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

a reply to: Xtrozero

Rewind Earth 600 million years ago and all life would be very different including humans would not be here.

By what authority do you proclaim to have such knowledge regarding anything
about 600 million years ago?

Respectfully do you even understand how ridiculous the claim you are making is?

So many speak from a knowledge no human being has.

And that is how a lie is born and then believed.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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

Well if someone comes and fulfills mounds and mounds of prophecy to conquer death and lead a loving non-discriminatory march towards truth I will tend to think that is the apex ambassador of the apex truth. It would be silly to plead towards ignorance when someone came knowing and defending the truth... even to their own death.

originally posted by: Saloon

By what authority do you proclaim to have such knowledge regarding anything
about 600 million years ago?

He's a scientist, they don't have to actually adhere to the scientific method. They can make claims that refer to random sci-fi blogs and it must be fact because someone said so at one point. The audacity to think you know what happened a million years ago, let alone hundreds of millions of years ago is absurd.

Respectfully do you even understand how ridiculous the claim you are making is?

So many speak from a knowledge no human being has.

And that is how a lie is born and then believed.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I

We are having kind of a mixed message here in whether life/universe is intelligently designed or if it is the God of the bible.

Truly my good person I don't see how God couldn't be the God of the Bible.

a reply to: cooperton

Job 38:4-11 King James Version (KJV)
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it?

originally posted by: Saloon

Respectfully do you even understand how ridiculous the claim you are making is?

So many speak from a knowledge no human being has.

And that is how a lie is born and then believed.

I do not understand your point. Either all life is predetermined or it is not. I believe it is not, so if we reran Earth starting 600 million years ago life in general would be here but would not be the exact life we have today. The part I do not understand with you point is why do you disagree with that.

originally posted by: Saloon

Truly my good person I don't see how God couldn't be the God of the Bible.

Not everyone who believes in intelligent design also believes in the bible and it seems I'm debating against both sides lol.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I do see how I was vague. Thank you.

My point more clearly is, no human being that has ever lived
knows anything about 600 million years ago in any regard.

originally posted by: Saloon

My point more clearly is, no human being that has ever lived
knows anything about 600 million years ago in any regard.

I didn't say I did...lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

Not everyone who believes in intelligent design also believes in the bible and it seems I'm debating against both sides lol.

Ah to your advantage hopefully

a reply to: Xtrozero

I didn't say I did...lol

I'm sure you would agree there are those that do?

originally posted by: DaydreamerV
My take on this as follows..

We don't know when inorganic becomes organic. It is only our definition of what an organic is. The transition is not done in nature in the manner of jump from..to. It is slowly the one becoming the other depending where in time we measure it. It is a process, built up over changes in the state and complicity, new bonds, and those new bonds capable of creating more bonds between ever increasing possible configurations of matter.

It is a gradual process. We gave a definition of 'organic' but in my opinion it is like saying the water has only two states - cold and hot.

What if those "new bonds" (let's call this step 1) are broken before there is a chance for more bonds for these "ever increasing possible configurations of matter" (let's call this step 2, or concurrent steps)? What if the product of step 1 has decomposed before you can get to step 2? So you're back to square one (step 0), and now you need the product of step 1 again before proceeding to step 2 in this gradual step-by-step process.

As was explained on page 8 regarding the pitfalls for chemical evolution:

Second pitfall: If such an atmosphere did exist, and if the amino acids were produced, they would be destroyed by the same source of energy that split the methane and ammonia and water vapor. Amino acids are very complex molecules; therefore they are less stable and more easily destroyed​—just as it is easier to topple a stack of 10 bricks than a stack of three. Formed high in the atmosphere, such amino acids could hardly survive to reach water on earth, and, if they did, they would not endure here long enough to become concentrated into the “soup” of the evolutionary theory. The following excerpts from an article by Dr. D. E. Hull in the May 28, 1960, scientific magazine Nature confirm this:

“These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . the highest admissible value seems hopelessly low as starting material for the spontaneous generation of life. . . . The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.”

