Is "life" bound to happen?

What ever happened to your imaginations? Why can't we humor OP and brainstorm together on all possibilities instead of always trying to be correct?

Come on, now.

 

geckopelli,
First, I just want to thank you your post, it was an interesting read.

Now, you do know there is a difference between your use of the words evolve and evolution and the theory of Evolution, don’t you?

Next, when you make the statement that before the beginning “nothing existed yet” and I’m assuming you mean the beginning of this Universe, that it is an assumption. There is just no way for mankind to go beyond the barrier of the beginning of the Universe to see if anything was there or not.

Then also you say; “The Universe began when Nothing Evolved into a point of energy. That point Evolved into the Universe we know today because it was compelled to do so by the Parameters of Existence. The was no other possibility.” As already mentioned, you can not know if there was nothing before the beginning of the Universe, so your logic continues to break down here.

Then finally you jump to this; “Statistically, spontaneous (meaning “induced by a naturally occurring environment”) chemical reactions result in increased complexity in molecules most often. At one end of this scale is a single hydrogen atom. At the other-- the most complex molecule I know of is DNA.
At the low end, statistically, reactions resulting in formation of a more complex molecule are far, far, FAR more common than at the high end.
Confirmation of this comes through a telescope; even the dust clouds of space contain molecules as complex as simple amino acids. Evolution toward Life as far as possible under the Environmental conditions available.”
You seem to be saying that because some complex molecules occur naturally, then all complex molecules can occur naturally. That is just not true there are many molecules far less complex than RNA and DNA that can not and will not ever occur naturally.

 

OWB, someone asked Stephen Hawking what was there before Big Bang and he gave fairly good answer saying the question is meaningless because there was no point of reference before Big Bang as nothing,literally, was in existence.

Reminds me of how Greeks tried to trick Thales to give a self-contradictory answer and asked him whether day or night was the first, to which he replied "night , by one day earlier"

The entire thread is intelelctually dishonest, on my opinion. it preys on ignorance of readers rather than pointing to well known established facts and limits of knowledge beyond which no man has reached as of yet.

That's the fate of discussing interesting subjects on public forums full of laymen , i guess.

Too bad for those of us who can't affort paying $200.000 in tuition to attend Universities where these matters could be discussed with likeminded people.

 

Although I like Stephen Hawking and find him interesting, he has not always been correct.

It has been theorized that the universe is like a giant accordion expanding and contracting, so that what was before the "Big Bang" that created this universe, was another universe just like this one, that collapsed and then Bang the "Big Bang" and that has been going on forever expanding and contracting.

The trouble is the "Big Bang" is a barrier that mankind can not look beyond to see what's there. So to say that "nothing" is beyond the "Big Bang" is, for mankind, speculation and nothing more.

Perhaps it is as you say, intellectually dishonest but I was interested in the thoughts people had on the statement, "Life was bound to happen".

To me, religion aside, it had always seemed to be speculation because it is not proven and there are alternatives and although some may not like the alternatives, they are alternatives none the less.

Yet, Evolutionists continue to state it as a fact. I was kind of hoping that they would come with something a little more concrete than; "you're a close minded uneducated idiot because, 'Life happened, so it was bound to happen" but so far that is all they have come up with.

Remember Einstein was a postal clerk. He was a genius not because of attending a University or because he had like minded people to discuss it with but because he dared to ask himself questions no one else was asking. Sometimes an "education" stops people from asking those questions. Sometimes things get done because they don't know it can't be done.

 

He may not always be correct but his reply makes sense to me.

Who knows what was there before Big Bang?

yeah, there are many barriers like that. And speculation is all that mankind has when hitting barriers at the limits of known.

It can't possibly be anything but speculation when people talk about matters not known to them.

The fact is life exists. And, evidently, at some point it didn't.
We can't know if it was or wasn't bound to happen unless we discover the mechanism for it's emergence in the first place.

Evolutionists enjoy perpetrating hoaxes and calling those who doubt them idiots.
But frankly I don't know what exactly their position on this is.

No, I don't remember because prior to reading it I had no idea who Izzy Einstein was and were going to tell you that Albert never worked as postal clerk

 

Okay

I would say God, but there is no way for mankind to look beyond that barrier.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

I can't speak for all Evolutionist but that is the answer I get from the Evolutions I've talked to.

Sorry, I meant to say a patent clerk.

After graduating, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post, but a former classmate’s father helped him secure a job in Bern, at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office, as an assistant examiner. He evaluated patent applications for electromagnetic devices. In 1903, Einstein’s position at the Swiss Patent Office became permanent, although he was passed over for promotion until he "fully mastered machine technology".

