Thoughts on the Existence of the Universe

[sdelsolray]

I find that Atheists have no real facts concerning how life originated anywhere, let alone here.
... 

Then you haven't investigated the matter very deeply.  Not have you looked in the right place.  It would be a discipline called "science", and certain folks called "scientists", that you should study and consult to see what "facts", information, hypotheses and scientific theories, if any, have been gathered and assembled concerning abiogenesis.

...
And if you want to consider liars, disingenuous, lack luster curiosity, avoidance of facts, and regurgitation of science fiction theory, then just speak to an evolutionist/atheist regarding the possibility of Creation. 

Wrong again, Sparky.  I would consult and study physics, cosmology, astronomy and abiogenesis and not the biological theory of evolution or atheists for information facts, information, hypotheses and scientific theories, if any, concerning the possibility of "Creation" (whatever that means).

Your bias is mixed with anger and willful ignorance.  Bad combination.  Good luck with curing yourself.

[aitm]

The Bible states, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. It also states that for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosesoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. I never said I was the better than anyone or even a very good Christian. I simply have faith that my imperfection is covered through my faith in Jesus the Messiah/Christ. And that EVEN my faith is a gift God bestows and not something I achieved.

Buddhists are very nice people and so are Mormons. But they believe in earned merit (the epitome of arrogance). And I believe in saving GRACE (unearned merit). By grace are you saved and not by works so that no one can boast.

And off to purgatory with your blabber

[leo]

And off to purgatory with your blabber

yippi !

[Fickle]

Littlenipper

I find that Atheists have no real facts concerning how life originated anywhere, let alone here.

I believe it's called evolution which isn't a bad theory versus the magical bearded man in a white dress creating the universe in six days theory.

Probably the most relevant question we could ask is, do you think your beliefs would stand up in a court of law?. I would simply ask---
So you believe in this so called Bible even though you have no idea or real facts concerning who wrote this book?.
Do you believe all books are factual or just this one, how do you know it isn't science fiction?.
Oh someone led you to believe it is true but they have no more real facts or credibility than you do, it's simply hearsay.
So you believe it is true, do you think everything you believe must be true then or just this even though you have no real facts?.
So you have no real facts of any kind and yet you believe and would expect others to believe?.

You see even a crappy first year lawyer could tear you apart limb from limb in any court of law. We do not do this because the law says you are entitled to your belief and I agree with this law. However do not confuse this with me or others thinking you have any credibility because I don't. You are entitled to believe in fairy tales just as I am entitled to believe you have lost your marbles and should seek help from a good psychologist.

[trdsf]

The origin of life is pretty easy, actually.  All you need is a solvent (water seems most suitable, but you never know, there are other options), basic organic chemistry (already present in vast quantities 4.5 billion years ago), an energy source (the sun), and deep time (about half a billion years).

Abiogenesis may be only a one in a billion bilion billion^* chance... but you have to remember you're talking about billions of billions of random chemical interactions taking place every second nonstop for half a billion years.  At that rate, it becomes effectively inevitable: all you need is one molecule that by chance is able to make crude copies of itself, and then evolution takes over.  Copying errors and random mutations will produce copies that are better or worse at making copies of themselves, and the better copiers will dominate over time.  It might have happened multiple times, but the best copiers would have consumed the poor copiers for raw molecular components, so we're either the descendants of the only self-copier to arise, or of the most successful one.

You also have to dismiss the idea that we're the goal of evolution: we're not.  We're just a product of it.  We're what happens when hydrogen gets 13.5 billion years to play around, and we were not the goal of the process when it all started.

No reason it couldn't have happened elsewhere, too.  I wouldn't be surprised if primitive bacteria-like life was found in the Martian polar ice caps or in the permafrost, from an independent Martian evolutionary process.  The necessary solvent, chemistry, energy (from local analogues of terrestrial black smokers rather than the sun) and time are present on the moons Europa and Enceladus so simple life is possible there.

It makes a lot more sense than it taking only six days, six thousand years ago.  While everything I've said is theoretical (after all, no one was around to observe how it started), not one bit of it conflicts with anything we know about prebiotic Earth, physics, chemistry, geology, hydrology, statistics, or any other discipline.  It is a consistent, rational, plausible explanation of how life arose.  The specific mechanism is not relevant to the principle; abiogenesis doesn't require a specific mechanism.  Of course, we hope to discover it, but there are about 3.5 billion years between the first appearance of life and today, and that makes it difficult to pinpoint precise events.

And that's fine.  There are limits to knowability, but not being able to pin down a precise date and a precise event does not justify going "AHA!  Then my god did it!".  Not being able to pin down a precise date and a precise event only means it was three and a half billion years ago and so we can't say with certitude, and there's room for further research.

