Hi all,
Here is an abstract from a paper published at the National Institute for Biotechnology Information, specifically for all those who have been calling for peer-reviewable articles and papers at credible scientific organizations.
It confirms what most scientists already knew, that life did not come about by chance, or we have no clue how it happened.
Comments?
A
Cell Biol Int. 2004;28(11):729-39.
Trevors JT, Abel DL.
Laboratory of Microbial Technology, Department of Environmental Biology, Room 3220, Bovey Building, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1.
Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical-chemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination. Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of "sense" in any strand. "Sense" means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic--that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled.
Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life.
-
Anonymous
Yes! And here's some stats:
Firstly let me mention. For the creation of the universe and matter and life, there are two options. Spontaneous creation by chance, or creation. I'm sure you can observe the scientific truth when you read these statistics, given by NASA.
1. THE PROBABILITY OF THE SPONTANEOUS PRODUCTION OF JUST 1 AMOEBAE = 1 in 1040,000
2. Consider this. To win a state lottery you have about 1 chance in ten million (10/7). The odds of winning the state lottery every single week of your life from age 18 to age 99 is 1 chance in 4.6 x 1029,120. Therefore, the odds of winning the state lottery every week consecutively for eighty years is more likely than the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of an amoebae!
3. After completing his research, Hoyle stated that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacteria, "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein.
Hoyle also stated:
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
IMPORTANT NOTE: Mathematicians tell us that if an event has a probability which is less likely than one chance in 1050, then that event is mathematically impossible. Such an event, if it were to occur, would be considered a miracle.
Firstly let me mention. For the creation of the universe and matter and life, there are two options. Spontaneous creation by chance, or creation. I'm sure you can observe the scientific truth when you read these statistics, given by NASA.
1. THE PROBABILITY OF THE SPONTANEOUS PRODUCTION OF JUST 1 AMOEBAE = 1 in 1040,000
2. Consider this. To win a state lottery you have about 1 chance in ten million (10/7). The odds of winning the state lottery every single week of your life from age 18 to age 99 is 1 chance in 4.6 x 1029,120. Therefore, the odds of winning the state lottery every week consecutively for eighty years is more likely than the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of an amoebae!
3. After completing his research, Hoyle stated that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacteria, "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein.
Hoyle also stated:
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
IMPORTANT NOTE: Mathematicians tell us that if an event has a probability which is less likely than one chance in 1050, then that event is mathematically impossible. Such an event, if it were to occur, would be considered a miracle.
-
Anonymous
Misunderstanding
Alright. This is going to be a little difficult, but there is a little bit of misconception, whether intentional or accidental.
First, "sponataneous" is indeed pretty danged difficult to acheive. However, the belief generally held is not that life "spontaneously" arose. Creation assumes spontaneous...science assumes gradual. That's what I am having trouble understanding. If God said "Let it be so," and it was so, then what is the difference between that and spontaneity?
Science describes gradual modifications. The odds of gradual modifications favor something much more probable than impossible. Take this, for example. Assuming we have all the letters of the alphabet in a can, and then we shake up that can and toss all the letters on a table, the odds are pretty slim that the letters on the table will write the sentence "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." That is spontaneity, and the odds are pretty close to impossible...however, that's something the Bible describes through creation. God said "let there be a sentence!" and the quick brown fox sentence came into existence.
Metaphorically speaking, science describes a gradual process that took place over millions of years. Imagine the oceans filled with the letters of the alphabet. The letters are microscopic, but the waters are as wide as they are today. Let's assume that when we add a little bit of lightning to the mix of letters swarming the ocean, the letters "z" and "y" join chemically. Now, you have trillions of letters floating around with millions of "zy" combinations. Then, assume that the currents of the waters, when the temperatures are just right, introduce a letter "a" to the combination. Now, you have a couple million "azy" combinations floating around the multitude of free-floating letters. Assume these letters can combine with any of the other letters floating around in the ocean, but some of the combinations don't work. If "azy" meets up with "cbt," then you get a load of nonsense. However, this load of nonsense is also floating around. (This is the kind of thing that happens when you have infinite possibilities floating around in the ocean at a microscopic scale.) Eventually, there will be trillions of the word "lazy" floating around in the ocean. It wasn't spontaneous, but took a few million years. Now, imagine this word is self-replicating. The letters "lazy" meet up with a random assortment of other letters, such as "cvtb." There is quite a match there. Every time "cvtb" meets up with a random pool of letters, the "lazy" meets up perfectly with it. Once the entire word "lazy" has been 'written,' it breaks off from the free-floating "cvtb" and becomes its own word. How many 'lazy' words are there now? It's much easier to replicate the word off a template than it is to form spontaneously.
