Why I believe God Created Life.

[Parsimony]

Please reread the quote. What it says is quite clear, I think.

I see. I'll get to making a post regarding that a bit later.

More reasons I believe God created life.
A symphony is played by a group of skilled musicians with finely-tuned instruments. No such symphony can match the finely tuned forces that make life possible. Consider this quote from g12/09: "The book Science Christianity—Four Views has an interesting way of illustrating the delicacy of the balance of forces and elements in the cosmos. The writer asked his readers to visualize an explorer’s visit to an imaginary “control room for the whole universe.” There, the explorer observes rows and rows of dials that can be set to any value, and he learns that each has to be calibrated to a precise setting in order for life to be possible. One dial sets the strength of the force of gravity, one the strength of electromagnetic attraction, another the ratio between the mass of the neutron and the proton, and so on. As the explorer examines these numerous dials, he sees that they could have been set to different values. It also becomes clear to him, after meticulous calculation, that even a small change in any one of the dial settings would modify the architecture of the cosmos in such a way that life in it would cease to exist. Yet, each dial is set to precisely the right value needed to keep the universe running and habitable. What should the visitor deduce about how the dials came to be set the way they are?

Astronomer George Greenstein states: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”
I think yes, we have.

That's the "fine-tuned Universe" argument, which is compatible with abiogenesis and evolution.

And completely misconstrued.

What you did there is called a straw man fallacy.

Indeed. It's so full of misrepresentations that I'd even call it a straw man army.

 

[McBell]

By chance, millions of years ago, there happened a big blast, after which billions of galaxies, stars and planets came into existence. And then somehow water appeared on one of the planets, but soil started floating over water, then by chance mountain came into existence and soil became static. Then by chance ozone layer came into existence and blocked dangerous UV rays coming from Sun. And somehow our solar system survived for millions of years.
One day a male tree came into existence, and then by chance a female tree came into existence. And then by chance millions of trees and plants with fruits came into existence. Then by chance animals and insects came into existence.
Then one day, a man came into existence, he was feeling lonely, then by chance a woman came into existence. Thanks to Atheism, both man and woman came into existence at same time and both found each other. By chance both of them knew same language.
Awful!

Yes that is an awful story.

One wonders why you post such an awful story in this thread.

I mean, it has nothing to do with evolution or abiogenesis.

In fact, it mostly resembles the creation stories...
Yet I bet you disagree with how awful they are...

 

[McBell]

Odds aren't necessary, anymore than odds that someone intelligent built the White House in Washington D.C. Or the Kremlin in Moscow. The edifices themselves are proof positive of an Intelligent Designer. The Bible explains it this way: "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4)

Since you completely forgot to address this part, I thought perhaps I should make it more clear:

What are the odds of a god existing and what are the odds of YOUR god existing?

Please show your work.

That reminds me, please show your work for the other odds you have presented.
Because, without showing your work, your claims of the odds are worthless.

 

[Parsimony]

There are several problems with the calculations that rusra02 has posted:

(1) Abiogenesis does not propose that protein molecules came into existence fully-formed from a soup of simple molecules. The nylonases, for example, are not proposed to have come into existence from random interactions of atoms. Instead, they were generated when mutations modified the gene that coded for an already-existing enzyme. Formation of the nylonases via this mechanism is exceedingly more probable than expecting it to come into existence by the random joining of free atoms. The basic idea is that complex organic molecules formed by modification of previously-existing, simpler molecules. Those molecules, in turn, formed from even simpler molecules. The idea that something like a protein can form spontaneously is outrageous, but that's okay because that's not how abiogenesis is thought to have happened in the first place.

(2) Not all possible arrangements of atoms in a molecule are equally stable. Here are some factors to take into consideration:
-Isomers with 2 or more oxygen atoms beside each other tend to be reactive or completely unstable under normal temperatures and pressures (i.e. organic ozonides). The same is true to a lesser extent for nitrogen atoms (i.e. the tetrazines).
-Steric effects which force atoms to be excessively close to one-another can make the molecule less stable (cis-trans isomerism).
-Bond strain makes some molecules less stable than others (compare cyclopropene with propyne).
-Anti-aromatic rings (carbon rings with an even number of double bonds) are very unstable. Isomers without these rings are much more stable than those with them (look at cyclobutadiene).

