Spontaneous Life?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Hi STS

I thought I addressed the OP.....

I don't know if this was to me?

If it was, I already offered you my response about "there is nothing spontaneous about life". My answer is basically, if life began from inorganic matter (life from non-life), I can't imagine another choice but spontaneous.

Peace,
Ceeboo

But I showed you how spontaneity doesn't apply!

[_zeezrom]

Maybe God was banking on probabilities. "If enough planets form, one is bound to begin forming life."

[Guest]

Still no answer to the OP? (Very telling)

No response to the question that scientists have nailed down the age of the Earth except that you're "agnostic"? Telling.

Anyway, I thought I would correct you on this post.
I am not agnostic concerning the Big Bang (I thought I have been very clear on this, more than once, and I also think I am very consistent with poting my beliefs/positions with you. I wish you would consider, in return, offering me a mere hint of what your opinions/beliefs are)

I do not believe in the Big Bang! (As I have posted nemerous times on this very board and once on this very thread)

My belief is that the Big Bang happened. I trust scientists (although I also took an elective basic astronomy class in college where we discussed the Big Bang for three class periods) concerning the Big Bang/age of the Earth.

I am agnostic on the gae of the earth. As i have posted before (and for the last time to you), I do find the YEC position/stances to be extremely interesting and most worthy of at least consideration. I do not mirror the opinion of many that the YEC position is "ignorant", "silly" and/or "laughable".

They're laughable. What other opinion can be reached except laughter? Is every geologist, scientist, and astronomer lying when they pretty much agree the earth is around 4.5 billion years old rather than 6-10k years old as YEC advocate? Stop being coy. When you say "agnostic" I think you mean you don't want to publicly embarrass yourself by directly supporting YEC.

This is the second time you have posted in this thread about me or my beliefs and have yet to offer anything concerning your view, perspective, beliefs, or opinion about the OP. WHY?

I don't think we'll see spontaneous life because human existence has been a blink of an eye in comparison to the amount of time life has existed on Earth although I do think life began as a result of some combination of matter and energy. In the primordial soup there were probably trillions of interactions between various bits of matter in various combinations before life began. I'm not a scientist and can't talk about the nitty gritty details (oh no!) but I defer to experts on these subjects. It seems that Chap and Spurven are handling the details pretty good anyway.

(Off to work so no responses til tonight).

[_Ceeboo]

OK. Until you justify your claims that the scientific explanations you have been offered 'sound like faith statements', we can consider them withdrawn.

Make you a deal. You can consider anything you want to be withdrawn and I will simply stand on my suggestion that faith seems to be deeply rooted in this thread. Fair?

Please see my post. So far as my reading goes, it is probably a crucial point that the early earth had very low levels of oxygen in the atmosphere - i.e. the atmosphere was reducing rather than oxidizing. If you do not understand what I mean by those terms, I am not sure that it makes a lot of sense for this discussion to continue.

Okay.

Do you know anything about chemistry?

No.

I appreciate you don't want to answer questions, but unless you make it clear whether (for instance) the oxidation/reduction distinction means anything to you how on earth can anyone frame an answer that will make sense to you?

Okay

On your first question, I certainly would not make such a claim, i.e. "you need life to get life". Why would I do that?

I don't know, that's why I asked you.

On the second question, I would not want to take the responsibility (or, to be frank, the time) needed for framing a succinct but accessible answer to that question on a board like this. I'd rather leave it to someone with more skill in biochemistry than I can command without having to do quite a lot of revision of things I have read in the past.

Okay, maybe we can wait for this together.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Chap]

... So far as my reading goes, it is probably a crucial point that the early earth had very low levels of oxygen in the atmosphere - i.e. the atmosphere was reducing rather than oxidizing. If you do not understand what I mean by those terms, I am not sure that it makes a lot of sense for this discussion to continue.

Okay.

Do you know anything about chemistry?

No.

Thanks for being frank.

But unless you are prepared for any answers to your OP to be long enough to include a quick introduction to basic chemical concepts, led alone biology, I really don't see that you are going to be in any position to appreciate or criticize any substantive answers that people may give you from a scientific point of view.

So it is very hard to see what value any comments you may make on such answers could possibly have. It would be like me, who has very little knowledge of musical theory, trying to argue about the historical origins of equal temperament. I'd just be talking out of a portion of my anatomy designed for radically different purposes.

[_zeezrom]

I remember sitting in biology thinking how amazing it was that simple cells interact with their surroundings. I remember learning how the chemical makeup of a membrane would allow certain things through and not other things. I remember thinking, wow, there is no brain behind this little cell. It performs tasks all on its own and it is made up of just simple building blocks. Then I thought, wow, my body is made up of a whole bunch of these cells.

The most amazing part was learning that I wasn't controlling them.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey again, Chap

Thanks for being frank.

Frank? I am Ceeboo :)

But unless you are prepared for any answers to your OP to be long enough to include a quick introduction to basic chemical concepts, led alone biology, I really don't see that you are going to be in any position to appreciate or criticize any substantive answers that people may give you from a scientific point of view.

Well, whether or not I am prepared or able to grasp such things, I look forward to the coming answers all the same.

So it is very hard to see what value any comments you may make on such answers could possibly have.

What if i were to promise to make no comments? I will simply read, learn, and consider what answers/explanations are soon coming in written form.
[/quote]

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Fence Sitter]

Maybe it is too simplistic but in discussions of this sort the part I don't get is why the lack of a complete understanding in a scientific process has any bearing on the arguments in favor or against the existence of God.

[Guest]

Hey again, Bond

No response to the question that scientists have nailed down the age of the Earth except that you're "agnostic"? Telling.

Over the last several years, I have read/seen/listened to countless scientists that have/are facing serious personal challenges with what they used to believe had been "nailed down". (Many of which have completely changed their worldview based entirely on this very topic)

My belief is that the Big Bang happened.

Okay (I don't. Still friends?)

They're laughable. What other opinion can be reached except laughter?[ Is every geologist, scientist, and astronomer lying when they pretty much agree the earth is around 4.5 billion years old rather than 6-10k years old as YEC advocate?

Do you believe every geologist, scientist, and astronomer believe the earth is around 4.5 billion years old? Do you think they all believe in Darwinian Macro-evolution too?

Stop being coy.

You suggest I am reluctant to offer what I believe?
Talk about the pinnacle of irony.

When you say "agnostic" I think you mean you don't want to publicly embarrass yourself by directly supporting YEC.

Make no mistake, I directly and publically support my beloved YEC brethren (No matter what I happen to believe).

Glad we got that cleared up.

I don't think we'll see spontaneous life because human existence has been a blink of an eye in comparison to the amount of time life has existed on Earth although I do think life began as a result of some combination of matter and energy. In the primordial soup there were probably trillions of interactions between various bits of matter in various combinations before life began. I'm not a scientist and can't talk about the nitty gritty details (oh no!) but I defer to experts on these subjects.

Thanks for sharing a bit of your faith with me. :)

It seems that Chap and Spurven are handling the details pretty good anyway.

??

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Blixa]

Maybe it is too simplistic but in discussions of this sort the part I don't get is why the lack of a complete understanding in a scientific process has any bearing on the arguments in favor or against the existence of God.

I also feel this way.

(and I also would posit the same arguments you have regarding the likelihood of life on other planets.)