Is "life" bound to happen?

I don't know.

But ima break it down to ya. Life exists. And somehow it came into existence because some natural process/ chemical reaction / catalyst has allowed it to.

Let me ask you a question. What would be an "unnatural" thing which has caused life to exist? Because everything that exists exists because of natural laws. I don't see how anything could be outside of natural laws, or else it couldn't exist. Even aliens are natural given the perspective of LIFE (not humanistic - environmental "natural" relationship like LSD).

 

Yes life exists no one is denying that. But most people agree that at one time life did not exist, so the question is how did that happen.

Now evolutionist say it happened "naturally" that given enough time and the right circumstances with no outside interference, life was just bound to happen. The statement, life was bound to happen is an assumption until it can be proved otherwise. As of right now evolutionists do not have that proof.

So the point of the LSD illustration is to show that there are complex molecules that exist but can not occur "naturally", LSD can not just happen. LSD is a complex molecule, actually much less complex than either RNA or DNA and yet it will never form "naturally", it can never just happen, it needs outside help. Again showing that although something exists now it does not mean that it was bound to occur "naturally" or just happen.

 

Well I guess given your classic scientific definition of life you have a point. It seems your alludin to the cosmic lightning strikes primordial soup type of genesis. To me everything is life, even rocks. It is the very principle by which molecules form, the inherent organization of the universe. But I'm going to drop out cuz I guess I can't really argue on classic terms.

 

I believe they are close to understanding and proving that it is possible that life could have formed on it's own...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Of course that doesn't rule out the possability that a god created life, just means they found another way to do it.

 

I don't know if you are an evolutionist or not but if you are you are the first one that seems to understand the OP and I wanted to thank for the article you cited.

The article comes closer to proving that life was "bound to happen" than anything else that has been posted, so I thank you again for the info.

Another poster, I believe it was monkeyboy, mentioned the 1953 Stanley Miller experiment and I found an up date on that when I was looking at your article and thought it was also relevant to the discussion.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/forgotten-exper/#previouspost

 

Wow, amazing find Bradtheskeptic.

Thanks for the link OWB.

 

My imagination is going insane from reading those articles, thanks for posting them OWB and Bradtheskeptic.

 

I don't consider myself an evolutionist or creationist. I just go by what I've read or seen. I think the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, but I don't know if it rules out creation. If someone did create life, it makes sense that that someone would create life in a way that would allow it to adapt to different conditions over time. Thanks for the link to the other study...

 

Evolution doesn't so much rule out a creator, as it could have been the creator who set evolution and abiogenesis in motion. What it does do is invalidate biblical fundamentalism, which is why so many fundamentalists are trying their darndest to invalidate evolution.

 

Yes you are correct Evolution doesn't necessarily rule out a creator.

Also, since Evolution has yet to be validated, wouldn't that make it near impossible to invalidate?

 

Creationists can plug their ears and say "nuh uh nuh uh nuh uh" all they want but evolution is still fact, axiomatic amongst nearly every biologist. Not one of the dozens of common religions of earth has any better evidence for its truth than the others. All rest on presupposition of their own religion to postulate greater validity than the others.

 

First of all, evolution and creation have nothing to do with each other. Evolution never tries to explain how things were created. It only states theories on how life progresses SINCE it has existed.

Even if God did create the world, life is still "bound to happen". Because whatever we use to describe "life", there must be non-"life". In doing this we set up a dichotomy which proves my point.

 

Well as the story of genesis goes, god created humans and animals separately. But evolution shows that humans evolved from other animals. You can see why fundies hate evolution. It proves humans to be just highly intelligent, conscious and sentient animals.

 

Evolutionists can plug their ears and say "nuh uh nuh uh nuh uh" all they want but evolution is still not a fact, even though it may be axiomatic amongst nearly every biologist. A majority of people believing something true does not now nor has it ever, proved something true, actually proving something true, proves it true. Also, saying Evolution is true without actually proving it true, does not make Evolution true, it just means you have Blind Faith in Evolution.

 

When you actually have proof Evolution is a fact, come back and we'll discuss it, till then evolution proves nothing.

 

Appealing to an authority is valid when the authority in question is trustyworthy and likely to be correct. Evolution has weathered extensive and relentless scrutiny and experimentation by the scientific community, just about the most skeptical and intellectually honest bunch on the face of the earth, and evolution remains axiomatic and factual after having been proven with extensive evidence. It is far more reasonable for me to side with the entire scientific community and the evidence they provide than with the religious.

One faith is not equal to the other.

 

Why do you keep bringing Religion into this?

We are not talking about religion, we are talking about the viability of Evolution and whether it is proven or not.

Appealing to an authority, when the authority in question is trustworthy and likely to be correct, is good when you are making decisions on what to do about something but to do so to prove something true is a fallacy.

Newton's theories, weathered extensive and relentless scrutiny and experimentation by the scientific community, just about the most skeptical and intellectually honest bunch on the face of the earth, and remained axiomatic and factual after having been proven with extensive evidence for hundreds of years and they are still used in the scientific community but Einstein's theories have proved them wrong.

 

No appealing to an authority that something is true IS valid when they are trustworthy and likely to be correct. Otherwise we should have no reason to believe anything at all about anything that isn't our specialty. Only with knowledge that certain things are true can we then progress to doing things that are dependent upon that knowledge.

And once a theory is proven wrong, the correct theory replaces it. The scientific community is certain in evolution's validity and if there was any evidence to the contrary, the new theory would take its place but it hasn't. By your reasoning we should never treat anything as true because it could be false.

 

Not by my reasoning, by my reasoning you can believe anything you want but you ought to at least call a spade, a spade and not force your beliefs on others as true when there is a possibility they may not be.

 

So I shouldn't force my belief that humans can't fly on a man jumping off a cliff in hopes of flight? I shouldn't force my belief that the world will exist tomorrow on the man who owes me money and claims it won't, so why bother paying me back? You may play your pretend and deny scientific fact all you want. This is scientific knowledge that is the basis of immense good for the world and for anyone who wants to utilize it, it's your choice.