Is "life" bound to happen?

It's plain and obvious that if we're all to live in a world together and progress as a society, we have to come to conclusions about the nature of the physical world. Physical reality is absolute and it is knowable. We can benefit from scientific knowledge or we can deny it outright if it doesn't fit our game of make-believe. Experts and their provided evidence provide us with knowledge that we otherwise couldn't obtain. Where do we draw the line? One moment every single reputable biologist's word and vast amounts of evidence isn't good enough to believe evolution, because there's a tiny tiny tiny chance it cold be false, the next, modern nutritional science or medicine isn't worth believing either. If I was to renounce my "blind faith" as you put it, I would sacrifice vast amounts of knowledge and suffer the consequences of perpetual ignorance. Some assumptions are necessary for progress, and certain epistemological principles consistently beget correct assumptions.

 

Science and it's discoveries alone hasn't brought the world peace. It's the way that it will be used that will bring us peace and so far we have used much of it to bring pain and suffering to millions of people while ignoring the core element of progress which is to use what we have for good, gentle, and patient purposes only.

Sure discoveries are great and they can help lead us to becoming self sufficient, but it takes more than that, much more. But really, I don't really know what this has to do with OP premise.

It's a tongue in cheek kind of statement showing that saying 'life is bound to happen because it has happened' as fact is unscientific because it uses that as a premise through habit alone and not through scientific means.

 

ever hear of hang gliding?

Because he owes you money?
[/QUOTE]You may play your pretend and deny scientific fact all you want.[/QUOTE]What scientific fact I'm I ignoring? Evolution? It's just not a fact.

Of course you know that all "scientific knowledge" has been immense good for the world. I would say the "scientific knowledge" of how to make nuclear weapons has not been an "immense good for the world".

Yes.

Some "scientific knowledge" says this is not true, what with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and all.

As I've pointed out not all "scientific knowledge" is beneficial. You are the one denying that Evolution has a chance of not being true, to fit your game of make believe.

That's sometimes true.

I would say; where you start accepting as proven things that have not been proven.

Have you taken a good look at the food pyramid lately?

You seem to be half way there already by your blindly accepting things as proven that are not yet proven. To me you sound a little like all those who have resisted true scientific advancement down though the ages.

Questioning is what advances knowledge and you have stopped questioning, to you Evolution is a fact and no one should question it.

 

Why can't we entertain each others ideas anymore without bouncing against the wall


...err excuse me if I derailed the thread, my bad.

 

I don't see how you could not believe in evolution.

How could anyone believe that life is static? The very nature of existence is constant change.......History... progress....timelines...... culture.....

 

Maybe it comes down to the perspective that we use.

 

I would love for somebody to give me a good theory about life that doesn't include evolution........and please don't tell me some higher being plopped down every species on earth and "thats it".

I'm seriously all ears.

 

Nothing but you exists and everything is a figment of your imagination.

 

So you're a figment of my imagination? Or am I a figment of yours? Or maybe I'm a figment of my own imagination.......

Seriously tho...

 

As of now there is no scientific theory in regards to mechanism responsible for evolution of species.

Darwinism and Creationism are all we have for now.

 

Also, Newtonian physics were all we had for two hundred years until Einstein came along, so the absence of another theory does not make a theory correct.

 

I understand this. What part of evolution do you deny? Are you denying that creatures cannot change at all? The principles by which they "evolve"? What's ur gripe against it?

And back to what u said before in another one of my posts. What is an "unnatural" or "outside" thing which could help start life? If it is outside of the universe then it's our definition of "universe" which needs changing. Or our definition of the nature of the size of existence that needs changing.

 

I did not intend that this thread be a discussion of evolution in general. In such discussions, I had found that Evolutionist would generally "prove" Evolution by saying the Evolution was "bound to happen", because life exists now, so that means life was "bound to happen". As far as I know, no proof exists, one way or another, that life was "bound to happen". So this thread is more or less focused on the process from inanimate elements to animate life. Could that have even happened?

