Developed purely by chance, too. Just random protons and electrons floating and darting about in a primordial soup, then a lightning strike, and POOF! Atoms form inorganic molecules—which accidentally become organic! (This happens at everyone's house daily...dirt and rocks in the yard, or pots and pans in the kitchen, just suddenly spring to life and start squirmin' and wigglin'. :) Then the molecules begin to consume energy, because of course they know how to; and suddenly arrange themselves into precise and specific order, create amino acids, and then protein chains hundreds of amino acids long, just for the hell of it, et voilà: Homo sapiens from pond scum.
Because items always tend to go from chaos to order and become arranged in impossibly unlikely alignment by themselves. Whenever I throw my clothes on the floor, they wash, iron, and hang themselves up. This is how the universe works. Purely by chance.
If you took a watch apart, put all the pieces in a paper bag, folded the top over, shook it, then dumped it all on the table....how many times would you have to do this before the watch came out assembled, ticking, and keeping the correct time?
The entirety of time up until this point wouldnt be enough to get a functioning and calibrated watch from that process. Origin-of-life scientists had mostly given up on the explanations of random chance and natural selection by the early 1970's, but the ideas are still popular among laypeople.
People just do not understand how insanely improbable it is for such complex systems to arise randomly. The roughly 16 billion years of the universe's existence isn't enough time to create even a single cell through such unintelligent processes.
Fuck Google Maps. Whenever I want directions on how to go, I just wing a cup of milk on the floor, and purely by chance the spill creates a perfect map, with little bubbles denoting my starting point and destination.
Self replicating nucleic acids are all you need to start this process, and yes, all you need for that are nucleic acids, energy, and time. And not only was there plenty of time, billions of years, but the interactions at this scale are occurring then and now tens of thousands of times a second.
Once you have a nucleic acid sequence whose structure allows it to make copies of itself, which is not an outrageous claim in the least, you're off to the races. Small errors here and there arise into secondary functions that convey advantage. Complementary advantages arrange into cooperative organization between different sequences. A sequence that breaks complex organic molecules for energy is not hard, and neither is one that uses that energy to build phosphate links, but when put together you get ATP, and the energy cycle that speeds up this whole process by orders of magnitude.
Wrap those two sequences into a bilipid layer with three other sequences, one that builds lipid bilayers, one that specializes in copying one another, and another still that specializes in recognizing necessary building blocks and transporting them through the lipid bilayer and you have all you need for a proto-cell, proto-mitochondria. All that can happen comparatively simply, and entirely randomly, and it only needs to happen once, because once it does it replicates and spreads across the world. All other complexity since then, from proteins, to regulation, and intra cellular cooperation and specialization arises effortlessly, over time, from that.
You can choose to refuse to see this because you believe it is incompatible with god, and you prefer god. But it's real, and denying it doesn't change it. So all you're really doing is blinding you to god's greatest accomplishment, for even more impressive than making man is making the systems from which man arises without intervention.
kinda like give a monkey a typewriter and infinite time and eventually he will randomly type out the entire dictionary. How did eyes develop if they didn't know there was something to see? I don't buy your post.
Ok, let's explain the eye. Let's agree that there needs to be a stepwise process; From something stupidly simple, to something profoundly complex. It has to be stepwise, it can't just be "well, light sensitive cells exist, and a inverted curved lensed organ is better" because goddamn it, you need to go from 'a' to 'B C D E F' before you get to 'G'.
If you hate that, here's a modern TED explanation, but Dawkins honestly does a better job.
It all starts with light sensitive cells.
Unsurprising, and not just because it's a thing that exists, but photons interact with electron distribution across complex molecules and a protein whose confirmation is altered slightly by photon interaction is going to be a regular occurrence and all it takes is one which is very sensitive to this effect to imagine basic utility arising from it. Photosynthesis is based on protein interaction with light and it's a few small step from light = food to light = an eye.
These light sensitive proteins fire off I'm getting close to food, and when they aren't, I'm moving away from food. Why? Well I don't know that, but it's true. I don't know that more light means easier photosynthesis, which is good for me because I photosynthesize (or maybe because I eat photosynthesizes)
So next I group these proteins in strategic locations - more light towards my front, less light in my back, now I understand direction
And then I curve it inward so I can identify precise direction
Then it curves so much that it starts to close in on itself, which ought to be terrible, but actually I'm getting closer and closer to a pin hole lens
But now I have this cavity and I want to keep gunk from getting in so I close it off with a transparent cover
But covers don't have to be uniform, oops, mine has different thicknesses at different parts -- actually, one version of that is a lens, wow that's awesome.
But that lens is only good for one direction. Oh well, I'll just use these structural cells to hold it precisely in place... oh wait, what it those structural cells flex and alter the shape of my lens, now I can focus at distance.
