Abiogenesis

[Non sequitur]

Why is any explanation of abiogenesis called "crazy" and "infinitely impossible", yet the idea of a supernatural being (not even including the specifics about it) is not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is any explanation of abiogenesis called "crazy" and "infinitely impossible", yet the idea of a supernatural being (not even including the specifics about it) is not?

Abiogenesis is a process that required a massive amount of time for the right ingredients to come together in the right place at the right time; whereas God, the 'supernatural being' in your OP, is self-existent and eternal.

 

[Non sequitur]

Abiogenesis is a process that required a massive amount of time for the right ingredients to come together in the right place at the right time; whereas God, the 'supernatural being' in your OP, is self-existent and eternal.

Exactly. Why would they equally not be "not likely" etc?

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. Why would they equally not be "not likely" etc?

From my perspective, abiogenesis didn't have enough time to occur; since I believe time has been in existence for only [some] 6015 years.

And even if abiogenesis occurred immediately after the earth was created, we still know that life (God & angels) existed in the universe before abiogenesis; so life is not dependent on abiogenesis.

 

[Non sequitur]

From my perspective, abiogenesis didn't have enough time to occur; since I believe time has been in existence for only [some] 6015 years.

And even if abiogenesis occurred immediately after the earth was created, we still know that life (God & angels) existed in the universe before abiogenesis; so life is not dependent on abiogenesis.

I'm not comparing the two, as alternatives to/for anything.

I am asking the question, absent of any belief (for or against).

No predispositions allowed, each statement standing on it's own merit. Why are the likelihoods of either idea not the same?

 

[AV1611VET]

No predispositions allowed, each statement standing on it's own merit.

I'm sorry ... I was under the impression you meant it, when you said:

... any explanation ...

I'll get off the playing field and let someone else answer this, before I get hit by a moving goalpost.

 

[Non sequitur]

I'm sorry ... I was under the impression you meant it, when you said:

I said "any explanations", to simply cover all theories for it, instead of a list.

I'll get off the playing field and let someone else answer this, before I get hit by a moving goalpost.

Well, then just don't go moving any

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Why is any explanation of abiogenesis called "crazy" and "infinitely impossible", yet the idea of a supernatural being (not even including the specifics about it) is not?

Because biochemistry is a LOT harder to learn than the phrase "God did it".

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Because biochemistry is a LOT harder to learn than the phrase "God did it".

"It's hard work."

Hard Working George - YouTube

 

[Non sequitur]

It certainly seems like isn't...

 

[JustMeSee]

Why is any explanation of abiogenesis called "crazy" and "infinitely impossible", yet the idea of a supernatural being (not even including the specifics about it) is not?

It is easier to comprehend that we, being very complex life forms, were created bysome miraculous entity than by some very long, simple chain of events.

 

[Michael]

I'm not comparing the two, as alternatives to/for anything.

I am asking the question, absent of any belief (for or against).

No predispositions allowed, each statement standing on it's own merit. Why are the likelihoods of either idea not the same?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-34/#post62665805

I personally think it's silly to "assume" that they are mutually exclusive issues in the first place. FYI, not all concepts of "God" involve "supernatural" constructs.

 

[Non sequitur]

It is easier to comprehend that we, being very complex life forms, were created by some miraculous entity than by some very long, simple chain of events.

(The term "complex life forms" is a relative and moving target. We don't know what life forms will exist in the future, and we may be very un-complex, in comparison.)

It's easier to comprehend that an entity-thing that has always been around, even itself wasn't created, that can manifest anything with merely a thought, and is omnipresent and omnipotent... than very long, chains of events?

It is literally impossible to calculate the probability of this entity's existence, because we have nothing else to compare its likelihood to. We do have, however, many long chains of events that do occur, to compare likelihoods to.

Unless you are simply making exceptions, merely for the sake of accepting it as your truth, it's not very rational to say it's easier to do so.

 

[Non sequitur]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-34/#post62665805

I personally think it's silly to "assume" that they are mutually exclusive issues in the first place. FYI, not all concepts of "God" involve "supernatural" constructs.

You should be able to compare two issues, even if they are or are not mutually exclusive, on their own merit... unless it creates a conflict with any preconceived or held beliefs.

I used the term "supernatural" to just make it simpler to encompass any and all specific traits that may be given to it. Call it natural or supernatural, if you wish.

Can you respond to the question now?

 

[JustMeSee]

(The term "complex life forms" is a relative and moving target. We don't know what life forms will exist in the future, and we may be very un-complex, in comparison.)

It's easier to comprehend that an entity-thing that has always been around, even itself wasn't created, that can manifest anything with merely a thought, and is omnipresent and omnipotent... than very long, chains of events?

It is literally impossible to calculate the probability of this entity's existence, because we have nothing else to compare its likelihood to. We do have, however, many long chains of events that do occur, to compare likelihoods to.

Unless you are simply making exceptions, merely for the sake of accepting it as your truth, it's not very rational to say it's easier to do so.

When I wrote we, I was referring not only to humans but all off the complex life forms we are aware of. Yes, in the future we may find or become much more complex, but for the sake of argument I stand by my opinion that we are complex.

The idea of there being a god or gods is simpler to understand and explain than the science involved in hypothesis for abiogenesis.

