Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Again, you believe that, you cant prove it which is all i'm saying. It's a possibility, even a probability, however there's a reason there's a distinction between science, philosophy and theology. Science can explain everything AFTER the creation event, but nothing before. If the universe was designed and created by an intelligent force from outside and before time began, the only evidence we would have is that of intrinsic design within our reality. The fact we do see these laws of nature and recognize them only with our intelligence, might show there's a reflection between them.

I don't think humans should ever make the mistake of placing themselves above God, or dismissing his existence outright. Read my signature for a summary of why. Even imagining a benevolent God will provide our species benefit, and save us from worshiping the trickery and illusions of evil men. I don't believe in a religious God, but the idea of a supreme being who will guide you through hardship and build your character appears to be a real phenomenon which works for the majority of our species. Strange that our random chemical soup should conjure such a powerful idea. I'll bet even you have attempted to talk to God at some point in your life.

You're right, God IMO doesn't reside in this universe directly. To me he's more of an architect that's just admiring his creation. Yet, our imagination is the real key to understanding this reality. In order to find God you must not look to the stars, but deep within yourself, as you really are in his image. The energy which your body is composed of has been around since the dawn of time, within you lies eternity, you've been there since the beginning and you'll be there at the end and to that point there is no argument from science.

originally posted by: Grenade

Sure, provide me with any convincing scientific explanation for the nature of consciousness or an equation that explains nuanced thought and imagination.

Take some L S D and see what happens to your consciousness if it is some un-mailable force that exists forever. We also need to ask just what is consciousness too. We can even suggest an ant has something at some level. A good book to read is called The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us. It goes through 13 different ways of perception we use and how our brains fake us out thinking what we experience is reality.

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: AlienView

First you'd have to define the "Universe".
In an infinite Universe everything is not just probable, but absolutely possible.

Not just possible...definite.

2nd...

originally posted by: Grenade
I don't believe in a religious God, but the idea of a supreme being who will guide you through hardship and build your character appears to be a real phenomenon which works for the majority of our species. Strange that our random chemical soup should conjure such a powerful idea. I'll bet even you have attempted to talk to God at some point in your life.

This is what we call faith... One of our abilities is to think in the abstract. We are so good at it that we actually spend most of our time there just as we are doing right now talking to each other. You can't even make your breakfast without first abstractly creating it and then doing it. Over the years there have been people that have said the human race would be better off without religion and I always come back saying if you removed the ability for humans to have religion then we would not be human anymore. The only two questions I ask on the OP's subject are these.

1. Is the beginning of life just a natural process of this universe, or is God needed?
2. With either direction why would not the process of life not be the same? As in... God sparks life and has it evolved by the rules/laws he created to have man and zillions of other lifeforms come and go over billions of years, or life naturally happens the same without God.

originally posted by: VeritasWarrior


Not just possible...definite.

2nd...

I disagree. Space/time might be infinite, but matter/energy is not. So we do have limitations here. Time is also a limitation.... If the universe just kept expanding forever there will reach a point where the matter/energy is so far apart that gravity will no longer have any effect.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: VeritasWarrior


Not just possible...definite.

2nd...

I disagree. Space/time might be infinite, but matter/energy is not. So we do have limitations here. Time is also a limitation.... If the universe just kept expanding forever there will reach a point where the matter/energy is so far apart that gravity will no longer have any effect.

Using the definition of infinity:

Given an infinite amount of time, every possible event that can occur, will occur - an infinite amount of times.

It's just math.

originally posted by: VeritasWarrior

Using the definition of infinity:

Given an infinite amount of time, every possible event that can occur, will occur - an infinite amount of times.

It's just math.

Actually, it isn't math, it's a statement...lol There is a lot of finite within that so-called infinite.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga

I don't know. I don't know biochemistry. I don't know if this polymerisation follows simple rules so is inevitable, or if it is supposedly impossible. Show me something to read.

