The idea that everything is set up just right for life on earth

[josh987654321]

.

If I leave a pile of bricks in my back yard, after billions and billions of years, will they jump into a house? If I blow up a printing press billions and billions of times, will I get a dictionary? are these plausable explanations for you?

I don’t know a great deal about DNA and RNA etc, thanks for sharing it though.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Actually, this is something which constantly pops up in creationist argumentation, which I cannot for the life of me understand:

Why do you assume that God has to cheat by breaking his own rules?

An omnipotent God can equally well create all the 10^500 universes postulated by the string theory and let the things run themselves.

I assume he came up with the rules, so no, I don’t assume he has to cheat them. However why would he created 10^500 (don’t know where that nunber comes from ) universes in order to have one turn out the way he wanted it? why not create one and rig the chances? (as we can observe unlike the theory of multi universes)

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Deltadeliquent]

I’ve seen this argument before. It puzzles me that no one seems to think the other way.
To me, it’s obvious that life evolved to live in the conditions it was presented with, rather than the conditions were fine tuned to support life.

And who says our sort of life is the only kind of life? It’s just the only kind we can imagine so its the only kind we look for or think about.

 

[ericc]

Chemistry.

Please show how that is done and who did it.

No. You need stellar nucleosynthesis.

Where did the stuff for stellar nucleosynthesis come from?

Why? Is your designer alive? If yes then how did the designer get life. A living designer cannot originate life. If you designer is not alive, then what caused your designer?

Yes, the designer is alive, uncreated, uncaused and almighty. Yes a living designer can originate life. The opposite is false i.e. a dead designer can not originate life.

Better to say “abiogenesis” if you are talking about the origin of life. Evolution does not describe the origin of life, but the diversification of the first life into the many species we see today. Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Life”.

I’m ok with that. I was alluding how viruses may come about. After life, comes differentiation.

Here is a quote from Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– A Brief History of Time

Such a zero-energy universe is indeed, in one sense, nothing. Such a universe needs no cause; nothing does not need a cause.

rossum

Unfortunately I am not cowed by Hawkings argument. So the conclusion reached by you is that :

The universe is nothing, so God created nothing.

Unfortunately, you and I exist. So something was created. The universe is not nothing as you can see that around you. Sorry, I am not into Zen stuff, something is nothing, nothing is something. Is there something or nothing before the Big Bang? William Craig response to one of his Q & A:

“The argument that nothing exists is based on a bookkeeping trick: if the positive energy of the universe and the negative energy of the universe exactly balance out, then the net energy of the universe is zero; therefore, nothing exists! This is like saying that if you go on a round trip journey in which the return leg retraces the outbound leg, then your net motion is zero; therefore you haven’t gone anywhere! Marianna, you’re absolutely correct that the illustration of the hole and the dirt pile actually proves the exact opposite of Hawking’s claim, for even though the volume of the dirt equals the volume of the hole, that in no way implies that the hole and the dirt pile do not exist (you might fall in the hole and break your leg or sit on the dirt pile)! In the case of the universe, you still need a cause to explain the origin of the positive and the negative energy in the first place, even if when summed together their net balance is zero.”

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/hawkings-curious-objections-to-divine-creation#ixzz2s9NzkKqq

So my bottom line still goes back to this: Where did all these energies (positive or negative) (fill in the blank anything, sub atomic particles, etc etc etc) comes from? If you can believe in magic i.e. these things just appeared out of zero-existence, there is nothing to stop you in believing God exist either.

 

[tonyrey]

Polar bears have thick fur because they live in a cold climate, they have adapted to where they live. Fish can extract oxygen from water, they have adapted to where they live. Life adapts so it can survive where it lives, and hence any surviving life is well adapted to live where it lives. Non-adapted life has died out and so we don’t see it.

Douglas Adams’ puddle believes that the hole it lives in has been perfectly shaped so it fits exactly. The puddle is wrong.

rossum

If you’re a puddle you can’t choose not to be wet nor decide whether you’re right or wrong! :bighanky:

 

[josh987654321]

If you’re a puddle you can’t choose not to be wet nor decide whether you’re right or wrong! :bighanky:

As C.S. Lewis puts it, it would be like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

 

[rossum]

If I leave a pile of bricks in my back yard, after billions and billions of years, will they jump into a house? If I blow up a printing press billions and billions of times, will I get a dictionary? are these plausable explanations for you?

Bricks and dictionaries are not alive, do not reproduce and do not undergo natural selection. Your examples are not models of evolution.