This is a metaphor for the chemical world. Remember biochemistry? Templates, more commonly referred to as "catalysts," speed up chemical reactions. It wouldn't take much time at all to create billions of 'lazy' words floating around. It would almost appear that there was a boom of life, if the word "lazy" were an amoeba. Once there is a catalyst, everything is sped up as though the universe's creator had just finished his or her seventieth pot of coffee.
Assuming every word of the sentence had its own catalyst, created as a result of millions of years of ocean waters swirling around with trillions of 'letters,' then there would soon be as many words as there were catalysts floating around.
Mathematically, especially genetically speaking, there is a great deal of genetic similarities in all of life.
Metaphoric Examples:
Human Genetic Code="The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."
Chimpanzee Code="The quick brown fox over jumped the lazy dog."
Rabbit Code="The quick fox brown over jumped dog lazy the."
Amoeba Code="Lazy."
Poision Ivy="fox brown over over fox the quick dog jumped dog."
Every element also has its own code, though the words are pretty nonsensical to the world of sense we give ourselves and living things.
Hydrogen=t
Helium=tc
Copper=tqbocksl
Iron=gbomxs
They look nonsensical when they are not alive, but it's still the same letters that make up all of life. Interesting? Maybe not. I enjoy it, though.
FrAndrew, the story you gave about Hoyle is a great one to demonstrate how incredibly unbelievable spontaneity is. I agree with you fully. To have God snap his fingers and create life would be about the same as a tornado assembling a jumbo jet. If God were to instead have an assembly line of people who assembled specific parts and a final stage where all the parts were assembled to create a jumbo jet, it would make more sense to me. That's exactly what biochemistry seems to have proven! A strand of DNA is, metaphorically speaking, and assembly line for proteins. Those proteins, once formed, become everything that is alive, including that single amoeba with such unbelievable odds for spontaneous creation.
Unfortunately, a lot of creationists will disagree with us. Many believe that the theory of evolution describes spontaneous changes, such as a monkey all of a sudden becomes a man. Some of them even go so far as to ridiculous assumptions that a rabbit could spontaneously change into a pig!
I find it humorous, but it only goes to show the lack of scientific understanding many people have before they jump into arguing with scientists.
You [FrAndrew] wrote "IMPORTANT NOTE: Mathematicians tell us that if an event has a probability which is less likely than one chance in 1050, then that event is mathematically impossible. Such an event, if it were to occur, would be considered a miracle." Although I don't know who your sources are or who the mathemeticians are you speak of, I can agree completely (strictly in the context of human observations as opposed to the microscopic 'impossibilities' or 'miracles' offered every nanosecond on the quantum level.) That's another reason I like the catalyst idea. The odds of the already-combined letters "azy" meeting up with a letter "l" are one in twenty-six, or 3.846% as opposed to the incredible odds it would take for a spontaneous meeting of the letters "l-a-z-y".) With billions of different meetings in the ocean of letters every second, that event would still occur billions of times per second. Since the word "lazy" is self-replicating (thanks to catalyst cvtb), the ocean would be full of amoebas. If it weren't for catalysts, the lazy word probably would have only formed a few million times as opposed to the billions that would probably be necessary for the advent of human life.
August: Could you please clear up the language in the Abstract you included and explain to a layman such as myself exactly what this means, scientifically? Sometimes, I don't understand what I am reading, and I am quite certain most of the people who read the abstract will also not understand it, but will instead make an automatic assumption that it means creation is more probable than the scientific theories. Thanks for any clarification.
