Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[[serious]]

Sorry for the delay. I had lost interest in this thread, but I felt I should return and respond.


I'm with you here.


I'm with you here, too, except that some of the equations I remember seeing didn't even assume abiogenesis was limited to planets. They used boundaries such as the mass of the entire universe, not just mass bounded by earthlike planets.


I had started a thread about something like that, actually. Eugene Koonin wrote a paper a few years ago and appealed to the multiverse to improve his odds for abiogenesis. If you're interested, it's probably on page 2 or 3 by now.

I have to wonder, though, where you fit the will of God into all this. God is credited with the creation of life, and Jesus himself, the Word of God, is called the "Author of Life". It sounds to me like you're arguing for chance.

Basically, the universe appears uniform as far as we can see. There is no reason to suspect it stops being uniform beyond our ability to see. We can figure out, based on math, how far further out could have at some point in our history interacted with us, but there is really no way of knowing how much has ALWAYS been causally separated from us. Basically, we could set a floor on likelyhood based on the observable universe IF we had enough data to actually calculate that, but there is no way of putting a cap on that figure because it requires information that, at least under current models, is theoretically unknowable. If the universe is infinite, the odds of life occurring somewhere is 100%. Even assuming the worst case scenarios for ALL other math behind the calculation, would would only be able to say the odds are between ~0 and 100%.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In the beginning the foundation of science was based on the idea God created this universe and the universe is real and governed by laws which can be studied by man . Atheist came along and tried to based science of the universe created itself including all life around us. They assume the universe is real but God is not.
Abiogenesis is science fiction hypothesis that scientists research because people are willing to throw money at it. Give me a million dollars and I would research it too.

Scientific inquery is not based in assuming the world works in a certain way, but notable patterns are so prevalent they cannot be ignored. Science has always been at odds with religion because of the inevitable conclusions it ends up with, not because of its initial goals. To put into perspective, Darwin had just finished his training to be a priest when he set off on his voyage. Atheists didn't bring godlessness into science, science (in a way) brought godlessness into the scientists, because the observations of the world just don't match up with any religious texts, the bible included.

 

[Michael]

References?

I just watched a pretty good reference that topic last week actually:

Science and Islam, Jim Al-Khalili - BBC Documentary - YouTube

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't know, there might be an exception or two. One of the reasons I appreciate Methodists is that they view doing good for society as an expression of belief in god (the desire to help others reflects the inner belief) and that serving god is done through being of service to others. Outright belief is still important, but what qualifies as belief might be considered almost more lenient, I suppose.

So in the opinion of a Methodist, a charitable atheist might be expressing an "inner belief" in god without realizing it. While the logic of that might be iffy, it is a nice way to think about it.

Since in that case worshipping god is primarily through doing good for other people, you can't really say that what is done and what is believed in that case can have one be more important than the other, because they are viewed as the same.

I expect such sects to be a serious minority, and here's why....

If unbelievers had just as much chance of getting into heaven as believers do... then the religion is pointless and a waste of time.
The church would be rendered obsolete, along with all its religious books, texts, prayers, etc.

Because as so many atheists around the world prove every day: you don't need bronze age myths to be a nice person.

 

[mzungu]

Basically, the universe appears uniform as far as we can see. There is no reason to suspect it stops being uniform beyond our ability to see. We can figure out, based on math, how far further out could have at some point in our history interacted with us, but there is really no way of knowing how much has ALWAYS been causally separated from us. Basically, we could set a floor on likelyhood based on the observable universe IF we had enough data to actually calculate that, but there is no way of putting a cap on that figure because it requires information that, at least under current models, is theoretically unknowable. If the universe is infinite, the odds of life occurring somewhere is 100%. Even assuming the worst case scenarios for ALL other math behind the calculation, would would only be able to say the odds are between ~0 and 100%.

If the universe is infinite and was always there then we would not have a night sky but a sky awash with light!
Olbers' paradox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Olbers' paradox in action
In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840) and also called the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night.