 

All I can say is that in the End which is the moment Now, there are entities evolved which are part of the whole Entity labeled the universe. A new beginning is expected. I don't know.

Also, the superfluous subject in this discussion;

Some entities are alive; some are not.

 

But how do I know what you mean if you say something else?

Hey, I didn't know that.
Just found this link:
http://www.awesomestories.com/assets/einstein-a-patent-clerk-in-bern

 

Just ask me.

Nice.

 

But Older Water Boy really can hate me anyway for the difference in the created things of the natural world. To a way of thinking it really IS positive for the understanding that the LIVING be there particularly separate from the DEAD, only because one of these be be-souled and the other can be glued back together again successfully. Be-souled should mean that in it's due course It was either dead or alive; it was alive because we knew it to become eventually dead; it was dead because it was dead before OR after: this can not be answered for mystical reasons.

 

Ok, let me ask you: what do you mean when you say "just ask me " ?

 

Evolutionists say: We do not know where life comes from but we understand how it evolved from point A to point B. It evolved from point A from point B because of the demands that it's environment placed on it in order to survive and continue to reproduce.

Simple, observable, and requires no outside explanation. Granted there are holes in the idea (Nobody has a complete fossil record)

Creationists say: We have taken the idea that an Almighty white male God created the Universe and revamped it to be "politically correct." We now believe that a "force" guided events in the universe to allow life to be created.

Complex, unobservable, requires an imaginary god.


Why is there a need to inject order into something that is naturally chaotic. Why do we view ourselves as ordered-beings? We're the definition of entropy. None of us are the same, we love to pillage and rape, we love to spawn babies so the species can continue pillaging and raping, and we love to destroy our host (earth); We're completely chaotic. The idea that humans have ANY control over ANYTHING is laughable.

If you looked at the Earth as a living-organism and then saw L.A, what would you think?

You'd think: "Man I need to get that tumor removed"

We're just bacteria floating in the primordial soup that is the universe.

Man I'm feeling philosophical today...

 

Those are re-posts from the thread "Evolution is a valid scientific theory"-- as previously indcated. And I'm the author.

In any case, you've avoided the issue yet again.

What do you fear? Is your belief system so fragile that it can't stand in the light of reality?

Life HAS to happen. it's what the Unierse does-- I've given you a partial explanation of why.

Silence on the issue, gives assent.

 

def zeppelin,
"If you don't mind me asking, are you an agnostic or something else?"

I'm not anything. I have no belief system. what IS, simpy IS.
Maybe there is a god-- But probably not.
In any case, I'll just go right on doubting and seeking, expecting nothing and learning everything.

"I don't think of myself as biased. True, I believe in God, but that doesn't mean I can't be as objective as you can be. I have been in many arguments looking at all the angles. I speak to NASA scientists (One friend believes that God is possible in the universe, but he would be outside it), theologians, philosophers, and many people from all backgrounds, so I know and understand the arguments for and against God. My faith in God doesn't prevent me from accepting knowledge. I just don't have to accept ALL knowledge because it can end up being untrue. I am actually quite skeptical. "

I understand where you're coming form-- but, as someone who sees the term supernatural as a meaningless oxymoron, I find it outside the human condition for an "objective believer" to exist.
A researcher who ultimately concludes that there is a god, reaches that conclusion through knowledge gained. a Believer starts with the conclusion and tends to rationalize justifacations. Just as Scientist sometimes do.

"We are just monkeys after all right?"
No. Religious propaganda. Humans share common ancestry with Apes-- AND EVERY OTHER FORM OF EARTHLY LIFE. Apes are just relatively close in the ancestrial tree.
And therein lies the root of the anti-science bias of belivers.

"We all can't even agree on what knowledge actually is, let alone know for a FACT what a fact is and isn't. I will still accept what is available but only as far as I trust it to be correct, which isn't always the case for me. But one thing that is difficult to deny, is that when people questioned the accepted status quo, that's when the best ideas came from. And adding comments like, "Scientists don't observe the three little pigs either" doesn't really help us to reach a new paradigm."

I disagree totally. Knowledge can be prove relatively true. If atomic theory weren't damn close to "true", there'd be no atom bombs.
Trusting Knowledge is one thing-- mistrusting facts, another.
All statements without evidence are equal. Three little pigs, god, Santa Claus, it doesn't matter.

