How the heck does life come from non-life, or does it? Either it does, life has always been, God put life here, or I am sure there are a host of other theories. What is your thought on this? (I will share my view later)

We simply don't know whether life can come from non-life. But some things are certain:

1. With atheism, life must come from non-life

2. There isn't this difficulty with theism

3. Life isn't coming from non-life right now (at least, not that we can tell), nor has it in recent past

My personal thought is that it is possible that life can come from non-life, but that the odds of it occurring without intelligent intervention is astronomically small. Consider the experiments that are done "to simulate" abiogenetic conditions: controlled lab settings, with enormous thought put into each step and the materials used. It isn't a "random" process at all; in fact, it is guided. So, if/when artificial life is produced, we must ask ourself: are random, undirected processes the best explanation, or is agency the best explanation?

Interestingly, this highlights a question that is seldom articulated: are abiotic/artifical life experiments actually intelligent design research (despite the fact that the scientists involved would probably be horrified to be associated with it)?

No, theism has it's own endless pool of difficulties.
Jesus isn't returning to earth now in human form, nor has he in the recent past. What's your point?
As is everything. But with enough time, those odds become practical.
Yes, we do not have the luxury of 6 billion years. We need to guide the process to make it happen in days. I have a feeling you know this.
If it happened overnight, intelligent agency of course. These experiments are simulating the evolutionary process.

Jeremy, am I understanding you correctly that you are more of an "intelligent design" rather than a theistic evolutionist? Meaning that you think God perform(s) miracles to make fully-formed lifeforms appear from nowhere, rather than God performing one perfect miracle to start the whole natural process?

@Bo
the point is that scientific principles/laws are formulated based on what's occurring in the present and to figure out what happens in the past we apply these same principles to history. Because of present activity, we have the Law of Biogenesis. Life only comes from Life. Now, obviously, to be a naturalist we must assume there is an exception to this law. But on what basis, under what conditions? We don't know, nor has it been demonstrated that there can be an exception. I have a feeling you know this.
Feel free to demonstrate this. Its easy to claim that "with enough time" everything becomes practical without actually having to do the math. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not doing the math either, and i would agree that it is difficult, if not impossible to accurately calculate the odds. But we both "know" (because we take the experts word) that the odds of life occurring randomly are astronomically small. And I'm pretty sure that no one has ever crunched the numbers to figure how much time is needed, nor has anyone determined what "practical" odds are. (is there any odds besides zero that you wouldn't accept as being "practical"?)

Bo, you know this as well as anybody: there is a reason people are resorting to using the Multiverse concept to explain the universe as we know it, and it isn't because there is evidence that one actually exists. And it isn't because the odds for much of what we observe is considered "practical".
Sure i do. I also know that an intelligently guided process is not the same thing as a random process. Proving that life can be designed is evidence of design, not that random, undirected processes created life. Don't get me wrong - I'm not ruling out evidence of abiogenesis altogether. But evidence of it rests largely on exactly how the experiment was conducted. More specifically, on how much of the experiment was actually random and undirected.
There is nothing in intelligent design that requires making "fully-formed lifeforms appear from nowhere". However, most theistic evolutionists that I read pretty much accept Neo-Darwinian processes as being capable of producing life as we know it, and no, I don't see it. I don't claim to know how we came to be what we are, but I don't try to limit the inquiry either. It could be genetic front-loading, it could be intervention. But I see no evidence that is was the result of random processes. On the contrary, there is a distinct pattern of progress, directionality, and purpose. No one really denies this, either.

Darwinists would have us believe that evolutionary processes can account for all of these, and to a certain extent they may be correct. After all, bacteria can develop a resistance to antibiotics, and this is simply the result of random mutation + natural selection. It may seem purposeful, but there is an non-teleological explanation. There are many other such examples of course.

Problem is, there are numerous other aspects of biology (at least, to me) that are simply better explained by agency than by Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT), and there is no compelling reason to believe that simply because a theory can account for many things that it accounts for all. NDT does account for much that is observed, no question. But it also doesn't account for many things, and I believe we are generally oversold on the former and undersold on the latter. It only takes one exception to a theory to falsify it.

