Chemical Evolution

What a silly reply, of course I am not saying the planet is an assumption what I am saying is the fact of the matter is as you very well know is that NOBODY KNOWS how the earth got here and if you are so clever you tell me.

That is a crap evolutionist reply and typically putting the cart before the horse.

Unless you lose the attitude.

Then demonstrate that it is silly, don't claim it. You also need to review the guidleines about proper debate.It pointed out your error in the previous post without making disparaging comments about your level of thinking. What we know is based on the evidence of what IS and how we understand HOW it works. The astronomical theories of planet formation are not just shots in the dark. You just contradicted yourself. You are now saying that the earth is a fact, yet previously you claimed we couldn't because we didn't know how the chemicals came into being.But the point is that we don't need to know how something came to be in order to study how it works.Thus your comment on the origin of the universe is irrelevant to the study of life on earth and how it works, and whether what we know about how it works can be extended back into a study of how it may have started.The topic is chemical evolution - as we already know that chemicals exist, so we do not need to ponder how they came into being in order to study how chemicals interact in different situations, particularly ones similar to what we know about early earth (from study and evidence) to see if there may be some self organising self-catalizing systems that could develop into life as we know it.That is what science does: takes evidence, makes a hypothesis to explain the evidence, use the hypothesis to make a prediction, test the prediction for validity, repeat.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

tizzwazzSuch a well thought out reply tizz. Perhaps you could clarify what is wrong with the statement itself instead of giving a off the cuff remark showing your bias hmmm?

Are there any other theories circulating around you feel may be of interest. Autocatalysis has peeked an interest. Even if they are not as well known or less accepted. Google generated alot of hits. Do you have any other favorites on this topic?

---

We are born, we live then we die.

Hambre stated: I once thought the same thing, but if we give this argument, are we not presupposing the laws of physics being in existence already?So how do we account for those laws having the appearence of being set? Why are they just so? What is the fine tuning of the universe all about?Can we say that the fine tuning is caused by chance, as a means of disputing creationist's claims that evolution on the chemical level implys chance?Certainly we cannot!

Of course we can. Fine Tuning is 100% dependent on point of view.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hello, jar. Thank you for your response: I understand your meaning. Certainly point of view comes into play. Though I don't know that point of view can change reality. This is a serious problem in my view...Perhaps you missed my point. It was in response to Hambre. You may have to read his post to see the context. He was explaining why chemical evolution does not imply chance, so as to refute the creationists. But the argument explained nothing in the end. He must just assume the existence of the physical laws that make the order and existence of life inevitable. And he appears to be unaware of this. I wanted him to have an honest look at the real problem here.There are only two options. Chance or design. I don't see any other solution.I am only making known that we cannot escape chance without invoking design. I concluded that, because if we invoke any kind of unexplained existence we only move chance from one dimension of existence to the next.He is sayng in essence, that the physical world just is. Kind of in the spirit of Bertrand Russel who, when asked how he explained the existence of the universe, he said, 'It's just there!'If we can say that without explanation, then the theist can say the same thing about God. We just can't do it!You can if you want. I would not deny your right to do so. But I am not personally satisfied by the argument any longer. It is simply not intellectually satisfying. I have had to discard it.

It is.There is no fine tuning of the universe. It simply does not exist. We are the product of what is. The Universe is not designed for us, we are a product of how the universe "is". If it were different, we would be different.As not just a Theist, but a Christian, honesty demands acceptance of that fact.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, you're just asserting there's a problem, not showing what it is. What's your evidence that there's any mutability to the physical laws as we know them? What leads you to believe a universe can exist where they're different, or they don't exist at all?Every universe we're aware of has the same physical laws. We've only ever observed one set of physical laws. What makes you think they were tuned?

I am not suggesting that in the sense I believe you meant. I will leave that to the string theorists.Personally, I tend to think that this universe exists the way it is, because it is simply not possible for physical existence to be otherwise. The only thing that bothers me, is that I have a nagging sense that our lives should be better than they are. That existence should be better than it is. But the only way I can see to do that, is to invoke some metaphysical purpose that underlies my observation that all is not well. Otherwise, this conflict we see all around us in many forms... just isIf that conclusion is correct, then in order to suggest that the president of Iran is not appointed by God to destroy Israel, I must conclude that there is an objective to existence to which he is in violation. If existence just is, then how can I say that he is not? In such a reality, he would only be expressing a dimension of the universe that just is.Also, if existence just is, then any expression that it is not would also be an expression of the universe that just is. And at that pooint, our discussion would be meaningless, since we are only functioning according to immutable laws that govern our being.I just cannot believe that I am only a machine. Hitler thought so. And though he was logical, I must conclude that his presuppositions were incorrect. My only alternative is to accept that his actions were simply inevitable. You are quite correct. That is why I shy away from string theory.
As to your question, I think that it is the only way we can logically conclude that there is a moral code with which to live by. But I must invoke a metaphysical argument to do so. I simply must conclude that the universe was intended to be that way. Otherwise, to suggest that it be 'this way' as opposed to 'that', I would have to violate the fundamental reality that it just is.To deny tuning, is to deny ourselves the ability to tune. Yet if we assume that tuning is the fundamental reality (the prime objective if you will) then we really just have to get into tune with what that is.So, in the case of no tuning. Then chaos is effectively God. To have order as God, we simply must conclude tuning in my opinion.That what I think... So I am curious, what makes you think the ohysical laws are not tuned?

Why?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So you're saying that the Intelligent Tuner couldn't have designed physical existence in a different way? The word "tuning" suggests that He fumbled around until he found something that worked. So, what constraints was He operating under?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Tuning SU Carbs and working with Lucas Electrics.Edited by jar, : +s

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion