Yes, I agree that I find it too incredulous to believe that a living cell could have evolved from a chance combination of mindless particles without an intelligent first cause.
"Chance"...
I don't like that word. Ya know, if you've got a sodium ion and a chlorine ion floating around in water, you could use the word "chance" to talk about them binding together to make salt. But its a spontaneous reaction that's going to happen all by itself if the water evaporates. Saying it happened by chance, as if that somehow changes the probability of its inevitability, is a really bad way to describe it.
A lot of the reactions that happen inside your body, kinda like that ones that might have precluded the first cells, happen spontaneously on their own and not "from a chance".
Of course lots of things happen by chance. The odds against the specific sperm and egg combination that resulted in my existence are impossibly long but here I am.
So yes, no matter how long the odds are, there are things that happen by cha nce.
I'm afraid you've missed the point. Sure, the odds of those two particular gametes coming together might be low, but once they are together the rest of the process happens on its own. You shouldn't say that the meiosis happens "by chance", because that's just the spontaneous chemical reactions that play out given those conditions.
I am not offering up proof that our existence didn't depend of particles, (wherever they came from), by chance combining to become atoms, which by chance combined into molecules, which by chance combined into more complex molecules, which by chance combined into incredibly complex single cells, which evolved into simple and then ever increasingly complex life forms eventually resulting in intelligent life that is able to comprehend all of that.
But atoms and molecules and don't form "by chance", it happens on its own spontaneously. Like I said, if you evaporate salt water, you shouldn't say that the salt molecules formed by chance. There was no other choice.
I don't say it is impossible for all that to happen by entirely natural processes. I just contend that the odds are so stacked against it that it is far more plausible to believe that there it is all the result of an external intelligence as a first cause.
But you're looking at the odds wrong. You know it doesn't make sense to invoke God for the formation of a salt crystal, more complex chemical reaction are no more by "chance".
I have no problem with the idea that once life was started that it could have evolved on its own.
What I'm trying to explain to you is that your problem with the idea of life emerging by itself is arbitrarily placed.
Inorganic molecules forming into organic molecules, and then those organic molecules combining into pre-life, and that pre-life chemically changing into real life is just normal spontaneous chemical processes that happen all by themselves.
I'm way out of my depth as far as the process itself is concerned but to get us from mindless particles to sentient life by natural causes requires a great deal of good fortune.
Since you're way out of your depth, there's no way for you to know how much good fortune it would take. And I'm trying to explain to you that you're wrong when you make the statements that it must have taken a lot of it.
OK, but as a theist that is part of the design.
This doesn't have to be a challenge to the theist position. You could easily just slide the bar back a bit and include the formation of life form inorganic molecules as part of the design.
I'm just trying to get you to understand that you're argument that it would take too much "chance" to happen on its own is incorrect.
I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. (I'm sure that's my fault and not yours.)
You have a problem with the early chemical reactions that lead to the emergence of life but they were not different enough from ones that you don't have a problem with for you to make the distinction.
You think they were somehow different and required an intelligent input, but they weren't.
Then why don't we see that happening around us all the time? Why can't we observe the formation of new cells from non-cellular materials.
Well, we do and we don't. Your body is currently employing inorganic non-cellular calcium metal atoms into new cells in your bones. That's only tangential to the point but its worth pointing out that the formation of new cells from non-cellular materials happens all the time.
Regarding the emergence of life, itself, the environment was radically different and there weren't already living organisms to exploit the proto-lifes that would be gradually emerging. The ones that are emerging today are quickly getting gobbled up.
If you're asking why we haven't seen it in the lab, that's just because we haven't gotten there yet. But we will one day.
However, do you really think that out of a soup of mindless particles, with no intelligent input, to wind up with the world we know doesn't require a considerable amount of good fortune?
It could easily be that the emergence of life is an inevitability given the conditions suitable for it. I mean, that's what we see here on Earth... no matter what kind of crazy-ass environment you go to, volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, air pockets under miles of ice, a poisonous cave deep underground that has been sealed off from the surface for millennia.... no matter where you go, if life can exist, then it does.
I didn't say that it took too much "chance" to happen on its own, but that the odds against are longer than the idea of an external intelligence existing that provided the impetus is more plausible IMHO.
