From the documentary, "Earth: Making of a Planet." Set the time to begin at 14:57, and turn the caption option on. [video=youtube;L129f9MVZ70]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L129f9MVZ70[/video] "It's impossible to know how or when, but somehow these chemicals come together to create .....<drum roll>......life." Let's run that again: It is IMPOSSIBLE to know how or when. But somehow these chemicals came together to create life. They said it's "impossible to know!" How did they know? That's what I want to know. I want to know how they managed to know what they said is impossible to know. Through a crystal ball?
So, they're actually saying, "it's impossible to know how...." but they're saying this is how it happened anyway! So, there! The glaring evidence that what they're passing off as a farcical fact is nothing more than a.....mythical so-called history of our planet. If they admit that it's impossible to know how life started.....then it's not only unreasonable - but also irresponsible - to dismiss that life could've been CREATED. Thus that means Intelligent Design shouldn't be off the table. In fact, ID has more legitimacy to be on the table compared to that other cockamamie version. If all they can come up with is to admit, "It's impossible to know how and when...." then Intelligent Design is more plausible than their fantasy since the complexity of everything indeed suggest Design.
LOL When there is a gap god can slip in . What if i tell you that the universe is not created intelligently ? How intelligent is to have a muscle that can move a tail when you have no tail? How intelligent is to have a muscle for climbing trees when you live on the ground? ID is unscientific and stupid .
Another documentary echoes the same thing. Set the time to begin at 32:27. [video=youtube;V5EPymcWp-g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g[/video] "The chemical elements essential for life - hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen - were now in place. What was needed was a way of combining them. Perhaps the energy came from lightning. Whatever it was...." I saw another documentary about 2 years ago and I can't recall the title. It showed the ocean....and then they skipped any further explanation but simply showed it had these things swimming in it. This is crucial....especially for evolution. Darwin's theory doesn't begin until you've got that first cell.
That's just knee jerk response. You've closed your mind to what the OP reveals. Open your mind. ID - to scientists and others who support it - does not necessarily mean God. Of course for those who believe in God or a god, they believe the Designer is their God/gods. Furthermore, since Dawkins also admitted that he is not sure that God doesn't exists....therefore, there is the possibility that He does exists. But this is for the Philosophy section. Focus and address the issue shown by the preceding OP.
From what these science documentaries show....you might as well say that the so-called origin of life (and theory of evolution) is grounded on what could be described as a mythical foundation.
Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist , evolution does not deal with the origin of life . We do know approximately when life was started . We do know the chemicals that created life and they are the most common on the universe . Lab tests so far replicated the process of RNA creation , DNA is not far.
Except intelligent design doesn't talk to this issue. 1. It is impossible to know how or when but we know it happened, because there is plenty of evidence for the event of chemicals coming together to form life, thus starting what will become the process of evolution. 2. ID says we were designed as we are now and we know know that that is not true. 3. Nothing in science disproves a creator or creators of the universe, life or the driving force behind evolution. What it does do is disprove the particular stories that some people tell as real, like the Genesis accounts. Try again.
It's possible to say life began, because there is life now and in the early record, there is no life.
The origin of life and evolution are two different things. Evolution does not speak to origins it speaks to the develop of life once it exists. Dumb conclusions are based on faulty logic.
The origin of life? Simple. There are basically three alternatives: mechanical, intelligently designed, or some combination of those two. 1. Mechanical - given the extraordinarily prohibitive probabilities involved in sequential random mechanical processes proceeding from RNA constituent molecules to thinking brains, we need a universe with precisely tuned physical constants and periods of time which dwarf its 13.4 billion year age. That's not a problem if we consider an infinite multiverse where every physical possibility is realized somewhere, at some time in this infinity of spacetime/energy configurations - and possibly realized an infinite number of times. Our universe, as unlikely as it is, would naturally occur as one of (or an infinite number of) the infinity of possible configurations. The infinite multiverse had no beginning and has no end. 2. Intelligent Design - An all powerful, infinite being, having no beginning and no end, existing outside of spacetime and physical energy and its possible configurations, selected the precise tuning of the physical constants in order to produce just what we have in this universe, zapping it into being out of nothing. 3. Some combination of one and two, above. - An eternal, all powerful, and intelligent being designed and manifested and infinite multiverse where we exist in just one of that being's created and dynamic spacetime bubbles. Another possibility comes to mind. The universe is God in the act of becoming the universe - or is it the other way around? I'll let that one for the Eastern monks and scholars to explain.
