What will you believe if science recreates the beginings of life?

[KittenKoder]

lol, Babble thinks scientific belief is that on any given day a rock will start talking.

Yep ..

 

[AllieBaba]

So ... somehow you think that some event causing life to be created equates to life itself creating itself?

If you're talking about the event that takes non-life supporting water and suddenly life springs forth, yes. Life can not be created from non-life. At some point, life has to be created by another life form.

 

[KittenKoder]

If you're talking about the event that takes non-life supporting water and suddenly life springs forth, yes. Life can not be created from non-life. At some point, life has to be created by another life form.

So then explain all the new life forms that have recently been created at almost seemingly random times, places, and reasons. Hint: virus' are life forms.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Refreshing News: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab

They are very close and if they succeed how will that effect your current beliefs?

It won't affect my beliefs at all. God is what started it all; He is the reason we're all here to begin with. Science able to recreate something means God did a good job when He was doling out intelligence. Just my take on things.

 

[frazzledgear]

Um .. you do realize we have only come close (and not very) to one other solar system, much less one other planet. We don't know what's out there yet, not even close. For all we know (though extremely unlikely) there could be one or more planets in every solar system with life on it. Also, we do know that there is bacterial life on some of our other planets and moons within our own solar system (just nothing large except on earth). You really need to stop using the whole 'god dunnit' answer for everything and learn a bit more. Right now Hubble can't even get enough of a picture from out of our own solar system to show if it's even possible (or not).

Scientists don't have to see another planet up close and personal to know whether it has the conditions necessary to sustain life. It is possible to determine the rough composition by means of their chemical and light spectrum "signatures" that can be identified and measured from right here on this planet. In addition, scientists have been able to rule out literally tens of thousands of planets in other galaxies as being capable of sustaining life based on nothing more than their location within the galaxy which would either result in far extremes in temperature, exposure to lethal solar winds or the existence of other lethal conditions that render it incapable of sustaining life.

The notion that life here on earth was a likely event is ludicrous. The calculation that the billions of cosmic variables that all had to be exactly what they are in order for life to even exist is such a huge number that if written out, the piece of paper required would be larger than the visible universe. Which means the odds that there is no life anywhere at all, including earth -is so high as to nearly be an absolute. When I say you vastly underestimate the magnitude of these odds, its true. Except we know that it does exist on earth -in TOTAL defiance of that. But the fact that life DOES exist on earth still doesn't change the odds with regard to life existing elsewhere as well! And the fact it does exist on earth doesn't mean the odds must have been in favor of that all along. Those odds never come anywhere close to being merely "remote", much less "in favor" of life existing on earth -but still remain so powerfully against it, that it is still a near absolute against life.


But let's indulge in some fantasy and pretend the odds of those billions of cosmic variables being precisely correct for the existence of life on this planet -are also highly likely to be precisely correct for life on some planet in a galaxy far, far away as well. Those odds are an exponential of each other. Which would require a piece of paper in order to write that number out -that is more than 5 times the size of the visible universe. And the size of the piece of paper required to write the odds that life does not exist anywhere else in the universe only determined by the size of that person's handwriting, not the number. Not looking good for discovering life elsewhere in the universe -in spite of earth defying those odds. That doesn't change the odds for it existing elsewhere at the same time.

And that is just skipping over the real biggie here that scientists still know is an immutable truth and doesn't help those odds, but works against them entirely. That it is physically impossible for nonliving, nonconcious and inorganic materials to produce a living, conscious organism. Life can only be produced by means of another life -never by inanimate, inorganic materials. Even Frankenstein knew he would have to rely on parts of other formerly living humans to bring his creature to life and just mixing a batch of chemicals wouldn't do it.

By the way, the universe is not infinite, therefore the number of planets that might even have the potential to sustain life, much less actually have life on them -is not infinite at all. Multiply the odds of life existing elsewhere times the best estimate of number of planets in the universe -and you don't even get a number anywhere close to approaching 1.

 

[Ravi]

There you have it people. Frankenstein is proof that God exists.

Well done, Fraz!

 

[AllieBaba]

So then explain all the new life forms that have recently been created at almost seemingly random times, places, and reasons. Hint: virus' are life forms.

