Is "life" bound to happen?

This is exactly what I'm talking about, circular reasoning.

Life exists thus life is inevitable thus evolution is valid because life exists.

All I'm asking is don't you see the fallacy in that?

Let's illustrate it this way;
Cars exist and so yes their existence is inevitable because they exist.
You say cars exist because of evolution, given enough time cars have evolved from random combinations of chemicals over a long period of time to point that we now have cars to drive and obviously it was bound to happen.
Whereas I say that cars were made by people and never evolved from random combinations of chemicals and without people making them they were never bound to happen.
Now in this illustration someone can be proved right because we know how cars came about.

All I'm pointing out in this thread is there is no way at this point to know if the universe we live in can on it's own produce life. Just saying life is here now, so that shows that the universe we live in can on it's own produce life, just doesn't cut it.

Evolution could be true but saying that evolution is true and had to happen because there is life now, is just faulty reasoning.

 

You have totaly misrepresented what I said. Obviously, you did not read the refered to thread. It contans a detailed explanation of why life MUST occur.

The Universe is geared toward creating life-- that's what it HAS TO DO. It is the sum of all the naturals laws applied to the existence of energy.

I disdain to repost or repeat; go back and read my post in the other thread.

The Universe evolves toward complexity, as it runs down.

I suggest a quick study of Astro-Chemistry.

 

I'll just let this slide.

the second law of thermodynamics states "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy rather than decrease it."

Built? And I thought I was the one who couldn't get over his theist supernatural believing mindset.

Constantly disproven and debunked?

Science has no clue how the chemicals "got together" to form life, either naturally or unnaturally. The best they can do is conjecture. Please come back when you actually have some proof instead of just making it up as you go along and then demanding that others believe you.

Typical, the only way you can think of to win your argument is to try and browbeat others. Do you guys all go to the same school where they teach you to do this?

 

"the second law of thermodynamics states "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy rather than decrease it." "

Not quite. It specifys a CLOSED system. And the only closed system in the Universe itself. Further, Uncertainty, the Quantum, and statistical nature of the Universe keep that increase in Entropy from being uniform.

"Science has no clue how the chemicals "got together" to form life, either naturally or unnaturally."

Incorrect. I refer you, again, to Astro-Chemistry.

I challenge you to face the issue and not engage in self serving spin of things posted by others.

 

Scientist know how amino acids, the building blocks of RNA/DNA were formed and this has been observed http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
and even exist out in the universe. The last piece of the puzzle for the origins of life would be how did amino acids become arranged in a way that would lead to replication. Once they started to replicate the genie was out of the bottle.

Scientists don't say it must have happened. Since natural occurences are the only ones that can be observed they are the only empircal evidence to work with.

 

From the article you posted:
These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

I didn't Scientists say it, I was talking mostly about posters to the forums. If you'll notice several have again said basically that in this thread.

 

Thanks but still some say that Entropy will one day be uniform in the universe. And I was only pointing out that the law seems to fly in the face of the statement "Not only is it circular logic it is ass backwards logic that goes against all evidence that indicate that COMPLEXITY is a product of time and energy." and seems to be some evidence against what is said.

Please elucidate.

As to self serving spin, at least I don't call others self serving and imply that what they say is imaginary and fantasy and then start swearing to try and prove my points.

 

I never said complexity evolves for eternity. Again, life is bound by the laws of nature and the violent nature of the universe will destroy and format information. Extinction is in all likelihood unavoidable at some point. There is no great 'protector' destroying his own work and information at will. Everything is "built" and destroyed NATURALLY within the limitations of NATURAL laws.

"I just though of mammals, I'll just toss away 60 million years of work I've been doing on dinosaurs because putting mammals on another planet is too much work for my lazy supernatural ass" - God, the almighty protector. It's so comforting to know he's going to save us for eternity!

 

Olderwaterbrother,
"Thanks but still some say that Entropy will one day be uniform in the universe"
Yeah. Me. Why are you afraid to read the post? I know:

1)You are afraid to address the issue

2) you claim that scientist "don't" know, but you do.

3) you offer no alternative possibility.

4) you put forth no information

You're a creationist.

Don't bother trying to ptrtending you have a grasp of Science. You've twice mis-stated the meaning of 2nd Law.

You ARE self-serving. I've proven my point.
And it scares you.

Your attempt to use Thermodynamics to back up your non-point has failed; the Universe will end. Entropy assures it. Go read the post.

 

What's with the psychoanalysis?


How do you know that he is a creationist? Is he defending irreducible complexity? He he using the, "It looks designed so it proves design" argument? Creationism carries with it that kind of baggage...

 

Even if OWB is the Creationist (as he very well might be, since he accepts Bible to be the word of God), I don't see how his being a Creationist validates in anyway Darwinist's claim that their own Religious Myth of Evolution has anything to do with the Science.

 

I have a long history of dealing with creationist.

First, they changed thier name to "Intelligent design" -- but their dogma remained the same.

Lately, it's become "deny the validity of science, but expound nothing off you own".

Then use the tactics previously outlined. you notice he NEVER will address an issue. he will just make proclamations, all based on "it doesn't make sense". he asks questions, gets answers-- but ignores them and accuse the answerer of engaging in the very tactics he is himself employing.

The sad part is, he will occassionally suck in some naive individuals by mis representing Science.

I answered the question. he will not address the issue, much less the answer.

Whatever. I would gnore this thread altogether, but I have a hard-on for peolple who represent ignorance as Knowledge, and Knowledge as ignorance.