The problem is - lack of existing evidence. When life first emerged the planets geology was still extremely active. The oldest rocks we have access to, about 3.6 billion years old already show microbial life. So we have a physical barrier to our discovery of life. We also have a number of theories as to the trigger for life, but we will never know (short of time travel) what the exact circumstances were. It is not unlike the formation of the solar system. We understand the mechanism, and see it in space all the time. But we will never know the exact cause for the collapse of the molecular cloud that brought us to where we are today
It's impossible to know exactly how it happened because there's no surviving record of it. This, however, does not disqualify plausible, fact-based theories about it. Unlike the Religious Wrong, scientists are not arrogant tools who proclaim absolute truths and pretend to know everything. Any who come close to sounding like that, though, will definitely ruffle religious feathers. Dr. Dawkins, for instance, has been superb at doing this.
"This" bacteria? Bacteria is plural (for you Diploma Dumboes, that means the caption should be "these bacteria." Why should I pay attention to such poorly educated know-it-alls?
Yes, theories. And you yourself illustrate the wholesale arrogance of exclusively science based theory. "If I can't see it or touch it, it never was." Hogwash. Myopic hogwash.
Because amino acids are "left-handed" molecules, they were flipped in the 4th Spatial Dimension. Life began outside the perceptible universe. That's more rational than theism or Quantum Theory. Possibly what happened is that the Earth entered a gateway to the outside. Comparing it to a 3D world, it would be at the corners of the cube, which would indicate that the universes are linear rather than round.
This misunderstands evolution. It's not a series of random mechanical processes that just magically result in complex life. It's random and not-so-random processes passed through the filter of natural selection -- things that work, survive; things that don't, die. Evolution ends up working a bit like a ratchet. I don't need to hit the precise right order of steps to make the gear turn a full revolution; I can get one step right now, advancing the ratchet one click; another step right 500 tries later, advancing the ratchet another click; and so on. That oversimplifies a bit, and suggests that evolution is moving toward some predetermined goal, which it isn't. But natural selection means the odds necessary for complex life to arise are substantially lower than most people think.
*L* The alternative is apparently letting some emotional crutch called God be used willy nilly to answer questions unnecessarily. There is far less evidence for people's gods than there is for life forming and evolving purely mechanically. - - - Updated - - - Yep. If there is any magic to life, it is in the properties of organic molecules. This, I think, the creationists completely fail to appreciate.
Well, not in real world physical theories. And since our brains handle physical signals emanating from a physical universe, I lean toward a multiverse type of explanation, whether of the finite or infinite variety. Even though many particle physicists and cosmologists (e.g. Standford's Andrei Linde, Max Tegmark, Brian Greene, etc) have gone pretty far in showing this as a viable theoretical possibility within the frameworks of General Relativity and String Theory. Still, it seems to me to be an entirely untestable device for understanding and prediction, which are two of the hallmarks of a good physical theory.
so you want to dismiss it because it's too complex and unlikely?... but then you put forward a ID concept a billion if not a trillion times more complex and unlikely that requires an unexplainable supreme being...
I'm still trying to grasp the single universe and now this multiverse hypothesis is being considered...just as I was coming to grips with being less than insignificant in the universe now I may be of even lesser insignificance, if that's possible....
I wasn't downplaying evolution. The real problem as far as randomness and time goes actually exists in molecular evolution, which lies at the most fundamental level of what is normally regarded as macroevolution. Even though certain types of RNA have been shown to be able to act as catalyzing certain agents, life requires the complex processing of encrypted information. I'll ignore the problem of how that information arose part and parcel with the molecular complexity necessary for its encryption and utilization. Those highly specific and functional processing enzymes (such as those required for transcription, translation, etc) are themselves encoded in the information sequences itself. These enzymes are highly complex proteins whose geometric folding patterns determine their functionality. The analogy would be an astronomically complex computer processing system whose software actually specifies the manufacturing process of much of the critical hardware necessary for its own processing and manufacturing activities. Cute! This had to come about as a result of ascending sequence of complex molecular interactions guided only by physical law. That take a helluva lot of time and tips the probabilities toward the ridiculously improbable - except in an an infinite multiverse where such a universe would just be a particularly improbable, but actual, instance.
