This did not come about by chance...

Even Crick acknowledges the improbability of life arising from a primordial soup, by happenstance. So later on he says life must have been brought here by ETs. But that still doesn't help, for the ETs had to arise by happenstance as well.

The problem with atheists who want to negate an intelligent forces being involved is that they need a faith in the improbable actually happening. For what do they have, other than that? So they are driven into something that is less credible than the idea of an intelligent force.

I think it's more of a psychological question than anything else. And it just shows the power of wanting to believe in something. They, for emotional reasons must reject the idea of some sort of creative force, and that is the motive that drives them into what is basic absurdity. When the math shows just how absurd it is, they still have faith in the absurdity. So this is a psychological deal here. Psychology drives this.

Someone on this thread said if you have a b, and c then D is a 100 percent probability. With D being life. But this is pure assumption, for they have never put a, b, and c together to get D. And if they could, then they would have something important. And it will require this, in order for their views to be anything other than placing a faith, in their ideas.

Yet even then, if they could do that, one would have to ask, why was the universe such that when you put a b and c together D happened? And then the idea of an intelligent power would be injected back into it. For we have just added another coincidence to the argument. If life is ever found to be ubiquitous, throughout the universe, given the right conditions the right parameter, then it looks like the universe was just designed to yield life, in the way that it exists. Not only life, but if its advanced, also a consciousness that is aware, that it is aware. When you start to consider all of the so called coincidences, at some point the mind has to say, this is no coincidence.

Perhaps atheists just cannot bear the idea that their existence actually has some intrinsic meaning and they cannot stand that it does? For they demand a meaningless existence, which might just be a psychological aberration, as we have other psychological aberrations? And therefore their atheism which they try to base upon science is just an aberration, given that there is a great commonality in all cultures, in all eras, coming up with this idea of a creator.

 

Saying "God did it" doesn't make anything more likely to have happened. Nor is God evidenced by long odds. If you were to flip a coin 100 times and have them all come up heads does that mean God is alive - or dead?? I do agree that the ET thing doesn't mean much. It only lets us guess that there was some other place in the universe that was more conducive to life. And, we clearly don't know that. If we are interested in truth we will base our understanding on evidence. And, there is no evidence of God. Ancient stories are not evidence. Long odds on processes we don't understand are not evidence of god. Humans have thought all sorts of things came from god before we understood them. Abiogenesis is just one more question to which we have no full and complete answer.

Existence means what it is - no more and no less. My existence means all I've got. Guessing there is a magical being to whom my existence means more? Now THAT is a crutch if there ever was one.

The commonality among all cultures is that we are HUMANS - not that we share a religion, because we do not. In fact, pretty much every religion throughout history has had as a founding tenet that those of ALL other religions are wrong or even evil - quite possibly justifying murder. It's crystal clear that a human characteristic is that humans resort to religion when they have no other explanation and when they desire authority. Man would make "god" regardless of whether there is a god.

Consciousness? Mankind competed on brain power when other life forms competed in other ways. The result was brains that are large and complex enough to give us self awareness, emotions, etc. - stuff that seems magical, but is all quite logical. Humans used to think the purpose of the heart is that it is the house for the soul, and that was where we got features of morality, consciousness, emotion, etc. - how humans are guided. But, we now understand that there is no such thing in human anatomy and that our hearts, like those of other animals, have a very different purpose.

 

This isn't an argument and nonetheless the conceptual premise misses critical aspects of what "chance" and "random" mean. First and foremost when one is talking about the likelihood of an event we require a precise definition of the state space all such events live in. The state space contains all possible outcomes, i.e. every event with non-zero probability lives in the state space. Positing life is unprecedentedly unlikely seems intuitive at first but is a blind assumption since there is no knowledge of the structure of the state space. It is entirely possible that life must exist in the universe.

 

Because organic life is organic life because it has carbon atoms in it. I'm pretty sure if it's made out of inorganic material, it's not organic.

- - - Updated - - -

So far yeah. If we keep experimenting, we'll find something that might expand the list.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure. Saying that god came up with a plan for everything to go as it did is in itself a theory. But it's not a scientific theory. That crosses over into the realm of theology. If we want to talk about religious theories yes, but not scientific ones.

 

Assuming of course that it is the only mud puddle in the entire universe. I guarantee that calculation, if it even exists, has been proven to be fundamentally flawed.

 

Oh, so the Big BANG was not a bang at all, but a rapid expansion. A bomb makes a rapid expansion. Interesting how you people spin things to fit once you are caught in a fairy tale.

You skipped right past the mathematics issue. Dodge.

- - - Updated - - -

It is like the odds of flipping the coin and getting one billion heads in a row. You are correct, that would be similar odds of life beginning from a mud puddle.

 

At best the combination of the a,b & c to equal D proves it takes intelligent input to create something close to one of 300,000,000,000 components to make a living organism, that eats something and figures out how to reproduce.