In an experiment, when scientists subjected a carefully prepared gas mixture to a electrical discharge, a few of the simplest amino acids did accumulate, but only because they were quickly removed from the area. If these amino acids had been left exposed to the discharge, the situation could be compared to what would happen if one man is making bricks and another is hitting them with a hammer as soon as they are formed. It takes several hundred amino acids linked together in correct sequence in a chain to make an average protein, and it takes several hundred different proteins to make the simplest of organisms. So in our analogy of the man making bricks: he must cement together hundreds of bricks in a string, and accumulate hundreds of these strings of hundreds​—and do all of this while the other man is wildly swinging his hammer! This is still grossly oversimplified, for it takes much more than a chain of amino acids to make a living organism.

...

Source: Can Life Arise by Chance?

...

Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”⁠6 Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”⁠7

...

Would an “Organic Soup” Form?

How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”⁠8

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”⁠9

...

Source: Chapter 4: Could Life Originate by Chance? (Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

...

Which View Fits All the Facts?

With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:

1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.

2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.

3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.

How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down.# Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.” [#: Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.]

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed. [*: DNA can be altered by mutations, which can be caused by such things as radiation and certain chemicals. But these do not lead to new species.​—See the article “Is Evolution a Fact?” in the September 2006 issue of Awake!]

On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.*​—Isaiah 40:26.

...

Source: Which Approach Is More Reasonable? (Awake!—2011)

a reply to: whereislogic

I finally get it...

You and others want to try and prove so damn hard that man can never understand how life is started so that your faith is secured that it can only be God's work. The funny part is even if we discover the fundamentals of life down to the first spark it still doesn't rule out God's work.

I have been trying to tell you all that even evolution can still be God's work. To start with one cell and end up with trillions of different lifeforms over billions of years including man can still be Go'ds work. Science does not ever rule out God no matter what, because science knows that God is an unfalsifiable concept which means it isn't even something science wants to disprove.

a reply to: DaydreamerV

This (see previous comment) is why The Long Story Short video I shared on the previous page makes an issue out of OOL researchers using "ultra-pure chemicals at extremely high concentrations that are not found in nature and purchased them from industrial laboratory supply shops. Where are you going to find those on a prebiotic earth?" (at 3:00, the video entitled "Film Festival 2023- Origin of Life ...")

As the first article in my previous comment explains when it mentions:

... Formed high in the atmosphere, such amino acids could hardly survive to reach water on earth, and, if they did, they would not endure here long enough to become concentrated into the “soup” of the evolutionary theory. The following excerpts from an article by Dr. D. E. Hull in the May 28, 1960, scientific magazine Nature confirm this:

“These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . the highest admissible value seems hopelessly low as starting material for the spontaneous generation of life. . . . The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.”

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: whereislogic

You and others want to try and prove so damn hard that man can never understand how life is started so that your faith is secured that it can only be God's work.

I'm sort of curious how many times you've made some reference to the God of the Gaps straw man in this thread so far. Can someone do a count? Maybe also count the more obscure ones, that are more of a paintjob like the one above.

It doesn't really matter though, cause no matter what the count is, it still won't make it any less of a straw man fallacy when applied to my commentary and the arguments of induction that I have been making or quoting from articles.

Inductive reasoning is not complicated, here's what you do:

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopædia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

It worked well for Newton. Making many scientific and factual discoveries.

