How to answer the question "well life would have begun eventually"

[stevevw]

No, that's not part of evolutionary theory. For example, the evolution of dogs came about by the intervention of humans, although the evidence is accumulating that the recent evolution of humans came about by our interactions with dogs as well.



Evolutionary theory is indifferent to the way life began, and makes no claims about that. Darwin,for example, just assumed that God created the first living things.

Yes I should have elaborated on that. But my basic point was that according to the atheistic view of how life came about is without any outside agent. Also the evolution of life after it comes about needs no outside agent. So therefore it will only take the right conditions elsewhere in the universe to produce life. Considering that scientists claim there are many earth like planets in our part of the universe let alone the entire universe logic tells us that there should be plenty of life happening out there. In other words relating back to the OP life would have came about and evolved eventually somewhere in the universe and can probably do it more than once.

 

[stevevw]

We can only figure out how many planets might be like ours so that life of the sort we know about can happen. That's really speculative; even now that we're finding extrasolar planets, we can only know about conditions in what's a very tiny part of the universe.

Personally, I've always been puzzled as to why creationists are unwilling to accept a God capable of creating a world that would bring forth living things as He intended. Particularly since that's what the Bible says.

have no problems accepting that God can use evolution as a way of creating creatures. But I think most people who believe in a creator God agree that a supernatural act was needed initially which goes against the world view of how life came about.

This makes an important distinction when comparing a worldview and belief in a creator God. A worldview requires no supernatural conditions so there is a greater chance that if the right conditions happened once it can happen again and again in such as vast universe. Especially when one of the arguments for a worldview is if there are many examples of life occurring elsewhere then it makes life on earth not so special to need any supernatural intervention from God.

But if life is a very rare occurrence and needs Gods intervention then logic would tell us that life occurring elsewhere in the universe is unlikely. For me the OP is more or less implying a worldview in that eventually life would have came about without God as it only depends on certain conditions which should happen in such a big universe.

 

[The Barbarian]

have no problems accepting that God can use evolution as a way of creating creatures. But I think most people who believe in a creator God agree that a supernatural act was needed initially which goes against the world view of how life came about.

There are many worldviews in that regard. None of them have anything to do with scientific theories. My worldview is that God created all things. The important thing is that scientists can have all sorts of worldviews and still do science together, even if they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Avestians, or of no religious beliefs whatsoever.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes I should have elaborated on that. But my basic point was that according to the atheistic view of how life came about is without any outside agent.

Atheists agree with scripture that the earth brought forth living things. They only differ with it on the point that this happened according to God's intentions.

Also the evolution of life after it comes about needs no outside agent.

Neither does gravity or thunderstorms. That's how God does most things in this world. I can only believe that He's doing it right. How about you?

So therefore it will only take the right conditions elsewhere in the universe to produce life.

So the Bible indicates. Scripture indicates that God created the universe to bring forth life. I don't see anything disturbing in that.

We really don't have any reliable data on the likelihood of life elsewhere. Maybe a close look at Mars will help us with that. Or maybe not. What if we find the fossils of alien microorganisms there or even relict populations of living things holding out against the aridity and the cold? Would that shake your faith? If so, perhaps a closer reading of Genesis is called for.

 

[stevevw]

There are many worldviews in that regard. None of them have anything to do with scientific theories. My worldview is that God created all things. The important thing is that scientists can have all sorts of worldviews and still do science together, even if they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Avestians, or of no religious beliefs whatsoever.

I agree but in regards to the OP it does make a difference as to what worldview people have. For a atheist worldview the OP relates to life eventually beginning through time and chance and people will look for possibilities that fit in with that worldview such as ts or alien seeding of life on earth. Whereas for a Christian life has begun through the intervention of God which is beyond the science.

 

[stevevw]

Atheists agree with scripture that the earth brought forth living things. They only differ with it on the point that this happened according to God's intentions.

When you say the earth brought forth life what do you mean. I thought that for life to have begun there needed to be some sort of supernatural intervention at the very beginning whether that be God creating the first micro life, bringing together the right conditions for life or some other supernatural act and then evolution took over. The point is the chances of life spontaneously happening by chance is very remote and science cannot even explain this let alone come up with evidence for it. That is why some say that life was seeded by aliens or give creative power to time itself as its beyond any explanation that could account for the impossibility of life being created without some outside help.

