Origin of life?

[VociMike]

They exist because of CP violation (type that in on wiki if you don’t know about that). They (gluons and quarks) also exist because we live in string landscape (type that on wiki too).

But why does CP violation exist? Why does a string landscape exist?

The problem is that you keep giving material mechanisms, which only create further questions as to why those material mechanisms exist.

 

[FillTheVoid]

Evolution SIMPLY DOES NOT HAPPEN.

If Evolution did occur and there was no God … NO INTELLIGENT SPECIES IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WOULD LAST LONGER THAN A FEW THOUSAND YEARS.

Why? Because they would realize there are absolutely no consequences to anything they do and they would realize they are nothing more than a collection of chemicals and would destroy themselves just like we are so intent on doing as a species.

Order DOES NOT COME FROM CHAOS.

How can these scientists not realize such a simple thing?

 

[ribozyme]

But why does CP violation exist? Why does a string landscape exist?

The problem is that you keep giving material mechanisms, which only create further questions as to why those material mechanisms exist.

Well, if there was no CP-violation, all of the quarks and antiquarks would annihilate into high-energy photons, thus the universe would be a sea of photons. So, if there was no CP-violation, you would not be here to think about it. But something caused matter to dominate, so a small fraction of matter did not annihilate with antimatter.

 

[steveandersen]

Evolution SIMPLY DOES NOT HAPPEN.

Have you had an antibiotic resistant infection recently?

From small pox to leprosy to AIDS man has been plagued by bacterium that has evolved to trouble us within historical times. To think that evolution didn’t occur in the countless millennia before recorded history is ……. wrong.

Evolution happens all the time

There have been many observed instances of speciation.

If Evolution did occur and there was no God

I’m not sure why you would have to link evolution and no God?

… NO INTELLIGENT SPECIES IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WOULD LAST LONGER THAN A FEW THOUSAND YEARS.

Well there have only been intellectually and physically modern humans for a few thousand years. (<50K?) So I’m not sure what point you’re making.

Why? Because they would realize there are absolutely no consequences to anything they do and they would realize they are nothing more than a collection of chemicals and would destroy themselves just like we are so intent on doing as a species.

Order DOES NOT COME FROM CHAOS.

Things will progress to a lower energy state. Often that progression appears as a localized ordering as dust clouds coalesce into solar systems or as elements move to stable compounds.

How can these scientists not realize such a simple thing?

I think that you ought to refresh yourself on thermodynamics and basic physics before you ask questions like that. Please don’t scandalize the Faith.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Well, what do you people think about the possibility of a naturalistic origin of life and the alledged involvement of the Judeo-Christian deity. Any arguments does one have to offer against a naturalistic origin of life. I am simply curious about your knowledge regarding this complex topic.

My view is quite complicated, but I will say that we have no answer to this problem, and I think that scientific investigation is eventually yield an answer. Does anyone want to argue against this.

God & the sciences aren’t opposed - they can’t be, because they are incommensurable. The God of Jewish & Christian theism is not a god of the gaps, but a transcendent God, who is not changed by the progress of knowledge among men; He is not squeezed out by any increase in our knowledge of the universe, but is ever the same Sovereign Lord & Master of all creation - whether His creatures know it or not ​

So nothing science comes up with will be evidence of the non-existence or non-involvement of God. So it will always be possible to believe some form of naturalism, or, to believe in God. What matters for science is not whether one is a theist, or not, but whether one is a competent scientist.

The same applies, by parity of reasoning, to everything from driving to nursing, or writing a poem to riding a horse. One’s outlook on the world is irrelevant to whether one is technically competent in the writing of verse - rotten poetry is rotten irrespective of whether one is a Christian, a Jew, an agnostic, or a devil-worshipper. If I catch a taxi, I don’t want a person whose only recommendation is piety, but somebody who is competent to drive a taxi.

I know almost no science - but I do understand a bit of theology, and a bit about method. ##

 

[ribozyme]

Well, quantum chromodynamics states that quarks could be joined via the strong force (which is mediated by gluons). Protons and neutrons are triads of quarks (a neutron being down, down, up, and a proton up, up, down). This step happened in the early universe and accounts for the fact that it is difficult to isolate free quarks because of quark confinement. This process is called hadronization.

