Jump to content

Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that complex life evolved on its own? Is an alternative explanation offered by LDS belief reasonable?


TheDude
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
On 5/29/2021 at 4:57 AM, WalterP said:
  14 hours ago, TheDude said:

Agreed.

 

But we still haven't found a viable theory for how life on this world came from non-life, unless some intelligent life of some kind created it.

 

That's a fair comment, Dude.

Is this a fair one, too?

We still haven't found a viable theory for dark energy, therefore some intelligent agent must have created it.

Thank you.

Walter.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dude,

 

I could be wrong about the way you are arguing this, but it looks as if you are invoking a supernatural agency to account for something science cannot currently explain.  If so, then how is this any different from a God-of-the-Gaps argument?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

Could you please elaborate and explain further?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

The main thing with the 'aliens did it' theories is that it dodges the question of how the aliens came to be. Even if there is tampering within the universe, it has to get started somehow on it's own. I don't see a scenario where some type of abiogenesis doesn't have to play into the equation regardless of any alien tampering theories. An alien being has to come from somewhere. 

 

This pushes it back to existence itself and philosophical pantheism at it's depth. I don't see how you think you can avoid it. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'm lazy and didn't read all the posts.  Was the mystery of who created the endless cycle of creation solved?  

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I think Hubbard's tale of Xenu is as compelling as any other creation myth. It also has just as much evidence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems they have come a long way in understanding the possible origins of life. But I don't think they have eliminated the possibility that life could have evolved on the interior of a very large comet having internal heat and lots of water -- or evolved somewhere else and was brought here via meteors, comets, etc. -- in the process called panspermia.  The advantage of this process is that life could have had much more time to have evolved such a complexity in the first place. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, pantheory said:

It seems they have come a long way in understanding the possible origins of life. But I don't think they have eliminated the possibility that life could have evolved on the interior of a very large comet having internal heat and lots of water -- or evolved somewhere else and was brought here via meteors, comets, etc. -- in the process called panspermia.  The advantage of this process is that life could have had much more time to have evolved such a complexity in the first place. 

 

But you still have the question, where did all those comets, heat, water, energy, etc come from?  Does it really matter?  It's here.  I stopped worrying about where it came from, and started asking, what are we going to do with it??  And declared myself agnostic. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

But you still have the question, where did all those comets, heat, water, energy, etc come from?  Does it really matter?  It's here.  I stopped worrying about where it came from, and started asking, what are we going to do with it??  And declared myself agnostic. 

 

I believe the universe had a beginning but not the "god created it" version -- and not the Big Bang version either.

 

I became an atheist while still in high school, but have nothing against religion because I always enjoyed church and socializing with the people. I really never stopped going to church, but no denomination in particular. I go maybe once every couple or years now when invited by someone. I've always carried Christian-like morals with me in general, but on the contrary I think that fornication is great :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 7/6/2021 at 5:41 PM, pantheory said:

It seems they have come a long way in understanding the possible origins of life. But I don't think they have eliminated the possibility that life could have evolved on the interior of a very large comet having internal heat and lots of water -- or evolved somewhere else and was brought here via meteors, comets, etc. -- in the process called panspermia.  The advantage of this process is that life could have had much more time to have evolved such a complexity in the first place. 

 

The panspermia could be true, but then again it would have to default back to some type of abiogenesis I would imagine. At some depth the life has to arise on it's own. Absent supernaturalist claims and presuppositions. 

 

22 hours ago, Weezer said:

But you still have the question, where did all those comets, heat, water, energy, etc come from?  Does it really matter?  It's here.  I stopped worrying about where it came from, and started asking, what are we going to do with it??  And declared myself agnostic. 

 

I read this and what came to mind is how we have maybe, if we're lucky, 100 years or so of this life experience. Probably less. We're not going to know these mysteries. No matter how old and wise we may become. And to worry about any of it too much, really is a waste of what time we have to experience life. 

 

I think that just as we're advising people not to worry about god, jesus, heaven and hell, or anything similar, the advise not to worry about theoretical secular and scientific issues is equally well advised. Live. Experience. Enjoy life. It doesn't last forever as far the evidence shows.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2021 at 7:42 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

The panspermia could be true, but then again it would have to default back to some type of abiogenesis I would imagine. At some depth the life has to arise on it's own. Absent supernaturalist claims and presuppositions. 

 

 

I read this and what came to mind is how we have maybe, if we're lucky, 100 years or so of this life experience. Probably less. We're not going to know these mysteries. No matter how old and wise we may become. And to worry about any of it too much, really is a waste of what time we have to experience life. 

 

I think that just as we're advising people not to worry about god, jesus, heaven and hell, or anything similar, the advise not to worry about theoretical secular and scientific issues is equally well advised. Live. Experience. Enjoy life. It doesn't last forever as far the evidence shows.....

 

Yes, any panspermia proposal as being the beginnings of Earth-Life, must originally have started as abiogenisis.  I would add an additional codicil to advise. Don't believe in science either unless it makes sense to you. If it doesn't make sense be Leary of it IMO. Of course any real science, even if wrong, has at least some logic to it, as opposed to the god-did-it version.

 

Concerning abiogenisis, my primary concern is how complex beginning-life here on Earth appears to have been.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
7 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, any panspermia as the beginnings of Earth-Life must originally have started as abiogenisis.  I would add an additional codicil to advise. Don't believe in science either unless it makes sense to you. If it doesn't make sense be Leary of it IMO. Of course any real science, even if wrong, has at some logic to it, as opposed to the god-did-it version.

 

Concerning abiogenisis, my primary concern is how complex beginning life here on Earth appears to have been.

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't say that I believe in abiogenesis, that's going a bit too far. But I do believe that abiogenesis is high in probability for the reasons we're discussing. I've noticed that several recent apologist's have taken issue with it. But their alternatives have so much less going for them in my view. 

 

And the other issue is that when we span out more and more, the idea of when or where it would have started stretches out as well. Not knowing the past to it's depth prohibits us from knowing for sure how many times life emerges, how many times any of this has happened before, or if this is really the first time. We literally can't know the absolute truth of these questions. 

 

So the possibilities are huge. Just imagine the range of examples. 

 

For instance, are we in a simulation? 

 

If so, what is running the simulation? Is it alive and intelligent? And if so, did the intelligence running the simulation universe itself had to have originated from something? Pointing several steps back to an abiogenesis scenario again and again? 

 

I suppose that the uncertainty of reality is more than a lot of apologetic posters can handle. They aren't ready to face that sort of reality yet, or possibly ever. So it's grab the crutch of "goddidit!" and hobbling along through life pretending as if the issue is solved when it demonstrably isn't. Of all possible answers, that looks like the least possible of all in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I wouldn't say that I believe in abiogenesis, that's going a bit too far. But I do believe that abiogenesis is high in probability for the reasons we're discussing. I've noticed that several recent apologist's have taken issue with it. But their alternatives have so much less going for them in my view. 

 

And the other issue is that when we span out more and more, the idea of when or where it would have started stretches out as well. Not knowing the past to it's depth prohibits us from knowing for sure how many times life emerges, how many times any of this has happened before, or if this is really the first time. We literally can't know the absolute truth of these questions. 

 

So the possibilities are huge. Just imagine the range of examples. 

 

For instance, are we in a simulation? 

 

If so, what is running the simulation? Is it alive and intelligent? And if so, did the intelligence running the simulation universe itself had to have originated from something? Pointing several steps back to an abiogenesis scenario again and again? 

 

I suppose that the uncertainty of reality is more than a lot of apologetic posters can handle. They aren't ready to face that sort of reality yet, or possibly ever. So it's grab the crutch of "goddidit!" and hobbling along through life pretending as if the issue is solved when it demonstrably isn't. Of all possible answers, that looks like the least possible of all in my opinion. 

 

If not panspermia, abiogenesis, god-did-it, aliens did it, then who or what created life? We know that robots, AI, could not spontaneously arise. As an atheist I see no other alternative to the beginnings of life arising other than by abiogenesis over billions of years.

 

And if aliens did it then how did they originate,  ad infinitum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Repeat after me, "I don't know. I can't know."

 

And that, my friends, is the meaning of "42."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
7 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

If not panspermia, abiogenesis, god-did-it, aliens did it, then who or what created life? We know that robots, AI, could not spontaneously arise. As an atheist I see no other alternative to the beginnings of life arising other than by abiogenesis over billions of years.

 

And if aliens did it then how did they originate,  ad infinitum.

 

That's exactly what I started thinking after reading, "Chariots of the Gods." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2021 at 6:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

That's exactly what I started thinking after reading, "Chariots of the Gods." 

 

I don't believe intelligent aliens created Earth life, but I don't believe that's the question. The main question I believe is where did intelligence life of any kind come from in the first place? I believe there could only be one logical answer, abiogenisis IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
8 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I don't believe intelligent aliens created Earth life, but I don't believe that's the question. The main question I believe is where did intelligence life of any kind come from in the first place? I believe there could only be one logical answer, abiogenisis IMO.

 

Yes, that's the question. And the only logical answer that I see on the table right now as you do. 

 

What else could it reasonably be? 

 

And yet, the most logical answer is the very thing these apologist's are opposing tooth and nail. It's interesting because they take something as illogical as a string of domino assumptions based on a major presupposition at the foundation (supernatural god did it), and then parade it around as the only logical conclusion. 

 

When out of a selection of conclusions it's actually one of the most illogical to choose from. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes, that's the question. And the only logical answer that I see on the table right now as you do. 

 

What else could it reasonably be? 

 

And yet, the most logical answer is the very thing these apologist's are opposing tooth and nail. It's interesting because they take something as illogical as a string of domino assumptions based on a major presupposition at the foundation (supernatural god did it), and then parade it around as the only logical conclusion. 

 

When out of a selection of conclusions it's actually one of the most illogical to choose from. 

 

There are other weapons in the apologist's arsenal besides teeth and nails.

 

Outright denial is one. 

 

'It's only a theory' is another. 

 

Those at the more extreme end will opt for conspiracy theories to prop up their beliefs.  E.g., if the Mars rovers find traces of ancient life - then NASA is faking everything and there are no space probes that made it to the red planet.  Or if another 'Wow!' type signal leads us to a bona fide source of alien transmissions - then the scientists are just faking that too. 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

There are other weapons in the apologist's arsenal besides teeth and nails.

 

Outright denial is one. 

 

'It's only a theory' is another. 

 

Those at the more extreme end will opt for conspiracy theories to prop up their beliefs.  E.g., if the Mars rovers find traces of ancient life - then NASA is faking everything and there are no space probes that made it to the red planet.  Or if another 'Wow!' type signal leads us to a bona fide source of alien transmissions - then the scientists are just faking that too. 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

A lot of fakin goin on by someones , NOT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.