Life From Dirt?

[icehorse]

Maybe life sprang from dirt 3.5 billion years ago though abiogenesis but I’m beginning to seriously doubt it. The God theory is sounding more and more plausible.

Late to the party sorry..

Why are you limiting yourself to these two possibilities?

 

[Jimmy]

Late to the party sorry..

Why are you limiting yourself to these two possibilities?

Well I suppose life could’ve came from farts

 

[Heyo]

Well I suppose life could’ve came from farts

 

[We Never Know]

I think some farts can kill. So bringing life forth is a very long shot lol

 

[We Never Know]

Dirac was not a biologist. So why would his opinion matter? He showed that he is all too human. That argument was made when abiogenesis was in its infancy. It is as accurate as the predictions in the late 1800's that man could not fly. Kelvin actually made such a comment.

And quotes like that need a link to a reliable science based source. Otherwise they are pretty much worthless. As yours is.

What part of that post depends on a biologist?

Oh the word "abiogenisis" right?

You ignored the other 99.9% of the post

What about mathematics, physical laws, the material universe, etc that were mentioned in that post that you ignored? Paul Dirac was a theoretical physicist which is about those things.

 

[Heyo]

I think some farts can kill. So bringing life forth is a very long shot lol

Well, that one took about 10 billion years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What part of that post depends on a biologist?

Oh the word "abiogenisis" right?

You ignored the other 99.9% of the post

What about mathematics, physical laws, the material universe, etc that were mentioned in that post that you ignored? Paul Dirac was a theoretical physicist which is about those things.

The last time I checked being a biologist dealt with living organisms. And physics did not.

What laws apply?

 

[Brian2]

You wrote, "The creation of consciousness and intelligence implies those things existing in the creator" and I responded, "Yes, but that means the creator didn't create them." You don't consider that significant? You're describing a deity that is not the author of everything, but rather, discovered and copied some things.

I suppose you think that an unconscious creator could have created everything?
Oh that's right, you do think that.

Yes, consciousness is a product of brains.

That's the hypothesis yes.

Yes, they're about real things, and we can all detect those things. They're about observable actions and their motives. We see both in ourself, and only the actions in others, from which we infer their motives by analogy.

All science can detect is activity in the brain and body. If that is what courage and love is then God is real also.

No, science took off after the reintroduction of Greek influence in the West, which led to the Renaissance. This is from that video, about 13 minutes in:

Did Christianity Help or Hinder the Progress of Science During the Middle Ages?

Did the Christian Church help or hinder the progress of science during the Middle Ages? In answer to this question, I shall give a fairly brief overview only. This essay is not meant to be comprehe…

invictuspopuli.wordpress.com

A (Very) Brief History of Christians in Science - BioLogos

An excerpt from "Confronting Christianity" by Rebecca McLaughlin about the history of Christians in science that made major scientific discoveries.

biologos.org

It is fact that empiricism has revealed that gods are not needed to account for anything discovered to date. God of the gaps refers to this one-way progress away from god explanations.

Science has gotten rid of many superstitions about God and what He was thought to be doing. Those things had nothing to do with the Bible however, it is those activities in the Bible which science has not eliminated and one of them is sustaining things.

What babies were thrown out? What valuable belief or practice do you imagine I have given up by leaving religion? I keep reading some variation of this from assorted posters about the loss one suffers not following them into religion, but then when one asks where is the beef, it turns out it's vegan.

You gave up a relationship with God if you had one.

 

[LuisDantas]

Don’t be so nit picky. People find it annoying

Do they? I doubt it. At least in any way that should be legitimally avoided, I would think they do not.

 

[LuisDantas]

To speak of "creation" in this context is very much a flaw coming from a very anthropocentric mindset.

Existence is. We do not know that to mean anything in and of itself. If the available evidence is any indication, it does not.

No amount of desire to project a conscious will into the, uh, existence of existence will make the idea any more meaningful.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suppose you think that an unconscious creator could have created everything?

I believe that the universe may be godless.

All science can detect is activity in the brain and body. If that is what courage and love is then God is real also.

What's detected in brains is thought. Courage, love, and God all refer to something existing other than an idea about them. We can identify and point to acts of love and courage. The same cannot be said for merely imagined things.

Science has gotten rid of many superstitions about God and what He was thought to be doing. Those things had nothing to do with the Bible

Much of Genesis and Exodus have been contradicted by studying the world.

You gave up a relationship with God if you had one.

But what's the loss? I have no such relationship now and like it just fine.

"One of the strong evidences pointing to intelligent creation of the material universe is that a knowledge of higher mathematics is necessary to achieve an understanding of it."

How is that an argument against a godless universe?

"Chance action by blind forces is not the creator of mathematical order and laws."