Neither does gravity or thunderstorms. That's how God does most things in this world. I can only believe that He's doing it right. How about you?

But I think more creative power is associated with evolution than thunderstorms and gravity. I think there are codes to life that were instilled by a creator that allows evolution to be guided. Whereas atheists believe it is all blind chance but that's another story.

So the Bible indicates. Scripture indicates that God created the universe to bring forth life. I don't see anything disturbing in that.

So you have just moved the supernatural act back a few notches. I think the conditions needed for life to begin are far beyond chance and that there needed to be some intervention at that point even if it was just creating the right conditions. But either way if God ensured that outcome from the very beginning of all creation that is still much the same. The important thing is it is different to how atheists see things at these crucial points. They will invoke ideas like time and aliens rather than acknowledge there was any guidance from a creator.

We really don't have any reliable data on the likelihood of life elsewhere. Maybe a close look at Mars will help us with that. Or maybe not. What if we find the fossils of alien microorganisms there or even relict populations of living things holding out against the aridity and the cold? Would that shake your faith? If so, perhaps a closer reading of Genesis is called for.

Not really, it would just mean a rethink. I am open to new possibilities. God may still have allowed for non human life especially micro organisms on other planets as a remnant of life in general to exist. Maybe for intelligent life to exist on earth there has to be forms of life throughout the universe. But I would find it hard to accept that there was intelligent life elsewhere as this would require either that life not coming under the fall of earth into sin and not needing redemption or that Christ would have had to die for them on each planet they exist on which sort of makes a mockery of the whole act. As mentioned the bible states that Christ died once and for all.

 

[The Barbarian]

When you say the earth brought forth life what do you mean.

Genesis 1:24, for example.

I thought that for life to have begun there needed to be some sort of supernatural intervention at the very beginning whether that be God creating the first micro life, bringing together the right conditions for life or some other supernatural act and then evolution took over.

God creating a universe in which such things can happen, as St. Augustine wrote. With potentials built into the fabric of existence. Remember, evolution has nothing to do with the way life began.

The point is the chances of life spontaneously happening by chance is very remote

If we can believe God, the probability of that is 1.0. (assuming that God created a world in which the earth, waters, and air could bring forth life)

and science cannot even explain this let alone come up with evidence for it.

Actually, there's considerable evidence that it did happen as God said. Scientists call it "abiogenesis."

But I think more creative power is associated with evolution than thunderstorms and gravity.

Don't see how. The world's atmosphere, which depends only on heat, moisture, gravity, and inertia, is far more complicated than a bacterium. And astonishingly more complicated than random variation and natural selection.

I think there are codes to life that were instilled by a creator that allows evolution to be guided.

Not according to Genesis.

So you have just moved the supernatural act back a few notches.

So God indicates.

I think the conditions needed for life to begin are far beyond chance and that there needed to be some intervention at that point even if it was just creating the right conditions.

Or He was capable of getting it right from the start. One of those.

But either way if God ensured that outcome from the very beginning of all creation that is still much the same.

Yes.

The important thing is it is different to how atheists see things at these crucial points.

In science, it doesn't matter, since the material world works according to knowable rules. In religion, there's a problem, yes.

We really don't have any reliable data on the likelihood of life elsewhere. Maybe a close look at Mars will help us with that. Or maybe not. What if we find the fossils of alien microorganisms there or even relict populations of living things holding out against the aridity and the cold? Would that shake your faith? If so, perhaps a closer reading of Genesis is called for.

Not really, it would just mean a rethink. I am open to new possibilities. God may still have allowed for non human life especially micro organisms on other planets as a remnant of life in general to exist. Maybe for intelligent life to exist on earth there has to be forms of life throughout the universe. But I would find it hard to accept that there was intelligent life elsewhere as this would require either that life not coming under the fall of earth into sin and not needing redemption or that Christ would have had to die for them on each planet they exist on which sort of makes a mockery of the whole act. As mentioned the bible states that Christ died once and for all.

All humans, anyway. He didn't die for the angels, who have no need, or the devils, who are somehow beyond salvation. Who would limit Him to only creating things He told us about?