First, "sponataneous" is indeed pretty danged difficult to acheive. However, the belief generally held is not that life "spontaneously" arose. Creation assumes spontaneous...science assumes gradual. That's what I am having trouble understanding. If God said "Let it be so," and it was so, then what is the difference between that and spontaneity?
Science describes gradual modifications. The odds of gradual modifications favor something much more probable than impossible. Take this, for example. Assuming we have all the letters of the alphabet in a can, and then we shake up that can and toss all the letters on a table, the odds are pretty slim that the letters on the table will write the sentence "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." That is spontaneity, and the odds are pretty close to impossible...however, that's something the Bible describes through creation. God said "let there be a sentence!" and the quick brown fox sentence came into existence.
Metaphorically speaking, science describes a gradual process that took place over millions of years. Imagine the oceans filled with the letters of the alphabet. The letters are microscopic, but the waters are as wide as they are today. Let's assume that when we add a little bit of lightning to the mix of letters swarming the ocean, the letters "z" and "y" join chemically. Now, you have trillions of letters floating around with millions of "zy" combinations. Then, assume that the currents of the waters, when the temperatures are just right, introduce a letter "a" to the combination. Now, you have a couple million "azy" combinations floating around the multitude of free-floating letters. Assume these letters can combine with any of the other letters floating around in the ocean, but some of the combinations don't work. If "azy" meets up with "cbt," then you get a load of nonsense. However, this load of nonsense is also floating around. (This is the kind of thing that happens when you have infinite possibilities floating around in the ocean at a microscopic scale.) Eventually, there will be trillions of the word "lazy" floating around in the ocean. It wasn't spontaneous, but took a few million years. Now, imagine this word is self-replicating. The letters "lazy" meet up with a random assortment of other letters, such as "cvtb." There is quite a match there. Every time "cvtb" meets up with a random pool of letters, the "lazy" meets up perfectly with it. Once the entire word "lazy" has been 'written,' it breaks off from the free-floating "cvtb" and becomes its own word. How many 'lazy' words are there now? It's much easier to replicate the word off a template than it is to form spontaneously.
This is a metaphor for the chemical world. Remember biochemistry? Templates, more commonly referred to as "catalysts," speed up chemical reactions. It wouldn't take much time at all to create billions of 'lazy' words floating around. It would almost appear that there was a boom of life, if the word "lazy" were an amoeba. Once there is a catalyst, everything is sped up as though the universe's creator had just finished his or her seventieth pot of coffee.
Assuming every word of the sentence had its own catalyst, created as a result of millions of years of ocean waters swirling around with trillions of 'letters,' then there would soon be as many words as there were catalysts floating around.
Mathematically, especially genetically speaking, there is a great deal of genetic similarities in all of life.
Metaphoric Examples:
Human Genetic Code="The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."
Chimpanzee Code="The quick brown fox over jumped the lazy dog."
Rabbit Code="The quick fox brown over jumped dog lazy the."
Amoeba Code="Lazy."
Poision Ivy="fox brown over over fox the quick dog jumped dog."
Every element also has its own code, though the words are pretty nonsensical to the world of sense we give ourselves and living things.
Hydrogen=t
Helium=tc
Copper=tqbocksl
Iron=gbomxs
They look nonsensical when they are not alive, but it's still the same letters that make up all of life. Interesting? Maybe not. I enjoy it, though.
FrAndrew, the story you gave about Hoyle is a great one to demonstrate how incredibly unbelievable spontaneity is. I agree with you fully. To have God snap his fingers and create life would be about the same as a tornado assembling a jumbo jet. If God were to instead have an assembly line of people who assembled specific parts and a final stage where all the parts were assembled to create a jumbo jet, it would make more sense to me. That's exactly what biochemistry seems to have proven! A strand of DNA is, metaphorically speaking, and assembly line for proteins. Those proteins, once formed, become everything that is alive, including that single amoeba with such unbelievable odds for spontaneous creation.
