Chance, mistakes and accidents caused life

[fred_conty]

In the lab, conditions on the very early earth were reproduced. That is what “prebiotic” means. Under those conditions the chemicals that are found in living organisms: amino acids etc. form naturally.

No living beings are directing the chemicals, all the experimenters do is to set up the initial conditions. Everything beyond that is chemical reactions.

rossum

You said, "… all the experimenters do is to set up the initial conditions. "

That is what we say, someone had to set it up.

Just a thought.

 

[rossum]

You said, "… all the experimenters do is to set up the initial conditions. "

That is what we say, someone had to set it up.

So, your proof for the existence of Vishnu (who set up everything in the universe) is?

Happy Diwali.

rossum

 

[Jim_Baur]

Speaking as a scientist and philosopher, yes.

I can easily accept Vishnu, YAHWEH, Word, Logos, Allah or any superior being. But my point would be: there has to have been at least one necessary Being. That Being developed life. The subtle point is, we cannot prove that that Being is the same one that Jews, Greeks, Christians, Buddhists (if the word God is used) or Muslims call God. There Gods could be totally made up by the founders of those religions.

As a scientist, philosopher and a man of common sense, it makes sense to me to see that some Being(s) had to develop being and life. The human ability to reason developed logic, math, science, philosophy and common sense. It is from that ability to reason that I know some Being(s) is responsible for all that I see and know.

We do not know, nor can we prove that the above Gods mentioned are real.

As a man of reason, I know that some Being(s) made all of this. Some Being orchestrated the beauty that surrounds me and you.

Whether the religions are correct or not, I do not know.

As a Christian I believe the creeds that say: I believe in One God, the creator of Heaven and Earth. I believe in Creation. I BELIEVE. One cannot prove faith. Our silly little argument do not prove our Christian doctrine. We believe it is reveled. It is not something to be proved, but believed.

 

[fred_conty]

Rossum, thanks for your reply.

You are right on, except for one thing.

God prepared man to expect someone very special for centuries before he arrived so that when he did come,we would know he was a messenger from God. The prophecies on the Old Testament document show that his coming was expected.

There were no prophecies about Budda, Confucius, Mohammed or others.
Other religious leaders just said, “I’m here” with nothing to support their claim.

Yet God had people writing a description of Jesus centuries before he came. That he would be from the tribe of Juda, of the house of David, born of a virgin, in the town of Bethlehem and would suffer death as a lamb for sins. One prophesy detailed that dice would be cast for his garments which they would divide among them. These details given centuries in advance are what makes Jesus historically and documentally different then others.

Just something to think about.

 

[edwest2]

You did not read the “small print”. Rossum did not say that there will be 1 million “ones” in succession which would be very unlikely. However, with one million tosses, there it would very likely happen to see 30 or 40 “ones” in a row. If one would toss a die 10sup[/sup] times, it is mathematically certain to have 1 million “ones” in a row.

Of course this is all inapplicable, just like your “bicylcle part” analogy. The chemical processes are not random, and when a very simple molecular chain just happens to form randomly - and that is not unlikely at all - then the next step will “build upon it”.

Using that pretty bad bicycle analogy, let’s suppose that small quakes randomly shuffle the parts all the time, and somehow a cogwheel would connect to the chain. From that moment onward they would act as one piece! And then some more time later another chance event would connect two other parts… and so on. The point is that one does not always start from “square one”. The small parts which are stable and molecules are very stable, will act as higher level building blocks. Of course the bicycle analogy is still incorrect. Molecules are unlike the pieces of a bicycle.

As for empirical experiments, they are conducted all the time. Scientists try to recreate the alleged environment of the “primordial soup” and in just a few **months **(!) they get very promising “not-quite-life” but very complicated results. And we are talking about **months **here, not billions of years. On top of that, what is “life” is a matter of defintion. I suggest Dr Asimov’s wonderful collection of essays “The Tragedy of the Moon”, where he talks quite extesively about “what is life, and what is inanimate”.

I enjoyed reading Asimov’s books about science but never read this one.