NDT would want us to believe that despite the fact that a duck looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it isn't really a duck. Meaning that life has the "appearance" of design with a "purpose"... but it's not and doesn't. Yet they cannot really provide a mechanism for much of what we see, but trust them, millions of years solves the problem.

Proposed examples of design, such as the flagellum, are all hotly contested, of course. Which is kind of the interesting thing - despite the fact that ID theorists propose ideas that require numerous, extensive [attempted] refutations, NDT theorists like to claim that there is no merit to them. And what's more, despite the fact that the concept has supposedly been falsified in the literature routinely, that it isn't even "science". That's why I thought it an interesting thought that ID theory, in a sense, is already being "tested".

Still not sure of your answer. Do you think god put the flagellum here on earth as is? Or do you think God created the process which formed the flagellum?

I don't know, Bo. And I don't know if we can know.

Hi Jeremy,

Sorry for jumping in so late on this thread , but it's the first time I have seen it. (LOL)

Anyway, question for you:

When you refer to non-life, do you mean identity that is void of awareness, or without biological function? Or perhaps another definition?

I would appreciate knowing how you define non-life.

Thank you,

Cheers

Hello Bo,

I should have addressed the above question to you first since you were first in using the term non-life.

Would you mind giving me your definition as well?

I would appreciate it.

Thanks Bo,

Cheers

@George Dokoupil
I am referring to the biochemical precursors to the first living organism: proteins, amino acids, RNA, etc.

And no need to apologize for "jumping" into a thread.

I agree with Jeremy's definition -- for the purpose of this thread.

@Jeremy, It is truly refreshing to see anyone on this board say "I don't know".

As for the Flagellum, insisting that God must have put it there as is, to me, is inserting God where we run into a scientific roadblock. Not that God couldn't -- if God exists he can do anything.

Good Morning Bo & Jeremy,

Actually, my apology was meant as humor.

I really appreciate yours and Bo's response defining non-life.

I wanted it to make a point for you both to consider, which I will post later after my AM errands.

Incidentally, you and Bo have my admiration for the excellent vocabularies you both display.

Agreed Bo. A "I don't know" every now and again is refreshing because it's honesty at work!

Cheers

Hello Bo & Jeremy,

OK, life from non-life. Here again we will refer to Quantum Theory. The Two Hole, or Double Slit Experiment, first performed in 1909, gave science some real problems with understanding matter and energy. This is no less true today. Here's an article that might be of interest: http://www.space.com/searchforlife/quantum_astronomy_041111.html What Quantum Theory implies is that all matter and energy has self awareness, and the ability to communicate with each other. More astoundingly, these forms of matter and energy (Light, electrons, neutrons, protons, atoms, and even the molecule of fullerene (C60) have repeatedly demonstrated this ability. Trying to keep things simple and brief here, it has been proven on a consistent experimental basis with more and more sophisticated equipment that matter will only appear as matter when that is the characteristic we wish to observe, and energy will only appear as energy likewise. To observe matter, we must look to detect particle characteristics. To observe energy, we must look to detect frequency. We cannot see both characteristics at the same time in the atomic and subatomic levels of reality. This may not seem so astonishing at first, but not only does matter and energy reveal themselves to us according to the characteristic we want to observe, they "somehow know" which characteristic we are observing so they can show themselves accordingly. This has been again, repeatedly tested and confirmed. Recent experiments devised means to make observations with devises that operate so fast that scientists thought it would prevent matter and energy from "knowing" what observations we were making. Matter and energy were not fooled; they still only showed that side of their dual nature we intended to observe. Another ingenious experiment had particles traveling in opposite directions, and only when these particles were at a point beyond communication at the speed of light was the observation made. This made no difference. The particles still knew what we were looking to observe and showed themselves accordingly. Other experiments included making the decision of what to observe randomly at the moment of observation. This only confirmed the results of all the other experiments done. Now, I think your definition of non-life, at our physical appearing macro level of reality, is highly accurate. What I'm asking you to consider is the experimentally confirmed, predictable nature of the Quantum level of reality unquestionably demonstrating both an awareness and a perceptive ability. If we consider these as elements of life, then there is no such thing as non-life. All the things we perceive as part of physical existence, regardless of size and form, material or energy, has awareness and an ability to appear according to what we seek to observe. There is then, or at least the evidence is there is then, a cooperation of awareness's that direct each other to create "coherence" in the form of physically perceived constructs that we can detect as real and accept as part of our physical reality. This applies to our conceptions as well, or at least those we convert to appearing physical, like all our inventions, arts, sciences, etc. There is great evidence that all we know is "alive", at least on the basis of awareness and perception, which really are one and the same. To be aware is to perceive. This implies that there is no causality to physical reality. There are no processes, no evolution, no anything other then what we perceive and conceive as physically real in this instantaneous incomprehensible "now". Forget the low probability random combinations of chemicals that became replicating, then evolving into biological diversity that managed not once, but millions of times to become all the creatures that ever existed, or at least appeared to exist in our minds. This also implies that all our intellectual pursuits are in fact exercises in imagination to which we ascribe two categories; that which we imagine is real, and that which we imagine is not. This includes the imagination of our selves, individually and collectively. Why then do we even bother with this imagining? Because we are created with a predisposition for focusing on physical reality. We perpetuate physical reality, and to some extent act as co-creators in it. Whose idea is that? Quantum Theory demonstrates that for matter and energy to appear real, it must be observed. Certainly when we observe matter and energy it appears real enough to us. Who then observes us into appearing physically real? We are part of the matter and energy we observe; we see ourselves constructed from it, but how can we observe ourselves without the physical identity we each see ourselves as? There has to be another Observer that allows us to appear physical and real. You already know my answer. What is yours? Anyway, this is just all my two cents worth for your consideration. I'm not seeking approval or disapproval, but just wanted to share these thoughts. Cheers