Unfortunately, a lot of creationists will disagree with us. Many believe that the theory of evolution describes spontaneous changes, such as a monkey all of a sudden becomes a man. Some of them even go so far as to ridiculous assumptions that a rabbit could spontaneously change into a pig!
I find it humorous, but it only goes to show the lack of scientific understanding many people have before they jump into arguing with scientists. You [FrAndrew] wrote "IMPORTANT NOTE: Mathematicians tell us that if an event has a probability which is less likely than one chance in 1050, then that event is mathematically impossible. Such an event, if it were to occur, would be considered a miracle." Although I don't know who your sources are or who the mathemeticians are you speak of, I can agree completely (strictly in the context of human observations as opposed to the microscopic 'impossibilities' or 'miracles' offered every nanosecond on the quantum level.) That's another reason I like the catalyst idea. The odds of the already-combined letters "azy" meeting up with a letter "l" are one in twenty-six, or 3.846% as opposed to the incredible odds it would take for a spontaneous meeting of the letters "l-a-z-y".) With billions of different meetings in the ocean of letters every second, that event would still occur billions of times per second. Since the word "lazy" is self-replicating (thanks to catalyst cvtb), the ocean would be full of amoebas. If it weren't for catalysts, the lazy word probably would have only formed a few million times as opposed to the billions that would probably be necessary for the advent of human life.
August: Could you please clear up the language in the Abstract you included and explain to a layman such as myself exactly what this means, scientifically? Sometimes, I don't understand what I am reading, and I am quite certain most of the people who read the abstract will also not understand it, but will instead make an automatic assumption that it means creation is more probable than the scientific theories. Thanks for any clarification.
Last edited by Anonymous on Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Mastermind
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm
lightning striking the seas won't have much of an effect actually. Even if a few particles do combine, there is no guarantee they will stay that way, especially if they came about by freak accident and don't fit in with their surroundings. How come there is only one kind of complex mechanism of such small scale in nature, and the rest is so simple? If the odds for naturalism were true, then we should be seeing it a lot more often. I know evolution takes time, but as far as I can tell, it DID NOT have enough time to bring us to where we are today.
-
Anonymous
Metaphor
It was a metaphor, Mastermind, though I like your reply. There are some things I forgot to mention, and it's easier with questioning from inquisitive minds such as yours.
Human body~65%-75% water, depending on age
Human brain~85% water
Surface of Planet Earth~70% water
Human body~18% Carbon
Human body~3% Nitrogen
When you cite the difference between 'complex' and 'simple,' are you really saying 'living' and 'nonliving'? To me, it's all complex. To the truly scientific, it's the same way...that's why science isn't limited only to the human body. There is a vast amount of information out there, and to restrict it to the living things takes away from the beauty of the vast body of knowledge still unknown to us humans.
That is often times completely true. We see it all the time. H2 (two hydrogens) and O (oxygen) can join together to form H20 (water.) You are correct. There is no guarantee they will stay that way forever. Simple chemistry would split the bonds between the two elements, and they would once again be free-floating. Most high school chemistry labs will demonstrate this and will even set fire to the escaping hydrogen gas. (It's a neat experiment, if you've never seen it.) Thank God the oceans tend to stay together! It's pretty much the same way with life, I think. Most of us don't intentionally dump acid down our backs to split the bonds that hold us together, but there is no guarantee we will stay together, either. There are no guarantees in life! You are absolutely correct. Some folks might enjoy having acid dumped on their skin, though I can's say I know anyone like that.Even if a few particles do combine, there is no guarantee they will stay that way
Have you ever heard the chemistry acronym (to me, it makes no sense as to why it's so memorable) 'CHNOPS'? They are the six most common elements in any living entity, whether it be a simple amoeba or a human being. (You learn a lot about these elements in organic chemistry...I've never had the course, personally, but it's an enjoyable read from the library.) Any book about organic chemistry will tell you that there are several million known carbon compounds, and many of those are biomolecules (responsible for reproducting and maintaining life.) Many of those non-biomolecules would be considered 'nonsense' entities to human nature because, quite simply, they are non-living, and the often-cited 'miracles' are strictly limited to living beings. But you were wondering why there are so few complex mechanisms and the rest is so simple, right? None of them are simple. Even a rock is pretty complex chemically, and there are as many unanswered scientific questions regarding a common rock as there are for mankind. Interestingly enough, the elements that make up a rock behave exactly as they do in a living creature. I find that pretty extraordinary and miraculous, so even the common rock is an amazingly awesome thing...don't just kick it next time you see it. Break it down into its chemical components, find out how many of those components exist in living entities, and then relate mankind to rocks. We are no different than the rest of the planet. There are some amazing similarities to the planet that are also apparent in humans...I know evolution takes time, but as far as I can tell, it DID NOT have enough time to bring us to where we are today.