That's probably incorrect. Present evidence suggests that the symmetry breaking that led to the fundamental particles and forces was a random event. The chief argument against that is the fine tuning argument, which depends on the deity being less that tri-omni and subject to rules that its intelligence is required to discover and follow.

 

[gnostic]

What part of that post depends on a biologist?

Oh the word "abiogenisis" right?

What about mathematics, physical laws, the material universe, etc that were mentioned in that post that you ignored? Paul Dirac was a theoretical physicist which is about those things.

Like @Subduction Zone said, biologists only concern themselves with biology of living organisms, but I would like to add, living organisms on Earth.

Biology are studies of life, the anatomy and physiology of all living organisms on Earth, and all related fields and sub-fields of biology. They don’t concern themselves with organisms that might inhabited other planets, moons or asteroids in the rest of universe, because we currently have no technology for interstellar and intergalactic space travel.

And even though our optical telescopes (and radio telescopes) are far more powerful than Galileo’s telescope, our technology are still not powerful enough to study the surfaces of the planets of the nearest star system, Proxima Centauri, a red dwarf star about 4.25 light years from Earth with 4 planets. Even if there were life in one of these planets, we wouldn’t know, because none of telescopes or spacecrafts are capable of studying organisms on the surface of these planets.

Like you said, Paul Dirac was a theoretical physicist and a mathematician, but you are the one ignoring that Dirac wasn’t a biologist, that his fields of studies and research were in quantum physics, not in life sciences, not in astronomy, astrophysics or cosmology.

Why bring up Dirac in the first place?

He was studying the rest of the Universe, nor was ever in biology, like evolution, nor into researching what are still a (working) hypothesis of the origin of life on Earth, Abiogenesis.

This thread isn’t about physical cosmology of the universe, nor about quantum physics.

The question is why you are trying to change the subject, to something unrelated to biology or to Abiogenesis.

 

[Apostle John]

Late to the party sorry..

Why are you limiting yourself to these two possibilities?

Are you saying you’re the green man? That’s an absolute laughable myth.

 

[Apostle John]

If today you made a clay figurine and exposed it to moisture and sunlight, only bacteria would grow on it which you may call life but in millions of years time it won’t have developed into a conscious living ‘animal’.

 

[icehorse]

Are you saying you’re the green man? That’s an absolute laughable myth.

Ummm, no. How did you come to make that guess?

 

[Apostle John]

Ummm, no. How did you come to make that guess?

It was just a guess since being on here. Never mind.

 

[icehorse]

It was just a guess since being on here. Never mind.

The OP reduced the possibilities to abiogenesis or god. You added green man. So it seems you guys have limited our options to those three? Aren't there many other possibilities?

 

[Apostle John]

The OP reduced the possibilities to abiogenesis or god. You added green man. So it seems you guys have limited our options to those three? Aren't there many other possibilities?

Yes, possibilities: the imagination of man runs wild. Some think a massive explosion that they name the Big Bang actually created something. Have you seen an explosion create something?

 

[icehorse]

Yes, possibilities: the imagination of man runs wild. Some think a massive explosion that they name the Big Bang actually created something. Have you seen an explosion create something?

Wow. So what's wrong with imagination, that seems to be an important aspect of our spiritual life, no?

As for explosions creating something, well, they can fuse atoms together to make heavy elements.

 

[We Never Know]

Like @Subduction Zone said, biologists only concern themselves with biology of living organisms, but I would like to add, living organisms on Earth.

Biology are studies of life, the anatomy and physiology of all living organisms on Earth, and all related fields and sub-fields of biology. They don’t concern themselves with organisms that might inhabited other planets, moons or asteroids in the rest of universe, because we currently have no technology for interstellar and intergalactic space travel.

And even though our optical telescopes (and radio telescopes) are far more powerful than Galileo’s telescope, our technology are still not powerful enough to study the surfaces of the planets of the nearest star system, Proxima Centauri, a red dwarf star about 4.25 light years from Earth with 4 planets. Even if there were life in one of these planets, we wouldn’t know, because none of telescopes or spacecrafts are capable of studying organisms on the surface of these planets.

Like you said, Paul Dirac was a theoretical physicist and a mathematician, but you are the one ignoring that Dirac wasn’t a biologist, that his fields of studies and research were in quantum physics, not in life sciences, not in astronomy, astrophysics or cosmology.

Why bring up Dirac in the first place?

He was studying the rest of the Universe, nor was ever in biology, like evolution, nor into researching what are still a (working) hypothesis of the origin of life on Earth, Abiogenesis.

This thread isn’t about physical cosmology of the universe, nor about quantum physics.

The question is why you are trying to change the subject, to something unrelated to biology or to Abiogenesis.

"Why bring up Dirac in the first place?"

I wasn't the one that brought him up.