 

[ChetSinger]

Basically, the universe appears uniform as far as we can see. There is no reason to suspect it stops being uniform beyond our ability to see...

I'm no cosmological expert, but I think you'll have to discard the Big Bang to proceed in that direction. As we look farther and farther away, we're also looking farther and farther back in time. We can deduce a beginning, and it's about 14 billion years ago.

 

[[serious]]

If the universe is infinite and was always there then we would not have a night sky but a sky awash with light!
Olbers' paradox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Olbers' paradox in action
In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840) and also called the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night.

That would only be the case if the universe was infinitely old and not expanding. His paradox has 3 requirements:
1. Infinite
2. Eternal
3. Static

the big bang preempts 2 and 3.

 

[[serious]]

I'm no cosmological expert, but I think you'll have to discard the Big Bang to proceed in that direction. As we look farther and farther away, we're also looking farther and farther back in time. We can deduce a beginning, and it's about 14 billion years ago.

Oh, I see the confusion here. I'm talking about infinite space wise, not eternal time wise.

 

[ChetSinger]

Oh, I see the confusion here. I'm talking about infinite space wise, not eternal time wise.

I think you still need to discard the Big Bang, because in that cosmology both space and time are created.

 

[Loudmouth]

I just watched a pretty good reference that topic last week actually:

How is God used in the science?

 

[Belk]

I think you still need to discard the Big Bang, because in that cosmology both space and time are created.

Could be.

xkcd: Cosmologist on a Tire Swing

 

[Loudmouth]

I think you still need to discard the Big Bang, because in that cosmology both space and time are created.

Do we need to discard meteorology because clouds and lightning are created?

 

[Michael]

I expect such sects to be a serious minority, and here's why....

If unbelievers had just as much chance of getting into heaven as believers do... then the religion is pointless and a waste of time.
The church would be rendered obsolete, along with all its religious books, texts, prayers, etc.

Because as so many atheists around the world prove every day: you don't need bronze age myths to be a nice person.

FYI, one of the primary reasons that Jesus got himself executed is because he taught people that Priests were not necessary to 'intervene' between us and God, and he claimed that the common man would enter heaven before them due to their pride and arrogance.

 

[ChetSinger]

Do we need to discard meteorology because clouds and lightning are created?

What in the world are you talking about? Our definitions of space and time originate at the start of the Big Bang.

 

[DogmaHunter]

FYI, one of the primary reasons that Jesus got himself executed is because he taught people that Priests were not necessary to 'intervene' between us and God, and he claimed that the common man would enter heaven before them due to their pride and arrogance.

Didn't he also say that nobody shall enter heaven except through him?

 

[Michael]

Didn't he also say that nobody shall enter heaven except through him?

Yes, through God's presence *within* us, and based on how we treat one another, not based on lip service to some religious dogma package.

 

[ChetSinger]

Didn't he also say that nobody shall enter heaven except through him?

Yes. He is the mediator between God the Father and mankind.

The reason is because of "who he is": he is the Word of God made flesh. There's a lot of Jewish context behind the that term; in summary, an appearance of the Word of God was an appearance of the Divine himself.

 

[Loudmouth]

What in the world are you talking about? Our definitions of space and time originate at the start of the Big Bang.

Our definition of clouds originates at condensation. Does condensation require a supernatural creator simply because it is the origin of clouds?

 

[ChetSinger]

Our definition of clouds originates at condensation. Does condensation require a supernatural creator simply because it is the origin of clouds?

Huh? Why are you talking about clouds? I said that in Big Bang cosmology, time and space are created at the beginning of the Big Bang. And they are. Why are you talking about clouds?

 

[Loudmouth]

Huh? Why are you talking about clouds? I said that in Big Bang cosmology, time and space are created at the beginning of the Big Bang. And they are. Why are you talking about clouds?

What is the difference?