Is "life" bound to happen?

I apologize, you you are correct it was not from your link.

That would still be 7 short of the 20 needed.

 

The not enough energy that you mentioned was though. I've learn this topic is HIGHLY speculative, but EXTREMELY interesting.

....only 7 short? Nearly there!

 

Actually this thread is not about "Darwinism is Rational & Scientific vs Religious , Bible is the word of God", although you are correct in saying that is what they are trying to make it.

This thread is about the statement "When you have a virtually infinite number of molecules in the universe and billions of years of random mixing and interactions the NATURAL occurrence of "life" is bound to happen no matter how great the odds."

All I've done is point out that it ain't necessarily so and that they have no proof or even a theory about how it could have happened.

Unless you want to count "a virtually infinite number of molecules in the universe and billions of years of random mixing and interactions" as a theory.

Obviously, I do believe God did it but that really doesn't enter in to it.

The question is if "the NATURAL occurrence of "life" is bound to happen" is a fact then why isn't it proven and if it's not fact and is only a theory why is it always stated as a fact?

 

I would imagine that the addiction of anything to a system would increase complexity, why do you ask?

Oops sorry, I answered, I guess you can't be right about everything.

Also do you really feel that being insulting and condescending some how proves your points?

 

Yep. :hat:

Maybe we need to turn up the voltage? Maybe a good thunderstorm, a bunch of lightening rods and perhaps a giant kite?

It's alive, it's alive.

 

This is reminding me of my discussions with Jumbuli. If the evidence isn't perfect it's not to be considered. Meh.

 

The result of this hodge-podge, chaotic, random, mixture of colliding matter has produced organisms capable of pondering such questions. Debating and arguing over them is tantamount to arguing with one's reflection in a mirror. Questioning and wondering represents the extent of this species' evolution. Answering these questions requires a far greater level of cognition than humans will ever achieve. There is a fundamental-universal-truth behind the reason that the more humans learn, the more questions they have. By accepting this truth, we sometimes catch a fleeting glimpse of the light often defined as God.

 

No monkey boy, don't even dream to insinuate that your argument with OWB is anything like what it was with jumbuli.

When you agrued with me i never questioned the existing evidence. i never said that fossils don't exist or that various monkeys don't have different diet.
What i questioned was the inference made, and highly arbitrary one at that, drawn from the evidence presented.

Unlike OWB I never said Bible is the word of God or that i have an idea how the life was created.
Nor questioned post-factum if life was bound to happen. I simply stated that i don't know how life came into existence and evolved in the first place.

You made assertion that you had an idea, a scientific theory to explain if not emergence, then at least mechanism responsible for evolution of species.

I asked for proof.

At this point you brought the remnants of gas stove and rudenoodle and told me both have similarities on atomic level ERGO both evolved out of primordial atom by random chance and natural selection. That rudenoodle is remote cousin of gas stove but his ancestor was lucky enough to become a random mixture of a first life and ever since was too lucky and naturally fit to end up being rudenoodle as opposed to ending up as a gas stove. and that both rudenoodle and gas stove were ultimate products of the same mechanism that made the emergence of both possible: the mechnism being the random chance and natural selection.

You brought the remnant of Toyota LE and SE, one without foglight and flat space for a switch under dashboard , another with both foglights and switch and you said: here, jumbuli, look how SE evolved out of LE by random chance and natural selection (obviously foglights give SE higher accident avoidance chances at foggy nights).

And i said please go forward and show as how you made such tall tale conclusions out of the evidence at hand?

You never addressed my questions, btw, instead jumped into this "comfort zone" thread to argue with OWB , and now you pretend it bears any semblance to what was argued on another thread with me?

Heh, Munchausen would be proud of you !!!

:cheers2:

 

What? How did you get that from my post?

 

Please if you will, show me where I questioned existing evidence, said that fossils don't exist or that various monkeys don't have different diet.

 

So let me ask you straight out, do you believe or know for a fact that life was bound to happen?

 

I do not know and never claimed to know.

What i know is that it exists and that at some point, evidently, it didn't.

I can't make a judgement as to if it was or wasn't bound to happen if i don't know the mechanism responsible for it's emergence in the first place.

 

Thank you very much.

Now if evolutionists could be that honest, this whole thread would be a moot point.

The problem is they just can't admit that there is any chance at all that Life didn't just spontaneously pop into existence. They can't admit they don't know the mechanism responsible for it's emergence in the first place.

Nope, to most evolutionists it's a "fact" and if you don't go along with them then you're just "uneducated".

 

Maybe I misinterpreted your post. I thought that you were demanding perfection from the evidence in an attempt to completely discredit it.

This is the method Jumbuli uses to try and discard evidence.

IMO evidence should be considered as part of the overall picture for better understanding.

BTW. Beware of Jumbuli's semantic circus. He's wilely with words. The evidence remains however.

 

It was a reference to "Frankenstein" and I thought you'd get a laugh out of it.

 

Fine.
Why not "educate" me then, instead of "rudenoodle and gas stove are both evolved by random chance and natural selection from primordial atom and you are an idiot if you don't believe this" kind of an argument?

 

Stop pretending that i said things which i didn't.

I never asked you to perfect fossils or genomes of monkey that had different diet.

What i asked was to show logic applied to arrive at conclusions you or whoever you referred to did, based on unconnected and irrelevant to conclusion evidence.

 

My bad.

 

Don't think that was me.

I don't think anything "evolved by random chance and natural selection from primordial atom" and would probably be more likely to "you are an idiot" if you did believe it.

 

I didn't say that.