I don’t know a great deal about DNA and RNA etc, thanks for sharing it though.

Then I suggest that you learn. That way the examples you give will be more relevant.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Please show how that is done and who did it.

Your assumption of “who” is unwarranted. Who is it that makes sure that Sodium and Chlorine combine to make salt?

The study of the origin of life is called abiogenesis, and is far from complete. So far we can form amino acids, lipid bilayers, purines and pyrimidines in the lab from simple chemical ingredients under probable early-earth conditions.

Where did the stuff for stellar nucleosynthesis come from?

Hydrogen from the Big Bang.

Yes, the designer is alive, uncreated, uncaused and almighty.

So you assert. You have presented no evidence to support your assertion.

Yes a living designer can originate life.

False. A living designer cannot originate life. At best a living designer can create the second living thing. The designer itself is the first living thing, and the designer cannot create itself. Consider:

Q: “How did the first Armadillo originate?”

A: “Emily the Armadillo gave birth to it.”

Do you find that answer satisfactory?

The opposite is false i.e. a dead designer can not originate life.

Again an assertion unsupported by any evidence.

So my bottom line still goes back to this: Where did all these energies (positive or negative) (fill in the blank anything, sub atomic particles, etc etc etc) comes from? If you can believe in magic i.e. these things just appeared out of zero-existence, there is nothing to stop you in believing God exist either.

Does God have any energy? Where did God’s energy come from?

rossum

 

[ericc]

Your assumption of “who” is unwarranted. Who is it that makes sure that Sodium and Chlorine combine to make salt?

The question was how life comes out of lifeless elements. Not how chemical reactions takes place. Who was the originator of life?

The study of the origin of life is called abiogenesis, and is far from complete. So far we can form amino acids, lipid bilayers, purines and pyrimidines in the lab from simple chemical ingredients under probable early-earth conditions.

Nice to know that

Hydrogen from the Big Bang.

Ok, I’ve succeeded to go back 1 step. Why don’t we do it all the way back. Where did the hydrogen come from? And whatever particles/energies that create hydrogen, where did these come from?

So you assert. You have presented no evidence to support your assertion.

I don’t need to. I just need you to proof that you can create life from chemistry. The other information is FYI only and I don’t want to be distracted from the original statement that I made that namely:

“No laws of nature can produce life out of inanimate matter.” and you answered with an irrelevant question about viruses and later on you gave the answer as “chemistry”. I asked “how” and “whom” but did not get a reply to these clarifying questions. So either you know how chemistry can produce life or you do not.

False. A living designer cannot originate life. At best a living designer can create the second living thing. The designer itself is the first living thing, and the designer cannot create itself. Consider:

Q: “How did the first Armadillo originate?”

A: “Emily the Armadillo gave birth to it.” hyu

Do you find that answer satisfactory?

As long as the designer can produce a living thing, he has managed to originate life of that species. But that is FYI only. It doesn’t help YOUR answer.

Again an assertion unsupported by any evidence.

Again I don’t need to. FYI only. If God is dead, there is no one to do the creating. You can substitute God with anything/one else. If no one does the creating, nothing gets created. You don’t need my answer to answer your question.

Does God have any energy? Where did God’s energy come from?

rossum

Again that is irrelevant to the 2 statements for discussion. Sure he has lots of energy among other stuff. But that is not important for the sake of this discussion. Yes, it would be nice to know more about God, his nature, properties, powers, etc but that doesn’t help you answer the question. You can ask in a separate NEW thread if you wish to but I’d like to get back to the 2 statements in discussion. Which you have started to attempt to answer but not completed to its full conclusion.
To recap:

1)No laws of nature can produce life out of inanimate matter.
Your response: chemistry (no details provided)

2)No laws of nature can explain where these “matter” i.e. dust, gases, energy came from. How did it come into existence?
Your response: stellar nucleosynthesis. Unfortunately this is an intermediate process. it presupposes you have material to work with in the first place. Of which an answer will be pending from you.

 

[Memaw]

I assume he came up with the rules, so no, I don’t assume he has to cheat them. However why would he created 10^500 (don’t know where that nunber comes from ) universes in order to have one turn out the way he wanted it? why not create one and rig the chances? (as we can observe unlike the theory of multi universes)

Thank you for reading
Josh

And what makes you think they didn’t ALL turn out the way HE wanted??? God Bless, Memaw

 

[josh987654321]

Bricks and dictionaries are not alive, do not reproduce and do not undergo natural selection. Your examples are not models of evolution.