Here's info about L- and D- configuration:

link

So L and D have the same chemical formula, but are oriented as mirror opposites of each other. Just like your left and right hand. Proteins synthesized in biology must all be in the L-orientation, and have no D-orientation involved in the polymerization.

This is difficult because the D-amino acids are just as commonly formed as L-amino acids. Meaning the amino acid pool would contain about equal amounts of both. Normally in a cell the ribosome will selectively choose the L-amino acids, but without the ribosome there's no way to selectively incorporate all L-amino acids into a protein, so it will get contaminated with D-amino acids.

The dilemma is that a ribosome itself is a protein, in need of a ribosome to ensure it incorporates all L-amino acids into its structure. So proteins could not have formed properly without this protein, meaning abiogenesis could not have happened without these cellular components already in existence

Thanks. I was hoping for a published paper, but this basic overview is enough grounding for now.

In this article it explains that L-forms (and only L-forms) are created by lightning and "possibly the origin of the organic compounds of life on Earth, and the building blocks of our proteins."

If a natural source of L-amino acids are readily produced by nature, especially on a planet with an incredibly volatile environment such as early Earth, I don't see an impossibility, I see a probability.

a reply to: TerraLiga

They don't produce only L forms. Both are formed equally, about 50-50. But You'd need a 100-0 ratio for abiogenesis to worn. They're trying to see how such a thing would be possible... Here's an experiment that managed to get it to a 70-30 ratio:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

If someone were to prove that 100% L orientation could be achieved naturally they'd win a Nobel prize. The fact is its just another elephant in the room that gets ignored because it ruins the plausibility of the theory.

Keep in mind that this is only one small biochemical step among a whole host of necessary reactions that are not feasible without catalysis (enzymes that facilitate the reaction properly)

a reply to: cooperton

Unfortunately that link has a paywall so I can only read a synopsis - my days of freely accessing published research is sadly over. Plus that paper is over 20 years old. Do you have anything more recent?

I was scrolling through the citations of this paper and found something interesting. It's not a complete article but it is an extended overview of a different theory on possible pre-abiogenesis:
www.sciencedirect.com...

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Unfortunately that link has a paywall so I can only read a synopsis - my days of freely accessing published research is sadly over. Plus that paper is over 20 years old. Do you have anything more recent?

I was scrolling through the citations of this paper and found something interesting. It's not a complete article but it is an extended overview of a different theory on possible pre-abiogenesis:
www.sciencedirect.com...

There's so many thermodynamic barriers it's hard to quantify them all. If abiogenesis remains a mystery over 100 years then maybe it's time to give up the unintelligent origin theory.

Also, here's a website that allows free access to all journal articles:

sci-hub.ru...

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: DaydreamerV

The only flaw I see with this theory is consciousness, at some point organic material gains enough complexity to overcome nature and starts a process of self design and choice.

Consciousness is also a gradual process.

I have read an article just as while ago where science says organic matter is vast in the Universe. Was it alive already or not yet back then and self design and choice? How would we know?

a reply to: cooperton

Research ensures questions remain questions until they're answered definitively.

The weight of evidence on one side of the argument gets heavier every week, while the other side is decidedly light. Although there is no Eureka! moment for natural abiogenesis right now, I can't see proof of creation being evident any time soon.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

The weight of evidence on one side of the argument gets heavier every week, while the other side is decidedly light. Although there is no Eureka! moment for natural abiogenesis right now, I can't see proof of creation being evident any time soon.

You see it that way because you view the argument of induction that is based on the evidence at hand (such as the fact/certainty/reality that life is made up of machinery and technology, which is neither a metaphor nor an analogy, and has logical requirements regarding the cause for their emergence or origin) as a God of the Gaps type of argument from ignorance. Possibly due to a conditioned desire to read that into it, no matter how it is formulated (and whether or not God is even mentioned).

