At what order of complexity...

Originally posted by C Hess
When certain molecules collide with certain other molecules predictable things happen. If
those predictable things happen to be that they form proteins, or replicate themselves, how
is that something that cannot happen "by chance". Obviously an entire cell can't form
suddenly by chance, but the conditions required for a cell to form can certainly have ...[text shortened]... their own, complexity grows, and with it, the seeming appearance of
"information" structures.

I don't see the result of life just happening by natural laws being as simple
as you are painting it. Even if I were to grant that and I don't, I still do not
see how it could not only start, but continue and flourish! Life is fragile
here, I can only believe that it would be more so if it began on a world that
had no other life on it. If that life got to hot or cold, it would die if it ran out
of food it would die, if during mutations went wrong it could die. At a very
high level I just think that there is to much against it occurring than what
would help it start and continue as it became more complex.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Life is fragile

On the contrary - life is very persistent.

Antarctica is one of the most physically and chemically extreme
terrestrial environments to be inhabited by microorganisms. Nonetheless,
on February 6, 2013, scientists reported that bacteria were found living in
the cold and dark in a lake buried a half-mile deep under the ice in
Antarctica.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_microorganism

Originally posted by wolfgang59
On the contrary - life is very persistent.

Antarctica is one of the most physically and chemically extreme
terrestrial environments to be inhabited by microorganisms. Nonetheless,
on February 6, 2013, scientists reported that bacteria were found living in
the cold and dark in a lake buried a half-mile deep under the ice in
Antarctica.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_microorganism

What are you thinking? That is a wonderful place for bacteria to live. Take away any Hydrogen and Oxygen then that might be called a chemically extreme hostile living environment.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What are you thinking? That is a wonderful place for bacteria to live. Take away any Hydrogen and Oxygen then that might be called a chemically extreme hostile living environment.

Well then, how bout ones that digest sulfur?

https://php.radford.edu/~swoodwar/biomes/?page_id=1027

They live above the boiling point of water also, 210 degrees F.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well then, how bout ones that digest sulfur?

https://php.radford.edu/~swoodwar/biomes/?page_id=1027

They live above the boiling point of water also, 210 degrees F.

So What? Who Cares?

YouTube

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't see the result of life just happening by natural laws being as simple
as you are painting it. Even if I were to grant that and I don't, I still do not
see how it could not only start, but continue and flourish! Life is fragile
here, I can only believe that it would be more so if it began on a world that
had no other life on it. If that life got ...[text shortened]... ainst it occurring than what
would help it start and continue as it became more complex.
Kelly

As wolfgang points out, life is such that it can thrive in extremely hostile environments. Not
humans, no, but what we're essentially made of; living cells. This is the point I'm trying to
make: Once you have stable molecules of one kind, they can bond (conditions admitting)
with others to form even more complex structures. They often also affect the environment
one way or the other so that previously impossible bonds become possible. And so the
complexity can build over time through a completely natural process, until you have the
first cells, from which larger and more complex organisms inevitably evolves. It requires
no magic of any kind, and it's consistent with what we know about chemistry and biology
today.

Understand that my point is not to say that there's absolutely no way life could have been
started by an intelligent mind, your god, but that it seems more plausible (knowing what we
know about chemistry and biology) that it began in very simple forms of chemistry and
gradually increased in complexity as time passed. For all I know an intelligence could have
started it, and even to some degree guide the subsequent evolution, but that would be
impossible to know from studying the natural world alone, I think.

Originally posted by C Hess
As wolfgang points out, life is such that it can thrive in extremely hostile environments. Not
humans, no, but what we're essentially made of; living cells. This is the point I'm trying to
make: Once you have stable molecules of one kind, they can bond (conditions admitting)
with others to form even more complex structures. They often also affect the en ...[text shortened]... volution, but that would be
impossible to know from studying the natural world alone, I think.

I agree where life is in its niche it does well, but that really isn't what we
are talking about now is it? In a lifeless world, a speck of life starts, and
that is saying something. On top of that it starts in a place that allows it to
continue, that is also saying something. Once it started, it started
procreating itself, that is also saying something. After it started
procreating, it maintained and became even more complex, and that is
saying something.

Nothing throughout any of this did the conditions ever change that would
end it, no mutation, or disease killed it off, no lack of food, and on and on.
I know good Science Fiction has life finding away, but seriously?
I think it is a huge leap of faith to accept that, more so than even accepting
God is real!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree where life is in its niche it does well, but that really isn't what we
are talking about now is it? In a lifeless world, a speck of life starts, and
that is saying something. On top of that it starts in a place that allows it to
continue, that is also saying something. Once it started, it started
procreating itself, that is also saying something ...[text shortened]... hink it is a huge leap of faith to accept that, more so than even accepting
God is real!
Kelly

Is there a point here?
What are you claiming?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree where life is in its niche it does well, but that really isn't what we
are talking about now is it? In a lifeless world, a speck of life starts, and
that is saying something. On top of that it starts in a place that allows it to
continue, that is also saying something. Once it started, it started
procreating itself, that is also saying something ...[text shortened]... hink it is a huge leap of faith to accept that, more so than even accepting
God is real!
Kelly

Of course life starts on lifeless world, or it wouldn't be a start at all, would it? But if that
lifeless world has all the ingredients, the right conditions for life, it's no wonder that life
would begin eventually, and I'm saying that those conditions can most certainly come
about through an unguided, gradual chemical process over time.