No, life is a form of energy, and it comes from the long evolution of the energy into the form of life that we know today.

@Jeremy I need to point out something incredibly important in the Christian side of this discussion. A point that was made to me by an Atheist when I was still die hard Christian was that just because we aren't capable of observing every chemical or biological action on the planet does not negate their happening.

What this means is that just because we don't see an RNA strand forming out of random molecules in some ooze in a brackish backwater pool in Alabama does not mean it isn't happening, and just because we don't see that precursor to a single celled organism begin to self replicate does not mean it isn't happening. Sure, we can't prove it is happening, but you can't prove it isn't happening. Just as you can't prove there is a God, and we can't prove there isn't one. Empirically speaking of course.

That RNA strand may fail before becoming a species of single celled organism, and most likely will. The odds are astronomical that it will. However, if even one out of 10^99 of these instances were to succeed, then it would be proven that evolution is possible, even probable, given enough time/events.

You said "My personal thought is that it is possible that life can come from non-life, but that the odds of it occurring without intelligent intervention is astronomically small". I totally agree with this, but with one small caveat: the odds are only small if only one instance were to occur. On a planetary scale, with functionally infinite time for RNA strands to from out of naturally occuring materials, those odds really do become much less astronomical.



Christians obviously feel that the proof of God's existence is inevitable and sure to happen with the Second Coming. Atheists on the other hand are absolutely positive that the opposite will be proven by science one day. It's a fun discussion lol

I've been taking the time to read many posts (since I'm new here) and seem to jump in rather late with some, but I'd like all of your opinions on this: On another post "Ask an Atheist", someone made these statements: "All life on Earth, from the simplest bacteria to higher primates that call themselves humans, go about their business according to their bio-chemical predisposition.." "in physics terms, there is no such thing as information in the universe..." Please consider these terms that we know science now proves: "Bio-chemical predisposition" "Physics terms ….. information ….." Is this not a higher intelligence than chemical reactions at work here? imho, these terms are the exact proof that there is an intelligent designer; otherwise how can there be physics/mathematical formulas for life as science seeks to understand it? Isn't it plausible that this design that science is now discovering and putting into writing was written/spoken/created in the beginning? Peace, Debra

If there were a designer, or one who wrote the code for life, he/she/it would be subordinate to the higher laws of nature or the universe in which this code operated. Like a computer programmer who creates a programming language -- it must be written to follow rules the hardware can understand. It is more plausible, therefore, that an advanced alien race created us, using pre-existing universal laws of mathematics, science, and logic.