Human body~65%-75% water, depending on age
Human brain~85% water
Surface of Planet Earth~70% water
Human body~18% Carbon
Human body~3% Nitrogen
When you cite the difference between 'complex' and 'simple,' are you really saying 'living' and 'nonliving'? To me, it's all complex. To the truly scientific, it's the same way...that's why science isn't limited only to the human body. There is a vast amount of information out there, and to restrict it to the living things takes away from the beauty of the vast body of knowledge still unknown to us humans.
-
Mastermind
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm
A rock does not fulfill any functions. It is simply a dense material made up out of a whole bunch of chemicals. Just because a rock has as many compounds as a living creature(which i highly doubt) doesn't make it a complex mechanism. Pouring chemicals together doesn't automatically create anything(except a huge explosion if you have really bad luck).
-
Anonymous
Gradual?
I have a basic problem with the "it wasn't instant, it took millions of years" way of thinking.
I think this a way to keep from admitting the improbability of the theory.
An analogy I use is this:
A man is reported to have said that he can turn lead into gold. When questioned about this obvious falsehood, the explains "No I never said I could change lead into gold. That would be foolish. What I said was that I can turn the lead into steel and the steel into cooper and the copper into silver and the salver into gold.
Because he broke the one impossible step into many impossible steps the probability has not changed.
Everyone agrees that going from nothing to the Cell is impossible.
Going from nothing to live RNA is just as impossible as going from nothing to live proteins and each of those is just a impossible as going from nothing to the Cell.
So explaining an improbable operation by breaking it into one or more improbable peaces is no solution.
I think evolutionists are convinced that time adds additional chemistry.
For example: peptide bonds are forms as a de-hydrating process. They CANNOT be formed in water. For 2 amino acids to bond there requires the release of a water molecule. This is impossible in a 'soup'. On dry land the problem is the oxygen destroying the bonds. If one believes that there was no oxygen at that time then the UV rays from the sun will destroy it.
No amount of time can really fix this.
I think this a way to keep from admitting the improbability of the theory.
An analogy I use is this:
A man is reported to have said that he can turn lead into gold. When questioned about this obvious falsehood, the explains "No I never said I could change lead into gold. That would be foolish. What I said was that I can turn the lead into steel and the steel into cooper and the copper into silver and the salver into gold.
Because he broke the one impossible step into many impossible steps the probability has not changed.
Everyone agrees that going from nothing to the Cell is impossible.
Going from nothing to live RNA is just as impossible as going from nothing to live proteins and each of those is just a impossible as going from nothing to the Cell.
So explaining an improbable operation by breaking it into one or more improbable peaces is no solution.
I think evolutionists are convinced that time adds additional chemistry.
For example: peptide bonds are forms as a de-hydrating process. They CANNOT be formed in water. For 2 amino acids to bond there requires the release of a water molecule. This is impossible in a 'soup'. On dry land the problem is the oxygen destroying the bonds. If one believes that there was no oxygen at that time then the UV rays from the sun will destroy it.
No amount of time can really fix this.
-
August
- Old School
- Posts: 2402
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
Hi Elishyah,
If life was created, then we assume that it was designed in such a way that the impossible steps became possible.