Originally posted by C Hess
Of course life starts on lifeless world, or it wouldn't be a start at all, would it? But if that
lifeless world has all the ingredients, the right conditions for life, it's no wonder that life
would begin eventually, and I'm saying that those conditions can most certainly come
about through an unguided, gradual chemical process over time.

So in a lifeless world, you are saying all the ingredients were in the right
place, at the right time, under the right perpetual conditions, in the right
quantities, they will be setup properly (right/left handed), they will brought
together without ruining any of the ingredients around them that are
necessary, with enough food to continue the process throughout time
without anything going wrong to end this process? All of this must of just
happen, because the odds of all of this happening are 100%, it will just be?

It takes great faith in my opinion, I mean seriously, all of that you just think
it will happen completely unguided over time, it just has too!

Have you tried to look at all of that stuff and see what is required, apart
from the other true believers in your camp? I mean if you just accept it as
it was going to happen there was no way it couldn't, then nothing anyone
will say or show you that can shake that, you are a true believer.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
Of course life starts on lifeless world, or it wouldn't be a start at all, would it? But if that
lifeless world has all the ingredients, the right conditions for life, it's no wonder that life
would begin eventually, and I'm saying that those conditions can most certainly come
about through an unguided, gradual chemical process over time.

We creationists, who believe the history in the Holy Bible, are saying that life could not have come about by unguided, gradual chemical process over time. We are not just relying on the testimony of inspired scripture alone, but also in the testimony in natural science.

The complexity of living creatures has long been a reason to believe in a Life-giving Creator, like the One described in the Holy Bible. But the most recent discovery of information encoded in the DNA molecule of cells is the strongest evidence yet of this complexity that needed a superior intelligence to devise systems of encoding and decoding better than man has ever devised in computer information technology.

Man is now borrowing ideas from God's DNA computer systems to increase the capabilities of our own computer information technology as we have always borrowed ideas from His creations to produce all our other inferior technologies.

Most people are not stupid enough to say telephone, radio, television, automotive, and radar technologies just developed on their own. However, it seems common today for people to think the more complex systems of nature just came together by chance occurrences. I don't think so. Now, neither does former atheist Antony Flew.

Famous Atheist Antony Flew Changes Mind, Believes in God

YouTube

Maybe one day I will learn that I will save time if I read my comments before posting them. I had five typing errors and edited each one as I noticed it. That meant this took me six posts just to post one message. My mind and fingers are not cooperating as good as they used to.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We creationists, who believe the history in the Holy Bible, are saying that life could not have come about by unguided, gradual chemical process over time. We are not just relying on the testimony of inspired scripture alone, but also in the testimony in natural science.

The complexity of living creatures has long been a reason to believe in a Life-givin ...[text shortened]... osts just to post one message. My mind and fingers are not cooperating as good as they used to.

With respect to errors in typing a simple message. It should let each of us
know that it isn't simple to type a simple message, yet there are those of
us who gladly believe that life could just happen without someone either
guiding the process, or simply creating it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't see the result of life just happening by natural laws being as simple
as you are painting it. Even if I were to grant that and I don't, I still do not
see how it could not only start, but continue and flourish! Life is fragile
here, I can only believe that it would be more so if it began on a world that
had no other life on it. If that life got ...[text shortened]... ainst it occurring than what
would help it start and continue as it became more complex.
Kelly

A billion years is a long time. I imagine life probably could have started and re-started many times before it gained a lasting foothold.

What you're missing though, is that it was under the hand of God, and so it was destined to eventually flourish. A billion years is a long time.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We creationists, who believe the history in the Holy Bible, are saying that life could not have come about by unguided, gradual chemical process over time. We are not just relying on the testimony of inspired scripture alone, but also in the testimony in natural science.

The complexity of living creatures has long been a reason to believe in a Life-givin ...[text shortened]... osts just to post one message. My mind and fingers are not cooperating as good as they used to.

But can you possibly imagine that it happened just as the scientists say, only that it was guided by the hand of God?

Is this *really* too hard to comprehend?

There is a reason He did it this way. So that those who choose to disbelieve in God can be satisfied they're right. Believing in God must be a choice. You cannot choose to disbelieve scientifically if God just said "Poof!" and made the universe in one day. That would be way too obvious if that were so. So He takes almost 14 billion years to make everything so that the God-deniers can believe it "just happened on its own".

One must believe in God based on Faith. Science is never going to prove God, because there can always be another explanation. This is as it should be.

Originally posted by Suzianne
A billion years is a long time. I imagine life probably could have started and re-started many times before it gained a lasting foothold.

What you're missing though, is that it was under the hand of God, and so it was destined to eventually flourish. A billion years is a long time.

What you are missing is that God did it all in 6 days, not over billions of years. (Genesis 1)