A force that started it all (if there was a start) would not need to be intelligent, because there were no laws or rules to follow. There would be no law saying 1+1=2, or E-MC2. This concept is very difficult to grasp, but think about, and when you get it, you will have a "wow" moment. Mind blowing stuff!

Yep, I'm having a mind blowing WOW, now that you asked me to wrap my mind around the computer machine (which has no "life" and was built by man) somehow conveyed to man to write software so it could communicate with us. YIKES! I think you've been watching too much sci-fi!

A computer doesn't have to communicate with us any more than we need to communicate with a hypothetical alien race. The fact is that an alien race that created us would be able to communicate with us easily, just as we communicate with computers.

Yes, computers can talk back to us, since they can be programmed to learn. Remember that what is science fiction today is simply tomorrow's commonplace event. Ask Jules Verne or Isaac Asimov. It is mind boggling to me when people talk about teaching children to be mature, and teaching animals to do tricks (which are simply learned behaviour by sentient beings), but then they say that computers can't be taught (just because the method of teaching is different, it is still teaching: how many government agencies around the world have worked at "programming" people?) to do the same things. I believe that we are at the beginning of what will one day be viewed as man's greatest accomplishment: the creation of sentient life.

We are like children with Tinker Toys, and one day, all the things we learn will come together to allow us to create/build a self replicating being.

Now try viewing humanity as a construct built by something...you call it God. Now, change that to man being a construct of an alien race rather than God. What makes God more believable than a group of aliens with a biogenetic engineering facility?

One day in the far distant future, who is to say that androids won't sit around debating their origin and how the universe came to be? I wonder if they will call us gods.

---Disclaimer: the following paragraph is written [extremely] tongue in cheek---

For the record, I don't believe in either scenario, but aliens are far more believable since they can plausibly occur naturally within the universe, whereas God cannot occur naturally within the universe, therefore is unnatural, and going by the religious use of the word unnatural to define as bad certain "mating" practices throughout the ages, God must be a negative. So I cannot accept that He could create something positive that conforms to our definition of "natural". Wow, I enjoyed writing that paragraph...jus' sayin' lol.

@John Le Page
First, you're already assuming that there IS an RNA strand. We don't even know if it IS possible to get that far. Any probability calculations simply assume that it is, in fact, possible. We don't know this to be the case.
functionally infinite? Feel free to demonstrate that one. The fallacy here is Big Universe = anything is possible! I could just as easily claim that because the universe is so vast that, despite the fact that it is overwhelmingly improbable, it is POSSIBLE that our earth is actually young and just gives the appearance of old age. But my guess is you wouldn't find that to be the most probable explanation, now would you?

With such reasoning, nothing is is really impossible at all. Except for the supernatural, of course.
Does this kind of reasoning seem consistent with someone who labels himself "very skeptical"?

@Bo
This ignores that rules and orderliness would be more expected with an intelligent cause than an unintelligent one, and that there would still be no explanation for the created material.
I think you are playing a little loose with "subordinate" here. Sure, a computer programmer would be "subordinate" to the rules of the code/hardware. An intelligent designer of life would need to play by the rules of the universe. But playing by the rules hardly makes you subordinate to them when you are the one who has invented the rules to begin with.

Admittedly, there is no evidence that the intelligent designer also is the creator of the universe. That really isn't the point however, what matters is that you use this reasoning to justify this conclusion:
I don't see how you get from Point A to Point B here. I don't see how pre-existing laws make aliens more plausible than other explanations. As I said, I admit that I cannot demonstrate that an intelligent designer is also the creator of the universe, but neither can you demonstrate the existence of aliens. And if you consider "Who Designed the Designer?" a valid objection to theism, I don't see how it can't be a valid objection to panspermia.

I see your argument boiling down to something like this:

being subject to natural laws make natural explanations more probable

So, essentially, you're begging the question of naturalism. You haven't really demonstrated that the intelligent designer MUST be "subordinate" to natural law, you're assuming that it is.