The article asks exactly the question that you do, how can all of this happen by chance? The answer is we don't know, but it borders on the impossible for life to have come about by chance, and to have become what we see today by chance.
I may be missing your point here, please elaborate if needed.
If life was created, then we assume that it was designed in such a way that the impossible steps became possible.
The article asks exactly the question that you do, how can all of this happen by chance? The answer is we don't know, but it borders on the impossible for life to have come about by chance, and to have become what we see today by chance.
I may be missing your point here, please elaborate if needed.
-
Anonymous
My point was about what skoobieschnax said about the "widely held beliefs" of scientists.
For instance:
This was the idea that I was speaking to.Science describes gradual modifications. The odds of gradual modifications favor something much more probable than impossible.
For instance:
Without a mechanism I can't see the difference between the two. Neither is likely without some way to bring it about.Creation assumes spontaneous...science assumes gradual.
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Nice point Elishyah. So because a Scientific mechanism for life's origin appears to be a "true" gap in our Scientific knowledge, and not just something we are ignorant of, wouldn't it be reasonable to follow through to a conclusion of a design scenario? At the very least, it seems like a extremely rational position to take...
Kurieuo.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
Anonymous
Also many people who support the theory of evolution also don't have a problem with the Big Bang, in essence they are taking an agnostic view. However in doing this they forget that you can't go from nothing to something without a Creator and or hide behind the Miller and Urey(sp?) experiments, which i believe proved very little but they are still viewed as having provided organic compouds capable of forming life. The only way to really support evolution is if your view of God is that he isn't all knowing and perfect.
-
Anonymous
Sorry about taking so long to respond to this one, guys. I've been busy trying to bond together some chemicals with broken bonds...in other words, I'm trying to (hopefully) get some people to understand my odd sense of humor instead of taking offense to it.
Feel free to bash me, by the way (so long as it's funny as opposed to ad hominem, please! Or, it can be a funny ad hominem, either way is okay with me.)
A lot of scientists struggle with the very concept you are explaining...no matter how far back you go and try to explain it as "simple steps to build a complex organism," it doesn't really change the fact that we still don't know where even the simplest things in our universe came from...you can say the Big Bang, of course, but where did the "smaller-than-atom-sized particle with the mass of the universe" come from? You can say it always existed, it has always existed, and it will never cease to exist, but that does sound like a religion to me. I believe (here comes that relativistic viewpoint again. sigh.) that we will never know with absolute certainty where the stuff came from that made all the stuff--that's the scientific way of putting it. (I like the little emoticon thingies. It adds a little color to my world of black-and-white.)
I do understand that science doesn't have all the answers, and it is quite fun to speculate with science fiction or pure conjecture, but I don't see the need to claim absolute certainty as far as a religion goes--just as I can't say, with absolute certainty, that I believe in infinite parallel universes that collide, on rare occasions, with our own universe...to me, that's the same thing as speaking of God. Something exists outside of time and space (as we know it) and is responsible for creating the things we cannot explain. It just doesn't sound scientific to me and is impossible to prove one way or another (with our current mathematical formulas, logic, and current science.)
Evidently, though, life is not impossible. We are alive and we witness other living things. How it came to be, when you go all the way back to the moments before the Big Bang, are only speculation. It seems odd that if we truly are nothing more than chemicals that can be found in rocks, clay, water, and atmosphere (believe it or not--it's a scientific absolute as opposed to a relativistic philosophy), how did we develop a consciousness? It is still unanswered, and it might be an interesting quest to develop ideas on it--unique ideas, fresh ideas, and fun ideas, like the writers of The Matrix had in mind before casting Keanu.
My relativistic philosophy on all of this: I prefer to have fun with it all and make up my own stories as opposed to believe in other people's stories...oh, yeah--for those who are wondering--I do not believe my stories when I tell them. It's strictly for the sake of fun storytelling!
