Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?

God created the universe like this

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by edmc^2

 

The power that be or to be precise - the CAUSAL force behind the existence of life according to iterationzero is/are natural laws.

No, we weren't talking about the "causal force behind the existence of life". We were talking about the chemical reactions that govern the formation of polypeptides. This is the third time you've done this, so I can only assume that it's not an error on your part and that you're being intentionally dishonest. I'll start replying to your posts again when you show signs of having grown a sense of integrity when dealing with others. It's a shame that I have to tell a theist to act ethically in a conversation.

huh? intentionally dishonest? meh?

How could I be since all I'm asking is a confirmation of what started life?

Per your response to my earlier question - you said:

But, once again, they're not forming "randomly" or by "blind chance". The chemical reactions are governed by natural laws.

So I said:

Great - finally got the answer that I'm looking for.

So let me get this crystal clear before you keep accusing of missing the point:

The power that be or to be precise - the CAUSAL force behind the existence of life according to iterationzero is/are natural laws.

Correct?

If you can confirm this - then you'll see that I'm asking the same question - no moving of goalpost as you claim.

edit:
In case you don't like the words "CAUSAL force" - let me rephrase my q:

What made or what moved the chemicals to react?

In other words - what was behind the - to quote you:

chemical reactions that go into forming amino acids and DNA/RNA bases -- reactions which take place with elements formed in some of the earliest stages of stellar nucleosynthesis

your response:

But, once again, they're not forming "randomly" or by "blind chance". The chemical reactions are governed by natural laws.

correct?

tx

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
I take it too that you agree with iterationzero that the power that be or the CAUSAL force that created the "auto-catalytic RNA molecules" is/are natural laws.

I don't know, if the above is what happened. However, from all the alternatives, I find it the most likely explanation, as it has already been demonstrated possible (to a large degree), and it doesn't require magic, which would make the explanation infinitely more complex. If you want to call natural laws "God", be my guest. You'll be in good company, as Einstein basically did that too. Just keep in mind, that it has nothing to do with the many personal Gods of ancient mythologies. This God doesn't break the natural laws, on the contrary this God is the natural laws. Big difference.

edit on 2-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

First off why do you people keeps saying magic? No one is saying magic here except you people. In fact magic is condemned by God and those practicing it are not guaranteed life.

It's only the ignorant who says this and I think you're not one of them - I hope. And just because something is beyond our understanding it's magic.

here let me give you Dr. Michio Kaku - one of my favorite scientist/theoritical physicist.

"the God of Miracles is, in some sense, beyond what we know as science. This is not to say that miracles cannot happen, only that they are outside what is commonly called science." [p. 331] Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension - Dr. Michio Kaku

But if you keep insisting it's magic - then so be it and be an ignoramus.

As for this statement of yours:

However, from all the alternatives, I find it the most likely explanation, as it has already been demonstrated possible (to a large degree)

edit:

Curious, does this mean then that life is a product of intelligent design/creation?

If not please demonstrate then how it is not.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Curious, does this mean then that life is a product of intelligent design/creation?

I guess that depends where you think natural laws come from. That's not something science can address yet. I don't personally see a need for a deity. As I've already said before, that would only make things ever so more complex and thus more unlikely to have occurred (applying Occam's razor here). Notice also, that this doesn't imply design in the way that the ID movement means it, nor creation in the way that fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, etc. mean it.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Curious, does this mean then that life is a product of intelligent design/creation?

I guess that depends where you think natural laws come from. That's not something science can address yet. I don't personally see a need for a deity. As I've already said before, that would only make things ever so more complex and thus more unlikely to have occurred (applying Occam's razor here). Notice also, that this doesn't imply design in the way that the ID movement means it, nor creation in the way that fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, etc. mean it.

I guess that depends where you think natural laws come from. That's not something science can address yet.

Interesting line of thought but isn't it logical, commonsensical and most of all scientifically factual for instance to conclude that the laws governing man require a law maker?

