Abiogenesis and life on Earth - thoughts and pet theories?

[Oddish]

You don't understand... I believe that EVOLUTION is quite real. Just look at how human selective breeding has turned wolves into Chihuahuas, Dachshunds, and St. Bernards. If we can do it in thousands of years, Mother Nature can do it in millions.

I don't believe in six-day creation for the same reason I don't buy into abiogenesis: the scientific evidence supports neither.

An excellent example. I've heard a similar one where you take a wristwatch apart, place all the pieces in a bag, and shake it for six billion years. What are the odds that after all of that, whoever still has the bag pulls out a properly-constructed wristwatch, that's both ticking and on time?

Yeah, you're getting there. Only don't start with clock parts. Start with molecules. The clock parts have to assemble themselves from scratch.

Odds that seem extreme to us, may not be extreme on a universal scale.

How are we calculating this?

Great question. Let's see the math. @Oddish

I don't need to know the exact odds to understand that a given event is statistically impossible. If I pour out a mop bucket full of 6-sided dice on a table, I know I'm not going to get all boxcars.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

It's very difficult to eradicate indoctrination. It can take several decades if one does it oneself. Christian principles become baked in and I don't object to most of them. I'm no Nietzschean superman.

 

[BillJ]

I find it somewhat interesting, that you can accept such an idea with regard to the physical, but deny the same when addressing the metaphysical in practically the same breath.

I can accept many ideas, as I even mentioned that I believe there is something more to us than we understand. That the universe is far more complex than we can currently understand.

 

[BillJ]

I don't need to know the exact odds to understand that a given event is statistically impossible. If I pour out a mop bucket full of 6-sided dice on a table, I know I'm not going to get all boxcars.

So... you were making shit up.

 

[BK613]

Darwin was actually supportive of Wallace as he probably recognised he could bring more insight and evidence to the table. Darwin was far from egomaniacal. Wallace shunned publicity and rejected Darwin's suggestion that the theory be named for both of them.

I probably should have qualified that as historically by modern audiences. Most have heard of Darwin and the Galapagos but few have heard of Wallace in the Amazon or Borneo.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I lean toward teleological pantheism, although not of the solipsistic variety espoused by Robert Heinlein.

 

[BillJ]

I lean toward teleological pantheism, although not of the solipsistic variety espoused by Robert Heinlein.

That is above my pay grade! Meaning I don't know what the fuck that is.

 

[Dr. K.R. Kollman hon.]

It was proved in a lab that a lightning strike can make Amino Acids bind together.

If lightning can also make Nucleic Acids bind together, then lightning created DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid).

Which would mean DNA could exist just about anywhere that there is lightning and Nucleic Acids. And the universe should be full of life.

I think that would be awesome if we were created by lightning.

"It's Alive!"

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't need to know the exact odds to understand that a given event is statistically impossible.

Oh, yeah?

If I pour out a mop bucket full of 6-sided dice on a table, I know I'm not going to get all boxcars.

If, once on every Earth analog (see below for a link to definitions), you pour out a mop bucket full of 6-sided dice on a table, on how many planets will you get all boxcars? I'd bet that it's more than zero.

The specific odds of life happening on an Earth analog and the exact number of Earth analogs in the universe are pretty important figures to know here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_analog

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

That is above my pay grade! Meaning I don't know what the fuck that is.

Basically, the branch of the multiverse you experience might eventually achieve godhood and either bootstrap its own existence or create new universes - possibly both. Heinlein proposed that directed thought could control the version of the universe that you experienced - a bit like the Q - if one adopted the correct regimen.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

You don't understand... I believe that EVOLUTION is quite real. Just look at how human selective breeding has turned wolves into Chihuahuas, Dachshunds, and St. Bernards. If we can do it in thousands of years, Mother Nature can do it in millions.

I don't believe in six-day creation for the same reason I don't buy into abiogenesis: the scientific evidence supports neither.

Yeah, you're getting there. Only don't start with clock parts. Start with molecules. The clock parts have to assemble themselves from scratch.

I have to disagree with you on all of this. First, what you're referring to as "evolution" is in fact limited variation within a set genetic kind. I have no problem at all, with dogs, wolves, and coyotes probably having a common ancestor...but it was still a canine creature. Our own tampering with their genetics is just an example that any unexpected changes are the result of external intelligence, which in this case would be us...so why couldn't God do something even greater, if He is greater than us?

Second, I'm not going to argue about the literal creation accounts, because in my opinion it would just end up running in circles.

Thirdly, nothing ever creates itself; there's always a second party involved. I used the wristwatch analogy because to me it made sense. You have about as good a chance with that example, as with yours about locating a single penny that's heads-up, among 299 others which aren't.

 

[BK613]

If, once on every Earth analog (see below for a link to definitions), you pour out a mop bucket full of 6-sided dice on a table, on how many planets will you get all boxcars? I'd bet that it's more than zero.

Of course, on each Earth analog, there could be a bazillion different independent locations where you are dumping buckets of dice.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Of course, on each Earth analog, there could be a bazillion different independent locations where you are dumping buckets of dice.

Fair enough. And it's possible that abiogenesis happened on Earth more than once.

 

[BillJ]

Thirdly, nothing ever creates itself; there's always a second party involved.

What was the second party involved with the creation of God?

 

[HotRod]

What was the second party involved with the creation of God?

This oughta be good.

 

[BK613]

What was the second party involved with the creation of God?

Religion

 

[Moviefan2k4]

What was the second party involved with the creation of God?

Non-believers always ask this question, not realizing that the very nature of God lies outside of it. As the literal "uncaused first cause", God is not made. He is completely timeless, the all-powerful "unmoved mover" who's by His own nature eternal, without beginning or end. For lack of a better expression, any being responsible for temporal existence would by definition, require a state outside of it.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

So, young Earth or not young Earth? Why bother letting it bake for 4.54 billion years when six days is enough?

 

[HotRod]

Non-believers always ask this question, not realizing that the very nature of God lies outside of it. As the literal "uncaused first cause", God is not made. He is completely timeless, the all-powerful "unmoved mover" who's by His own nature eternal, without beginning or end. For lack of a better expression, any being responsible for temporal existence would by definition, require a state outside of it.

So....there ALWAYS has to be a second party involved, except for the thing that you cannot prove actually exists?

How convenient.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

So, young Earth or not young Earth? Why bother letting it bake for 4.54 billion years when six days is enough?

The exact age of the Earth remains widely debated, even among devout Christians. Some have used the Hebrew Bible to suggest a date of about 4,000 years from Creation to the dedication of the second Jerusalem Temple, which took 46 years to build and was finished in 26 A.D. This would suggest a total of almost 6,000 years for the planet's total history, which some Biblical scholars have accepted while others reject it. Carbon-14 dating is one commonly-cited dating technique, but its only accurate with things that were once alive. Most radiometric dating methods assume the rate of decay is known and has been constant, but that's impossible to conclusively prove. Also, fossils are not generally dated directly - instead, their ages are determined by the geological layers they are found in. But the same people who use that approach also tend to date the layers by the fossils themselves, which is a clear example of circular reasoning.