Next, at high enough temperatures, protons and neutrons combine into nuclei. For example the big bang nucleosynthesis yielded deuterium, helium, and trace amounts of lithium and berryllium, but unfortuantely, having a small periodic table consisting of isotopes of hydrogen, helium, lithum, and berrylium will not suffice for life. Thus matter condenses into galaxies and stars where stellar nucleosynthesis takes places, and is somewhat similar to the big bang nucleosynthesis. This process is able to yield elements up to iron, but we still have a small periodic table. Well, core collapse of supernova occurs when all their fuel is burned into iron as there is no heat to prevent the supernova for collapsing on itself. This process produces elements with high atomic numbers up to (Californium), but the elements with the highest atomic weight and reasonably long half-life (in the range of billions of years) is uranium.

This allows planets like the Earth to form. Eventually, in some solar systems, accidents arise; we will call them “life”. This has the unique ability of creating islands of order in a universe plummeting towards maximum entropy. But unfortunately, Darwinian evolution is ultimately a feeble force in the long run. Eventually, stars would burn all their fuel to iron and star formation will cease. Further down the line, most of the matter will gravitate into black holes. It is proposed that the universe will eventually be composed of photons via proton decay and the evaporation of black holes, but these hypotheses have not been confirmed.

Long story short, the universe is approaching a state of maximium entropy. To me, the universe is ultimately pointless.

Anyone want to argue against this conclusion.

Anyone want to point out how this is different from the quote in the OP of this thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116240 ?

 

[freesoulhope]

Ribozyme.

Accident or not, the Universe has to meet a certain criteria in order for us to be here. A combination of matter and space with time as its lubricant, all act as they do, and are as they are because they are governed by laws, Correct? It is the laws that govern them, that make them produce certain states of beings or patterns. When governed by “laws”, which make these elements act as they do, along with the reality or dimensions of existents which make them what they are, it is made possible that when certain criteria’s are met, “life” can come in to being.

The point I’m trying to say is this. What is it about existents, that life should be one of its possibilities? Why should existents exist in such away that when certain conditions are met, life is produced. To me, this tells me that life is a part of reality rather then an accident. It is a necessary occurrence once conditions are met. In order for me to love somebody, the ability to love had to have existed as a “possibility” or ingredient, or a produce of ingredients, long before we ever came in to being.

The law of this universe produces the necessary ingredients for life. How can it be then that life is an accident?
If I make the recipe for a cake, then it will produce a cake. It is true that errors can occur. If I put too much of something, it will become ruined, and will become something else. But that doesn’t change the fact that the ingredients when put together correctly, produces a perfect cake, and it will always produce a cake, so long as the same exact conditions are met. 1 + 1= 2 correct? Is it not logical then, that the universe is sustained by and is the produce of a higher reality that is not bound by the material chains of are universe such as “Time, Matter and Space”? Considering the big bang theory is correct of course.

You see, to me, it’s not logical that the world is ruled and sustained by its own natural body. I believe that “nature” needs a “Super nature”, something precomplimenting its existing reality. I need a sperm and an egg, in order for my self to be. There is always a chance that I won’t be born, but the sperm and egg is the ingredients for a human life.

However, all this being said, I’m ultimately dealing with presupposition. And so is the atheist. This being the case, it’s all about whose presupposition is most likely true based on what we know from scientific discovery, and the law of reason. Not who’s got evidence, evidence that cannot be obtained through empirical science. The truest answer you could possibly get lies in philosophical thought, not science.

This is just my opinion. Peace.

 

[LegionofMary]

There are two ways to live your life…

One is as though nothing is a miracle

The other is as thoughg everything is a miracle.

-ALBERT EINSTEIN

All of this conjecture is merely that. Einstein was the most intelligent human beings to every walk the planet. People like him e.g. Copernicus, Newton and Marilyne vos Savant all, like Einstein that our Universe and therefore our existance was not simply by chance. I, for one, choose this philosophy to guide my life.