The reality is that the evidence for design and creation (egineering*) in biology, (bio)chemistry, physics, astronomy and geology has increased quite a bit in the past century. And the argument of induction stands even less contested by anything serious than before. (*: the causal mechanism, which in turn has logical implications for causal agency, and certain requirements in terms of attributes of this agency)

In regards to your view that the weight of evidence for abiogenesis "gets heavier every week", we should not forget what Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz admitted in 2008. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

So the reality is quite the opposite from what you described for both sides of the argument. Which may be the result of those presenting the situation to you upside down, so to speak. And because that's what you want to hear (believe) as described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4, you've accepted it as the reality of the situation, based on the authority of those teaching you and the fact that you trust them.

“Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20,21)

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

It really is a false view of the situation (how you described it), but if one doesn't want to see it, it doesn't matter what is demonstrated by the evidence coming out of the research. Especially if the OOL researchers continue to deliberately misrepresent the results of their research, and hype it up:


I know, I linked these videos before but it's been a while, and now they're together in one comment, cause they make similar points, using different examples.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Research ensures questions remain questions until they're answered definitively.

The weight of evidence on one side of the argument gets heavier every week, while the other side is decidedly light. Although there is no Eureka! moment for natural abiogenesis right now, I can't see proof of creation being evident any time soon.

Like whereislogic said, the immense engineering involves to get a basic cell is an indicator of intelligent design. These proteins act like an Amazon factory performing functions to ensure the perpetuity of the cell. The more we know, the more amazing the engineering feat of the cell becomes.

originally posted by: whereislogic
the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup,

This could be very well true. Was one of many hypotheses and when they look to not be correct then science moves on from it. Same with a number of points Darwin made that is seen are as wrong today. Your statement is only proof of how science works in pointing out what works and more importantly what doesn't work, and if science leads to intelligent design then so be it. Right now it is more of a "we do not know fully how it works, so it must be God" and that works well with faith, but science kind of needs more.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
"we do not know fully how it works, so it must be God"

I would argue many atheists believe "we don't know how it fully works, but it must not have been God"

I believe the intelligible constructs existent in biology and cosmology are indicators of a greater intelligence.

I was brought up in a religious school - I know what religion is, what it wants to be and what it can do. I know people who cried out to this particular god for help from the representatives of this god. Nothing happened. No help came. Even to deeply religious children. There is no god. You can quote as many fables from your book as you like, but it absolutely will not change my mind.

It is not yet known where or how either the elements of life-forming structures or the first replicating strings emerged. A beach-side rocky pool? A sea-lapped clay formation? Who knows. But it is not impossible - natural processes can create the ingredients for life - we're just missing the oven.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
I was brought up in a religious school - I know what religion is, what it wants to be and what it can do. I know people who cried out to this particular god for help from the representatives of this god. Nothing happened. No help came. Even to deeply religious children. There is no god. You can quote as many fables from your book as you like, but it absolutely will not change my mind.

It is not yet known where or how either the elements of life-forming structures or the first replicating strings emerged. A beach-side rocky pool? A sea-lapped clay formation? Who knows. But it is not impossible - natural processes can create the ingredients for life - we're just missing the oven.

God is not our doG, waiting to do whatever we ask of it. That is thinking of God backwards. If someone serves a lord, and then asks another Lord for service, then both the Lord and the lord who he regularly prescribes to will be upset. God not being our doG does not prove God does not exist

In terms of science, no we cannot figure a situation where life comes to be from non-life by random chance

originally posted by: cooperton

I would argue many atheists believe "we don't know how it fully works, but it must not have been God"

I believe the intelligible constructs existent in biology and cosmology are indicators of a greater intelligence.

I for one can go either way and typically do not want to tackle the spark of life debate. God is unfalsifiability, and we do not know all the answers either, so not much really to debate on it.

I would also be cautious about just what that intelligence is and is most likely nothing close to what you might have faith in.