 

OlderWaterBrother,

"Now, you do know there is a difference between your use of the words evolve and evolution and the theory of Evolution, don’t you?"

No, there is not. Evolution means "change in response to environment.". Bio-evolution means "Biological change in response to enviroment"

"Next, when you make the statement that before the beginning “nothing existed yet” and I’m assuming you mean the beginning of this Universe, that it is an assumption. There is just no way for mankind to go beyond the barrier of the beginning of the Universe to see if anything was there or not."

Exactly. a Difference That Makes No Difference. "Before the Begining" is a non-sequitor statement. Time didn't exist. So what's your point?

"Then also you say; “The Universe began when Nothing Evolved into a point of energy. That point Evolved into the Universe we know today because it was compelled to do so by the Parameters of Existence. The was no other possibility.” As already mentioned, you can not know if there was nothing before the beginning of the Universe, so your logic continues to break down here."

Again, non-sequiter. this statement is illogical as preiously explained.
Please don't push my logic button. Nobody wants to go there.

Then finally you jump to this; “Statistically, spontaneous (meaning “induced by a naturally occurring environment”) chemical reactions result in increased complexity in molecules most often. At one end of this scale is a single hydrogen atom. At the other-- the most complex molecule I know of is DNA.
At the low end, statistically, reactions resulting in formation of a more complex molecule are far, far, FAR more common than at the high end.
Confirmation of this comes through a telescope; even the dust clouds of space contain molecules as complex as simple amino acids. Evolution toward Life as far as possible under the Environmental conditions available.”
You seem to be saying that because some complex molecules occur naturally, then all complex molecules can occur naturally. That is just not true there are many molecules far less complex than RNA and DNA that can not and will not ever occur naturally."

this statement is simply untrue. ALL molecules above deteirum (sp?) occure within the belly of a star.
-----------
Trying to pull details apart won't work; I'm writing for laymen here. I can get very, very, detailed, if need be (I've ghost written reseach papers in the past).

 

There is this sort of common mental disorder that can be described as "this is so because i wish it to be so".
I observe that many evolutionists, as well as creationists, are afflicted by it.
Fortunately enough, i don't belong to either category.

We may well be chaotic creatures.
I agree with the following "we love to pillage and rape, we love to spawn babies so the species can continue pillaging and raping and we love to destroy our host (earth); We're completely chaotic. The idea that humans have ANY control over ANYTHING is laughable" because there is ample amount of empirically observable and recorded in past history to prove it.
We are part of the animal kingdom, no doubt, and the only difference between us and other animals is that we are more vicious, intelligent and wicked than those who are less advanced than ourselves.
And there is evidently no interfering force in our lives , other than ourselves and intentions and actions of other individuals.

But i don't see how the above observation translates into "live organisms evolved into what they are by random chance and natural selection, no matter how improbable such occurence would be" mantra.

I don't see any need to bring God into this debate at all, unless one has premeditated goal to create a straw man argument or in effect creates one (ex. OWB).

 

The term "random chance" is misleading.
The Universe is NOT random. It's Probalistic.

 

Yeah, troll, you have no chance arguing with me.

But Skizm is relatively reasonable poster, so let's see what his opinion on it would be.

 

dbl post

 

Well, there are evolutionists out there that say that there are no problems what-so-ever with the theory of evolution and the idea of evolution is completely perfect. Unfortunately, that's bullshit. Evolution is a theory, not a law. It states that over time, a species has the ability to change to better aid in the survival of that species.

We can see and recognize that this theory is true. However, because we do not possess a complete fossil record, we cannot say that evolution is a law.

I wish that we did have the evidence but we do not. So until then I'll have to subscribe to the part-truth/part-idea collection of information that evolution is.

The reason I do so, is because I'm a reasonable person. I look at the view-points available to me and see two things, evolution or creationism. One has no evidence what-so-ever and one has some evidence. Naturally, being a logical and reasonable person I'm going to say that evolution has a better chance of being correct than creationism because there is more evidence for it. It's like wearing your seat-belt in your car. (warning, made up statistics ahead) You have a 15% to die while wearing it, and an 85% chance to die without it. Are you going to say "I'm not wearing that seat-belt because it isn't 100%!" ? No, you're going to hedge your bets and wear your seat-belt. There's still that chance that you might not die without the seat belt but it's sooooooooo much lower.

We can write evolution off as a religion if we want to, but the fact of the matter is is that evolution is a religion that is much more probable and realistic than any other religion. Personally, I don't think of it as a religion, more as an "educated guess."