It’s in relation to people trying to explain our existance with ‘chance’ and positing multi universe theories in order to make the most absurd chances plausable explanations, I’m just asking, if people believe that our existance is purely by chance, if I posited a theory that a dictionary was produced by an explosion in a printing press, would you take that as a rational explanation for the existance of a dictionary?

If I posited the multi universe therory would it suddenly make the existance of a dictionary from an exploding printing press a plausable explanation? we just happened to be in the universe where all the ink and paper just happened to fall in all the right places after the printing press exploded? the multi universe theory means that the most absurd chances become plausable explanations, the more absurd the chances, the more multi universes that are speculated to claim it as not simply chance, but the only logical outcome. Which in itself I find absurd.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Memaw]

Bricks and dictionaries are not alive, do not reproduce and do not undergo natural selection. Your examples are not models of evolution.

Then I suggest that you learn. That way the examples you give will be more relevant.

rossum

Isn’t GOD awesome, it takes our breath away trying to figure HIM out. God Bless Memaw

 

[rossum]

The question was how life comes out of lifeless elements. Not how chemical reactions takes place. Who was the originator of life?

Life is a complex chemical reaction, why does a complex chemical reaction need a “who”?.

The originator of life was not alive. If you are happy with a non-living “who” then perhaps you could explain the mode of existence of such an entity.

Ok, I’ve succeeded to go back 1 step. Why don’t we do it all the way back. Where did the hydrogen come from? And whatever particles/energies that create hydrogen, where did these come from?

Start by reading Steven Weinberg’s “The First Three Minutes”. After that start studying string theory, M-theory and various ideas about the Multiverse. Cosmologists are still working on the problem so we don’t have a complete answer yet.

Be aware that I will expect a similar level of detail about the origins of your proposed “who”.

I don’t need to. I just need you to proof that you can create life from chemistry.

Work on abiogenesis is not yet complete, but it is a lot further advanced than your “who”. Abiogenesis can generate amino acids. Please show me the reference where your “who” has made amino acids. Similarly for lipid bilayers, purines and pyrimidines. The race is not yet finished, but science has progressed a lot further than your “who”, who hasn’t even left the starting blocks yet.

As long as the designer can produce a living thing, he has managed to originate life of that species. (emphasis added)

You are moving the goalposts. We were discussing the origin of life. By shifting to the origin of a particular species you are avoiding the question and implicitly handing the victory to me. Your living designer cannot be the origin of life because the designer is itself alive.

As to the origin of particular species, there was a book published in 1859 on that very subject: “On the Origin of Species”. Have you read it?

1)No laws of nature can produce life out of inanimate matter.
Your response: chemistry (no details provided)

See Powner et al (2009) Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Now it is your turn. Where are your non-chemically created pyrimidines?

2)No laws of nature can explain where these “matter” i.e. dust, gases, energy came from. How did it come into existence?
Your response: stellar nucleosynthesis. Unfortunately this is an intermediate process. it presupposes you have material to work with in the first place. Of which an answer will be pending from you.

Scientists are still working on that question. See Planck Space Data Yields Evidence of Universes Beyond Our Own for work currently being done on the Multiverse theory. If that work pans out, then the initial energy came from the Mulitverse in which we are embedded. Alternatively in String Theory the initial energy came from the collision of two branes.

Please show equivalent research about the origin of the energy used by your proposed designer.

I am providing partial answers to your question, because both questions are still being worked on and we only have partial data currently. I note that you are providing zero response to my questions about the origin of your designer, how your designer makes the chemicals required for life and the origin of the energy your designer uses. Continuing to avoid answers to those question will not make the questions go away.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’m just asking, if people believe that our existance is purely by chance

No, scientists do not. Neither physics nor chemistry are chance processes. Attempting to use chance as a model for either will lead you into error. If we ignite a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen we get H[sub]2[/sub]O. We do not get a chance mixture of H[sub]1[/sub]O, H[sub]2[/sub]O, H[sub]3[/sub]O and H[sub]4[/sub]O.

Random chance is a very bad model of chemistry. The origin of life involves a great deal of chemistry, for example in the formation of lipid bilayers. Lipid bilayers do not form by chance; they form due to the electrostatic action of the hydrophilic and hydrophobic ends of the lipid molecule.

If I posited the multi universe therory would it suddenly make the existance of a dictionary from an exploding printing press a plausable explanation?

