Is "life" bound to happen?

Oh, you must be referring to that massive amount of empirical evidence that Science has come up with that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how that seemly insignificant little step from inanimate elements to "simple" one celled life occurred.

And I guess that is why you can say with so much confidence that; "The universe is bound to produce life because it produced it".

 

omg there are so many atoms in this thread, that in a billion years this server is gonna make a baby./..

 

You're nutz

 

that post is like a billon more atoms Xac.. you are so helping this evil spawn give birth..

 

Don't derail this thread...

... speaking of which, have you had anymore communication with that guy who essentially was the catalyst for our very first argument? <3

Also that thread you made in which a reasonable person could infer you were suggesting you didn't like my sig pic, it gave me the sad of watery face eyes

 

no communications..

 

It's bound to happen.

 

In nothing but God's laboratory.
They used to say that open-mindedly in those 'Communist-bloc' Countries.

God's definition (though) = that Being which duplicates reality to the absolute extent of detailed factual mental entities which human beings are one step beyond. One's life is no accident, but life in general IS.

 

A solution is not so useful to the ego. The ego thrives on contention and hides behind the ignorant shadow of belief. It's motto is seek but do not find.

 

///

 

The ego centric argue for the sake of testing their strength against other egocentric positions. In the absence of controversy they have nothing to talk about, therefore an answer or solution is antithetical to their cause. They want to keep the argument going.
Those sincere about communication however, discuss for the sake of expanding awareness. Their motto is seek and find. Find the answer, file it and move on to the next question.

 

re-post:

OK.
Let's start at the begining:

1) At the moment the universe came in to existence, the basis for ALL forms of energy began losing organization.
Energy evolves from usable energy to un-usable energy as an overriding "natural motive" of the Universe. This is called the 1st law of Thermodynamics: In a closed system, entropy tends to increase. Another words, the Universe is wearing out with the passage of time.

2) Uncertainty.

Uncertainty dictates that a particle cannot be pinned down to a time/space coordinate that signifies a single theoretical point. In other words, atoms are “Fuzzy”, and you can’t, not even theoretically, pinpoint where in the fuzz the atom is at any given time. So Atoms ALWAYS, even at absolute zero, remain in motion (called “Brownian Motion”), which mean they contain energy as energy and not only as mass, which in turn means they are ready to enter into combinations with other atoms when the opportunity arises. It also demonstrates the Probabilistic Nature of Existence.

3) The Universe is Quantum in Nature.

This means the universe is Dynamic, because, since Entropy MUST increase overall, Energy levels fluctuate and, any given moment, some number of particles are under going a Quantum Change and Evolving into to different particles.


4) The physical difference between life and not-life is degree of complexity.

A rock may contain 100 types of atoms, arranged into 54 compounds or whatever, all solidified together. A single RNA molecule, (not to mention DNA), is many orders of magnitude above such a 50 ton boulder in complexity.
It is possible for a rock to contain all the atoms necessary to create life, and yet not be alive. Complexity of order is lacking.

5) When energy is added to a system, complexity increases.

When a single molecule of Carbon (C) “meets” with a stray oxygen atom (O) , the addition of energy will cause the two to combine, Evolving into CO, carbon-monoxide, giving off energy in the process (some of which is lost to entropy) and at the same time increasing complexity and energy content of the original molecule.

These are some of the basic principles of existence. They apply to EVERYTHING.

 

CON'T

Haven't read past here yet, but I'll catch up.

I suspect that the general concept of Evolution as change-in-response-to-environment is the Theme (as it were) of the Universe. Judge for yourself:


Of the principles previously outlined, Thermo Dynamics is a Law, Uncertainty a Principle, Quantum Existence (NOT “theory’ -- I am NOT saying Quantum Theory is correct; like ALL theories, it’s an attempt to describe the nature of something. In this case, the Quantum Nature of the Universe. But they got a long way to go.) and the matter of the energy input and increasing complexity are facts. (Dropping a bomb, or heating individual atoms in a system is NOT adding energy to the system. It’s blowing holes in it.)

In addition, there are the four forces: Strong and Weak Nuclear, Electro-magnetic, and Gravitic. (I’ll drop it to three forces IF anyone proves the existence of a graviton. I won’t hold my breath. But that’s another story…)

So all of these things, Laws, Forces, whatever, are Parameters of Existence. I don’t think I’ll get any disagreement up to now.

However, there’s a caveat: the Laws of Thermo Dynamics are statistical in nature. Things heat up slowly. It is theoretically possible for and ice cube to grow colder in a hot room. But if I were to venture a guess at the odds against it, I’d guess some number to big for all the memory on this website to hold to 1. But it could happen.
If you think it though, of course, you’ll see that this springs organically from the Uncertainty Principle. In fact, you’ll see that ALL interactions involving Matter are statistical in nature.

Everything I’ve written so far is unimpeachable. I know details are lacking—but not because I’m not aware of them. This is, after all, a Philosophy, not Hard Science, forum. Beside, I hate math.

Back to the question—Where did life come from and why does it Exist as it does today?
The answer to the first part is obvious: Life began at the beginning.

“Before the Beginning” has no logical meaning. Nevertheless, lets examine it—

Nothing existed yet. So what is Nothing?
There is one thing we know about nothing, and it still applies. It’s all the same!
Nothing is Perfectly Symmetrical. It’s Agnostic Heaven—unknown and unknowable. Nothing cannot interact with Something in any possible way.
So what was before the beginning is a difference which makes no difference. Primordial Chaos.
Pretty much the definition of Uncertainty.

Before the beginning, there was chaos. Something Uncertain happened, and the beginning began.

