Why?

[JarodRussell]

A lot of people see life on Earth, wonder how it came to be, and then think: "It must have come from outer space.", "Maybe a comet hit Earth and brought life with it.", "Life originated on Mars and then they traveled here." and lots of other similar ideas.

But yeah, where did life on Mars come from?

A lot of people look at the universe, wonder how it came to be, and then think: "There must be a creator. It simply can't be that something as complex as the universe started out of nowhere."

But yeah, where did the creator come from?


Why do people always think like this? If you ask someone "Where does God come from?" (s)he answers "God always existed." or similar. If you can assume that God always existed, has no origin, and no creator, then why can't you simply assume the same about the universe? Why does it need a creator? And why does the creator NOT need another creator, cause or predecessor?


Why do people need to believe that life didn't originate on Earth but was brought here from another planet (with spaceships or a comet)? And if you then ask them "Where did the life on the other planet come from", they say "Well, it originated on that planet." Why can't they just assume that it already originated on Earth?

On the one hand they say there MUST be a creator or predecessor, because otherwise it would not make sense, but on the other hand, they define that the creator or predecessor as absolutes.

I don't get this way of thinking.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Well, some people just want answers I guess, even if it's not necessarily a conclusive answer. But "I don't know" just is not very convincing either.

[a little nitpick though, from what I know "life came with a comet from outer space" is a legitimate hypothesis, and not the same thing as attributing everything to a supernatural force]

 

[JarodRussell]

Well, some people just want answers I guess, even if it's not necessarily a conclusive answer. But "I don't know" just is not very convincing either.

[a little nitpick though, from what I know "life came with a comet from outer space" is a legitimate hypothesis, and not the same thing as attributing everything to a supernatural force]

True, it's a legitimate hypothesis, but based on the notion that life didn't start here. But why even hypothesize that it started out somewhere else? It just moves the goalpost around, so to speak. Life exists, so it must have originated somewhere. I just find it curious that we don't take the obvious: "It simply originated on Earth.", but have to say "It originated in outer space." and then accept that.

Same with the universe. We ask ourselve how it was created, and then just add yet another layer of creation to it: we add a creator. But that creator himself has no origin. And that we suddenly accept without question.

It's strange.

 

[Lindley]

It's probably more complicated than either one. Perhaps life needed a planetary environment to develop, but also needed ingredients brought by comets.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Whether life came from outer space or here on Earth, the only explanation (outside of a supernatural one) is that it was a chemical accident. We have not been able to replicate it fully in a laboratory but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Requiring a higher being certainly raises its own set of questions--most of which are unanswerable by science, so it's not really worth attempting.

 

[Mr Awe]

Forgoing the creator stuff, which I don't understand either. I do know that some scientists consider the possibility that life originated elsewhere because it started up so quickly on Earth.

The theory is that life is difficult to start from scratch yet it started very quickly on Earth. Therefore, it may have been jump started from elsewhere. That jump start may or may may not have been due to life from elsewhere. It could also have just been from complex carbon molecules. It may or may not originate from Mars. It could have originated from comets or other origins.

We really don't have enough scientific evidence to know but until it arrives, I'll assume Earthly life started on Earth. But, it's possible that is not true.

I do disagree with the notion that it's strange to consider that life on Earth could've originated elsewhere. There are scientific reasons for considering it. The formation of the Earth was destructive to the complex carbon molecules that life is built on. However, those molecules are known to exist in space. So, it's not unreasonable to postulate that life could've started from either these molecules, or life itself, that originated in space.

Mr Awe

 

[EyalM]

Mr Awe said it better

 

[Gryffindorian]

Watch Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. Scientists believe that life on earth started as a result of supernovae. So in essence, we're all stardust. I'm a Christian, but either scientific or religious explanations work for me.

 

[RoJoHen]

The universe needs a beginning because my perception is linear and I therefore cannot comprehend the concept of "always."

