Chance, mistakes and accidents caused life

[Jim_Baur]

ThinkingSapien

Thanks!

I enjoyed reading and thinking about your explanations, WOW!!!

The point about quarks is the kind of explanation for which I was looking, thanks!

Thank you, thank you, thank you…

 

[Jim_Baur]

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

rossum

Thanks!

But chance, mistakes and accidents are a part of life coming into existence?

In other words, in your judgment, are mistakes, accidents, chance, and haphazard events a part of life coming into existence on planet earth?

And thanks for pointing out the mistake–thanks!

In your judgment, was the Big Bang necessary or chance or some other options?

Thanks!

 

[inocente]

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.

Not sure he’s saying anything a Catholic scientist wouldn’t say.

If life on earth was a special creation, we have to ask why God made all the other trillions of stars. I mean, a hundred to make all the heavy elements and another hundred to look real pretty, so why all the trillions of others? Imho it’s much more likely God built life into the laws of nature and so life arises wherever it can.

 

[Qoeleth]

Sophocles said:
“Our lives our governed by chance, so the best thing to do is to live at random”.

I am a committed Christian- but it often feels like the events of life, and life itself, are simply random events. It is possible to derive some comfort from this thought- that nothing means anything…

 

[rossum]

But chance, mistakes and accidents are a part of life coming into existence?

To some extent. If life hadn’t started in one particular “warm pond”, then it would have started in a different, but very similar, warm pond. Be aware also of the anthropic principle. Carbon based life did not originate on the surface of the Sun because the surface of the Sun is not suitable for carbon based life. The fact that we are here constrains where “here” is.

In other words, in your judgment, are mistakes, accidents, chance, and haphazard events a part of life coming into existence on planet earth?

Yes. We will know how big a part when we have examined other planets for life. If, say, 25% of extrasolar planets have life then chance did not play a big role. If 0.00000025% have life then chance played a bigger role.

In your judgment, was the Big Bang necessary or chance or some other options?

As far as we can tell from the very little we know about the Multiverse within which the Big Bang happened, there are a great many Bangs happening. Not all of them grow Big (called “inflation”). If that is the case, then the Bang was necessary while the Big was probably not. Again, they depends on what proportion of Bangs get to be Big.

For a look at some fairly recent thoughts on cosmology read “The Myth of the Beginning of Time”.

rossum

 

[inocente]

Sophocles said:
“Our lives our governed by chance, so the best thing to do is to live at random”.

I am a committed Christian- but it often feels like the events of life, and life itself, are simply random events. It is possible to derive some comfort from this thought- that nothing means anything…

Admittedly nihilism is pretty cool. But it doesn’t work …

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Source

 

[MaryandJoseph]

Just a random thought from someone who is not well educated in the sciences and math.

IF man does not interfer (alter-damage or whatever) with nature, how does one explain the incredible balance of living organisms by chance?

If the chemicals and proteins ect…are not in balance in our bodies, then we will either be very sick or possibly die.

As an atheist most of my life, I spent much time trying to convince others (and maybe even myself) that a Supreme Being was not needed. What finally opened my eyes to faith in ONE God was the fact that I just could not wrap my mind around the idea of life forming from NON life:shrug: But the final “straw” for my leaving behind the atheist world forever was the Big Bang Theory (which btw I believe in). WHERE did the gases and dust particles come from in the first place?

anywaysssss…

Have a blessed Advent and a joyfilled and wonderful Christmas, Happy Birthday Jesus

 

[Jim_Baur]

The Five Ways to Demonstrate God are preambles to faith, and that is St. Thomas’ term. They are steps before our faith, walking or going before faith.

Those five proofs are before faith or outside of faith.

St. Thomas says in the Summa Contra Gentiles that we do not believe in the God of Abraham and Moses based on our silly little arguments.

Faith is faith.

We, as Christians, say that it is logical to see design here on planet earth. Therefore there is a designer. The orchestration for life and human life is obvious. However, to say that it was YAHWEH, Allah, or the Great Spirit is walking in faith(s).

It is a tough distinction, really tough.

Conversely, this might sound blasphemous is some camps, for science to deny the obvious design is to throw out common sense.

As the Catholic Pope says, it is not an either-or situation. We need to make great use of science and faith, but understand that both are doing their own work. Faith tells us of our dignity. Science tells us about our biology, chemistry and physics.

One of his commonly used ideas is that a machine and an organism clearly demonstrate that they were designed.

The organisms are smarter than any machines.

The organisms move from within; the machines are moved from outside.

The organism can reproduce; the machine cannot reproduce.

The organisms are orchestrated with their surrounding and each other.

In my understanding it is almost a stale mate, if it was a game, but it is not. It is real.

Religions must say “We believe.” Science has to say: “All of this is truly designed.”

Both have to say, the Designer has to be praised and thanked; even if the Designer hasn’t revealed what “IT” is (Sorry, God, about “IT”.)

Then there will always be some who will not or cannot see what the rest see.

All sides should be a little happy. All side should be a little sad.

 

[Jim_Baur]

MaryandJoseph

This person is a doctor of physic Alberti_Devoveo.

He is a great poster here.

He, if he sees this, might give a clear picture of scientists that believe in God and are knowledgeable about the Big Bang.

If I recall, he teaches that those of us that believe in God should actually like the Big Bang.

Hopefully Alberti_Devoveo responds for you.

 

[Jim_Baur]

to some extent. If life hadn’t started in one particular “warm pond”, then it would have started in a different, but very similar, warm pond. Be aware also of the anthropic principle. Carbon based life did not originate on the surface of the sun because the surface of the sun is not suitable for carbon based life. The fact that we are here constrains where “here” is.

Yes. We will know how big a part when we have examined other planets for life. If, say, 25% of extrasolar planets have life then chance did not play a big role. If 0.00000025% have life then chance played a bigger role.

As far as we can tell from the very little we know about the multiverse within which the big bang happened, there are a great many bangs happening. Not all of them grow big (called “inflation”). If that is the case, then the bang was necessary while the big was probably not. Again, they depends on what proportion of bangs get to be big.

For a look at some fairly recent thoughts on cosmology read “the myth of the beginning of time”.

Rossum

thanks

 

[MaryandJoseph]

Thanks Jim Baur