(3) Chemical reactions follow patterns which make some isomers more likely to form than others (i.e. they are not completely random). Synthesis of TNT demonstrates this. The TNT molecule is synthesized by the addition of nitro groups to "ortho" and "para" carbons on the toluene ring. Although in principle a nitro group could be added to the "meta" carbon, the synthesis pathway commonly used to produce TNT cannot add a nitro group here due to the way that electric charges are distributed on the molecule.

(4) Many arrangements that are considered possible when atoms are treated as simple mathematical entities are not possible in reality due to the laws of chemistry. Carbon cannot have 5 or more bonds, hydrogen only has more than one bond in very specific circumstances (i.e. the boranes), etc.

Here is an example with water. When making simplistic mathematical assumptions, one may predict that the reaction of two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom could result in any one of three possible molecules. As such, we would expect the familiar form of water (the first molecule) to have a 1-in-3 chance of resulting:

In reality, it has a 100% chance of occuring. This is because the mathematical model did not take the laws of chemistry into consideration. It fails to take into account, for example, that the other two isomers of the water molecule pictured are not possible due to the Pauli exclusion principle.

Water has only 3 atoms. As you increase the number of atoms, the accuracy of the mathematical predictions falls drastically. Ammonia has 4 atoms and only 1 stable isomer in reality, but the simplistic assumptions predict at least 11 isomers. When you start dealing with hundreds of atoms (such as with proteins) the numbers are going to be massively off.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what scientific evidence you accept as proof of an old Earth, rusra02.

 

[rusra02]

Since you completely forgot to address this part, I thought perhaps I should make it more clear:

What are the odds of a god existing and what are the odds of YOUR god existing?

Please show your work.

That reminds me, please show your work for the other odds you have presented.
Because, without showing your work, your claims of the odds are worthless.

Again, odds are not necessary to prove God's existence and power. The Bible explains that what God has created demonstrates his existence, just as a masterpiece painting demonstrates the existence of the artist. "because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [those who deny God's existence] are inexcusable." (Romans 1:20)

 

[rusra02]

I see. I'll get to making a post regarding that a bit later.


That's the "fine-tuned Universe" argument, which is compatible with abiogenesis and evolution.


Indeed. It's so full of misrepresentations that I'd even call it a straw man army.

So, is it your claim that our finely tuned universe did not require an intelligent Tuner?

 

[rusra02]

There are several problems with the calculations that rusra02 has posted:

(1) Abiogenesis does not propose that protein molecules came into existence fully-formed from a soup of simple molecules. The nylonases, for example, are not proposed to have come into existence from random interactions of atoms. Instead, they were generated when mutations modified the gene that coded for an already-existing enzyme. Formation of the nylonases via this mechanism is exceedingly more probable than expecting it to come into existence by the random joining of free atoms. The basic idea is that complex organic molecules formed by modification of previously-existing, simpler molecules. Those molecules, in turn, formed from even simpler molecules. The idea that something like a protein can form spontaneously is outrageous, but that's okay because that's not how abiogenesis is thought to have happened in the first place.

(2) Not all possible arrangements of atoms in a molecule are equally stable. Here are some factors to take into consideration:
-Isomers with 2 or more oxygen atoms beside each other tend to be reactive or completely unstable under normal temperatures and pressures (i.e. organic ozonides). The same is true to a lesser extent for nitrogen atoms (i.e. the tetrazines).
-Steric effects which force atoms to be excessively close to one-another can make the molecule less stable (cis-trans isomerism).
-Bond strain makes some molecules less stable than others (compare cyclopropene with propyne).
-Anti-aromatic rings (carbon rings with an even number of double bonds) are very unstable. Isomers without these rings are much more stable than those with them (look at cyclobutadiene).

(3) Chemical reactions follow patterns which make some isomers more likely to form than others (i.e. they are not completely random). Synthesis of TNT demonstrates this. The TNT molecule is synthesized by the addition of nitro groups to "ortho" and "para" carbons on the toluene ring. Although in principle a nitro group could be added to the "meta" carbon, the synthesis pathway commonly used to produce TNT cannot add a nitro group here due to the way that electric charges are distributed on the molecule.

(4) Many arrangements that are considered possible when atoms are treated as simple mathematical entities are not possible in reality due to the laws of chemistry. Carbon cannot have 5 or more bonds, hydrogen only has more than one bond in very specific circumstances (i.e. the boranes), etc.