Before anything, there are no such thing as "rules" or "orderliness". There is no analogy that can be used, since all analogies work within the framework of existing rules. Think of it this way, if a "dumb" God said 1+1=3, then that is the way it would be. We could say, "well that wouldn't work because x,y, and z..." but that is because we are following the rules of this existence.

I said
you said
I see what you are saying, but I guess I was pointing out the old infinite regress problem with a supreme being who created it all. To create you need a framework in which to create. That framework must have always existed with pre-existing "laws" or it was created -- under existing framework, ad nausium. George's "time is an illusion" theory is looking better and better
Us being created by Aliens is, to me, a more plausible possibility than being created by a god, simply because of the existence of such a being is less probable than a life form somewhere else in the cosmos that is more advanced than we are. But this all boils down to the arguments for and against the existence of God.

My ultimate argument is that any force that started "it all", that was not subject to any rules, does not have to be intelligent. There is a certain level of absurdity to this whole idea because intelligence would have to operate in an existence of rules in order to be identified as intelligence. Once again, we have the non-escapable infinite regress problem with the idea of a theistic God.

Bo, you said:
I get this much. My point is that if there are no prior notions which are useful, then all we have is after-the-fact. Based on this knowledge, then, would we expect that an orderly, law-abiding universe be the result of an intelligent source or an un-intelligent source?
This I do not follow. Are you stating that a First Cause, or Prime Mover, is in principle impossible? Or simply that if there is an infinite regress problem with certain naturalistic theories, that there is the same problem with theistic ones?

Regardless, I don't see why there needs to be a framework other than God for a framework such as scientific laws and cosmological constants in which creation can take place. Another possibility is that this happens simultaneously.

Ugh, my brain hurts...
Bo, I have no idea how you calculate these probabilities, but I'm pretty sure if you can show your work, you'll get an honorary Ph.D. from somebody. I certainly can't deny panspermia as a viable possibility, however.
William Lane Craig actually addresses this in his formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (since we are assuming a beginning here, this argument becomes relevant). With regard to the cause of the universe, the KCA determines that it must be timeless, immaterial, and spaceless.



The only two candidates that can match this description in WLC's estimation are abstract objects (such as numbers) and minds. However, in this set only minds have causal powers. And, I think even you would agree, minds are intelligent (to some degree or another!).

I intentionally left this out in my presentation of the KCA because I felt it was un-necessary and I wasn't quite prepared to defend it. You have brought out a point that makes it addressing it relevant.

My biggest problem with this is that it seems to question-beg dualism of mind & body. WLC counters this by merely shifting the burden of proof:
Personally, I have always resisted the "YOU have the burden of proof!" approach to debating. It seems to me that everyone always thinks that the burden of proof is on the other side. To me, it's on each side to actually present evidence that their view is more plausible. WLC seems to think that the inductive approach to rejection of mind-body dualism is invalid, but doesn't seem to have this same problem (if I understand his explanation correctly) when rejecting the causal potential of abstract objects.

Again, all this aside, to me it boils down to what would you expect? To me, it would be more of an expectation that an intelligent agent would lead to a universe with rules. This would be much more of a surprise with an unintelligent cause.

For lack of knowing where to put this link, I choose this topic.

I really don't put a lot of stock in this kind of thing, but thought you science guys might enjoy this. If you are a non believer of God, who knows, maybe you might want to rethink about a life after this life.

Hi Linda,

That was entertaining! More conspiracy stuff I think, although the Palnet X/Nibiru thing has been around for a while.

You might find this interesting since it is a Christian Site:

http://www.endoftheworld2012.net/

They support Scripture as well; no man or angel knows the hour or the day.

Cheers

JJosh...

Life is energy? And energy evolves? You are grasping here.

Also, energy cannot be created or destroyed, right? So when we die our chemically produced energy has to go on living in another dimension and Christian theism has an answer as to where it goes.

Life cannot come from dead matter naturally or it would have been done already. Since abiogenesis has had so many holes shot into it, evolutionists are now going with a new idea. It's called Panspermia. Which means alien life from another planet seeded this one. It is the atheist version of intelligent creation.

The evidence for what cannot be proven has to get put further and further away so that no one can question it. In this case, anywhere in space will do.