That's why.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

it's a fuckin' duck.

 

I am not as well versed in these matters as you guys are so I'll leave it at that so I am unsure of who is right and who is wrong. It just seems like everyone is going off into tangents even the OP. Basically, a lot of poo is being flung around and it's curling up my nose.

I am just not a big fan of bellicose expressions. But whatever floats your boat I guess.

 

It's not a matter of right and wrong.

It's a matter of education.

 

Which post? I've read them all and none have given me any reason to be afraid.

Which issue would that be? As far as I know I've tried to address all issues that have been put forth.

They don't and please quote for me where I said I did.

Now it seems you are the one who isn't reading the posts, because I have given a possible alternative.

What information did you have in mind? In this thread I'm not trying to prove anything other than the fact that life coming forth by the random combination of chemicals is not a certainty. And to do that, all that has to be done is to point out that no one knows how it actually would happen, which would leave room for doubt thus not certain and then give a possible alternative which and again would leave room for doubt.

Actually, although I believe in creation, I am not a "Creationist", as I've mentioned before "Creationists" have a whole set of beliefs, over and above just a belief in creation and I do not believe in their whole belief set.

I don't believe that ever said or implied anything about my grasp of science. As for my misstatements, what I posted was a direct quote but yes I did not quote the entire 2nd law and if that some how upset someone or caused someone extreme emotional distress to I sincerely apologize.

Well there you go, definite proof that evolution is true.

And what point would that be?

Yep, just a shaking in my boots.

So you are saying that "all evidence that indicate that COMPLEXITY is a product of time and energy" is true or false?

 

Yep, this really proves evolution, I don't know what I could have been thinking.

 

I have made no "proclamations", with the possible exception of saying that, evolutionists who say that evolution was bound to happen or had to happen or was inevitable and the like, don't seem to realize that they are making an assumption that has not been proven and not necessarily making a statement of fact. Which is the premise of the OP.

I must have missed that fine answer, please explain it one more time and will address and answer it.

Don't like yourself much?

 

Spoken like a truly uneducated man.

 

Creationists don't seem to grasp the sheer numbers involved in the formation of life. Some conservative estimates for the odds of complex molecules forming protiens are 1 in 10^30 (something like a trillion trillion billion). So the creationist will say these odds are too great to ever happen naturally. Are they really?

Well we know there are gas clouds billions of light years wide that form complex molecules. A gas cloud 25 billion light years wide would have a cubic area of about 10^975 km. This would contain 10^5000 chances of proteins occurring per km or 10^4875000 possible instances of complex molecules forming into a protein in one single second of time. multiply those seconds by a billion years of mixing and you have something like 30^34125000 chances of protein formation in just one gas cloud nebula.

The odds of molecules forming life are certainly too great for science to witness first hand but the sheer size of the universe accommodates for a very large number of chances.

 

Don't worry about Creationists, they don't claim to have their ideas originate from Scientific method applied to Empirically observed evidence based on which the predictions or explanation of phenomena are made.
Creationists openly admit that they take Bible as word of God and that their beliefs are Religious in essence.

What I find to be a hoax of gargantuan proportions is the audacity with which followers of Religious Theory of Darwin claim to have their own Mythology to originate in Scientific method applied to Empirical observation, rather than their own wishful fantasies (and thus assert that they have "Scientifically Valid theory" to explain the evolution of species).

As to your argument (to be more specific: not an argument but a horsecrap pulled from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html and alike sites that brainwash dogma worshippers such as yourself) about chances of forming complex molecules in nebula and drawing parrallels with life evolving on Earth by mere chance...

First of all, as big as Universe is it's not so big as not to allow us calculate the number of atoms that exist within it.
It's finite number, to be sure, and one which is already known.
So the argument such as "no matter how mind numbingly improbable the chances of some event are, the Universe itself is so mind-numbingly huge that nothing is is improbable enough to be impossible to happen within it by chance, no matter how close to zero chances are" is false to begin with.
It just doesn't work that way. Universe is neither infinite nor few billion years are enough for certain events to take place, especially in a planet the size of the Earth.
You can't say planet Earth (where Life as we know came into existence and became what it is today) is as large as a cubic area of about 10^975 km, so the comparison to 25 billion light years wide nebula is meaningless.
You can't manipulate and twist the premises at your plesure to shoehorn your fantasy into reality and then force us to accept it as scientifically valid idea.
Why all these bio-evolutionists make it a matter of principle to posit themselves against Creationists as if Creationists are only people who dispute or doubt their claims about evolutionary processess? This is false dichotomy and i suspect most darwinists know it.
But how convenient, isn't it?
You say elephants can fly.
Then someone who disagrees with you says no, elephants can only swim underwater like submarines.
Then you go on arguing for eternity that elephants don't swim like submarines ERGO they can fly.
What a convoluted logic! But one befitting of hoax perpetrators who are unwilling to address serious criticism and discreditation of Darwinism that comes NOT from Creationists but from open minded, no-dogma worshipping thinkers who point to obvious logical fallacies with which darwinistic theory abounds.

When will you start looking into mirrow and see what a religious dogma worshipper you are, instead of accusing Creationists of what they openly admit of doing in the first place (having their beliefs originate in religion rather than scientific method applied to empirical evidence).

Bunch of hoax perpetrating Munchausens are accusing Creationists of being dishonest ?!!

What an irony !!! What an irony !!!