Gave you an upper for your thoughtful comment but am going to remind you that objectivity only holds for superficial circumstances - for superficial conditions.
What does that mean?
Just this: Objectification necessarily leaves a residuum (that which objectifies).
The objectifier (that which objectifies) is necessarily "more intimate" than what it objectifies.
Thus the ultimate objectifier is always "self" (than which NOTHING is more intimate).
Because of this, "self" cannot be objectified and since it is required to have a residuum (that which objectifies) to have ANY object - there are no objects.
Thus we find that objectivity fails.
This paradox is the fundamental condition of nature. It cannot be resolved. Nature is not objective. We are nature.
And yet, despite decades of attempts in numerous labs, life has not even come close to being "created". There is a ruling process in the universe, called entropy (things tend toward disorder). Life evolving from nothing is a total violation of that ruling process, and the reason the idea that life "evolved" from nothing is so ridiculous (as is the most outrageous theory of all "The Big Bang").
Labs have absolutely HAVE recreated ALL the necessary principals that time uses to form the complexity of man from random elements.
Amino acids and nucleic acids HAVE been formed in the laboratory under primordial conditions. They HAVE bound into chains, these chains DO have the capacity in certain sequences to self replication, and that's literally all you have to demonstrated to get natural selection going. Literally everything else follows from that.
Give a laboratory the size of planet earth a billion years and they can 'artificially' 'create' life. That's a testament both to how rare the events are, but also how possible given how much time has passed and how big the universe is.
But the critical point, that every step necessary being demonstrated, has been met.
The big bang is something entirely separate, but you're selling god short by YOU arbitrarily deciding for some weird reason that evolution is incompatible with god's ability.
Saying the components of a living cell have been created in a lab, and is therefore, an indication that a living cell could be created if enough time is allowed is like having a monkey accidentally type a five-word sentence on a typewriter, and therefore, given enough time, Shakespeare's complete works could eventually be typed by that monkey. Yes, theoretically it could happen, but there is a big difference between theory and reality, between possibility, and essentially impossibility.
It's a shame you're getting downvoted. I agree with your posts.
I 100% believe in God and live in awe of the facts/rules/laws/etc He created that we call science. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. You don't have to be an atheist to be a scientist nor should a man of faith discount science due to their belief in God.
The only problems that arise are when the two cross over. One cannot mix science with religion and vice versa ... as you said, God wouldn't be too thrilled with people cheapening His creation by claiming some kind of magic occurred :-).
People often forget that many priests were genuine scientists hundreds of years ago. Atheists may laugh at that, but they were as interested in the universe as the most secular of scientists were. They wanted to know the facts that allow our existence (the truth of our existence is a philosophical one). They followed a SCIENTIFIC process, not a religious one. If they weren't priests, they may have been very religious. Issac Newton is such an example. That man is second only to Einstein when it comes to the greatest scientists in my opinion.
Sure, some of the priests were totalitarians and impeded the research of others claiming that it interfered with passages in the Bible, but we also see that today when liberal scientists wreck the lives and careers of people that question their work on bullshit like global warming so that their belief in the fairy tale of a peaceful, one world socialist government may come true :-) . That's mankind interfering though, not God.
If I am not mistaken, this hardcore line that was drawn between being a person of faith and a person of science occurred right around the time the Marxists latched onto Darwin's work as a sort of proof that there is no God. Once that happened, those that use religion for more dubious purposes convinced their followers that science was evil for that reason. Once again, we can thank a socialist and a fanatic for sewing the seeds of division :-). Prior to that, nobody really cared if a scientist was a person of faith.
It is written that God created man in His image. I don't think that must mean a physical form. I think our self awareness is what's created in His image ... basically our soul. I'd have to think that God created this universe with its rules (be it physics, organic chemistry, etc) in a way that life can exist, but isn't directly "created" by Him.
We are all here for some kind of purpose. Who knows what that is ultimately. What I do know is that He isn't going to allow Himself to interfere with the universe for the most part (that's where miracles come into play, and I suspect they're the result of prayer, but that's an entirely different topic). I doubt He created all of this only to interfere constantly though :-). Much like Ben Franklin said that we are only guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, but it is up to us to achieve it, God laid down the rules for our existence ... it is up to us to figure out what to do with them.
Sorry for the rambling :-) ... I love discussions like this :-).
Developed purely by chance, too. Just random protons and electrons floating and darting about in a primordial soup, then a lightning strike, and POOF! Atoms form inorganic molecules—which accidentally become organic! (This happens at everyone's house daily...dirt and rocks in the yard, or pots and pans in the kitchen, just suddenly spring to life and start squirmin' and wigglin'. :) Then the molecules begin to consume energy, because of course they know how to; and suddenly arrange themselves into precise and specific order, create amino acids, and then protein chains hundreds of amino acids long, just for the hell of it, et voilà: Homo sapiens from pond scum.