 

[stevevw]

Genesis 1:24, for example.
God creating a universe in which such things can happen, as St. Augustine wrote. With potentials built into the fabric of existence. Remember, evolution has nothing to do with the way life began.

So you are saying that rather than the almost impossible task of life being created by chance as some scientists try to come up with the scenario there was some orchestration from God from the beginning of our universe where it was inevitable that life would be formed from the elements of the earth.

Actually, there's considerable evidence that it did happen as God said. Scientists call it "abiogenesis."

Yes but atheist scientists will include random chance conditions that just happened to occur and require just as much faith as believing God did it. There are too many impossible conditions for life to appear by chance and scientists have acknowledged this and that's why they appeal to ideas like "time" overcoming those impossibilities rather than consider that the earth was rigged by God to bring forth life no matter what. Inherent in the argument that a creator God was involved is some divine guidance and not just spontaneous chance.

Don't see how. The world's atmosphere, which depends only on heat, moisture, gravity, and inertia, is far more complicated than a bacterium. And astonishingly more complicated than random variation and natural selection.

And yet through evolution a living organism is created and that which could not see evolves to see and produce humans with all their brain power that can harness nature. An atmosphere can be repeated a billion times over in varying forms throughout the universe. I doubt if life could do that.

Not according to Genesis.

How do you mean. All life follows a genetic code, physics including quantum mechanics follows laws and so does the the universe. All those codes and laws had to have been around before life and existence began. Nothing can exist unless it has a guiding factor. From the very beginning with the big bang precise laws were needed which governed the outcome to produce what we see today.

So God indicates.

So that is where the codes and laws come in. The impossibility of life from none life was overcome by Gods guidance by introducing the laws and principles which allow life to emerge. The codes of DNA were inherent and bound to happen because of Gods guiding hand and they are seen through the common codes that produce certain outcomes as opposed to any outcome which allows life to live on earth and reproduce. The laws of physics allow a universe to be balanced rather than collapse on itself of fly apart. These all had to be there from the start.

Or He was capable of getting it right from the start. One of those.

Yes I agree. But I guess for some it does not matter so much if they think God may have intervened more than once. After-all it is only calling upon the same divine intervention. Either way His guidance was needed.

All humans, anyway. He didn't die for the angels, who have no need, or the devils, who are somehow beyond salvation. Who would limit Him to only creating things He told us about?

God has no limits to his creation. But IMO God creating intelligent life on other planets has implications. First I would have thought God would have mentioned this as good friends don't keep secrets. Second I just find the whole idea of a need to repeat whatever has happened on earth from the creation of life, the fall of Adam and Eve and sin and the need for God to redo the whole sacrifice of Christ a little demeaning.

It brings up questions like was there a second Adam and Eve and were they called something else, if so what does that mean for Adam being among the line for Christ. Was this other Adam also the same and so on. You could probably come up with many examples that would make Gods word and the bible seem like a fable.

 

[The Barbarian]

Genesis 1:24, for example.
God creating a universe in which such things can happen, as St. Augustine wrote. With potentials built into the fabric of existence. Remember, evolution has nothing to do with the way life began.

So you are saying that rather than the almost impossible task of life being created by chance as some scientists try to come up with the scenario there was some orchestration from God from the beginning of our universe where it was inevitable that life would be formed from the elements of the earth.

Yes but atheist scientists will include random chance conditions that just happened to occur and require just as much faith as believing God did it.

All the scientists I know of, think it happened because nature works in a way that pretty much guarantees life will appear when the conditions are right. Doesn't seem to matter if they believe in God or not.

There are too many impossible conditions for life to appear by chance

Or gravity, or atoms or planets or... The deal is abiogenesis says it's not by chance. Can you show me in the literature where a scientist claims it happened by chance?

Don't see how. The world's atmosphere, which depends only on heat, moisture, gravity, and inertia, is far more complicated than a bacterium. And astonishingly more complicated than random variation and natural selection.

And yet through evolution a living organism is created and that which could not see evolves to see and produce humans with all their brain power that can harness nature. An atmosphere can be repeated a billion times over in varying forms throughout the universe. I doubt if life could do that.

God said it did. Not through evolution, but by the earth bringing life forth. Science is just now, beginning to see that's correct. The problem for you is not the origin of life e.g. bacteria. It's how simple living things can evolve into new and more complicated forms (which they don't always do; sometimes they evolve into simpler forms).