It does not mean we can't say at all.


* - Just throwing out a large number, not a closely calculated one.  Under the circumstances being discussed here, a one in a million chance would have happened millions of times instantly.

[Baruch]

One caveat ... the early Earth (pre-Cambrian) wasn't like it is today.  Abiogenesis is disfavored in today's environment, probably because of all the oxygen, which didn't exist in the atmosphere of the early Earth.  Otherwise we would be detecting new waves of abiogenesis today right here.  The environment of the early Earth was anti-modern life (post-Cambrian).

[AllRight]

There are limits to knowability, but not being able to pin down a precise date and a precise event does not justify going "AHA!  Then my god did it!".  Not being able to pin down a precise date and a precise event only means it was three and a half billion years ago and so we can't say with certitude, and there's room for further research.

To me, admitting as humans we don't have all the answers is way more logical than attributing existence to an invisible all knowing, all powerful being who allows his creation to suffer in so many sadistic ways.

[Blackleaf]

Even if we were to create life in a predictable and consistent way, Christians still wouldn't be convinced. They'd say that creating life in a lab doesn't prove it could happen by chance. No amount of evidence can kill religion.

[Baruch]

Even if we were to create life in a predictable and consistent way, Christians still wouldn't be convinced. They'd say that creating life in a lab doesn't prove it could happen by chance. No amount of evidence can kill religion.

Correct though ... creating life in the lab (by itself) doesn't prove it could happen by chance ... anymore than a chess game played by people, proves it could happen by chance.

[aitm]

  all powerful being who allows his creation to suffer in so many sadistic ways.

That being a god suggests one could actually create better creatures instead of drowning them all is not enough of a problem. That god would choose to drown them all in a very time consuming drama instead of just waving his hand as they vanished into a wisp is lost on christians who come to love the idea that they should be tortured for being born as children to ignorant parents. This is to me, the most baffling of all human reason.

[trdsf]

One caveat ... the early Earth (pre-Cambrian) wasn't like it is today.  Abiogenesis is disfavored in today's environment, probably because of all the oxygen, which didn't exist in the atmosphere of the early Earth.  Otherwise we would be detecting new waves of abiogenesis today right here.  The environment of the early Earth was anti-modern life (post-Cambrian).

Your point is?  I never said that modern oxygen-breathing cell-based life immediately appeared.  I said molecules that could crudely self-replicate, which is where it almost certainly started.

[Baruch]

Your point is?  I never said that modern oxygen-breathing cell-based life immediately appeared.  I said molecules that could crudely self-replicate, which is where it almost certainly started.

I was adding for the younger readers, not contradicting you.

[Baruch]

That being a god suggests one could actually create better creatures instead of drowning them all is not enough of a problem. That god would choose to drown them all in a very time consuming drama instead of just waving his hand as they vanished into a wisp is lost on christians who come to love the idea that they should be tortured for being born as children to ignorant parents. This is to me, the most baffling of all human reason.

Grover Norquist is a god, but his ambitions are smaller now, he only wants to drown the US government ;-(

[widdershins]

One caveat ... the early Earth (pre-Cambrian) wasn't like it is today.  Abiogenesis is disfavored in today's environment, probably because of all the oxygen, which didn't exist in the atmosphere of the early Earth.  Otherwise we would be detecting new waves of abiogenesis today right here.  The environment of the early Earth was anti-modern life (post-Cambrian).

That might not technically be true.  Abiogenesis might be going on today under our noses in small pockets at the bottom of the earth's vast oceans, inside volcanic vents, in caves not directly exposed to atmosphere, deep within the crust somewhere, etc.  And abiogenesis might not happen in "waves".  It might be so rare that only a single self-replicating molecule is created which then goes on to become "new life".  While I agree with the "spirit" of what you said, we simply don't know enough about potential abiogenesis to say with certainty that we would necessarily detect it if it were happening today, even if we were specifically looking for it, which we would likely have to be to detect it.  And until we have that "Aha!" moment in a lab, we really only have a rough idea the conditions we are looking for.

To be clear, based on what we know and to my knowledge I agree, it is likely not happening today (though I can't say that with any degree of certainty whatsoever).  The part I take issue with is that we would necessarily "detect it" if it were.

[Baruch]

So science of the gaps replaces god of the gaps?  When you find this abiogenesis, go to Stockholm and get your Nobel prize.

Yes, there are microbes down deep in the rocks, both on land and sea.  But once you say (not in a form we would recognize) then I start to doubt you.