As for "denying" things, I do not so much deny what science has found, as I believe that a belief in Evolution has caused them to misapply it. Such as your asking if I "deny" that creatures can change, of course creatures can adapt to their circumstances but I don't believe that adaptation means that a "dog" can become a "horse". (that two totally different animals can evolve from a common ancestor.)

First, sorry for the use of somewhat common and confusing simple language. What I meant by "natural" is using only what Evolutionists generally deem to exist, which would exclude things like God or multiple universes etc., so things like God or natural phenomenon that have yet to be discovered would be considered "outside" what Evolutionists consider "natural".

Perhaps you are right that the definition of universe needs to changed or maybe I just don't know the correct definition, I don't think that I have ever thought of the Universe as everything that exists or has ever existed or will exist but more like, all that exists as a direct result of the "Big Bang".

 

There is a fundamental aspect to an appeal to authority that transcends all other considerations.
The only truth we will ever recognize is that truth that we accept. Proof positive as far as the human experience is concerned, must ultimately meet the test of the observer, and it is not possible to abdicate this aspect of the "authority" equation.

Actually Newtons theories are found to be insufficient for explaining every phenomena, they have not been proven wrong. The human ear perceives within a certain vibratory wave length, that does not make the ear wrong because it cannot perceive the ultra sonic.

 

One aspect of this discussion that it not afforded any treatment is the nature of time.
Time appears to us in a linear perspective. We think in terms of past, present, and future. It seems logical from brief inspection that things accumulate over time, that this moment is predicated upon a past building toward a future.
If we just take a moment longer to consider that this is not in fact what occurs.
The past is an artifact of the present, not the other way round. Equally the future is an artifact of the present. Time flows from the present backward and forward simultaneously from the present.
We have evidence for current of which the point of emergence is always now. Reality generated anew instant by instant, frame by frame. As it is in the beginning it is now and evermore.

 

Ahh I get where you're coming from......

No serious Evolutionist would even propose a statement like "dogs transforming to horses", so why is that even an argument? Just look at humans. We all live in different regions, we all have different environmental pressures, life philosphies, etc. But we originated from a common place. Look how different species of ants, insects, and animals adapt to their specific environments. After a VERY long time these groups become very distinct, yet they share commonalities (common heritage). That is the theory of evolution in a nutshell. It is fact.

Plus, I don't know why you keep saying being an evolutionist excludes a concept of God. Sure, some evolutionists will try to link evolution to cosmic evolution / spontanous generation, but that still doesn't explain the origin of matter. You've probably debated with too many internet atheists who try to debunk religion with this fallacious argument. They're not worth a grain of salt.

That's the problem with a lot of definitions, they only work up to a point. To me everything is "alive", because life is the very principle by which everything in our known existence follows. So in the primordial soup theory the first "live molecules" are no more alive than their elementary particles. We're made up of bits of "non-living" things, yet we say we're alive but a piece of metal is not. I guess I would say it's our mistake that we only say that a certain high degree of organization/complexity qualifies as "life", instead of realizing that the simplest levels of organization are necessary for life, and so should be qualified as "life".

 

*Double post*....

 

OWB , i don't mean to get into your discussion with the other fellow.
However, i want to make few notes here.

1) The main argument of Evolutionists (and the doubt of the same) is not whether life was bound to happen or not.
If you think it is then cite in what textbook or where did any evolutionist make such argument and present it as fundamental premise of darwinism?

Evolutionists themselves don't claim to have any theory of Origins of Life. What they claim to have theory for is HOW the Life [AFTER it's presumed spontaneous emergence as a cingle archaic cell] has evolved into the most complex and diverse forms.
They claim that the Mechanism for such Evolution was Random Chance and Natural Selection. They don't claim to know the answer to the question how that first, most primitive archaic cell came into existence.

It is not that they say Life was bound to happen (that, indeed, would remove "random chance" from their argument) , what they say is that given vastness of Universe and billions of years of random interactions anything could have happened, including spontaneous emergence of life and it's subsequent evolution.