Barbarian observes:
Not according to Genesis.

How do you mean.

The particular details of life aren't the point. For example, we know that many amino acids are formed without living things. But only certain of those were incorporated into the kind of living things we see on Earth.

If God is omnipotent, then he can, as Aquinas writes, use contingency just as easily as he can use necessity in His divine providence. So He almost certainly did not write a spec sheet for life. Does that mean that things happening by chance can be part of His intent? Yes, it does.

All life follows a genetic code, physics including quantum mechanics follows laws and so does the the universe. All those codes and laws had to have been around before life and existence began.

No. Exactly how it all works is not written down anywhere. In fact, the way it works has changed slightly over the ages. And there is some evidence that constants like the speed of light have changed very, very slightly. So no.

Nothing can exist unless it has a guiding factor. From the very beginning with the big bang precise laws were needed which governed the outcome to produce what we see today.

And we're back to God creating kind of universe where contingency and necessity will together fulfill His will.

So that is where the codes and laws come in. The impossibility of life from none life

According to Genesis, the probability of life coming from non-life is 1.0. That's how God says it happened.

was overcome by Gods guidance by introducing the laws and principles which allow life to emerge. The codes of DNA were inherent and bound to happen because of Gods guiding hand and they are seen through the common codes that produce certain outcomes as opposed to any outcome which allows life to live on earth and reproduce.

Except that the codes don't all work exactly the same way. Setting aside retroviruses, which work "backwards" to the normal code, there's the issue of even a highly-conserved system like DNA changing somewhat:

Natural Variations in the Genetic Code
Thomas D. Fox
Annual Review of Genetics Volume 21, 1987 , pp 67-91

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ge.21.120187.000435?journalCode=genet

The laws of physics allow a universe to be balanced rather than collapse on itself of fly apart. These all had to be there from the start.

Physics indicates it's all by a few simple rules, or perhaps just one. Yes.

Barbarian observes:
Or He was capable of getting it right from the start. One of those.

Yes I agree. But I guess for some it does not matter so much if they think God may have intervened more than once.

Depends on whether or not one considers Him to be omnipotent, I suppose.

After-all it is only calling upon the same divine intervention. Either way His guidance was needed.

We wouldn't even exist if He were to take His attention from us. He is intimately involved with every particle of this universe. It's just that a supremely competent God would not have to tinker to make it work.

God has no limits to his creation. But IMO God creating intelligent life on other planets has implications. First I would have thought God would have mentioned this as good friends don't keep secrets.

If so, I wish He'd explain the wave/particle duality for me. No, we don't get told everything. Some things don't matter, and for others, He expects us to use the curiosity and intelligence He provided us.

Second I just find the whole idea of a need to repeat whatever has happened on earth from the creation of life, the fall of Adam and Eve and sin and the need for God to redo the whole sacrifice of Christ a little demeaning.

Are you a C.S. Lewis fan? He's the guru of applied Christianity. Find a copy of Perelandra, and give it some thought.[/QUOTE]

 

[stevevw]

Genesis 1:24, for example.
God creating a universe in which such things can happen, as St. Augustine wrote. With potentials built into the fabric of existence. Remember, evolution has nothing to do with the way life began.
All the scientists I know of, think it happened because nature works in a way that pretty much guarantees life will appear when the conditions are right. Doesn't seem to matter if they believe in God or not.

That’s interesting because that almost is acknowledging that nature has been programed that way. Yet if some sort of programing is not used to help overcome the life from nothing problem it would appear that there were too many obstacles to overcome for life to be guaranteed. When you say conditions need to be right this is a bit ambiguous as there may need to be many conditions that need to be right which can begin to increase the odds of it not being guaranteed.

Or gravity, or atoms or planets or... The deal is abiogenesis says it's not by chance. Can you show me in the literature where a scientist claims it happened by chance?

Most of the literature talks about the improbability life because of the complex conditions and components needed. RNA is most often used but no one has ever explained how RNA could come about. Odds and improbability are often attached to it happening which points to chance and luck.