Here is an example with water. When making simplistic mathematical assumptions, one may predict that the reaction of two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom could result in any one of three possible molecules. As such, we would expect the familiar form of water (the first molecule) to have a 1-in-3 chance of resulting:

In reality, it has a 100% chance of occuring. This is because the mathematical model did not take the laws of chemistry into consideration. It fails to take into account, for example, that the other two isomers of the water molecule pictured are not possible due to the Pauli exclusion principle.

Water has only 3 atoms. As you increase the number of atoms, the accuracy of the mathematical predictions falls drastically. Ammonia has 4 atoms and only 1 stable isomer in reality, but the simplistic assumptions predict at least 11 isomers. When you start dealing with hundreds of atoms (such as with proteins) the numbers are going to be massively off.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what scientific evidence you accept as proof of an old Earth, rusra02.

Laws of chemistry require a Lawgiver, IMO, and the existence of chemicals requires a Maker, a master Chemist.
The time light takes to reach earth from distant stars indicates the universe has existed longer than 6,000 years.

 

[rusra02]

Since you completely forgot to address this part, I thought perhaps I should make it more clear:

What are the odds of a god existing and what are the odds of YOUR god existing?

Please show your work.

That reminds me, please show your work for the other odds you have presented.
Because, without showing your work, your claims of the odds are worthless.

It is not my work, as I believe you already know. Anyone interested in how these odds were calculated by scientists can do a simple internet search "odds against life forming by chance". But again, I am persuaded you already knew that.

 

[rusra02]

More reasons why I believe God created life. An entire scientific discipline studies the wonderful, ingenious designs in living things and copies or mimics these designs in products. Called biomimetics, scientist Stephen Wainwright claims that “biomimetics will engulf molecular biology and replace it as the most challenging and important biological science of the 21st Century.” "So many good ideas have come from nature that researchers have established a database that already catalogs thousands of different biological systems. Scientists can search this database to find “natural solutions to their design problems,” says The Economist. The natural systems held in this database are known as biological patents. Normally, a patent holder is a person or a company that legally registers a new idea or machine. Discussing this biological patent database, The Economist says: “By calling biomimetic tricks ‘biological patents’, the researchers are just emphasising that nature is, in effect, the patent holder.”
How did nature come up with all these brilliant ideas? Many researchers would attribute the seemingly ingenious designs evident in nature to millions of years of evolutionary trial and error. Other researchers, though, arrive at a different conclusion. Microbiologist Michael J. Behe wrote in The New York Times of February 7, 2005: “The strong appearance of design [in nature] allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it’s a duck.” His opinion? “Design should not be overlooked simply because it’s so obvious.” (Was Life Created pp 13-14)

 

[shawn001]

Scientists figured out a way on how evolution figured out a way to beat those odds you posted.


Old earth support, lets see, geology, Cosmology, astronomy, Plate tectonics, fossils and a lot more.

So it was part of an Intelligent designers plans to smash a small planet into the Earth to create our moon?

It was part of an Intelligent designers plans to create all the heavy elements in your body billions of years ago in super nova star explosions? You are physically made from star matter that seeded the universe billions of years ago. That is a fact.

As well as the impact the moon being there has had on the entire evolution of life on Earth. For example the tides?

 

[shawn001]

If your arguing against evolution you already lost the battle. It is a scientific fact and a scientific theory.

If your arguing for ID which is basically creationism repackaged because it didn't work the first time round, show any scientific proof evidence you have.

You can say ID and that could be Aliens even. Prove it wasn't?

You have also missed a ton of evidence on evolution of the entire planet.

We breath Oxygen, because billions of years ago cynobacteria which evolved photosynthesis, created the oxygen and changed our atmosphere.

When the earth first formed it did not have the atmosphere we have today and you would not be able to breath let alone communicate. You would be dead for many reasons though not just oxygen.


Scientific American

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere

The breathable air we enjoy today originated from tiny organisms, although the details remain lost in geologic time

"So how did Earth end up with an atmosphere made up of roughly 21 percent of the stuff?

The answer is tiny organisms known as cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. These microbes conduct photosynthesis: using sunshine, water and carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrates and, yes, oxygen. In fact, all the plants on Earth incorporate symbiotic cyanobacteria (known as chloroplasts) to do their photosynthesis for them down to this day.

For some untold eons prior to the evolution of these cyanobacteria, during the Archean eon, more primitive microbes lived the real old-fashioned way: anaerobically. These ancient organisms—and their "extremophile" descendants today—thrived in the absence of oxygen, relying on sulfate for their energy needs.