Not on its own, no. However, we do have some evidence if the existence of other universes: ‘Multiverse’ theory suggested by microwave background. We have evidence for the multiverse theory so it should not be rejected outright.

rossum

 

[josh987654321]

Here’s a funny story. Yesterday at work I was dealing with an error in a computer program. The error was caused by the fact that two randomly drawn numbers were the same. The probability of this happening was 1:281’474’976’710’656. Not only it happened, it happened on Friday afternoon. Go figure

Here’s a funny story. The other day a bunch of confined ink and paper exploded, I found one piece of paper with the letter ‘A’ on it, not only it happened, but it happened on a saturday afternoon. Go figure

 

[josh987654321]

Here’s a funny story. The other day a bunch of confined ink and paper exploded, I found one piece of paper with the letter ‘A’ on it, not only it happened, but it happened on a saturday afternoon. Go figure

Couple that with the Multi universe theory and you got yourself some dictionaries

 

[Memaw]

No, scientists do not. Neither physics nor chemistry are chance processes. Attempting to use chance as a model for either will lead you into error. If we ignite a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen we get H[sub]2[/sub]O. We do not get a chance mixture of H[sub]1[/sub]O, H[sub]2[/sub]O, H[sub]3[/sub]O and H[sub]4[/sub]O.

Random chance is a very bad model of chemistry. The origin of life involves a great deal of chemistry, for example in the formation of lipid bilayers. Lipid bilayers do not form by chance; they form due to the electrostatic action of the hydrophilic and hydrophobic ends of the lipid molecule.

Not on its own, no. However, we do have some evidence if the existence of other universes: ‘Multiverse’ theory suggested by microwave background. We have evidence for the multiverse theory so it should not be rejected outright.

rossum

But it’s still a theory. The link their missing is GOD. God BLess. Memaw

 

[rossum]

But it’s still a theory. The link their missing is GOD. God BLess. Memaw

Gravity is still a theory. Currently we know of more problems with our theory of gravity (aka General Relativity) than with the theory of evolution.

Scientists use many technical terms, which differ from the colloquial use of the same word. “Theory” is one of those technical terms.

rossum

 

[ericc]

Life is a complex chemical reaction, why does a complex chemical reaction need a “who”?.

You mean you don’t need someone to put the correct chemicals together, in the right ratio, in the right sequence, in the correct environment i.e. pressure/temperature and what not? They just assembled together on their own with all the right specifications without the direction of anyone? And viola! life is created!? That is amazing!

Anyway, back to the question again, how did your chemistry create life? Please do stay on this question rather than asking me to read tons of books. I know it is complex without me doing a lot of reading, but if you already know the answer is chemistry, just show what you have. Even if I don’t understand, I can ask those who are experts to see whether your chemistry works or not. Peer review of some sort?

The originator of life was not alive. If you are happy with a non-living “who” then perhaps you could explain the mode of existence of such an entity.

So proof it that the originator of life was not alive. My happiness is not at discussion here. Just clarifications to the 2 statements I made which you replied.

Start by reading Steven Weinberg’s “The First Three Minutes”. After that start studying string theory, M-theory and various ideas about the Multiverse. Cosmologists are still working on the problem so we don’t have a complete answer yet.

I will skip this. It is just another of your diversion tactic. It is beyond me anyway and I will admit science is not my strength. I am just a simple person asking very simple questions. If you have the answers, just publish it here. Asking me to read tons of books doesn’t help you answer your questions.

See Powner et al (2009) Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Now it is your turn. Where are your non-chemically created pyrimidines?

Even if you can provide all the research that shows you can manufacture the probable constituents of a live organism, you are no where near life creation. But back to the original statements: where did you get the materials to make these fanciful new products? All you have illustrated is how intelligent some people are in making something out of something. You have “designers” with the intelligence cooking up these acids, lipids. There is a “who”. After you have managed to explain how these elements come into existence, you still haven’t shown how these elements became alive.

Be aware that I will expect a similar level of detail about the origins of your proposed “who”.

If you can answer how the chemistry works without the aid of anyone directing the process as mentioned above, I will withdraw the “who”. I am assuming that lifeless elements do not contain any intelligence on how to create life. Isn’t this a fair assumption? If I am wrong, please educate me. I only did simple chemistry in high school. Yet I know I have to assemble the right equipment, right chemicals, correct proportions, correct sequence, correct timing, right temperatures, right pressures to get some reactions. I was the designer. It would be reasonable for me to extrapolate from my experience that to create something as complex as life using various chemicals would need someone with immense intelligence to put them together? Is my extrapolation in error?

to be cont’d

 

[ericc]

Work on abiogenesis is not yet complete, but it is a lot further advanced than your “who”. Abiogenesis can generate amino acids. Please show me the reference where your “who” has made amino acids. Similarly for lipid bilayers, purines and pyrimidines.