Most scientists agree that life went through a period when RNA was the head-honcho molecule, guiding life through its nascent stages. But the RNA World hypothesis doesn't explain how RNA itself first arose. Like DNA, RNA is a complex molecule made of repeating units of thousands of smaller molecules called nucleotides that link together in very specific, patterned ways. While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical. "The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot,"

Even Dawkins appeals to chance in saying
the universe contains a billion billion planets (a conservative estimate, he says), then the chances that life will arise on one of them is not really so remarkable.

The other chance scenario cited often is the multiverse
Furthermore, if, as some physicists say, our universe is just one of many, and each universe contained a billion billion planets, then it's nearly a certainty that life will arise on at least one of them.
How Did Life Arise on Earth?

All these scenarios are based on an atheistic worldview where there is no God behind life coming about so they need to appeal to situations that can improve the odds for it to happen without Him. Things like this just don’t fall into place as they are complex and require a certain order and language to work. So there needed to be some code or guidance from God to begin with. Once established then that is a different story and as we have seen the way DNA and the cell works it is like a well-orchestrated production line working to a set of instructions.

Don't see how. The world's atmosphere, which depends only on heat, moisture, gravity, and inertia, is far more complicated than a bacterium. And astonishingly more complicated than random variation and natural selection.

Yes and another aspect that is said to have some intelligence behind it with the fine tuning of the earth for intelligent life

God said it did. Not through evolution, but by the earth bringing life forth. Science is just now, beginning to see that's correct. The problem for you is not the origin of life e.g. bacteria. It's how simple living things can evolve into new and more complicated forms (which they don't always do; sometimes they evolve into simpler forms).

According articles I have read just like the once cited above science is not finding that life could have began from nothing and this is a big problem that they cannot even begin to explain how it would have happened without any influence from God. That is why chance scenarios like multiverses, and aliens seeding life are referred to so often. But once life has been established, I don’t have too much of a problem with evolution producing life. But then by that time there are codes for life that can direct what happens.

The particular details of life aren't the point. For example, we know that many amino acids are formed without living things. But only certain of those were incorporated into the kind of living things we see on Earth.
If God is omnipotent, then he can, as Aquinas writes, use contingency just as easily as he can use necessity in His divine providence. So He almost certainly did not write a spec sheet for life. Does that mean that things happening by chance can be part of His intent? Yes, it does.

But the chance we are talking about here is beyond the odds of happening according to scientists unless you evoke things like multiverses or aliens seeding life on earth and then you still have a problem of how that happened in the first place.

No. Exactly how it all works is not written down anywhere. In fact, the way it works has changed slightly over the ages. And there is some evidence that constants like the speed of light have changed very, very slightly. So no.

It is not a case of being written down anywhere. It is well known that there are laws and codes that govern existence and life. Whenever people try to explain how things begin, they always include a state that contains some sort of law or code. The big gang is explained to have happened with quantum fluctuations in a vacuum and uses laws of physics to enable it to be explained. In fact, those laws have to be precise to enable us to have such a fine-tuned universe that would not have imploded or flew apart. No one fan just say that there was some random event that allowed things to fall into place and create existence and life. Evolution requires a pre-existing state to exist, but they cannot explain how that began from nothing.

And we're back to God creating kind of universe where contingency and necessity will together fulfill His will.

Yes but I think when it mattered for those important points where there was nothing that came before God used necessity as there was no other way and no other conditions to call upon to even use contingency.

According to Genesis, the probability of life coming from non-life is 1.0. That's how God says it happened.

Yes but there is an element of the supernatural in this situation. If we bring in a worldview then the odds will dramatically increase against it happening according to the articles linked.

I will leave it here at this stage as the post is getting long.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hello
I always get evolutionists say to me "well life would have begun eventually as the world is billions of years old" how can I answer this please?

God is amazing!

 

[SkyWriting]

Genesis 1:24, for example.
God creating a universe in which such things can happen, as St. Augustine wrote. With potentials built into the fabric of existence. Remember, evolution has nothing to do with the way life began.

A theory of how things change should include that, unless life came from a single event and time.

 

[SkyWriting]

Thanks, well they say that well after billions of years an earth and a sun eventually developed and then eventually life developed on its own. And that ofcourse billions and billions of years life and planets would develop by themself. I never know how to reply, but theres a couple of interesting replies above thank you. anyone else who wants to chip in please do?