Those are pretty far fetched mythologies or as you correctly stated, a strange religious belief.

 

All cultures have some form of a religion. Why is that? All of those 10's of billions of people were not as smart as a single agnostic is today? That's a silly argument. How did humans develop the capacity to think, design, reason? Was that an accidental mutation maybe a meteorite bonked some ape-man on the head and he began to think?

As absurd as my inane analogies appear, so too does your big bang of nothing forming into everything. It isn't supported by any laws of science and would be impossible to test, observe or repeat to verify scientifically. So all you have is a fairy tale, some imaginative story. Nothing more, at least by the measure of science. Maybe good fiction.

Romans 1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.​

 

It feels quite plain than nobody " built " us by planning how we would come out, but we took form through the passing of (long) time. We are still evolving by now and our form will change again through time. It feels difficult for people like me to believe in a creating hand, but the very basis which lead to the formation of reality still remains totally unknown. On this argument i rise my hands up and can't really say anything, even the possibility of an all powerful force (god) isn't to be discharged.

 

I dont think many 'Believers' would disagree with changes from the 'adaptation' to a changing creation....and many would accept 'evolution' as the 'intelligent forming' of creation over distinct periods of time (ages/eons?)

 

Your so-called state-space is irrelevant to calculating the odds of a random occurrence of the simplest possible genetic deoxyribonucleic acid molecule which is only a single building block of the complex living factory with thousands of nanomachines sustaining, energizing and replicating itself, let alone infusing itself from some source with the necessary intelligent programming.

Then is the problem of why would a fully functioning, perfectly adapted organism NEED to evolve to something else that would require tens of millions of failures to successfully evolve a single step further "up the tree". Of course there then is the issue of eliminating all other previous examples to prevent a reintegration backwards.

There are simply too many hurdles to overcome for spontaneous generation and evolution to even rise to the level of a viable theory.

 

It is basically the same... if it is not " god " there must be something at the base of everything. Or maybe it is all some kind of dream?... nobody can tell.

 

In fact, we've had multiple popes say that - that is, saying that the realm of religion and the realm of science are separate, and that seeing them in opposition to each other is a mistake.

Too many on this board want to invalidate science (in fact, all scientific methodology) on the grounds of their ancient allegories and their belief that they have a magic friend who is making fools of us.

The Bible doesn't say we must disbelieve what we see if it doesn't conform to ancient allegories.

 

Technically everything is "organic". Carbon is the most common element in the universe. You didn't really address the question.

Evolution and big bang are theologies as well, not supported by science.

- - - Updated - - -

Because you say so? That is thin.

- - - Updated - - -

What are we evolving into? And what changes are evident?

- - - Updated - - -

The popes have been ********s.

 

Genetic coding is evident in all living things---who was the code writer?

PC's dont write their own code today w/o external input!

 

Before I read 1 more post. I bet I know the answer. No.
This thread should be in the religion and philosophy section. Has nothing to do with science.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why did you put it in the science section? You admit it isn't science.

 

When the other's argument is just poof. Magic. Why does it need to be argued against?

 

From a biblical point of view, we are every bit as adequate a life form as is called for.

If one wants to, one can believe we were created one minute ago, with everything in place - memories, photons arriving from distant stars, libraries full of books, etc.

There really is no limit to what one can believe that an all powerful supreme being could do. And, there is absolutely no way we can test whether all those beliefs are true or false once one postulates that god can do absolutely anything.

So, ANY exercise in trying to fudge between a creation allegory and a few hundred years of science is really a fools errand.

 

But your explainable is poof. Not much to argue against.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet somehow this 'intelligent' force has always existed. Why not all the molecules always existing?

 

I'm going to show my ignorance here, but can you show scientific proof of that claim?

 

The graphics positively display the amazing scientific research looking deeper into the nanoscale of living organisms which is evidence of something much more than random mutations.

 

It is always what is the original source. And as far as one could see into the future that will be the case. ETs maybe have always existed and somehow parts of mankind thinks it is the jewish written god.
What makes the jewish god this designer?

 

http://sec.kingston.ac.uk/research/research-centres/centre-for-fire-and-explosion-studies/

 

Over the last 7k years mankind has evolved to include (at least) blue eyes, blond hair and the ability to digest dairy as an adult - the last being a change that probably came about in conjunction with domesticating animals.

There are reasons for human evolution being relatively slow right now - for example, we just don't have small isolated populations right now, we have social mechanisms for taking care of people who face harsh events, and we've pretty much conquered the problems of living wherever we want to live on earth.


Nice comment about popes! But, we all know that not even the various branches of Christianity agree - let alone the other religions based on the Bible. They each think all the rest are hateful heretics headed for hell.

 

But the possibility exists.
About the same possibility of it having been a jewish version of god.
So we're right back at point 0.