Because items always tend to go from chaos to order and become arranged in impossibly unlikely alignment by themselves. Whenever I throw my clothes on the floor, they wash, iron, and hang themselves up. This is how the universe works. Purely by chance.
My favorite way to complete jigsaw puzzles is by throwing them against the wall over and over again.
If you took a watch apart, put all the pieces in a paper bag, folded the top over, shook it, then dumped it all on the table....how many times would you have to do this before the watch came out assembled, ticking, and keeping the correct time?
The entirety of time up until this point wouldnt be enough to get a functioning and calibrated watch from that process. Origin-of-life scientists had mostly given up on the explanations of random chance and natural selection by the early 1970's, but the ideas are still popular among laypeople.
People just do not understand how insanely improbable it is for such complex systems to arise randomly. The roughly 16 billion years of the universe's existence isn't enough time to create even a single cell through such unintelligent processes.
Fuck Google Maps. Whenever I want directions on how to go, I just wing a cup of milk on the floor, and purely by chance the spill creates a perfect map, with little bubbles denoting my starting point and destination.
How's that working out for you?
Asking for a fren, lol.
Things don't just happen, someone has to make them happen.
LOL! Perfect reply.
Self replicating nucleic acids are all you need to start this process, and yes, all you need for that are nucleic acids, energy, and time. And not only was there plenty of time, billions of years, but the interactions at this scale are occurring then and now tens of thousands of times a second.
Once you have a nucleic acid sequence whose structure allows it to make copies of itself, which is not an outrageous claim in the least, you're off to the races. Small errors here and there arise into secondary functions that convey advantage. Complementary advantages arrange into cooperative organization between different sequences. A sequence that breaks complex organic molecules for energy is not hard, and neither is one that uses that energy to build phosphate links, but when put together you get ATP, and the energy cycle that speeds up this whole process by orders of magnitude.
Wrap those two sequences into a bilipid layer with three other sequences, one that builds lipid bilayers, one that specializes in copying one another, and another still that specializes in recognizing necessary building blocks and transporting them through the lipid bilayer and you have all you need for a proto-cell, proto-mitochondria. All that can happen comparatively simply, and entirely randomly, and it only needs to happen once, because once it does it replicates and spreads across the world. All other complexity since then, from proteins, to regulation, and intra cellular cooperation and specialization arises effortlessly, over time, from that.
You can choose to refuse to see this because you believe it is incompatible with god, and you prefer god. But it's real, and denying it doesn't change it. So all you're really doing is blinding you to god's greatest accomplishment, for even more impressive than making man is making the systems from which man arises without intervention.
kinda like give a monkey a typewriter and infinite time and eventually he will randomly type out the entire dictionary. How did eyes develop if they didn't know there was something to see? I don't buy your post.
Ok, let's explain the eye. Let's agree that there needs to be a stepwise process; From something stupidly simple, to something profoundly complex. It has to be stepwise, it can't just be "well, light sensitive cells exist, and a inverted curved lensed organ is better" because goddamn it, you need to go from 'a' to 'B C D E F' before you get to 'G'.
So let's do that.
I know Richard Dawkins is an ass, but here he is as a much younger self explaining just that, long before he became a jaded asshat filled with malice.
If you hate that, here's a modern TED explanation, but Dawkins honestly does a better job.
It all starts with light sensitive cells.
Unsurprising, and not just because it's a thing that exists, but photons interact with electron distribution across complex molecules and a protein whose confirmation is altered slightly by photon interaction is going to be a regular occurrence and all it takes is one which is very sensitive to this effect to imagine basic utility arising from it. Photosynthesis is based on protein interaction with light and it's a few small step from light = food to light = an eye.
These light sensitive proteins fire off I'm getting close to food, and when they aren't, I'm moving away from food. Why? Well I don't know that, but it's true. I don't know that more light means easier photosynthesis, which is good for me because I photosynthesize (or maybe because I eat photosynthesizes)
So next I group these proteins in strategic locations - more light towards my front, less light in my back, now I understand direction
And then I curve it inward so I can identify precise direction
Then it curves so much that it starts to close in on itself, which ought to be terrible, but actually I'm getting closer and closer to a pin hole lens
But now I have this cavity and I want to keep gunk from getting in so I close it off with a transparent cover
But covers don't have to be uniform, oops, mine has different thicknesses at different parts -- actually, one version of that is a lens, wow that's awesome.
But that lens is only good for one direction. Oh well, I'll just use these structural cells to hold it precisely in place... oh wait, what it those structural cells flex and alter the shape of my lens, now I can focus at distance.
Oh my, I have an eye.