God is really smart and an amazing engineer. Obviously.

 

[SkyWriting]

That’s interesting because that almost is acknowledging that nature has been programed that way. Yet if some sort of programing is not used to help overcome the life from nothing problem it would appear that there were too many obstacles to overcome for life to be guaranteed.

God has an infinitely large intellect.
Like more than two, no three Phd's.

 

[The Barbarian]

A theory of how things change should include that, unless life came from a single event and time.

Don't see how. The simple fact is, evolutionary theory is indifferent to the way life began. If God just poofed the first living things into being rather than using nature, as He says in Genesis, evolution would work exactly the same way as it does now.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Genesis 1:24, for example.
God creating a universe in which such things can happen, as St. Augustine wrote. With potentials built into the fabric of existence. Remember, evolution has nothing to do with the way life began.
All the scientists I know of, think it happened because nature works in a way that pretty much guarantees life will appear when the conditions are right. Doesn't seem to matter if they believe in God or not.

That’s interesting because that almost is acknowledging that nature has been programed that way.

That's what would have happened if the "programmer" was a limited creature, perhaps the "space alien" suggested by IDers. It's much more impressive than that; it was created that way. Life is built into the fabric of the universe. Under the right conditions, it will emerge. One of the things one learns, studying creation, is that it's remarkably elegant (in the sense of effective simplicity) in the way it works.

Yet if some sort of programing is not used to help overcome the life from nothing problem it would appear that there were too many obstacles to overcome for life to be guaranteed. When you say conditions need to be right this is a bit ambiguous as there may need to be many conditions that need to be right which can begin to increase the odds of it not being guaranteed.

That's assuming God is not capable of creating a universe in which the earth can bring forth life.

Most of the literature talks about the improbability life because of the complex conditions and components needed. RNA is most often used but no one has ever explained how RNA could come about.

It seems that idea is wrong:

Nat Commun. 2016 Apr 25;7:11328. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11328.
Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water.
Cafferty BJ1,2, Fialho DM1,2, Khanam J1,2, Krishnamurthy R2,3, Hud NV1,2.

Abstract
The RNA World hypothesis presupposes that abiotic reactions originally produced nucleotides, the monomers of RNA and universal constituents of metabolism. However, compatible prebiotic reactions for the synthesis of complementary (that is, base pairing) nucleotides and mechanisms for their mutual selection within a complex chemical environment have not been reported. Here we show that two plausible prebiotic heterocycles, melamine and barbituric acid, form glycosidic linkages with ribose and ribose-5-phosphate in water to produce nucleosides and nucleotides in good yields. Even without purification, these nucleotides base pair in aqueous solution to create linear supramolecular assemblies containing thousands of ordered nucleotides. Nucleotide anomerization and supramolecular assemblies favour the biologically relevant β-anomer form of these ribonucleotides, revealing abiotic mechanisms by which nucleotide structure and configuration could have been originally favoured. These findings indicate that nucleotide formation and selection may have been robust processes on the prebiotic Earth, if other nucleobases preceded those of extant life.

Odds and improbability are often attached to it happening which points to chance and luck.

This, claim by a non-scientist, for example...

Most scientists agree that life went through a period when RNA was the head-honcho molecule, guiding life through its nascent stages. But the RNA World hypothesis doesn't explain how RNA itself first arose. Like DNA, RNA is a complex molecule made of repeating units of thousands of smaller molecules called nucleotides that link together in very specific, patterned ways. While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical. "The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot,"

As you see, whoever this is, apparently doesn't read the literature. He sounds like a journalist who writes about science, but never actually does any.

I find it odd that so many people who have faith in God, figure He's not capable of making a world where life can emerge from the earth itself. Particularly odd, since He says that He did make such a world. I can only suppose that what He's saying is so hard to get our minds around, that many don't believe it.

And if you shuffle a deck of cards well, and then write down the order of the cards in the deck, you'll find that it's so astoundingly unlikely, that it is, under those creationist assumptions, impossible. Yet it happens every time. What's the flaw here?

The flaw is, those guys found an arrow sticking in a tree, drew a bull-eye around it, and marveled at the accuracy.