Nothing breaks and the result is something. How? Damn!

0=1+(-1)

This is a principle that holds up in the lab. Particles can be formed, but only in positive and negative pairs. (This begs the question of why the universe didn’t instantly cancel itself out. There are a few possible reason, but again, another story.)

So Chaos breaks at a theoretical point, forming the Primordial Universe. That theoretical point contains everything there will ever be by virtue of E=MC2 and another physical Law: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So it was one hot MF. The Universe began to “expand” and cool. Entropy begins, allowing the Parameters previously discussed to assert themselves.

In other words: The Universe began when Nothing Evolved into a point of energy. That point Evolved into the Universe we know today because it was compelled to do so by the Parameters of Existence. The was no other possibility.

The Big bang was violent beyond comprehension, and Energy flowed “outward”. Because of Uncertainty and the emergent Forces, “backwaters” and “eddys” occurred in the flow and matter was formed—electrons and protons. Probably, the Four Forces are the results of the formation of matter, so I think of them as Secondary Parameters.

Quickly as possible: Gravity requires acceleration, which feeds entropy. As Entropy increases, the possibility of matter forming spontaneously, drops. The needed condition no longer exist. So our Protons and Electrons, very occasionally collide and form Neutrons. More often, they get close enough to become a Hydrogen atom. This all happens because it MUST. Electrons and protons react to the environment and evolve into H and Deuterium (Hydrogen with a Neutron added.)

The Parameters require Stars to form- Population II Stars that consist of the aforementioned materials. Deep it those, every other element is formed—because it must. Evolution- response to environment- demands it.
Super Nova’s happen (guess why) and the elements are spewed out, (Every atom in your body, with the possible exception of Hydrogen, was once in the belly of a star- now that’s cool!), re-gather with gravity’s help and Evolve into Population I stars and rocks—like the Sun and the Earth.

Jumping ahead a couple billion years, the Earth cools and the oceans from, a soup of raw chemicals. Because they must, those chemicals combine whenever the Environment is suitable. The Parameters require it.

Now I don’t want to teach chemistry, so if you doubt the next paragraph, you’ll have to look it up yourself.

Statistically, spontaneous (meaning “induced by a naturally occurring environment”) chemical reactions result in increased complexity in molecules most often. At one end of this scale is a single hydrogen atom. At the other-- the most complex molecule I know of is DNA.
At the low end, statistically, reactions resulting in formation of a more complex molecule are far, far, FAR more common than at the high end.
Confirmation of this comes through a telescope; even the dust clouds of space contain molecules as complex as simple amino acids. Evolution toward Life as far as possible under the Environmental conditions available.

The Universe is one big Evolutionary Journey to life. From Nothing to You. Who knows what’s coming next!
-------------------------

Now, anyone who wants to argue about bones and fossils and speciation or whatever:

If you can provide accurate and complete data on the day-to-day fluctuations of Environmental conditions (The Parameters) on earth beginning approximately 2.5 billion years ago, Bio-Evolutionary studies will enter the realm of MATH and you can have every little question about missing links and HOW answered.

Or, alternatively, explain why natural law doesn’t apply to life.

But until then, you can take my word for it—- the Universe and all its components Evolve.
Or better still, don’t take my word for it. Open you mind and Research the matter for yourself. But begin at the beginning, like life.

Remember, we’re all stars.

 

Well, olderwaterbrother-- time to "nut up or shut up" as they say in Zombieland.

 

There is one universe. It produced life. No assumtion needed.
on the other hand, to ASSUME it could happen another way is to invent imaginary comlpications.
It's a fool's arguement. besides, my last few post answer the question adequately.

 

I'm not an atheist. they're just as thickheaded as theists.

With all due respect,

Since you beleive in god, you have a stated bias. Since belief requires no empirical evidence, you have shown a tendency to be less than objective in you conclusions.

In other words, facts will not negate faith anymore than faith will negate facts. At what point of aquired Knowledge will you cast off your faith?

The term "Blind Faith" exist for a reason.

 

Just one thing, this may be a re-post, from who knows where but not from this thread.

 

Science is not Politics.

In Politics you have goals and you look for means to accomplish it.

In Science, you look at Nature and try to comprehend how it operates.

Anything can be used for Political goals, including Science, Religion and what not.

But you can't use Politics or Religion in Science and assume you reached the goal (which is to comprehend the ways of Nature).

 

They can be. If you don't mind me asking, are you an agnostic or something else?

I don't think of myself as biased. True, I believe in God, but that doesn't mean I can't be as objective as you can be. I have been in many arguments looking at all the angles. I speak to NASA scientists (One friend believes that God is possible in the universe, but he would be outside it), theologians, philosophers, and many people from all backgrounds, so I know and understand the arguments for and against God. My faith in God doesn't prevent me from accepting knowledge. I just don't have to accept ALL knowledge because it can end up being untrue. I am actually quite skeptical.

I agree with this, so I use the fact that science itself is not an exact science makes me not trust 'facts' so much. We are just monkeys after all right? So why should I take the observations of monkeys so seriously when we have proven time and time again to be wrong?

When that knowledge proves itself to be true and when all doubt on the correct method of gathering knowledge is settled without a shadow of doubt left over.

We all can't even agree on what knowledge actually is, let alone know for a FACT what a fact is and isn't. I will still accept what is available but only as far as I trust it to be correct, which isn't always the case for me. But one thing that is difficult to deny, is that when people questioned the accepted status quo, that's when the best ideas came from. And adding comments like, "Scientists don't observe the three little pigs either" doesn't really help us to reach a new paradigm.

Yup.

 

:rofl: