Separating God From The Origin Of Life

[Orbit]

This isn't really a rant, more like a musing, but I couldn't think of where else to put it. I reject that the Bible is the word of God, or inspired by God. Research into the Bible cured me of that. It was written by men with an agenda, has some wisdom and mythology, but is not to be taken as an explanation for the origins of life.

 

It's important to separate "God" from the origins of life. Evolution is a powerful argument that rejects Biblical creation, but what actually happened when inorganic chemistry became organic chemistry and started the whole "life" thing rolling?

 

I've been contemplating this, and we absolutely do not know what the origins of life are. I do know that "God" is not the origin, at least not as described by the Bible, and the only knowledge we have of God comes from the Bible. I therefore reject God and am an atheist.

 

I do, however, acknowledge that absolutely nothing is known about the moment when organic life was created. Could an intelligence of some kind, extra-dimensional, unknown, have started that? I don't know. Was it an accident of chemistry? We will never know. What was before the Big Bang? We will never know, and I reject a "god of the gaps". The unknowns, however, do intrigue me.

 

Have you had similar musings? Thoughts about our origins? Why is "creation" the litmus test of belief in God?

[sdelsolray]

This isn't really a rant, more like a musing, but I couldn't think of where else to put it. I reject that the Bible is the word of God, or inspired by God. Research into the Bible cured me of that. It was written by men with an agenda, has some wisdom and mythology, but is not to be taken as an explanation for the origins of life.

 

It's important to separate "God" from the origins of life. Evolution is a powerful argument that rejects Biblical creation, but what actually happened when inorganic chemistry became organic chemistry and started the whole "life" thing rolling?

 

I've been contemplating this, and we absolutely do not know what the origins of life are. I do know that "God" is not the origin, at least not as described by the Bible, and the only knowledge we have of God comes from the Bible. I therefore reject God and am an atheist.

 

I do, however, acknowledge that absolutely nothing is known about the moment when organic life was created. Could an intelligence of some kind, extra-dimensional, unknown, have started that? I don't know. Was it an accident of chemistry? We will never know. What was before the Big Bang? We will never know, and I reject a "god of the gaps". The unknowns, however, do intrigue me.

 

Have you had similar musings? Thoughts about our origins? Why is "creation" the litmus test of belief in God?

A few thoughts:

 

1)  The biological theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life on Earth.  It deals with changes to life after it first existed.  Accordingly, creation of life on Earth by one or another gods is not refuted, or even challenged, by the biological theory of evolution.  "Special creation", a claim of certain religions (such as the Abrahamic religions), is refuted, and rather robustly refuted, by the biological theory of evolution.

 

2)  Yes, we do not "know" what the origin of carbon based life on Earth is.  However, there are several scientific hypotheses focused on that question, each of which (i) has supporting (but not conclusive) evidence and (ii) is being readily pursued utilizing the scientific method.  Abiogenesis is a young branch of science.  Patience is a virtue.

 

3)  Given the properties of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and several other elements, it may be that carbon based life is inevitable given proper chemical and physical conditions.  If this is correct, calling it an accident is misplaced.

 

4)  Leaving aside any workable definition of carbon based life, or any life (including non-carbon based life), I note a certain anthropocentrism, specialness and/or privileged expectation of those of us (me included) who have enough consciousness to even ask the question.  Perhaps life is not special at all.

[Sybaris]

 

4)  Leaving aside any workable definition of carbon based life, or any life (including non-carbon based life), I note a certain anthropocentrism, specialness and/or privileged expectation of those of us (me included) who have enough consciousness to even ask the question.  Perhaps life is not special at all.

 

 

 

I have thought about this in relation to the Fermi Paradox and the Drake Equation. Maybe there is some universal code to not interact with lesser life forms (us). Maybe there is something within intelligent life that inherently extinguishes itself. From a technology standpoint, even if an intelligent life form had a 1000 year jump on us you would expect to see, and hear for that matter, a galaxie buzzing with activity.

 

It will be truly fascinating what we find when they get the new generation of large telescopes running

[sdelsolray]

 

 

4)  Leaving aside any workable definition of carbon based life, or any life (including non-carbon based life), I note a certain anthropocentrism, specialness and/or privileged expectation of those of us (me included) who have enough consciousness to even ask the question.  Perhaps life is not special at all.

 

 

 

I have thought about this in relation to the Fermi Paradox and the Drake Equation. Maybe there is some universal code to not interact with lesser life forms (us). Maybe there is something within intelligent life that inherently extinguishes itself. From a technology standpoint, even if an intelligent life form had a 1000 year jump on us you would expect to see, and hear for that matter, a galaxie buzzing with activity.

 

It will be truly fascinating what we find when they get the new generation of large telescopes running

 

Two of the Drake Equation variables are (i) the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space and (ii) the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.  Of course, this must be considered not only for the "transmitting" civilization but also for the "receiving" civilization.  

 

In addition, there are three other factors not in the equation - (i) the distance between the transmitting civilization and the receiving civilization,  (ii) the strength and compatibility of the signals sent from the transmitting civilization and the sensitivity and compatibility of the equipment to receiving those signals with the receiving civilization and (iii) the location in the sky the signals come from. 

 

​As to your 1000 year "jump" example, apply that to the above variables.  For example, if the other civilization existed for 400,000 years 1,000,000 years ago and was located 9,000 light years from Earth, then we (as the receiving civilization) would have missed their transmissions.  Leaving aside the time/distance/duration issues, assume the transmitting society was sending signals at a frequency the receiving civilization was not listening for, or the equipment was pointed in the wrong location in the sky.  Then, even if the time/distance/duration issues were in harmony, there still would be no detection or communication.

 

On another point, it would appear that the likelihood of other carbon based life (or sulfur based or silicon based) existing would be higher for simpler forms of life (pre-sentient forms) compared to sentient forms.

 

Regarding the Fermi Paradox, I really don't see it as a paradox at all but simply as a question, "Given all the time that has elapsed, why haven't we (yes, anthropocentric humans on Earth) witnessed this other life?"

[Orbit]

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies. Food for thought...

[Sybaris]

 

 

 

4)  Leaving aside any workable definition of carbon based life, or any life (including non-carbon based life), I note a certain anthropocentrism, specialness and/or privileged expectation of those of us (me included) who have enough consciousness to even ask the question.  Perhaps life is not special at all.

 

 

 

I have thought about this in relation to the Fermi Paradox and the Drake Equation. Maybe there is some universal code to not interact with lesser life forms (us). Maybe there is something within intelligent life that inherently extinguishes itself. From a technology standpoint, even if an intelligent life form had a 1000 year jump on us you would expect to see, and hear for that matter, a galaxie buzzing with activity.

 

It will be truly fascinating what we find when they get the new generation of large telescopes running

 

Two of the Drake Equation variables are.............

 

Regarding the Fermi Paradox, I really don't see it as a paradox at all but simply as a question, "Given all the time that has elapsed, why haven't we (yes, anthropocentric humans on Earth) witnessed this other life?"

 

 

One intriguing unknown is how long did it take for life to evolve after the Big Bang or whatever. Intelligent life on earth came about after 4.5 or so billion years from this planets beginning, and that's approximately 8.5 billion years after the beginning of the universe as we know it. Assuming the clock started ticking after the big bang and there was no special astrophysical evolution necessary then possibly intelligent life has been populating the universe for 8 billion years or so. I don't agree that there would be an expiration to all civilizations especially after 400,000 years as their technology would reasonably have led to interstellar travel, population of other worlds and survival ................unless the laws of physics just don't permit it.  

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

4)  Leaving aside any workable definition of carbon based life, or any life (including non-carbon based life), I note a certain anthropocentrism, specialness and/or privileged expectation of those of us (me included) who have enough consciousness to even ask the question.  Perhaps life is not special at all.

 

 

 

I have thought about this in relation to the Fermi Paradox and the Drake Equation. Maybe there is some universal code to not interact with lesser life forms (us). Maybe there is something within intelligent life that inherently extinguishes itself. From a technology standpoint, even if an intelligent life form had a 1000 year jump on us you would expect to see, and hear for that matter, a galaxie buzzing with activity.

 

It will be truly fascinating what we find when they get the new generation of large telescopes running

 

Two of the Drake Equation variables are.............

 

Regarding the Fermi Paradox, I really don't see it as a paradox at all but simply as a question, "Given all the time that has elapsed, why haven't we (yes, anthropocentric humans on Earth) witnessed this other life?"