Yes and another aspect that is said to have some intelligence behind it with the fine tuning of the earth for intelligent life

"Fine-tuning" suggests the "space alien", tinkering with the system until he gets it right. But since it was created by an omnipotent God, that's not what happened. He merely created it precisely as it is, to do precisely what He intended. And yes, being omnipotent, He can use chance to make things work according to His intent.

Yes but there is an element of the supernatural in this situation.

Yep. One of the reasons I find atheism unreasonable.

I will leave it here at this stage as the post is getting long.

Would you mind if I collected these exchanges and showed them to some people? I would of course note that I abbreviated your statements in my responses, and I'd include both your posts and mine. The level of discourse and respect therein is unusual for forum discussions on evolution, even though we rather pointedly disagree.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I always get evolutionists say to me "well life would have begun eventually as the world is billions of years old" how can I answer this please?

You would have to have a discussion on Evo Devo and that gets complicated for example: "The field is characterised by some key concepts, which took evolutionary biologists by surprise. One is deep homology, the finding that dissimilar organs such as the eyes of insects, vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, long thought to have evolved separately, are controlled by similar genes such as pax-6, from the evo-devo gene toolkit." Wiki

Stephen Jay Gould belief has been shown to be wrong. If we go back to the beginning and start all over again, then everything would turn out pretty much the way it has. Even anywhere you go in the universe. Because all the natural laws remain consistent and the same. What God said remains true.

 

[stevevw]

Barbarian observes:
Genesis 1:24, for example.
God creating a universe in which such things can happen, as St. Augustine wrote. With potentials built into the fabric of existence. Remember, evolution has nothing to do with the way life began.
All the scientists I know of, think it happened because nature works in a way that pretty much guarantees life will appear when the conditions are right. Doesn't seem to matter if they believe in God or not.
That's what would have happened if the "programmer" was a limited creature, perhaps the "space alien" suggested by IDers. It's much more impressive than that; it was created that way. Life is built into the fabric of the universe. Under the right conditions, it will emerge. One of the things one learns, studying creation, is that it's remarkably elegant (in the sense of effective simplicity) in the way it works.

But the same scientists support the idea that nature developed from random forces that somehow ended up with the universe we have. There was no inherent conditions that caused it to happen that way and we could have ended up with an unlimited amount of possible outcomes. If the conditions for life to happen in our universe are subject to all possibilities that would make the possibility of life happening very remote. So remote that scientists propose a multiverse to overcome our finely tuned universe for life argument. If life did only happen in our universe then this points to a designer because of the impossible odds of it happening in getting all the right parameters to create that life. Many say that design happened from the first instant our universe began otherwise it would have turned out different.

That's assuming God is not capable of creating a universe in which the earth can bring forth life.

If that's the case then this diminishes the argument for contingency.

It seems that idea is wrong:

Nat Commun. 2016 Apr 25;7:11328. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11328.
Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water.
Cafferty BJ1,2, Fialho DM1,2, Khanam J1,2, Krishnamurthy R2,3, Hud NV1,2.

Abstract
The RNA World hypothesis presupposes that abiotic reactions originally produced nucleotides, the monomers of RNA and universal constituents of metabolism. However, compatible prebiotic reactions for the synthesis of complementary (that is, base pairing) nucleotides and mechanisms for their mutual selection within a complex chemical environment have not been reported. Here we show that two plausible prebiotic heterocycles, melamine and barbituric acid, form glycosidic linkages with ribose and ribose-5-phosphate in water to produce nucleosides and nucleotides in good yields. Even without purification, these nucleotides base pair in aqueous solution to create linear supramolecular assemblies containing thousands of ordered nucleotides. Nucleotide anomerization and supramolecular assemblies favour the biologically relevant β-anomer form of these ribonucleotides, revealing abiotic mechanisms by which nucleotide structure and configuration could have been originally favoured. These findings indicate that nucleotide formation and selection may have been robust processes on the prebiotic Earth, if other nucleobases preceded those of extant life.

This, claim by a non-scientist, for example...

Most scientists agree that life went through a period when RNA was the head-honcho molecule, guiding life through its nascent stages. But the RNA World hypothesis doesn't explain how RNA itself first arose. Like DNA, RNA is a complex molecule made of repeating units of thousands of smaller molecules called nucleotides that link together in very specific, patterned ways. While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical. "The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot,"

As you see, whoever this is, apparently doesn't read the literature. He sounds like a journalist who writes about science, but never actually does any.