And I'm trying to explain to you that you've got the odds against wrong.
ABE:
Like I said before, this isn't a challenge to your theist position. You just need to slide the bar to the left a little bit so that the emergence of life falls under the Big Plan rather than needing the direct hand of god tinkering with it.
Thanks CS. I'll have to take your word for it. I have to say though that with all of the complexity of a living cell with all of its strands of DNA etc is quite a leaps from mindless particles
Yeah, I can see how it looks impossible. Life has gotten incredibly complex. But when you "zoom in" and look really close to the interactions that are going on at the molecular level, it really is just chemistry. And chemistry is simply atoms and molecules obeying the laws of physics.
Basically, there is only one option for the molecules in the reactions - you put a sodium next to a chloride and they make salt, end of story - so when you say things about the "odds" of life happening, or how much "chance" it took, you're really overlooking the fundamental aspects of it and being wowed by the emergent property that you see at face value.
but then again it is quite a leap from single celled life to Catholic Scientist as well.
Au contraire, I did indeed develop from one single cell in my mother's womb
I love this forum. I didn't know that. That's the new thing I've learned today. Thanks.
Well you should know that there is iron in your blood. One part of the hemoglobin protein literally has a piece of metal sitting right in the middle of it that the rest of that part's structure is based on.
That iron atom ultimately came from the ground, but now its a part of "you". Imagine the path that iron atom had to go throught to become a part of you. Shit, it formed inside of a star before it even got to Earth.
We could talk about the chances of that happening and be amazed at how small they are, but when the hemoglobin is forming in your mitochondria, and that iron atom is sitting there wating to be incorporated, the reactions that take place are chemical ones and its not enitrely different from that salt crystal growing. In fact, those chemical reactions are the same tracing back to your stomach digesting the spinach that you ate that contained the iron, and the spinach growing in the earth and removing that iron from the ground.
All those things happen spontaneouly, again like the salt crystal forming, so the real "chance" of them happening is nothing like what you get when you consider the whole path the atom has taken. Its not like its impossible, its like it is inevitable.
Actually I was talking about it happening in nature. The example you used for the emergence of new cells from inorganic materials does require the pre-existence of cellular life though.
It does seem to me that when it is done in a lab it will be an example that it took sentient life to make it happen.
Nah, not really. If you boil salt water on the stove to make some crystals, that doesn't show that it takes sentience to make salt crystals grow.
Just goes to show that I shouldn't underestimate God.
Like I said, I'm not trying to challenge your belief in God. I'm just challenging your assertions that it took too much chance for life to emerge so therefore you need to invoke God at that point.
Christianity IS Christ-centered, totally absolutely Christ-centered.
Yeah, its too bad some protestants have been tricked by the devil into worshiping the Bible before and in place of Christ, but its obvious how easy of a sell it was to them when they don't have to actually do anything but utter a few words about what they supposedly believe in order to receive their get out of hell free card. The bigger shame is that their house-of-cards faith is so flimsy that they have to deny the most basic and obvious of facts in order to prop up their flimsy inerrant-Bible foundation, otherwise the whole thing comes crashing down exposing the facade-of-a-faith that it really is.
But you wouldn't call it supernatural or a miracle.
I could... legend has it that he was the son of Zeus, and that he never lost a battle even when outnumbered.
Well there are no stories written about a non-supernatural Jesus. However, had there been a story of a regular guy born from two parents you tried to do good and died...yeah sure, It'd be easier to accept. That kind of thing happens a lot.
It just seems a little inconsistent with these two in particular, but in general your point is not lost.
I don't get this. I'll admit I know the basics about Alexander the Great but I don't recall reading anything that claimed he was the son of a god or immortal.
quote:Several legends surround Alexander's birth and childhood. According to the ancient Greek biographer Plutarch, Olympias, on the eve of the consummation of her marriage to Philip, dreamed that her womb was struck by a thunder bolt, causing a flame that spread "far and wide" before dying away. Some time after the wedding, Philip is said to have seen himself, in a dream, securing his wife's womb with a seal engraved with a lion's image. Plutarch offered a variety of interpretations of these dreams: that Olympias was pregnant before her marriage, indicated by the sealing of her womb; or that Alexander's father was Zeus.