 

 

One intriguing unknown is how long did it take for life to evolve after the Big Bang or whatever. Intelligent life on earth came about after 4.5 or so billion years from this planets beginning, and that's approximately 8.5 billion years after the beginning of the universe as we know it. Assuming the clock started ticking after the big bang and there was no special astrophysical evolution necessary then possibly intelligent life has been populating the universe for 8 billion years or so. I don't agree that there would be an expiration to all civilizations especially after 400,000 years as their technology would reasonably have led to interstellar travel, population of other worlds and survival ................unless the laws of physics just don't permit it.  

 

Your assumption are simply incorrect.  Carbon based life could not exist until there was carbon.  Carbon did not first appear until after the first generation of starts expired and pushed their created carbon out into space.  It was only then that carbon was available to be incorporated into solar systems involving second or third generation stars.  That took many billions of years, perhaps more.  So, that takes care of many billions of years of the early universe because there was no accessible carbon available for carbon based life to develop.  There more about this (e.g., (i) formation of elements heavier than iron (ii) the time it takes for the elements needed for carbon based life to travel to new places at slow speeds) but I'll hold off on that for now.

 

As to your disagreement that an expiration of civilizations, that is not what I said or intended to mean.  there needs to be an overlap of time and space for communication to occur.  Your assumption that all advanced civilizations would develop space travel is just that, a mere assumption.  In any event, such travel would be at sub-light speeds, which creates the same space/time conundrum I earlier explained.

 

One other point, but just a nitpick.  You math is incorrect.  The universe is about 14.5 billion years old.  Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  There is about 10 billion years between the big bang and Earth's formation.

[Sybaris]

 

 

 

 

 

4)  Leaving aside any workable definition of carbon based life, or any life (including non-carbon based life), I note a certain anthropocentrism, specialness and/or privileged expectation of those of us (me included) who have enough consciousness to even ask the question.  Perhaps life is not special at all.

 

 

 

I have thought about this in relation to the Fermi Paradox and the Drake Equation. Maybe there is some universal code to not interact with lesser life forms (us). Maybe there is something within intelligent life that inherently extinguishes itself. From a technology standpoint, even if an intelligent life form had a 1000 year jump on us you would expect to see, and hear for that matter, a galaxie buzzing with activity.

 

It will be truly fascinating what we find when they get the new generation of large telescopes running

 

Two of the Drake Equation variables are.............

 

Regarding the Fermi Paradox, I really don't see it as a paradox at all but simply as a question, "Given all the time that has elapsed, why haven't we (yes, anthropocentric humans on Earth) witnessed this other life?"

 

 

One intriguing unknown is how long did it take for life to evolve after the Big Bang or whatever. Intelligent life on earth came about after 4.5 or so billion years from this planets beginning, and that's approximately 8.5 billion years after the beginning of the universe as we know it. Assuming the clock started ticking after the big bang and there was no special astrophysical evolution necessary then possibly intelligent life has been populating the universe for 8 billion years or so. I don't agree that there would be an expiration to all civilizations especially after 400,000 years as their technology would reasonably have led to interstellar travel, population of other worlds and survival ................unless the laws of physics just don't permit it.  

 

Your assumption are simply incorrect.  Carbon based life could not exist until there was carbon.  Carbon did not first appear until after the first generation of starts expired

 

One other point, but just a nitpick.  You math is incorrect.  The universe is about 14.5 billion years old.  Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  There is about 10 billion years between the big bang and Earth's formation.

 

 

Hence why I said , "assuming the clock started ticking after the big bang and there was no special astrophysical evolution necessary........"

 

whatever

[Gamecock1973]

This isn't really a rant, more like a musing, but I couldn't think of where else to put it. I reject that the Bible is the word of God, or inspired by God. Research into the Bible cured me of that. It was written by men with an agenda, has some wisdom and mythology, but is not to be taken as an explanation for the origins of life.

 

It's important to separate "God" from the origins of life. Evolution is a powerful argument that rejects Biblical creation, but what actually happened when inorganic chemistry became organic chemistry and started the whole "life" thing rolling?