How is this different with natural laws?

That is, can any law exists without a law maker? Especially if it's a stable and predictable law such as the laws of nature?

And how could it be more complex if we attribute such law to the Creator of such laws? It's not - in fact it's the only logical explanation.

But to say otherwise is illogical. In fact it's more difficult to explain that such laws just came to be.

Here's what I mean (based on scientific facts as explained in most grade school / high school textbooks):

Consider Oxygen:

In its normal state this gas is indispensable to human and animal life. But when you combine the three atoms of oxygen it becomes ozone, which is a poisonous gas. However, it does not happen accidentally, or randomly at any time in any place because it requires special conditions or rules to produce ozone. And this special condition is only occurring in the atmosphere.

Question is - did such precise law came to be by itself or did someone put it there?

My scientifically inclined, logically and commonsensically mind tells me the later.

But what say you?

If you say the former - explain how and why? You can't because like you said:

That's not something science can address yet.

And probably will never will because the only explanation is a Creator -something that science can never explain.

Unless of course - they have logic and common sense.

tc.

reply to post by edmc^2

I don't think human laws and natural laws are comparable. Humans laws are but abstract concepts, whereas natural laws are the manifestation of the fabric of reality.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Consider Oxygen:

In its normal state this gas is indispensable to human and animal life. But when you combine the three atoms of oxygen it becomes ozone, which is a poisonous gas. However, it does not happen accidentally, or randomly at any time in any place because it requires special conditions or rules to produce ozone. And this special condition is only occurring in the atmosphere.

Question is - did such precise law came to be by itself or did someone put it there?

My scientifically inclined, logically and commonsensically mind tells me the later.

But what say you?

If you say the former - explain how and why?

You fail to see here, that life is the result of evolution on this planet in these conditions. You know, when cyanobacteria started producing oxygen into our planet's atmosphere, mass extinction followed, as this was something completely new, and oxygen was toxic to almost everything living back then. We evolved in conditions were oxygen was abundant, so to us it's more of a necessity than toxin. Of course such things appear fine-tuned for us, but the direction of causality is actually reverse. We are the descendants of those organisms that managed to make the most of what was. That is to say, evolution thru natural selection "optimized" us for this planet into these conditions..

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Consider Oxygen:

In its normal state this gas is indispensable to human and animal life. But when you combine the three atoms of oxygen it becomes ozone, which is a poisonous gas. However, it does not happen accidentally, or randomly at any time in any place because it requires special conditions or rules to produce ozone. And this special condition is only occurring in the atmosphere.

Question is - did such precise law came to be by itself or did someone put it there?

My scientifically inclined, logically and commonsensically mind tells me the later.

But what say you?

If you say the former - explain how and why?

You fail to see here, that life is the result of evolution on this planet in these conditions. You know, when cyanobacteria started producing oxygen into our planet's atmosphere, mass extinction followed, as this was something completely new, and oxygen was toxic to almost everything living back then. We evolved in conditions were oxygen was abundant, so to us it's more of a necessity than toxin. Of course such things appear fine-tuned for us, but the direction of causality is reversed. We are the descendants of those organisms that managed to make the most of what was, that is to say, evolution "optimized" us for this planet into these conditions..

edit on 2-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

I don't think human laws and natural laws are comparable. Humans laws are but abstract concepts, whereas natural laws are the manifestation of the fabric of reality.

Does this mean then that to you - nature is intelligent, more intelligent than humans?

I ask this question because based on what you said above - it seems like nature already knew what to do before we even arrived. It knew how to mixed proper gasses in order for life to exist. It knew how to precisely arrange and place the genetic codes in the DNA intelligently so that life will appear or as you believe appear and evolved in different forms. It knew that it needs to established naturals laws so that life on earth will not only survive but flourish. It knew to precisely place the earth in a location in the Milky Way Galaxy so that life will exist. It knew to place in man amazing attributes like love, mercy, loving kindness, etc.