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth Atmosphere: Scientific American

Introduction to the Cyanobacteria


Architects of earth's atmosphere

Cyanobacteria are aquatic and photosynthetic, that is, they live in the water, and can manufacture their own food. Because they are bacteria, they are quite small and usually unicellular, though they often grow in colonies large enough to see. They have the distinction of being the oldest known fossils, more than 3.5 billion years old, in fact! It may surprise you then to know that the cyanobacteria are still around; they are one of the largest and most important groups of bacteria on earth.

Introduction to the Cyanobacteria


Early 'see-sawing' Earth experienced hazy shades of life

" Earth's early atmosphere fluctuated between 'organic haze' and a 'haze-free' environment similar to that of Saturn's moon, Titan, a new study has revealed.
And this switch over 2.5 billion years ago was the result of intense microbial activity and would have had a profound effect on the climate of the Earth system.

Research, led by experts at Newcastle University, UK, revealed that the Earth's early atmosphere periodically flipped from a hydrocarbon-free state into a hydrocarbon-rich state."

Early 'see-sawing' Earth experienced hazy shades of life - Yahoo! News India

Fossil raindrops reveal early atmosphere

Fossil raindrops reveal early atmosphere › News in Science (ABC Science)

Can you breath Methane, or primarily natural gas?

Your breathing Oxygen right now because the bacteria called cynobacteria evolved photosynthesis and changed the earth atmosphere. Our atmosphere today is a direct result of evolution. Look it up.

So Rusra, can you breath Methane, or primarily natural gas?

 

[Parsimony]

So, is it your claim that our finely tuned universe did not require an intelligent Tuner?

I believe that God created this universe with the laws required to bring physical life into existence. I also think there's a good chance that He made the laws in such a way that abiogenesis is possible.

Laws of chemistry require a Lawgiver, IMO, and the existence of chemicals requires a Maker, a master Chemist.

That's fine with me. God having made the laws of chemistry are not a threat to the possibility of abiogenesis. That would only mean that abiogenesis came about because God made it possible.

The time light takes to reach earth from distant stars indicates the universe has existed longer than 6,000 years.

That would prove the Universe is old, but what about the Earth? Is the Earth itself only 6,000 years old?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What is the universe finely tuned for? I mean life would appear to be an anomaly (though you can't make that argument since there's no true numbers to be applied) but the universe seems finely tuned for nonlife given what we've found.

 

[Pegg]

“I Am Convinced That There Is a Creator” | Interview

 

[Twilight Hue]

Interesting. The Herschel telescope detected o2 molecules in space in the Orion star forming complex in 2011.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Interesting. The Herschel telescope detected o2 molecules in space in the Orion star forming complex in 2011.

That is pretty interesting.:yes:

 

[McBell]

Again, odds are not necessary to prove God's existence and power. The Bible explains that what God has created demonstrates his existence, just as a masterpiece painting demonstrates the existence of the artist. "because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [those who deny God's existence] are inexcusable." (Romans 1:20)

If you are comparing odds then yes, the odds of god existing are necessary.
Otherwise, how do know which has the "better" odds?

I mean, is not your claim that the odds of evolution being true are to great to be possible?
How do you know the odds of god existing are not greater than the odds of evolution unless you present them as well?

And no, your god does not get a free pass because you mentioned {le gasp} the Bible....

 

[McBell]

So, is it your claim that our finely tuned universe did not require an intelligent Tuner?

I can not speak for the other member, but for me you still need to show that the universe is "fine tuned".
You have not done so.

 

[McBell]

It is not my work, as I believe you already know. Anyone interested in how these odds were calculated by scientists can do a simple internet search "odds against life forming by chance". But again, I am persuaded you already knew that.

And just like yourself, they go on and on about the alleged odds, but do not show their work.

 

[rusra02]

What is the universe finely tuned for? I mean life would appear to be an anomaly (though you can't make that argument since there's no true numbers to be applied) but the universe seems finely tuned for nonlife given what we've found.

Even so, making the fine-tuning required for life on the earth all the more unique. The seemingly endless stream of conditions required to support life argue for a Lifegiver, IMO, One with limitless power and wisdom. I believe Jehovah is "the Maker of the earth by his power, The One who established the productive land by his wisdom And who stretched out the heavens by his understanding." (Jeremiah 10:12)