2) The biggest broblem with evolutionary theory is not "common ancestry". That may have been a case in Victorian England where many English gentlemen holding noble titles were shocked to learn to have Apes among their direct ancestors and contemporary monkeys as remote cousins.

The problem is with the mechanism of random chance and natural selection wchih darwinists claim to be responsible for evolution and diversification of all life forms since emergence of Life. There is no evidence, nothing to show that such mechanism could indeed be responsible for evolution of life as darwinists claim it to be. No more than a turtle walking 20 feet accross your room is an evidence of turtles being capable of flying through open space and reaching Jupiter in 5 billion years.

Perhaps we all share the common "ancestor" that is called a Big Bang.
What is being disputed is the mechanism responsible that made it possible for you to end up as OWB as opposed to being a gas stove in your kitchen.


3) Finally, as a Creationist, answer your own question and tell: Was Life bound to happen? Perhaps , if you are consistent with your beliefs, you must answer YES.
If you answer NO, then explain how do you reconsiliate it with your system of belief where you accept Bible to be the word of God and where it is said that everything was predestined from the very beginning.

And if you answer YES then how your own position is different from what you pretend to argue against?


Sometimes i think you either have convoluted logic or else you must have set this thread up as a straw man, to digress attention from two other threads and make Evolutionists appear more reasonable than they actually are.


:cheers2:

 

That's why I tried to modify the statement "I don't believe that adaptation means that a "dog" can become a "horse"" with (that two totally different animals can evolve from a common ancestor.).

In other words that; I don't believe that adaptation means that a "some unspecified animal" can become a "some other unspecified animal" or that "some unspecified animal" can be the ancestor of both a dog and a horse.

See, this is what this thread is all about. The assumption that Evolution is a fact. The simple truth is that until it is proven that inanimate elements become animate life by it's self with out any "outside" help it is not a fact and in fact even that would not prove conclusively that it did in fact happen that way.

I don't keep saying being an evolutionist excludes a concept of God and in fact have never said that.

My statement to you was; "What I meant by "natural" is using only what Evolutionists generally deem to exist, which would exclude things like God or multiple universes etc., so things like God or natural phenomenon that have yet to be discovered would be considered "outside" what Evolutionists consider "natural"." If you'll notice I said; "what Evolutionists generally deem to exist, which would exclude things like God" and that statement would allow for some Evolutionist's to believe in God and they may even believe that Evolution does not exclude the concept of God.

And you are probably right, I may have debated with too many internet atheists who try to debunk religion with this fallacious argument.

I have heard that before and I even know how that feels but I doubt that everything is alive in the sense that is generally used in Evolutionary debates like this.

 

I never said it was or even implied that it was.

I brought this OP up because when discussing Evolution with evolutionists, I keep getting a statement along the lines of "life was bound to happen" and it was beginning to bother me that there is no proof for this statement one way or another and so wanted those who use such statements to show me why they feel it is a fact and not just an assumption.

I know this that is why saying Evolution is a fact, because it was bound to happen, sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me.

This may be what they mean but it is not what they say, at least to me.

I personally find that there are many problems with the Theory of Evolution and this is just one of many.

At this time, there is no way to know from a scientific standpoint, if life was bound to happen or not.

My own position is that God is real and Created life and whether life was bound to happen is moot point because God created it and we may never know what would have happened if he hadn't.

How my position is different? I happen to know that there is a possibility, no matter how remote, that what I believe may not be a fact, even though I believe it to be so and I'm willing to admit that.

Perhaps all of the above but I will say that was not what I was thinking when I started the thread.

I had been in a discussion with an Evolutionist and he had said the statement that I opened the thread with, something I'd heard from several other Evolutionists and I wanted to focus in on that statement and see how many thought that was a fact and if so why, no more no less.

:cheers2:

PS Although I believe in Creation, I'm not a Creationist, seeing as Creationist are an established group of people that hold certain beliefs which I do not hold in common with them.