Not only that - it also means that nature has such amazing power that it's able to create the entire universe and have them follow precise fine-tuned universal / galactic laws. Then continue to maintain it. And so much more I can mention - all of these nature knew what to do to create life and the universe!

If so - is nature an Entity? If you believe so, sorry I fail to see this.

tx

Originally posted by edmc^2
Does this mean then that to you - nature is intelligent, more intelligent than humans?

I ask this question because based on what you said above - it seems like nature already knew what to do before we even arrived. It knew how to mixed proper gasses in order for life to exist. It knew how to precisely arrange and place the genetic codes in the DNA intelligently so that life will appear or as you believe appear and evolved in different forms. It knew that it needs to established naturals laws so that life on earth will not only survive but flourish. It knew to precisely place the earth in a location in the Milky Way Galaxy so that life will exist. It knew to place in man amazing attributes like love, mercy, loving kindness, etc.

Not really. What makes you think that our existence was some goal set in stone? To me our existence is but the consequence of things having been what they were and I see no reason to think otherwise. We would not exist, if for example that asteroid had not hit Earth some 65 million years ago. I don't think, that such events were plotted beforehand by some intelligence in order for us to evolve. That would be extremely human-centric, and let's face it, it sounds ridiculous.

reply to post by rhinoceros

What makes you think that our existence was some goal set in stone?

Of course not because we owe our existence to the Creator of Life - Jehovah God?

Life is a gift from God!

It's more like arrival of the fittest not the "survival of the fittest".

That is, the earth was prepared in advance for our ARRIVAL.

All intelligent things in nature when we look at them with open mind and understanding show the fingerprint of a Masterful Creator.

Sadly mankind don't appreciate it - they even attribute such wonderful qualities to nature. As if nature is responsible for life.

Is that what you truly believe rhinoceros? That nature is responsible for life?

If so do you give thanks to nature?

tc.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Or, as Douglas Adams put it...

... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

Sheer hubris.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Of course not because we owe our existence to the Creator of Life - Jehovah God?

Life is a gift from God!

It's more like arrival of the fittest not the "survival of the fittest".

That is, the earth was prepared in advance for our ARRIVAL.

All intelligent things in nature when we look at them with open mind and understanding show the fingerprint of a Masterful Creator.

Sadly mankind don't appreciate it - they even attribute such wonderful qualities to nature. As if nature is responsible for life.

Now you're just preaching. In this context, arguing for a specific personal God is pretty much the least intelligent thing a person can do. What are you going to do when another guy comes around and says that you are wrong, and that the real God is Brahma? More importantly, what happens to the discussion? Two absolute opinions, only subjective evidence. What does that lead to?

I find it equally sad, that you fail to grasp the full wonder of what is reality.

Is that what you truly believe rhinoceros? That nature is responsible for life?

If so do you give thanks to nature?

I don't feel like I own my life to someone or something. I'm but a passing spectator of the mysterious thing we call reality.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Of course not because we owe our existence to the Creator of Life - Jehovah God?

Life is a gift from God!

It's more like arrival of the fittest not the "survival of the fittest".

That is, the earth was prepared in advance for our ARRIVAL.

All intelligent things in nature when we look at them with open mind and understanding show the fingerprint of a Masterful Creator.

Sadly mankind don't appreciate it - they even attribute such wonderful qualities to nature. As if nature is responsible for life.

Now you're just preaching. In this context, arguing for a specific personal God is pretty much the least intelligent thing a person can do. What are you going to do when another guy comes around and says that you are wrong, and that the real God is Brahma? More importantly, what happens to the discussion? Two absolute opinions, only subjective evidence. What does that lead to?

I find it equally sad, that you fail to grasp the full wonder of what is reality.

Is that what you truly believe rhinoceros? That nature is responsible for life?

If so do you give thanks to nature?

I don't feel like I own my life to someone or something. I'm but a passing spectator of the mysterious thing we call reality.