Mastermind, I don't believe you when you say a rock holds no functions...take away all the rocks (including a lot of the dirt since dirt is, for the most part, ground rocks) and the earth could not harbor human life. In that sense, the rocks keep us alive and anything that keeps us alive is, in essence, a part of us. That's a relativistic philosophy, but I must admit that I love rocks (and hence, geology.) Of course, the same is true of the water, the sun, and the weather, but this part of my post is dedicated solely to the rocks.
I guess I see what you're asking, K, and my answer is simply that I do not know and cannot claim to know. I believe (there's my relativistic view) that the experiments of Stanley Miller were on the right track to proving something about all things, but what? So far, I still like my personal philosophy that everything has come about as a desire for some type of universal consciousness to further understand itself...weird, huh?
Like I said, merely for the sake of fun, but it's one of those "what if?" questions I like to ask myself to get ideas for my creative writing stories. What if all of life arose as a result of a universal consciousness having a desire to understand itself? Could that universal consciousness be God? If so, who's God? What if God is a generic term, but He/ She/ It is real in all aspects, but is imperfect and is very much like a human being, looking further into itself to learn more about the universe between the ears as well as the one outside the eyes? All fun. No truth...not absolute, anyway. Relatively, I believe it all(metaphorically.) It makes sense on a small scale because, at least on earth and from what has been observed, everything is connected to/ relies on something else to keep going. This way, our lives are intertwined in a universal web, and we are all connected as a species as well as to other species. We should all love each other as a single race of humanity as opposed to the crap about "America is the greatest country" or "Group A is better than Group B" or anything like that...we are all one in my philosophy. Erase boundaries because all of our boundaries are the same on this planet...we all need water, air, sun, healthy food, and exercise to survive, so where is anyone else different from you? Religion? Who cares. You don't believe my philosophy as absolute truth?!? Neither do I! I believe it as relative truth because I see my place in the web of life, and from my perspective I am necessary to hold up other strands, just as everyone else. Religion or philosophy cannot be absolute...that's where I stand, K.
I forgot, I haven't slept in about 50 hours. I really should TRY to get some sleep, anyway. I've been rambling on for a good while now.
Feel free to bash me, by the way (so long as it's funny as opposed to ad hominem, please! Or, it can be a funny ad hominem, either way is okay with me.)
See? That's a funny one! Time adds additional chemistry! Actually, this was a very interesting post, Elish. You didn't add any of the Satan did it or God did it jargon, which makes any debate much more tolerable and also gives you credibility right away. Thanks for joining! Also, I liked your analogy. It was very purposeful and clarified your position quite a bit.Everyone agrees that going from nothing to the Cell is impossible.
Going from nothing to live RNA is just as impossible as going from nothing to live proteins and each of those is just a impossible as going from nothing to the Cell.
So explaining an improbable operation by breaking it into one or more improbable peaces is no solution.
I think evolutionists are convinced that time adds additional chemistry.
A lot of scientists struggle with the very concept you are explaining...no matter how far back you go and try to explain it as "simple steps to build a complex organism," it doesn't really change the fact that we still don't know where even the simplest things in our universe came from...you can say the Big Bang, of course, but where did the "smaller-than-atom-sized particle with the mass of the universe" come from? You can say it always existed, it has always existed, and it will never cease to exist, but that does sound like a religion to me. I believe (here comes that relativistic viewpoint again. sigh.) that we will never know with absolute certainty where the stuff came from that made all the stuff--that's the scientific way of putting it.
(I like the little emoticon thingies. It adds a little color to my world of black-and-white.) I do understand that science doesn't have all the answers, and it is quite fun to speculate with science fiction or pure conjecture, but I don't see the need to claim absolute certainty as far as a religion goes--just as I can't say, with absolute certainty, that I believe in infinite parallel universes that collide, on rare occasions, with our own universe...to me, that's the same thing as speaking of God. Something exists outside of time and space (as we know it) and is responsible for creating the things we cannot explain. It just doesn't sound scientific to me and is impossible to prove one way or another (with our current mathematical formulas, logic, and current science.)