What are some established facts regarding the (only known) cause for the emergence of machinery and technology? (both regarding causal mechanism and agency) Is the well-established cause for the emergence of machinery and technology not engineering by at least 1 individual with the required minimum level of intelligence and technological know-how that corresponds with the machinery and technology in question, the will/desire to create such machinery and technology for specific purposes and functions, and the required foresight to carry out the pre-formulated plan/design in a manner that it will work as planned/designed? If someone wants to challenge any of these well-established facts, please focus on the causal mechanism of engineering first. If you don't challenge any of them, and still try to force-fit a God of the Gaps argument onto this argument of induction, you are simply evading it instead. And you are avoiding and dodging the question and issue:

Avoiding the Issue

(also known as: avoiding the question [form of], missing the point, straying off the subject, digressing, distraction [form of])

Description: When an arguer responds to an argument by not addressing the points of the argument. Unlike the strawman fallacy, avoiding the issue does not create an unrelated argument to divert attention, it simply avoids the argument.

...

Explanation: Some questions are not easy to answer, and some answers are not easy to accept. [whereislogic: since I provided the answer to the first question, in this case it's probably more so the latter with the 2nd question, even when it's so obvious, the answer still has unwelcome implications for those not willing to consider seriously the possibility that life's machinery and technology is the product of creation and engineering.] While it may seem, at the time, like avoiding the question is the best action, it is actually an abandonment of reason and honest inquiry; therefore, fallacious.

Source: logicallyfallacious

Is there anyone out there who would seriously challenge that what is shown below is in fact machinery and technology (not a metaphor or analogy, or perhaps I should say machinery of a technology far superior than our own):

originally posted by: whereislogic

I'm sort of curious how many times you've made some reference to the God of the Gaps straw man in this thread so far. Can someone do a count? Maybe also count the more obscure ones, that are more of a paintjob like the one above.

You conveniently left out the rest of my statement... "still doesn't rule out God's work." You and others do not need to dictate how God does anything... No paint job or straw man here...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Did you know that machinery and technology are the product of engineering? Are you willing to acknowledge that fact?

Or does that question make you uncomfortable, is that the reason you haven't responded to any attempts by me so far in this thread to get you and perhaps some others to honestly admit to a very simple truth that I know all of you are very well aware of. So why the reluctance to admit to it?

There is only 1 causal mechanism we know of (we have observed) that leads to the emergence of machinery and technology. Since I know you and others are aware of this, any reluctance to admit it in this discussion is very telling about the person doing that.

originally posted by: DerekJR321
a reply to: AlienView
If the universe contains the necessary materials that created life here on earth, then there HAS to be life on one of the trillions of planets out there.

Does that logic make sense if you swap out "life" with the machinery and technology the International Space Station (ISS) is made up of?

Aren't you missing some crucial causal factor (ingredient) from your description? Is all you need to get a spacestation like the ISS, the necessary materials? Or would there be some engineering involved by at least 1 individual who knows what he/she/it is doing?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: DerekJR321

I tend to agree however until such time as we discover life on one of these other planets all we can do is speculate. That’s the crux of my argument, no-one has enough data to say conclusively either way.

How about you, are you willing to acknowledge the well-established* causal mechanism by which machinery and technology has been observed to emerge? (*: a conclusively proven fact/certainty/reality/truth)

originally posted by: whereislogic

Did you know that machinery and technology are the product of engineering? Are you willing to acknowledge that fact?

Or does that question make you uncomfortable, is that the reason you haven't responded to any attempts by me so far in this thread to get you and perhaps some others to honestly admit to a very simple truth that I know all of you are very well aware of. So why the reluctance to admit to it?

There is only 1 causal mechanism we know of (we have observed) that leads to the emergence of machinery and technology. Since I know you and others are aware of this, any reluctance to admit it in this discussion is very telling about the person doing that.

Humans make things, I get it... There could be much higher intelligence out there too, I get it... I said in my last post and a number of times before that in other posts that the process of life in the sense of starting small and evolving into what we have today and what has come and gone in the past could be intelligent design, or not. We have no way of knowing at this point...

I'm not sure what it is you want me to so-call "admit" to here. Is it the spark of life? Is it the process of life? Is it a common event in our universe, or God just does it on Earth? What is the point you want to say here?