 

[Lindley]

The idea that a supernova was involved makes perfect sense, since stars are one of the few places that heavy elements naturally form, and we have plenty of heavy elements here on Earth and more than a few involved in our biology.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ The Universe began as mostly hydrogen with a smattering of helium. Pretty much every atom in our bodies was created in the hearts of stars. That's better than any religion I ever heard of.

As for panspermia, it's a legitimate scientific idea (and a pretty funny word), but I have heard people say that they believe life must have traveled to Earth from space because it's too "complicated" to have "just happened here." Same with god. The Universe is "too complicated to have just happened." They just haven't thought it through. And they have a tendency to get angry and defensive when you think it through for them.

The universe needs a beginning because my perception is linear and I therefore cannot comprehend the concept of "always."

Whether there's a creator or not, it's clear that causality is a local phenomenon. But it's as hard (i.e. impossible) to imagine eternity as it is to imagine nonexistence.

 

[JarodRussell]

but I have heard people say that they believe life must have traveled to Earth from space because it's too "complicated" to have "just happened here." Same with god. The Universe is "too complicated to have just happened."

That's exactly what I meant. They say it's too complicated to have happened here, but then they simply accept that the too complicated stuff happened elsewhere. Why the additional step?

 

[RoJoHen]

The universe needs a beginning because my perception is linear and I therefore cannot comprehend the concept of "always."

Whether there's a creator or not, it's clear that causality is a local phenomenon. But it's as hard (i.e. impossible) to imagine eternity as it is to imagine nonexistence.

Define "local."

 

[Avon]

i reckon life was started by timetravellers from the end of the universe as part of a massive looping paradox thingy

 

[RoJoHen]

Wibbley-wobbley, timey-whimey?

 

[LitmusDragon]

This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend ...

 

[Gaith]

Why?


Why not?



"Seek not God to scan; the proper study of Mankind is Man."
- Alexander Pope

 

[Mr Awe]

but I have heard people say that they believe life must have traveled to Earth from space because it's too "complicated" to have "just happened here." Same with god. The Universe is "too complicated to have just happened."

That's exactly what I meant. They say it's too complicated to have happened here, but then they simply accept that the too complicated stuff happened elsewhere. Why the additional step?

You've missed the point. It's not that life couldn't have developed here. But, some think it happened too quickly to have started from scratch here. Early life started while the Earth was still in the heavy bombardment stage of the early solar system.

Further, complex organic compounds, from which the life is constructed, were destroyed during the creation of Earth. It's very fragile stuff. In other words, early Earth was poor in complex organic compounds yet life started *very* early on. That apparent contradiction is what makes panspermia a legit theory. That's why the additional step. It's a possible explanation for how life could've started so early despite a relative lack of the basic building blocks.

Personally, I don't really know. We just have one data point so we don't really know what is a typical length of time for life to appear on a planet from scratch. Maybe Earth is totally normal. Maybe it is very early. Don't know.

All I'm saying is that there is a real reason some scientists believe this theory. You don't have to buy into it yourself. Heck, not sure if I do. But, I can see the reasoning at least.

Mr Awe

 

[MLJames]

The panspermia hypothesis has the same problem with the early Earth's environment as the native origin theory does, though. If Earth during the late bombardment period is too hostile for life to begin here, why is it somehow more benign for organisms coming in from outside (which have the added difficulty of making it in through the atmosphere without being quick-fried to a crackly crunch).

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ It would have to be protected inside meteorites or comets.

but I have heard people say that they believe life must have traveled to Earth from space because it's too "complicated" to have "just happened here." Same with god. The Universe is "too complicated to have just happened."

That's exactly what I meant. They say it's too complicated to have happened here, but then they simply accept that the too complicated stuff happened elsewhere. Why the additional step?

Because it puts it at a distance. It places the question in a magical context where it doesn't need to be answered.

The universe needs a beginning because my perception is linear and I therefore cannot comprehend the concept of "always."

Whether there's a creator or not, it's clear that causality is a local phenomenon. But it's as hard (i.e. impossible) to imagine eternity as it is to imagine nonexistence.

Define "local."

This Universe.