I suggest you pick up a copy of Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson. “This book highlights the informational aspects of life that are generally overlooked or ignored…”

Since the author has a Ph.D. in Chemistry and a Ph. D. in Information Sciences, he brings a unique perspective to the issue, and a lot of math. The book is heavily footnoted. And his own views are not the only views presented as he quotes others, including in the field of biology.

There is no reason that the title of this thread has a scientific basis.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

God prepared man to expect someone very special for centuries before he arrived so that when he did come,we would know he was a messenger from God. The prophecies on the Old Testament document show that his coming was expected.

And my local Rabbi tells me that He is still expected, not having arrived yet.

There were no prophecies about Budda, Confucius, Mohammed or others.
Other religious leaders just said, “I’m here” with nothing to support their claim.

I cannot speak for the others, but both the Jain Mahavira and the Buddha were prophesied: the Mahavira by Parshva, and Buddha Shakyamuni by Buddha Dipankara.

rossum

 

[fred_conty]

And my local Rabbi tells me that He is still expected, not having arrived yet.

I cannot speak for the others, but both the Jain Mahavira and the Buddha were prophesied: the Mahavira by Parshva, and Buddha Shakyamuni by Buddha Dipankara.

rossum

And how many centuries of prophesy did they have? And their details?

Just a thought.

 

[Trurl]

But my point would be: there has to have been at least one necessary Being. That Being developed life.

Is that “necessary being (who, or what developed life)” alive? If “yes” then there must have been an even “necessarier being” who created that particular “life”. If the answer is “no”, then your argument collapses, because now there is a “living” being, which is not the result of a “necessary” being… Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Trurl
I do not follow what you are saying, sorry.

From a rational understanding, I hold the position that there must be one necessary being.

As you can tell, it is all based on Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas.

In terms of philosophy, that is as far as we can go.

In faith, we accept that God is that Being that revealed Himself to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and the rest of us.

But that is faith, it is not based on my silly little arguments; I borrowed that idea from Aquinas in his Summa Gentiles.

In philosophy, all we can discern is that there must be a necessary Being.

I apologize that I am unable to follow your idea. My father and mother never did call me sun. Actually Dad use to say: " I am going to write this letter to you real slow, because your think and read real slow."

These threads are really tricky–we tend to mix philosophy, faith, religion, and science into one thread. That really messes things up.

We human reason, we can’t go too far. There is at least one necessary being. In faith, I believe in One God the Creator of heaven and earth.

 

[Hat4]

Is that “necessary being (who, or what developed life)” alive? If “yes” then there must have been an even “necessarier being” who created that particular “life”. If the answer is “no”, then your argument collapses, because now there is a “living” being, which is not the result of a “necessary” being… Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

I’m sorry but I’m not sure if I follow this either. You’re saying that there can’t be a first life but… a first life made it’s self on earth that all other life sprang from?

 

[rossum]

And how many centuries of prophesy did they have? And their details?

Just a thought.

IIRC the Mahavira had about 400 years between Parshva and himself. Shakyamuni Buddha had 28 other Buddhas between Dipankara Buddha and himself, that is around 140,000 years minimum.

Asking for details is a dangerous thing to do. Details like the Messiah will usher in an era of 1,000 years of peace. Details like the Messiah will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Details like the Messiah will gather all the world’s Jews back into Israel.

Just a thought.

rossum

 

[Trurl]

Trurl
I do not follow what you are saying, sorry.

From a rational understanding, I hold the position that there must be one necessary being.

You are wrong. The concept of “necessary” being has been refuted many times.

As you can tell, it is all based on Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas.

I could not care less about those people and their empty speculations.

I’m sorry but I’m not sure if I follow this either. You’re saying that there can’t be a first life but… a first life made it’s self on earth that all other life sprang from?

You guys have a strange view on “life”, obviously coming from the unnecessary concept of “soul”. The difference between “living” and “inanimate” matter is not something profoundly large. It is actually a matter of “taste”. Some biologists consider viruses “alive”, while others consider them a crystalline structure, which have “certain properties” we consider “living”, but not all.

There is nothing problematic about seeing certain configurations of matter as being “almost” alive.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Trurl

As with many things in science, life, and philosophy, there are different schools of thought claiming they are correct.

I do not know who is correct.

However, as far as I am able to discern, there must be one necessary being.

There are many scholars in many areas of philosophy, theology, science, philosophy of science that teach–there must be one necessary being.