 

I've been contemplating this, and we absolutely do not know what the origins of life are. I do know that "God" is not the origin, at least not as described by the Bible, and the only knowledge we have of God comes from the Bible. I therefore reject God and am an atheist.

 

I do, however, acknowledge that absolutely nothing is known about the moment when organic life was created. Could an intelligence of some kind, extra-dimensional, unknown, have started that? I don't know. Was it an accident of chemistry? We will never know. What was before the Big Bang? We will never know, and I reject a "god of the gaps". The unknowns, however, do intrigue me.

 

Have you had similar musings? Thoughts about our origins? Why is "creation" the litmus test of belief in God?

 

I'm with the OP on this.  I think science is fascinating, but I think debating origins with a Christian is an utter waste of time.  Lots of theories, but WE DON'T KNOW how everything started, and it really doesn't matter.  I reject the god of the bible not because genesis 1 is an obvious myth or I now worship at the altar of science (as christians love to presuppose).  I reject the god of the bible because of the incredibly numerous contradictions and errors within the bible and the utter lack of any basic, observable evidence that such a god exists any more than any other man-made god.  I wouldn't really care if tomorrow the theory of evolution was suddenly and utterly disproven.  Defending such things in every day life to creationists is a waste of time, IMO.  The fact that science cannot explain everything in no way makes creationism true.  Every argument of the gaps christians make might make DEISM sound appealing.  But to jump from "there might be a creator who started everything" to the "truth of JESUS" is just infantile logic.  Even if one could prove there was a cosmic designer, there is nothing to say it wasn't Zeus or aliens.  It's just as likely as Yahweh since NONE of these beings seem to be around today.

 

I'm convinced that the apologists' focus on orgins and the god of the gaps (which in no way CAN prove their specific savior god), is really a subconscious (or dishonest) attempt to deflect from the myriad of REAL problems their god has in his revealed holy book.

 

The fact is simply that if the god of the bible is who he says he is, and he never changes as he says, apologists would be completely unnecessary because we would see god obviously and tangibly interacting in this world as he "did" in the bible.  There are no miracles, god does not answer prayer, people do not overcome sin, xtians are not more protected or in any way discernibly different from anyone else...

 

There is no reason to get into philosophic debates about origins and invisible gods.  I don't know what happened or how we all came to be here.  I don't need to know how the universe began to know that jesus and his asshole father are not real.  

 

I love science and am fascinated by it now that I am not a believer.  But as fundy xtians reject science as trustworthy or valid (and often just label it another religion), and have done a pretty thorough job of brainwashing their masses on this point, the facts being brought up in this very thread mean nothing to them. It has the same effect on them as when a fundy just quotes scripture to us and expects it to have a magical effect.  I think the TEACHING of science is essential for our future.  I think in the realm of debate between xtians and unbelievers we often actually hurt our cause because in our appeals to science as an authority we are just reinforcing their narrative that atheists have simply traded the worship of god for the worship of a new god- science!  They really do believe and Darwin and Dawkins and the like are just false prophets and we obediently believe everything they say without thinking. To cite scientific facts is as effective as arguing from the Quran.  Born and raised a fundy and as a former minister, I believe that asking questions, arousing doubt, and chipping away at their source of authority (the bible) is much more effective.  Just my opinion.

[Eugene39]

 

 

I'm with the OP on this.  I think science is fascinating, but I think debating origins with a Christian is an utter waste of time.  Lots of theories, but WE DON'T KNOW how everything started, and it really doesn't matter.  I reject the god of the bible not because genesis 1 is an obvious myth or I now worship at the altar of science (as christians love to presuppose).  I reject the god of the bible because of the incredibly numerous contradictions and errors within the bible and the utter lack of any basic, observable evidence that such a god exists any more than any other man-made god.  I wouldn't really care if tomorrow the theory of evolution was suddenly and utterly disproven.  Defending such things in every day life to creationists is a waste of time, IMO.  The fact that science cannot explain everything in no way makes creationism true.  Every argument of the gaps christians make might make DEISM sound appealing.  But to jump from "there might be a creator who started everything" to the "truth of JESUS" is just infantile logic.  Even if one could prove there was a cosmic designer, there is nothing to say it wasn't Zeus or aliens.  It's just as likely as Yahweh since NONE of these beings seem to be around today.

+1