Billions of years are not enough time to create not just us, but our perfect placement in the universe.
Gave you an upper for your thoughtful comment but am going to remind you that objectivity only holds for superficial circumstances - for superficial conditions.
What does that mean?
Just this: Objectification necessarily leaves a residuum (that which objectifies).
The objectifier (that which objectifies) is necessarily "more intimate" than what it objectifies.
Thus the ultimate objectifier is always "self" (than which NOTHING is more intimate).
Because of this, "self" cannot be objectified and since it is required to have a residuum (that which objectifies) to have ANY object - there are no objects.
Thus we find that objectivity fails.
This paradox is the fundamental condition of nature. It cannot be resolved. Nature is not objective. We are nature.
...and every other key is fatal to the monkey.
This shouldn't be that controversial. It's called faith for a reason.
It is a constant surprise how many have so little faith that they NEED evolution to be a lie in order to believe.
Evolution shouldn't threaten in any way your belief, it's the universe as god deemed it.
God created the ingredients. All of them. Including the thought processes you just documented.
And yet, despite decades of attempts in numerous labs, life has not even come close to being "created". There is a ruling process in the universe, called entropy (things tend toward disorder). Life evolving from nothing is a total violation of that ruling process, and the reason the idea that life "evolved" from nothing is so ridiculous (as is the most outrageous theory of all "The Big Bang").
Life took billions of years.
Labs have absolutely HAVE recreated ALL the necessary principals that time uses to form the complexity of man from random elements.
Amino acids and nucleic acids HAVE been formed in the laboratory under primordial conditions. They HAVE bound into chains, these chains DO have the capacity in certain sequences to self replication, and that's literally all you have to demonstrated to get natural selection going. Literally everything else follows from that.
Give a laboratory the size of planet earth a billion years and they can 'artificially' 'create' life. That's a testament both to how rare the events are, but also how possible given how much time has passed and how big the universe is.
But the critical point, that every step necessary being demonstrated, has been met.
The big bang is something entirely separate, but you're selling god short by YOU arbitrarily deciding for some weird reason that evolution is incompatible with god's ability.
Saying the components of a living cell have been created in a lab, and is therefore, an indication that a living cell could be created if enough time is allowed is like having a monkey accidentally type a five-word sentence on a typewriter, and therefore, given enough time, Shakespeare's complete works could eventually be typed by that monkey. Yes, theoretically it could happen, but there is a big difference between theory and reality, between possibility, and essentially impossibility.
It's a shame you're getting downvoted. I agree with your posts.
I 100% believe in God and live in awe of the facts/rules/laws/etc He created that we call science. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. You don't have to be an atheist to be a scientist nor should a man of faith discount science due to their belief in God.
The only problems that arise are when the two cross over. One cannot mix science with religion and vice versa ... as you said, God wouldn't be too thrilled with people cheapening His creation by claiming some kind of magic occurred :-).
People often forget that many priests were genuine scientists hundreds of years ago. Atheists may laugh at that, but they were as interested in the universe as the most secular of scientists were. They wanted to know the facts that allow our existence (the truth of our existence is a philosophical one). They followed a SCIENTIFIC process, not a religious one. If they weren't priests, they may have been very religious. Issac Newton is such an example. That man is second only to Einstein when it comes to the greatest scientists in my opinion.
Sure, some of the priests were totalitarians and impeded the research of others claiming that it interfered with passages in the Bible, but we also see that today when liberal scientists wreck the lives and careers of people that question their work on bullshit like global warming so that their belief in the fairy tale of a peaceful, one world socialist government may come true :-) . That's mankind interfering though, not God.
If I am not mistaken, this hardcore line that was drawn between being a person of faith and a person of science occurred right around the time the Marxists latched onto Darwin's work as a sort of proof that there is no God. Once that happened, those that use religion for more dubious purposes convinced their followers that science was evil for that reason. Once again, we can thank a socialist and a fanatic for sewing the seeds of division :-). Prior to that, nobody really cared if a scientist was a person of faith.
It is written that God created man in His image. I don't think that must mean a physical form. I think our self awareness is what's created in His image ... basically our soul. I'd have to think that God created this universe with its rules (be it physics, organic chemistry, etc) in a way that life can exist, but isn't directly "created" by Him.
We are all here for some kind of purpose. Who knows what that is ultimately. What I do know is that He isn't going to allow Himself to interfere with the universe for the most part (that's where miracles come into play, and I suspect they're the result of prayer, but that's an entirely different topic). I doubt He created all of this only to interfere constantly though :-). Much like Ben Franklin said that we are only guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, but it is up to us to achieve it, God laid down the rules for our existence ... it is up to us to figure out what to do with them.
Sorry for the rambling :-) ... I love discussions like this :-).