"seemingly".

http://members.cox.net/jesus0011/bibproof.htm

"After 120 years and 100 million fossils, not one transitional fossil has been discovered between a species and its alleged ancestor [Sunderland, pg 9]. The fins of fish, which supposedly evolved into the amphibians' arms and legs, are only embedded in its flesh tissue, not in its skeletal structure, so they could not have become the animal's arms or legs [Gish, pg 73]. Some squashed trilobite fossils have been found in human footprint fossils even though evolutionists say trilobites were extinct 230 million years before man came into existence [Huse, pg 28]. Evolutionists have been searching for the missing link between apes and men for hundreds of years, yet have never found it. The remains of the alleged PILTDOWN MAN were discovered in 1912 by an armchair fossilologist. He brought some bones and artifacts to the British Museum, and said he had discovered them in a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. Anthropologists dated the remains at 500,000 years old. Everything was fine until 1956 when the bones were re-examined; tests showed that the jawbone was from a 50 year old ape, and that some of the teeth had been filed down to fool the experts [Huse, pg 100]. NEBRASKA MAN, discovered in 1925, was hailed by scientists as the oldest living man (1 million years old). He was completely constructed from one tooth. Later it was discovered that it was the tooth of an extinct pig [Huse, pg 97]. LUCY was an anthropoid discovered in Ethiopia by D. C. Johnson while he was listening to the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." She was supposed to be half ape and half man, yet walk upright. However the bone that was used to determine that she walked upright, the femur, was crushed completely, so she probably didn't walk upright after all [Huse, pg 102]. These fossils did not prove a thing, and no transitional fossils have been discovered, but you might say, "Doesn't the fossil record prove that dinosaurs existed, yet die out millions of years before man?"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You VASTLY underestimate the BILLIONS of cosmic variables scientists agree ALL had to be exactly correct for life to exist on this planet.

Stephen Hawking calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

If the precise amount of matter were not produced at the moment of origin, the universe would never have formed at all. If the universe expanded at any other speed, life would not be possible. If our planet were not tilted exactly the way it is (at an angle of 23.5 degrees on its axis of rotation) -life would not be possible. If Earth were any closer to the sun or any further away from the sun -life would not be possible. If the size, composition, location, orbit, distance of the earth, sun and moon were any different -life would not be possible. They are all exactly where they must be in order for life to exist. If the surface temperature of the sun was slightly higher or lower -life would not be possible. If the earth rotated on its axis at any other speed, life would not be possible. If the cosmological constant (the energy density of empty space) were any different whatsoever -life would not be possible. If the thickness of the earth's crust were any different -life would not be possible. If our planet did not have an abundant supply of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, phosphorus and calcium - life would not be possible. No other planet anywhere has been found to have all these crucial elements necessary to sustain life. If our planet were not covered with 4/5 water which gives us evaporation, rain and plays a crucial role in regulating temperatures -life would not be possible. If water did not have such a high boiling point AND if its solid form (ice) were not less dense than its liquid form (which isn't true of nearly all other chemical compounds) -life would not be possible.

thank you for the science lesson. seriously. It was an interesting and informative read. sort of like science trivia so I don't know what I'll do with it. maybe I can formulate a convoluted argument with it that will impress myself more than it impresses others?

And these are just a FEW of what scientists admit are BILLIONS of totally independent cosmic factors that must be exactly right in order for life to exist. Imagine BILLIONS of dials with an INFINITE range on each of them, one for each of the billions of cosmic variables involved here -and go ahead and try and convince yourself that just randomly spinning each of them is EVER going to result in each and every one of them falling exactly to the exquisitely precise point necessary on every single one of them in order for life to even exist. The odds that Mount Rushmore resulted from the random action of wind and rain on the rock are actually billions of times higher than that. And we know for a fact Mount Rushmore did not result as a random act but was man's deliberate creation.

Roger Penrose calculated that the mathematical probability of our universe “just popping out of nowhere” with the mind-boggling degree of fine-tuning that enables us to exist in our universe to be 10 to the 10123. This number is so vast that it can’t be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe.

Stephen Hawking wrote, “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun just this way, except as an act of God who intended to create beings like us.”

“The entire universe does indeed ‘cater’ to the needs of humanity after all, insofar as it is permeated with the very same structural specifications that are necessary for human existence…These cosmic ‘coincidences’ between distant branches of physics are so compelling, in fact, that many scientists are actually coming forward and admitting that ‘something must be going on behind the scenes.’ … Physicist Freeman Dyson also said ‘As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.’”

