Origin of life

[Acintya_Ash]

See above. There was no before, before. Before "time T," time didn't exist.
I know it flies in the face of all our experience and commonsense, but that's just how things are, in reality.

Stephen Hawking, the famous Physicist/Cosmologist points out that our Physics, our laws of nature, *must* pre-exist in order for the Big Bang itself to be able to happen and proceed
The Universe is the total manifestation of this Physics. But what determined this particular Physics, these constants and ratios....?

 

[psychoslice]

Lets face it, no one really knows, we have theory's but that's all they will ever be, its ridiculers to think that we who are on this speck of dust floating throughout the cosmos, believing we know it all, for this reason I call myself a mystic, because the whole cosmos is a mystery.

 

[LuisDantas]

Stephen Hawking, the famous Physicist/Cosmologist points out that our Physics, our laws of nature, *must* pre-exist in order for the Big Bang itself to be able to happen and proceed
The Universe is the total manifestation of this Physics. But what determined this particular Physics, these constants and ratios....?

Obviously, I don't know. But I have a hunch that the question is in some sense answered by its premise. That much as water shapes itself after its own recipient, the viable laws of nature weed out the non-viable ones "just because", so to speak.

Yes, I realize that many people will see that as strong evidence of a higher will. I do not. Instead, I see that as confirmation that human beings are primed to see higher wills.

 

[McBell]

Stephen Hawking, the famous Physicist/Cosmologist points out that our Physics, our laws of nature, *must* pre-exist in order for the Big Bang itself to be able to happen and proceed
The Universe is the total manifestation of this Physics. But what determined this particular Physics, these constants and ratios....?

How did the moon get there?
And, what do the laws of nature have to do with time?

 

[Godobeyer]

How do you explain the contradictions between different religions of the world?

God thats told us (Muslims) in Quran , that humans editing His messages

 

[gnostic]

God thats told us (Muslims) in Quran , that humans editing His messages

And the truth is that the Qur'an is one of those texts that distort other religious scriptures before it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Where did life come from ?

During the big bang no life can exist, so what made the first cell of life to exist without being born.

Why the DNA is complex and is adjustable (mutations), how you explain those things to happen without any intelligence being involved ?

As far as we can tell it was ultimately written into the fabric of the universe from the get-go, by chance? I'd doubt it, particularly since there is just one specific DNA operating system for all life.

If systems capable of initiating and supporting life were the sort of thing that happened accidentally, why not multiple completely different versions?

 

[columbus]

If systems capable of initiating and supporting life were the sort of thing that happened accidentally, why not multiple completely different versions?

Maybe there were at one time. Maybe they still exist in some unexplored corner of the deep sea.
When you only have a sample size of one you can't really draw conclusions from uniqueness.
Tom

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Maybe there were at one time. Maybe they still exist in some unexplored corner of the deep sea.
When you only have a sample size of one you can't really draw conclusions from uniqueness.
Tom

atheism of the gaps?

 

[LuisDantas]

As far as we can tell it was ultimately written into the fabric of the universe from the get-go, by chance? I'd doubt it, particularly since there is just one specific DNA operating system for all life.

If systems capable of initiating and supporting life were the sort of thing that happened accidentally, why not multiple completely different versions?

For all we know there are or there were such once. However, the nature of biological life is such that it is not at all surprising that the organic matter ends up "taken" all (or nearly all) by just one template even if there are other viable ones.

After all, we are talking about a process that reproduces itself out of available resources.

 

[LuisDantas]

atheism of the gaps?

It might be, if and when atheism ever needs to propose the existence of alternate organic templates besides DNA and RNA.

Which is simply not likely to ever happen...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

the nature of biological life is such that it is not at all surprising that the organic matter ends up "taken" all (or nearly all) by just one template even if there are other viable ones.
.

so why the rich diversity of life? why did it not end up being dominated by one template, if this is the nature of biological life ? what happened to the entire premise of evolution here?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

atheism of the gaps?

I think you misunderstand the basis of why god of the gaps is a fallacy. Otherwise you might understand why it isn't applicable in this scenario.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think you misunderstand the basis of why god of the gaps is a fallacy. Otherwise you might understand why it isn't applicable in this scenario.

it's actually far more applicable if you think about it, there is a good reason for God to require faith, but for atheist theories to accidentally conceal themselves so well.. yet one more bizarre coincidence maybe?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

it's actually far more applicable if you think about it, there is a good reason for God to require faith, but for atheist theories to accidentally conceal themselves so well.. yet one more bizarre coincidence maybe?

What portion is ironically concealed? And "atheism" isn't being used to explain anything. So it wouldn't be "atheism of the gaps" even if it were simply baseless assumptions to fill in unknowns. Generally the unknowns of science are simply refereed to as unknowns.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What portion is ironically concealed? And "atheism" isn't being used to explain anything. So it wouldn't be "atheism of the gaps" even if it were simply baseless assumptions to fill in unknowns. Generally the unknowns of science are simply refereed to as unknowns.

all those other versions of DNA/ life initiating/replicating systems that accidentally assembled themselves for no purpose.

because 'Abiogenesis' is no big deal, given billions of years of soup, it's kinda bound to happen right?
yet given billions of years- there is no evidence of it ever happening more than one single solitary time and in one single solitary form... that doesn't make you question your belief in the slightest?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

all those other versions of DNA/ life initiating/replicating systems that accidentally assembled themselves for no purpose.

because 'Abiogenesis' is no big deal, given billions of years of soup, it's kinda bound to happen right?
yet given billions of years- there is no evidence of it ever happening more than one single solitary time and in one single solitary form... that doesn't make you question your belief in the slightest?

Its no big deal because we know that the early earth had the products required to make life and we have even seen proteins begin to form after a short amount of time when attempting to recreate early earth conditions in a lab. Abiogensis isn't usually regarded as fact but as the best current theory. We know that the compounds can be created without the need of a creator, we know that the compounds, even in the simplest form may begin to replicate. From there it is just a matter of time and increasing diversity. Its not simply "well it was bound to have happened just because." A far cry from it.

 

[LuisDantas]

so why the rich diversity of life? why did it not end up being dominated by one template, if this is the nature of biological life ? what happened to the entire premise of evolution here?

It did end up dominated by one template, namely RNA/DNA. As was to be expected.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It did end up dominated by one template, namely RNA/DNA. As was to be expected.

However, the nature of biological life is such that it is not at all surprising that the organic matter ends up "taken" all (or nearly all) by just one template even if there are other viable ones.

yet when it comes to evolution, the exact opposite premise must be applied to 'the nature of biological life' whereby a rich diverse set of almost every imaginable viable template springs into competitive existence-

a tiny bit of a double standard for the nature of biological life is it not?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

yet when it comes to evolution, the exact opposite premise must be applied to 'the nature of biological life' whereby a rich diverse set of almost every imaginable viable template springs into competitive existence-

a tiny bit of a double standard for the nature of biological life is it not?

What exactly is the double standard? That life isn't diverse enough for you?