Was the Big Bang’s elements necessary?

From where did those elements come?

Have you ever seen the edge of the universe?

Do you believe in the edge of the universe?

Have you seen life emerge from before there was life?

Do you believe that life emerged from lifeless matter?

Just how much of the science that you have studied do you believe?

I am trying to make the distinction between know and believe.

How many times do we teach in science some form of belief, some form of we are not sure.

 

[edwest2]

I think you should talk to a scientist, Jim. When I was younger, I trusted those in authority to give me the right answers, without thinking it through for myself. Since then, inspired by a few people here, I have thought some things through and concluded, regarding scientists: “There is no way you can show whatever it is to be true. None.”

Referring to the title of this thread, there is no reason to believe it is a true statement.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Referring to the title of this thread, there is no reason to believe it is a true statement.

We agree, Ed. Chemistry was heavily involved in the origin of life, and chemistry is not a chance process.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

We agree, Ed. Chemistry was heavily involved in the origin of life, and chemistry is not a chance process.

rossum

I disagree.

Peace,
Ed

 

[inocente]

We agree, Ed. Chemistry was heavily involved in the origin of life, and chemistry is not a chance process.

I disagree.

Would you guys like the rest of us to agree with one of you before midday and the other after? Or would you like us to toss a coin each time we’re asked? Either way, by plan or by chance, 50% of us will agree with each of you on any given day.

Whoa, heavy dudes! Same thing happens by plan or by chance. Do you think there might be a principle at work there?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Was the Big Bang’s elements necessary?

? not sure.

From where did those elements come?

That’s unknown.

Have you ever seen the edge of the universe?

No

Do you believe in the edge of the universe?

Neither “yes” not “no” sufficiently express my answer to this. What ever is beyond the observable universe (the part that we can see or detect) is unknown to me.

Have you seen life emerge from before there was life?

No, by the time I was in a position to make observations there was life all around! I’ve also never been in an area where there was no life.

Do you believe that life emerged from lifeless matter?

I don’t rule it out as a possibility.

Just how much of the science that you have studied do you believe?

Not sure. Some of it doesn’t fall in the belief-disbelief spectrum for me.

I am trying to make the distinction between know and believe.

There’s not much of a distinction beyond the confidence that one holds. When confidence is high one may label information as “knowledge.” When it’s not as high it may be labeled as a “belief.” But some one can be incorrect about something for which they have high confidence, or correct about something for which there is low confidence.

How many times do we teach in science some form of belief, some form of we are not sure.

As I often say belief isn’t necessary. And the uncertainty can be part of what is being taught. For example many subatomic particles are hypothetical. Here is something from an encyclopedia on such particles.

GLUONS - The hypothetical force particles believed to bind quarks into “elementary” particles. Although theoretical models in which the strong interactions of quarks are mediated by gluons have been successful in predicting, interpreting, and explaining many phenomena in particle physics, free gluons remain undetected in experiments (as do free quarks).

The model has predictive utility. One can employ this predictive ability without ever resolving if gluons really exists.

Though for a dissenting view to be taken seriously it would need to provide a better model for a phenomenon. It could be found better by producing predictions that are more accurate than currently accepted models or explaining more than currently accepted models.

 

[edwest2]

Would you guys like the rest of us to agree with one of you before midday and the other after? Or would you like us to toss a coin each time we’re asked? Either way, by plan or by chance, 50% of us will agree with each of you on any given day.

Whoa, heavy dudes! Same thing happens by plan or by chance. Do you think there might be a principle at work there?

The right answer is the right answer. The poster I responded to has been saying the same things for quite a while now. As I wrote earlier, there is no reason to believe the topic heading is true. Chemical reactions alone don’t prove anything.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

The right answer is the right answer. The poster I responded to has been saying the same things for quite a while now. As I wrote earlier, there is no reason to believe the topic heading is true. Chemical reactions alone don’t prove anything.

Chemical reaction prove that chance alone is not the explanation. Chemistry is not a chance process. A great deal of life is controlled by chemistry: consider biochemistry for starters.

I agree with you that the thread heading is not true. More than “chance, mistakes and accidents” was needed to originate life.

rossum