In fact, earth is even uniquely situated within our galaxy and our galaxy within the universe as to give man the best possible view of the universe -one that doesn't exist on any other planet in our galaxy or for any planet within any other known galaxy. Cosmic clouds and haze, dust, asteroid rings, nearby galaxies etc. limit the view anywhere else. Couldn't ask for a better spot from which to study the universe.

those impressive people said all that?

-------

Scientists tell us that a single strand of DNA holds enough coded information to fill a 6,000 volume enclopedia.

wow!

A code is something designed with the specific intent of conveying a specific MEANING that can be deciphered and that same meaning accurately interpreted by a receiver.

life replicates itself and is continually evolving. the 'code' we observe is there for life itself. once life, if it were 'created' spontaneously, exists it 'writes' it's own 'code' for itself. I don't see why some people feel the need to believe there was an entity that created life---and believe me, that is what most people mean when they say god or higher power...an entity---an entity with intelligence. an intelligence with grand design for what? us? It's a silly concept because in the great scheme of things we are a speck...spec...of dust in the universe.

DNA is a type of code that WE are learning to decode and comprehend as well. BUT in order for it to convey a specific meaning -then it must be sent for the purpose of being deciphered in a specific way in order to determine that meaning. And that means INTENT -as in deliberate and on purpose. In the manmade world, the only time code exists -it came about as the result of intelligent design. OURS. There is no such thing as a "random" unintentional meaningless code that just fell together by itself that just happens to "accidentally" be deciphered and understood by others to have MEANING. Everything from written and verbal language to Morse code to computer code -it must first have meaning to the creator and the INTENT that it be correctly deciphered in order to send that message. If it isn't sent with the intention of having a specific meaning -it cannot ever be decoded. "Intent" and "random chance" are diametric opposites and incompatible.

A very basic scientific fundamental truth is that when there are two examples of a similar phenomenon and you understand the cause of one of them, it is scientifically accurate to accept a similar causation as being responsible for the other. We know how all other examples of code originated -and all were purposely created. We know that an encoder must first intend to send a specific message and then encode it, that a receiver must be capable of deciphering that code in order to understand that specific message. There is INTENT to send a specific message with all other examples of code we know. To think otherwise is like pretending the gibberish a monkey pounds out on a typewriter actually conveys a specific message that is capable of being deciphered. It is still gibberish, has no meaning and is undecipherable -because it was sent with no intent of meaning in the first place. But the exquisitely specific message of DNA was created as an accident of nature, with no intent of meaning, no intent that it be correctly deciphered -but was just accidentally "deciphered" to have meaning anyway? LOL Without the intent of sending a message that has specific meaning -no code exists at all and no decoding can take place. The intent does not come from the receiver -but from the sender of that coded message. The receiver only needs to know how to decipher the code used by the sender in order to decipher the meaning of the message sent. If there is INTENT to convey a specific message and have it deciphered in a specific way in order to decipher the meaning of it -then it cannot also be random and meaningless!

To pretend that since our own intelligence did not create this code because it is beyond our capability to do so, and even though we can create far less complicated codes - that it somehow suggests that no intelligence at all was involved when it comes to a far more complicated code -is just sheer arrogance. In order to decode it, it must first have meaning to the encoder before it can have meaning to the receiver. The DNA itself is just the message, not the encoder. Common sense alone tells you it is actually far more likely to have been created by an intelligence that is also far, far more complicated and capable than our own.

the rest of the above just seems like a convoluted speculation


and nobody is pretending anything, unless it is pretending that science proves a god exists.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sort of like evolution.

 

[Diuretic]

And the funny thing is, even is science can reproduce it, that doesn't prove that God had nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't and nor is it trying to. Science - watch out, sweepingly half-arsed generalisation incoming - isn't working on disproving God. I would think most scientists would be chuffed if, even if they were non-believers, they could prove the existence of God. I mean, think of the speaking circuit!

But this the difference between science and religion. Science is working on finding these things out, religion is - generalising again - not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sort of like evolution.

evolution? just a working theory that can and is constantly tested. the theory is just about proven--- given the limitations of the tools we have at our disposal and our understanding of the science. what is continually tweaked are the minutiae of the theory. intelligent design has nothing to offer but convoluted arguments based a religious bias. arguments that have a conclusion in search of supporting premises.