I am not saying that I favor a god creating initial life, but in my opinion it is much easier to understand.

 

[Non sequitur]

The idea of there being a god or gods is simpler to understand and explain than the science involved in hypothesis for abiogenesis.

I am not saying that I favor a god creating initial life, but in my opinion it is much easier to understand.

If you don't take it past the complexity of what, where, etc a god is or gods are, I suppose that would be correct.

Would you say simpler and easier to understand, has any bearing on the validity of an option?

 

[JustMeSee]

If you don't take it past the complexity of what, where, etc a god is or gods are, I suppose that would be correct.

Would you say simpler and easier to understand, has any bearing on the validity of an option?

No, quite the opposite. While validity is based upon facts, opinions are based upon nurturing, knowledge, and fundamental beliefs.

I am not in opposition to the OP. It is just that faith can be very strong, and to break that mindset can be very difficult. This is where education and consideration comes into play. While the idea of man being created from the dust of the ground, may sound implausible as an adult, this concept is usually ingrained in the mind as an impressionable child.

While abiogenesis may be the way life originated on this planet, I don't have the vaguest idea how far scientists have reached in this field of research.

 

[Michael]

You should be able to compare two issues, even if they are or are not mutually exclusive, on their own merit... unless it creates a conflict with any preconceived or held beliefs.

I used the term "supernatural" to just make it simpler to encompass any and all specific traits that may be given to it. Call it natural or supernatural, if you wish.

Can you respond to the question now?

Why is any explanation of abiogenesis called "crazy" and "infinitely impossible", yet the idea of a supernatural being (not even including the specifics about it) is not?

Your "question" is both a highly loaded question, and it may not have as "simple" of an answer (comparison) as you might imagine or prefer.

The term "crazy" has no business being in that sentence, nor does the term "infinitely impossible" IMO. The term "supernatural" is also a "personal choice" as far as I can tell. Other than that, sure I'll take a shot at it.

Just as with life itself, it's pretty much impossible to say exactly where "God" might come from, how he came to exist, etc. These may not have easy or simple answers.

In terms of the "God" described in those threads I cited, God is the single most "natural" part of "reality". In terms of the visual things that we can observe, there is no physical place where "God" does not exist, and there is no physical place where "life forming naturally" would necessarily be an "accident". In other words, those threads would describe the first life forming *inside* of an already preexisting and "living being". Life would have formed perfectly "naturally", albeit not on "accident". The first lifeforms were simply "consciously created" and "designed" to adapt to a wide variety of environmental conditions.

What we describe as "awareness" may simply a miniaturized and limited manifestation of of something that exist at a fundamentally *macroscopic* level. The atoms simply allow for preexisting "awareness" to "manifest in nature".

Even in such conditions however, it wouldn't technically be "impossible" for life to form "accidentally". We would however have to ask ourselves, "What are the odds?"

I can't honestly say. Even were you to put all the right chemicals together, in exactly the right ways, and life "formed" from such elements, would that be an example of "accidental life", or "engineered environmental manipulation designed to create living things"? Even if you created them in a beaker, would they be 'aware'? What is "awareness" at it's most fundamental level in your opinion? How do single celled animals become "aware" of their environment, and take "active action" to deal with it? Don't you find it odd that so many various lifeforms posses it, and that life 'evolves' in a way to facilitate the manifestation of awareness in ever more complex lifeforms?

 

[Non sequitur]

In terms of the "God" described in those threads I cited, God is the single most "natural" part of "reality". In terms of the visual things that we can observe, there is no physical place where "God" does not exist, and there is no physical place where "life forming naturally" would necessarily be an "accident". In other words, those threads would describe the first life forming *inside* of an already preexisting and "living being". Life would have formed perfectly "naturally", albeit not on "accident". The first lifeforms were simply "consciously created" and "designed" to adapt to a wide variety of environmental conditions.

What we describe as "awareness" may simply a miniaturized and limited manifestation of of something that exist at a fundamentally *macroscopic* level. The atoms simply allow for preexisting "awareness" to "manifest in nature".

Even in such conditions however, it wouldn't technically be "impossible" for life to form "accidentally". We would however have to ask ourselves, "What are the odds?"

I can't honestly say. Even were you to put all the right chemicals together, in exactly the right ways, and life "formed" from such elements, would that be an example of "accidental life", or "engineered environmental manipulation designed to create living things"? Even if you created them in a beaker, would they be 'aware'? What is "awareness" at it's most fundamental level in your opinion?

The ability to discern oneself from other things, through any/the changes, if I had to say on the spot.

If you made all things equal (colors, heat, thoughts), one could not separate any thing, and thus be left with "everything" or "nothing".

How do single celled animals become "aware" of their environment, and take "active action" to deal with it? Don't you find it odd that so many various lifeforms posses it, and that life 'evolves' in a way to facilitate the manifestation of awareness in ever more complex lifeforms?[/QUOTE]

I find that to be expected, not odd; what other ways would "aware" beings be, but aware.

If you had some examples of life not evolving in a way to facilitate that, it would be easier to comment on it through comparison. "Odd" only works, if there is a contrast.

 

[freezerman2000]

When the Bible said that God formed man from the dust of the earth, that to me sounds like a model of abiogenesis.