I am not sure about all these hypothesis around how life began. I still think there is a lot more to it. But even so the ironic thing is the more scientists come up with how certain conditions work well together to produce the stages for life to occur the more it shows that these conditions were designed to happen. Those conditions and ingredients would have to have been designed to happen in our universe from the beginning because they also rely on other conditions to happen specifically in our universe to produce that future condition. If they did not then we are left with multiverses again where we have to include unlimited possibilities to get such incredible specific conditions and outcomes.

[/quote] I find it odd that so many people who have faith in God, figure He's not capable of making a world where life can emerge from the earth itself. Particularly odd, since He says that He did make such a world. I can only suppose that what He's saying is so hard to get our minds around, that many don't believe it. [/quote] I have no problem with believing that God could produce life from the earth. I just find it hard to agree with the world view that makes nature the creative agent in place of God. More and more scientists are seeing that there is some method and direction of how things happen and they give that credit of the very thing that has been created rather than some outside source. The life and events we see happening from the earth and within life is no accident and the conditions for it to happen were set in place from the beginning.

And if you shuffle a deck of cards well, and then write down the order of the cards in the deck, you'll find that it's so astoundingly unlikely, that it is, under those creationist assumptions, impossible. Yet it happens every time. What's the flaw here?

I don't think that is the same argument. This example corresponds to the multiverse argument. In your example it is only astoundingly unlikely if those specific cards were required compared to a multitude of other possible shuffled decks. Each card only needs to find a number limited to a deck of cards. But in the creation of life there are many more specific conditions that have a massive scope of possibility that need to be satisfied and these all need to line up and with only one deck shuffled only once. Otherwise we fall back on the multiverse argument that makes our finely tuned universe unspectacular in among a multitude of other multiverses. So God got it right the one and only time and lined up all the conditions in the creation of the universe from the beginning that produced intelligent life that can have relationship with him.

"Fine-tuning" suggests the "space alien", tinkering with the system until he gets it right. But since it was created by an omnipotent God, that's not what happened. He merely created it precisely as it is, to do precisely what He intended. And yes, being omnipotent, He can use chance to make things work according to His intent.

Yes and this is the difference between the world view of how existence came about and how life evolved which relies on a whole lot more chance. I can support that primarily God designed things to happen the way they have as you say with a little chance included. But a world view will have it the other way around. There is a whole lot more chance with a little direction (natural selection). But Selection is overemphasized to account for what would normally be seen as elements of design in the way God precisely intended. But who says that natural selection is not part of Gods creation that helped things happen the way he intended.

Would you mind if I collected these exchanges and showed them to some people? I would of course note that I abbreviated your statements in my responses, and I'd include both your posts and mine. The level of discourse and respect therein is unusual for forum discussions on evolution, even though we rather pointedly disagree.

Sorry I did not get back earlier. I must have missed this post and just spotted it. I don't mind you sharing our posts. I also find them to be conducted in a good spirit.

 

[Brightmoon]

You would have to have a discussion on Evo Devo and that gets complicated for example: "The field is characterised by some key concepts, which took evolutionary biologists by surprise. One is deep homology, the finding that dissimilar organs such as the eyes of insects, vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, long thought to have evolved separately, are controlled by similar genes such as pax-6, from the evo-devo gene toolkit." Wiki

Stephen Jay Gould belief has been shown to be wrong. If we go back to the beginning and start all over again, then everything would turn out pretty much the way it has. Even anywhere you go in the universe. Because all the natural laws remain consistent and the same. What God said remains true.

. Actually Gould was correct . You’d have to recreate the anoxic early earth if you run you clock back far enough . Oxygen forming bacteria didn’t have to exist. What if they never evolved.They changed the atmosphere to one with a high level of O2 . Without that eucaryotes couldn’t evolve . Nor could anything multicellular.

Without that bolide that wiped out the dinosaurs there wouldn’t have been empty environmental niches for mammals to evolve into. Even if we were able to run the clock back, going forward would be different each time .

 

[joshua 1 9]

Oxygen forming bacteria didn’t have to exist. What if they never evolved.

If there was no great oxygen event then we would not exist.