 

[Diuretic]

Just because someone might figure out how it was designed doesn't meant that someone didn't design it.

Quite true, but to prove that someone designed it you 'd have to prove.............that someone designed it. Assumptions don't cut it.

 

[Diuretic]

Exactly. And every advance in science takes us closer and closer to God..rather than taking us further and further away, as you would expect to happen if you're of the "coincidental" ilk.

No need Allie - if the God hypothesis is correct then we're all getting closer and closer to God - day by day

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Originally Posted by Againsheila:

And the funny thing is, even is science can reproduce it, that doesn't prove that God had nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't and nor is it trying to. Science - watch out, sweepingly half-arsed generalisation incoming - isn't working on disproving God. I would think most scientists would be chuffed if, even if they were non-believers, they could prove the existence of God. I mean, think of the speaking circuit!

But this the difference between science and religion. Science is working on finding these things out, religion is - generalising again - not.

btw, nice avatar

 

[GHook93]

That's more substantive how? It's simply a theory. And a crappy one at that. Nobody has ever proven that life can spontaneously create itself.

Yet no one has ever prove or can even try to prove that the "grand creator" created life out of his own image! No thanks, I choose logic and theory over folklore!

 

[Diuretic]

So then explain all the new life forms that have recently been created at almost seemingly random times, places, and reasons. Hint: virus' are life forms.

And they're very effective life forms, little bastards. Hey why have we got them anyway? How come they're allowed to - like influenza which came from pigs - infect us? If there's a creator then they need to answer that one.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

'

'

'

exactly. And Every Advance In Science Takes Us Closer And Closer To God..rather Than Taking Us Further And Further Away, As You Would Expect To Happen If You're Of The "coincidental" Ilk.

 

[GHook93]

It won't affect my beliefs at all. God is what started it all

Can you prove this comment, other than "Trust me" or "Its in the Bible/Koran/Torah"? Can you even begin to test it?

Didn't think so!

 

[Diuretic]

"seemingly".

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE

"After 120 years and 100 million fossils, not one transitional fossil has been discovered between a species and its alleged ancestor [Sunderland, pg 9]. The fins of fish, which supposedly evolved into the amphibians' arms and legs, are only embedded in its flesh tissue, not in its skeletal structure, so they could not have become the animal's arms or legs [Gish, pg 73]. Some squashed trilobite fossils have been found in human footprint fossils even though evolutionists say trilobites were extinct 230 million years before man came into existence [Huse, pg 28]. Evolutionists have been searching for the missing link between apes and men for hundreds of years, yet have never found it. The remains of the alleged PILTDOWN MAN were discovered in 1912 by an armchair fossilologist. He brought some bones and artifacts to the British Museum, and said he had discovered them in a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. Anthropologists dated the remains at 500,000 years old. Everything was fine until 1956 when the bones were re-examined; tests showed that the jawbone was from a 50 year old ape, and that some of the teeth had been filed down to fool the experts [Huse, pg 100]. NEBRASKA MAN, discovered in 1925, was hailed by scientists as the oldest living man (1 million years old). He was completely constructed from one tooth. Later it was discovered that it was the tooth of an extinct pig [Huse, pg 97]. LUCY was an anthropoid discovered in Ethiopia by D. C. Johnson while he was listening to the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." She was supposed to be half ape and half man, yet walk upright. However the bone that was used to determine that she walked upright, the femur, was crushed completely, so she probably didn't walk upright after all [Huse, pg 102]. These fossils did not prove a thing, and no transitional fossils have been discovered, but you might say, "Doesn't the fossil record prove that dinosaurs existed, yet die out millions of years before man?"

Science marches on, illuminating the darkness, discovery by discovery, fighting the superstitious and knocking them down, one by one.

In the academic cockfight over bird origins, dinosaur researchers have discovered something to crow about. Two species of feathered dinosaurs have turned up in China, clinching the argument that birds arose from meat-eating dinosaurs, reports an international team of paleontologists this week.

Apart from the fact (above) that someone needs a strict sub-editor - this is really interesting and very exciting:

Science News Online (6/27/98): Feathered Dinosaurs Found in China

 

[Diuretic]

Sort of like evolution.

Allie - don't be silly - evolution is an explanation for what's been observed and it's a pretty good explanation. See the feathered dinos. Bit by bit the evidence keeps piling up.