Evidently, though, life is not impossible. We are alive and we witness other living things. How it came to be, when you go all the way back to the moments before the Big Bang, are only speculation. It seems odd that if we truly are nothing more than chemicals that can be found in rocks, clay, water, and atmosphere (believe it or not--it's a scientific absolute as opposed to a relativistic philosophy), how did we develop a consciousness? It is still unanswered, and it might be an interesting quest to develop ideas on it--unique ideas, fresh ideas, and fun ideas, like the writers of The Matrix had in mind before casting Keanu.
My relativistic philosophy on all of this: I prefer to have fun with it all and make up my own stories as opposed to believe in other people's stories...oh, yeah--for those who are wondering--I do not believe my stories when I tell them.
It's strictly for the sake of fun storytelling! Mastermind, I don't believe you when you say a rock holds no functions...take away all the rocks (including a lot of the dirt since dirt is, for the most part, ground rocks) and the earth could not harbor human life. In that sense, the rocks keep us alive and anything that keeps us alive is, in essence, a part of us. That's a relativistic philosophy, but I must admit that I love rocks (and hence, geology.) Of course, the same is true of the water, the sun, and the weather, but this part of my post is dedicated solely to the rocks.
More confusion I've caused. I didn't mean any ordinary rock, I was pretty much referring to all the different rock types. I'm not saying you could pick up a piece of quartzite and smoosh it together with a chunk of halite and a living creature will spontaneously arise from the...whatever you would have. I'm just saying that all the elements that make up humans can be found in a natural, non-living form (such as rocks, clay, water, etc.) We are as much a part of the cycles of nature as anything.Just because a rock has as many compounds as a living creature(which i highly doubt) doesn't make it a complex mechanism. Pouring chemicals together doesn't automatically create anything
I hope this post has answered that, K...I don't really have a point of view, considering there really isn't any science that can be used to give me a position. I can speculate, but that's merely for the sake of fun, as I've said. I definitely have no plans to debate with any scientists on how I believe the human species came about as a result of a universal consciousness that has always existed, though that is something I wonder from time to time when I play around with my own philosophies. Scientific philosophy, though? Is there such a thing?Just want to clarify before responding in depth, but what is the general Scientific origin of life position you advocate Skoobs
I guess I see what you're asking, K, and my answer is simply that I do not know and cannot claim to know. I believe (there's my relativistic view) that the experiments of Stanley Miller were on the right track to proving something about all things, but what? So far, I still like my personal philosophy that everything has come about as a desire for some type of universal consciousness to further understand itself...weird, huh?
Like I said, merely for the sake of fun, but it's one of those "what if?" questions I like to ask myself to get ideas for my creative writing stories. What if all of life arose as a result of a universal consciousness having a desire to understand itself? Could that universal consciousness be God? If so, who's God? What if God is a generic term, but He/ She/ It is real in all aspects, but is imperfect and is very much like a human being, looking further into itself to learn more about the universe between the ears as well as the one outside the eyes? All fun. No truth...not absolute, anyway. Relatively, I believe it all(metaphorically.) It makes sense on a small scale because, at least on earth and from what has been observed, everything is connected to/ relies on something else to keep going. This way, our lives are intertwined in a universal web, and we are all connected as a species as well as to other species. We should all love each other as a single race of humanity as opposed to the crap about "America is the greatest country" or "Group A is better than Group B" or anything like that...we are all one in my philosophy. Erase boundaries because all of our boundaries are the same on this planet...we all need water, air, sun, healthy food, and exercise to survive, so where is anyone else different from you? Religion? Who cares. You don't believe my philosophy as absolute truth?!? Neither do I! I believe it as relative truth because I see my place in the web of life, and from my perspective I am necessary to hold up other strands, just as everyone else. Religion or philosophy cannot be absolute...that's where I stand, K.I forgot, I haven't slept in about 50 hours. I really should TRY to get some sleep, anyway. I've been rambling on for a good while now.
Last edited by Anonymous on Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Skoobs, I must complement you on going to the trouble of detailing your position, and I admire that you at least confessed to there being a gap (a true gap in my opinion that no natural answer can account for), even though we place our faith in two different solutions to the problem. 
Kurieuo.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)