You asked me a question so I answered.

As for:

I find it equally sad, that you fail to grasp the full wonder of what is reality.

Oh yes I do grasp the full wonder of what is reality - but I attribute them to the Creator himself not nature.

And like I said - as the Creator I owe my life to him.

As for:

What are you going to do when another guy comes around and says that you are wrong, and that the real God is Brahma? More importantly, what happens to the discussion? Two absolute opinions, only subjective evidence. What does that lead to?

Well that's their prerogative - and are entitled to it but can they back it up?

Of course like you said "Two absolute opinions, only subjective evidence."

But which one is logical and makes sense?

Just like you believing that nature is the creator and I, believing that an Intelligent Creator is responsible for life.

Which one makes sense and based on logic?

I say mine because the facts support it. All evidence show that life was indeed created - from the micro to macro.

Just like my signature say - Life can only come from life! That is pre-existing life - God. But you are on the opposite side.

So back to my question do you believe that nature is intelligent than humans?

tc.

Originally posted by edmc^2
...

So back to my question do you believe that nature is intelligent than humans?

tc.

This is where I point out that my stuff is supported by objective evidence. Either way, this discussion might just as well end here. You will not change your mind. I will not change mine. Nothing to be gained. To me it's extremely fascinating that in this reality two consciousness rose from an underlying chaos and found the time to disagree about their coming in the virtual world of the internet. To you, I guess, this is just God's plan.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
...

So back to my question do you believe that nature is intelligent than humans?

tc.

This is where I point out that my stuff is supported by objective evidence. Either way, this discussion might just as well end here. You will not change your mind. I will not change mine. Nothing to be gained. To me it's extremely fascinating that in this reality two consciousness rose from an underlying chaos and found the time to disagree about their coming in the virtual world of the internet. To you, I guess, this is just God's plan.

edit on 2-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

I say nothing is lost but a lot gained in that the truth will always prevail.

That Life can only come from life!

hopefully you agree (or agree to disagree).

tc.

reply to post by rhinoceros

... great steps have been taken towards showing that it's possible

Creating life from inorganic matter is "possible"? Really?

What "great steps" are you referring to?

reply to post by rhinoceros

Note that nobody is claiming it to be an absolute truth, science can't prove such things.

Science could indeed prove that abiogenesis is possible simply by creating life from inorganic matter. And so far, science has failed in this regard, thus rendering abiogenesis a matter of faith.

There's no way I am spending 44 minutes watching a video of creation B.S.

Sure, I believe in a Maker granting consciousness but I also believe in evolution. Evolutionary stagnation is for the fundamentalists who reek of toxic ignorance. I always feel like washing my hands after contact with such noxious creatures.

To the fundamentalist, Earth is 12000 years old, pestilent entities whose filthy words and forked tongues pollute our planet: What say you?

reply to post by Barcs

People aren't claiming that abiogenesis is 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

You believe abiogenesis has been proven... what? 10%? 25%? 1%?

And, this "evidence" supporting abiogenesis of which you speak, tell us what it is... be specific.

Do you have a back-up option (just in case abiogenesis is never proven)? In other words, if science can't demonstrate that inorganic matter can produce organic matter, how did life begin? Do you have an opinion on that? Or, are you going on blind faith? Putting all your eggs in one abiogenesis basket, so to speak?

Originally posted by Cataclysm
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

... great steps have been taken towards showing that it's possible

Creating life from inorganic matter is "possible"? Really?

What "great steps" are you referring to?

The ones I mentioned a few posts ago (especially stuff related to auto-catalytic RNA molecules). Pieces of RNA spontaneously arranging themselves into a configuration that makes more such molecules (already happened in the lab). At that point it has become subject to evolution, and is primitive life in my books, i.e. abiogenesis has occurred, life has risen from non-life. From there the journey to more advanced life in our case was but the question of critical mutations that brought about the incorporation of natural amino acids into the picture.