In summary, currently, we do not know how life can emerge from lifeless elements. But we have made progress in understanding in how amino acids, lipid bilayers, purines and pyrimidines can be made. Nice to know but still very far from the lifeless elements —> life, nothing—> something.

You are moving the goalposts. We were discussing the origin of life. By shifting to the origin of a particular species you are avoiding the question and implicitly handing the victory to me. Your living designer cannot be the origin of life because the designer is itself alive.

I didn’t move anything. The designer I have in mind didn’t create himself. He created life of other species in the material world to put it more specifically. You said it is out of chemistry. So I said show it to us. Now you are claiming I am moving the goalposts? I haven’t even gotten as answer from you so how could I move anything? The question still remain unchanged, goalpost is still the same goalpost.

As to the origin of particular species, there was a book published in 1859 on that very subject: “On the Origin of Species”. Have you read it?

No I didn’t and irrelevant. If I remember correctly from online sources, the book starting point was that life already existed and it then tries to demonstrate how differentiation of species may have happened. The book doesn’t show how life originates. Furthermore, it can not explain the Cambrian Explosion which more or less destroyed this hypothesis.

Scientists are still working on that question. See Planck Space Data Yields Evidence of Universes Beyond Our Own for work currently being done on the Multiverse theory. If that work pans out, then the initial energy came from the Mulitverse in which we are embedded. Alternatively in String Theory the initial energy came from the collision of two branes.

The Many Worlds Hypothesis(MWH) is just another desperate attempt to increase the probability pool when the Single World odds for fine tuning for intelligent life became so terribly remote. So atheists after losing the fight on the finetuning argument, now resort to mathematics to increase their “chances”. MWH has came under attack from people like Roger Penrose. Penrose "characterizes it as “misleading,” because the M-theory that is the basis for the claims on God is “not even a theory”, “hardly science,” but instead merely “a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations” that have “absolutely no support from observation”.

John Horgan, who operates a blog commentary for Scientific American, have this to say : M-theory, theorists now realize, comes in an almost infinite number of versions, which “predict” an almost infinite number of possible universes. Critics call this the “Alice’s restaurant problem,” a reference to the refrain of the old Arlo Guthrie folk song: “You can get anything you want at Alice’s restaurant.” Of course, a theory that predicts everything really doesn’t predict anything, and hence isn’t a theory at all. Proponents, including Hawking, have tried to turn this bug into a feature, proclaiming that all the universes “predicted” by M-theory actually exist. “Our universe seems to be one of many,” Hawking and Mlodinow assert. …

The anthropic principle has always struck me as so dumb that I can't understand why anyone takes it seriously. It's cosmology's version of creationism. [The weak anthropic principle] is tautological and [the strong anthropic principle] is teleological. The physicist Tony Rothman, with whom I worked at Scientific American in the 1990s, liked to say that the anthropic principle in any form is completely ridiculous and hence should be called ****
Now, Hawking is telling us that unconfirmable M-theory plus the anthropic tautology represents the end of that quest [to solve the riddle of existence]. If we believe him, the joke's on us."

Please show equivalent research about the origin of the energy used by your proposed designer.

I don’t need to. You were trying to explain how lifeless elements became life and how things came into existence. Not me. It is futile to get me off track!

I am providing partial answers to your question, because both questions are still being worked on and we only have partial data currently. I note that you are providing zero response to my questions about the origin of your designer, how your designer makes the chemicals required for life and the origin of the energy your designer uses. Continuing to avoid answers to those question will not make the questions go away.

rossum

The precise reason I am not providing response is not to be detracted by you while waiting for your explanations. So bottom line you are NOT able to support the answers you have given me to the 2 statements I made. Which is :

1)No laws of nature can produce life out of inanimate matter.
Your response: chemistry (no details provided)
2)No laws of nature can explain where these “matter” i.e. dust, gases, energy came from. How did it come into existence?
Your response: no further update on the ultimate source of ingredients for stellar nucleosynthesis. The preliminary answer was hydrogen which bought a bit of time for you but unfortunately, when we get to the finer details, nothing concrete results.

However , if you are interested in your other questions about the Designer, please feel free to start a new post. If I can contribute, I will give my 2 cents.