there has officially been life created in the laboratory, something that creationists claimed for years couldn't happen as a result of abiogenesis being false.
From the website "Wired", Brandom Keim reports-
Brandom Keim (Wired Science) said:
They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.
At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherlands team added phosphate. Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide! said Sutherland.
According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating warm little pond hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.
Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.
Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherlands team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.
Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry, said Sutherland. Theyre doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldnt be viewed as complicated.
(See the article "Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory".)
If you don't think life is intelligent then how do you define your own intelligence?
I define my intelligence by what I know, my ability to articulate my own thoughts, and my ability to do such as compared by my peers.
Curious to know how you think[/quote]