Why? Nothing supernatural was claimed about him. He was a king, son of a king, born of natural causes and didn't come back from the dead.
His court historian Callisthenes portrayed the sea in Cilicia as drawing back from him in proskynesis.
Erythraean Sibyl prophesied that Alexander is the son of Zeus and Olympias. Henceforth, Alexander often referred to Zeus-Ammon as his true father after visiting also the Siwa Oasis in Egypt.
Alexander is also a character of Greek folklore (and other regions), as the protagonist of 'apocryphal' tales of bravery. A maritime legend says that his sister is a mermaid and asks the sailors if her brother is still alive.
According to Greek Alexander Romance, Queen Thalestris of the Amazons brought 300 women to Alexander the Great, hoping to breed a race of children as strong and intelligent as he.
A popular Greek legend talks about a mermaid who lived in the Aegean for hundreds of years who was thought to be Alexander's sister Thessalonike. The legend states that Alexander, in his quest for the Fountain of Immortality, retrieved with great exertion a flask of immortal water with which he bathed his sister's hair.
Can the same be said for Jesus? Was he a regular guy that a few people decided to write legends of?
I don't know. It's possible.
I just thought that Alexander the Great wasn't a very good example to make your point. Your point, itself, I don't really have a problem with. Carry on.
quote:We’re in one of the richest countries in the world, and yet the minimum wage is lower than it was thirty five years ago. There are homeless people everywhere. This homeless guy asked me for money the other day. I was about to give it to him and then I thought he was going to use it on drugs or alcohol. And then I thought, that’s what I’m gonna to use it on. Why am I judging this poor bastard. People love to judge homeless guys. Like if you give them money they’re just going to waste it hes gonna waste the money. Well, he lives in a box, what do you want him to do? Save it up and buy a wall unit? Take a little run to the store for a throw rug and a CD rack? He’s homeless. I walked behind this guy the other day. A homeless guy asking for money. He looks right at the homeless guy and says why don’t you go get a job you bum. People always say that to homeless guys like it's always that easy. This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants. I’m guessing his resume isn’t all up to date. I’m predicting some problems during the interview process. I’m pretty sure even McDonalds has a underwear goes inside the pants policy. Not that they enforce it very strictly, but technically I’m sure it is on the books.
Well those that don't believe in your, or anyone else's God, are telling you that atheism is NOT a belief so you should take that on face value and try to properly understand it - it might help you understand why we disagree over and over again on the same issues of evidence.
What do you call a person who holds the belief that god does not exist?
Atheism used to be a belief, Atheist Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster , but now y'all are changing the definition. 15 years ago, the first self-proclaimed atheist I met was using the word for shock and awe... but he was a bit of a troll.
It seems that as people have realized the irrationality of taking this positive stance on a negative claim like that, they began retreating to the whole "its just a lack of belief" claim. I figured they might as well just use a different word, but apparently they don't want to.
What's so appealing about that word in particular?
Most people call them atheists - but you're simply playing with syntax to attempt to change a meaning. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. He doesn't hold a belief that god doesn't exist, that's just word mangling.
No, atheism was the belief that gods don't exist. You're the on playing with syntax and mangling words.
Atheism was never a belief. It has always been a lack of belief. Obviously.
Obviously, with a click of that link, you could have seen that atheism was a belief.
Again - I do not believe in hobgoblins. Does that statement mean that I believe in something? If so, what exactly is it that I believe about non-existant hobgoblins? Well, that they don't exist of course! How clever.
I believe that hobgoblins do not exist. That's a stronger statement than saying that I do not believe that they do. The former is committed, the latter isn't. You can be without a belief that they do, and also without a belief that they don't.
In fact, it is that exact waffling that we see the non-believers engaging in: "No, I don't believe that god does not exist, I'm just not convinced into a belief that it does"
It's not our bloody word - it's a word invented by believers for those that don't hold their beliefs. There should be no word at all - that's the point.
It comes from the greek word atheos, which meant godlessness. Its a word for people who think there aren't any gods.
If it isn't your word and you don't think it should be used, then stop using it. These days, non-believers use it more than believers.
What's so appealing about it that you keep using it?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
