How did life start ?

[the annoying thing]

I put the following in the prompt of an AI program:

Please attempt to falsify, or verify, or qualify, the following statement:

Ai guy: Assuming infinity, all that is possible is inevitable.

AI program's response:

This statement is a philosophical one that can be seen as an expression of determinism. In philosophy, determinism is the belief that all events, including human actions, are ultimately determined by causes and laws of nature, and therefore cannot be changed. In that sense, if we assume infinity, it could be argued that all possible outcomes must inevitably occur, given enough time and the right conditions.

However, this statement is also open to interpretation and can be challenged from different philosophical perspectives, such as free will, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory, which suggest that the future is not completely predetermined and that there is a degree of uncertainty and unpredictability in the universe.

In conclusion, the statement "Assuming infinity, all that is possible is inevitable" is a debatable one and depends on one's philosophical stance on determinism and free will.

Well, annoying thing, I tried my best to explain life in a simple expression, (I'm no philosopher or scientist, just an average bloke) and it's debatable, but I still think I'm right.

Your welcome to your own opinion. Im familiar with the chaos theory . your definitely more of a philosopher type.
And much like me you don't have the answer only more possibilities.

 

[Boris Norris]

Your welcome to your own opinion. Im familiar with the chaos theory . your definitely more of a philosopher type.
And much like me you don't have the answer only more possibilities.

Name me some one or many if you like, that has no religious affiliations but contains enough access to scientific research findings, read Darwin's book but still is unconvinced of the plausibility of the BB theory and support their opinion with evidence.
I'll wait here.

 

[the annoying thing]

Name me some one or many if you like, that has no religious affiliations but contains enough access to scientific research findings, read Darwin's book but still is unconvinced of the plausibility of the BB theory and support their opinion with evidence.
I'll wait here.

Darwin mainly studied the evolution of Life how species evolved. If you knew anything about him you would know he and I tend to agree that life started in a chemical soup as 8 proposed.only he felt it started in fresh water while im more a tital pool type guy or volcanic underwater vent . but evolution is another subject all together you sure you don't want to talk about something that you're more familiar with like checkers

 

[Ai guy]

Your welcome to your own opinion. Im familiar with the chaos theory . your definitely more of a philosopher type.
And much like me you don't have the answer only more possibilities.

"Life is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be lived" --Osho Rajneesh, paraphrasing Søren Kierkegaard.

 

[the annoying thing]

"Life is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be lived" --Osho Rajneesh, paraphrasing Søren Kierkegaard.

I doubt the answer to how life got started will ever be solved however I do agree with you that it should be lived and enjoyed momento Mori

 

[the annoying thing]

I doubt the answer to how life got started will ever be solved however I do agree with you that it should be lived and enjoyed momento Mori

 

[Ai guy]

I doubt the answer to how life got started will ever be solved however I do agree with you that it should be lived and enjoyed momento Mori

Mankind's attempts to steal nature's secrets, well, he's gotten a number of them, but the secret to life, that's the big kahuna of secrets, the veritable holy grail of secrets, so to speak, and I doubt mother nature is going to let mankind get ahold of that one, she's keeping it for herself, and herself, only. Good thing, too, for mankind would probably figure out a way to bottle it and sell it by the dozen.

 

[Boris Norris]

Darwin mainly studied the evolution of Life how species evolved. If you knew anything about him you would know he and I tend to agree that life started in a chemical soup as 8 proposed.only he felt it started in fresh water while im more a tital pool type guy or volcanic underwater vent . but evolution is another subject all together you sure you don't want to talk about something that you're more familiar with like checkers

Clearly you have read the origin of the species, his book.

He never gave his opinion on how life began. He studied evolution.

So I remind you as you just said " if you knew anything about him" you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement trying to score points.
So don't come mouthing off about what Darwin says because you know sweet fuck all.

That aside, there are several good books written by well credentialed people who are qualified to make assessments. If you like I can reference them but they are a bit more intellectually deeper than your usual gutter crap. That's why ignorance reigns supreme in USA.

 

[the annoying thing]

Mankind's attempts to steal nature's secrets, well, he's gotten a number of them, but the secret to life, that's the big kahuna of secrets, the veritable holy grail of secrets, so to speak, and I doubt mother nature is going to let mankind get ahold of that one, she's keeping it for herself, and herself, only. Good thing, too, for mankind would probably figure out a way to bottle it and sell it by the dozen.

I can not deny what you said. Man kind is not ready for that kind of power

 

[the annoying thing]

I'd be surprised if you have knowledge of anything regarding science.
Rabbit on with your bullshit for all care. I'll follow the science of today.

I am talking about science also Boris you lug nut

 

[the annoying thing]

"Life is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be lived" --Osho Rajneesh, paraphrasing Søren Kierkegaard.

Im not familiar with him but I agree .

 

[Boris Norris]

I am talking about science also Boris you lug nut

One thing is certain. Life hasn't begun in you yet.

 

[PLC1]

There are two possibilities, both difficult to believe, one of which has to be true.

First possibility is that a single celled life form started out of lifeless chemicals in water, started dividing and reproducing. and gradually evolved all by itself into the myriads of complex interrelated life forms we see on Earth today.
The second is that an intelligence created the first single celled organisms, then watched over the process of evolution as they grew into more complex organisms, tweaking the process now and again until the complex and interrelated life forms we see today resulted.

One of the major tweaks the creator made was to send or somehow guide an asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and opened the way for mammals to become one of the dominant life forms.

Neither of those two possibilities denies evolution, of course, but they still are very difficult to believe.

But one or the other has to be true.

Unless, of course, you want to believe in magic.

 

[mark francis]

Was it in a primordial tidal pool or perhaps a volcanic vent , was it just a random coincidental event that just happened to have all the ingredients for life, a mix of carbon hydrogen nitrogen oxygen Sulphur calcium iron zinc sodium water among others that just happened to for Amino acids and proteins and other including a membrane of sorts or was it DNA and or RNA from another planet hitching a ride on a asteroid .
Add in some heat and light and a little lighting you might get life . Again you might try and fail 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times in a row. There's no true knowledge of how it started or did it get a boost perhaps . People often use the word god and some bitterly deny he exists. Fact is no one know how life got started , and what we refer to as god could be ? we really do not know now do we. A alien on earth 200,000 years ago would indeed be a god or there could be a real god or we could just be a simple coincidental event. No one really knows. We have combined water oxygen methane ammonia and hydrogen in a test tube with a electric arc and created Amnio acids with out which life can not exist as we know it . All those things existed on earth for billions of years .

Abiogenesis is scientifically impossible and there is no scientific support for such speculation.

 

[mark francis]

There are two possibilities, both difficult to believe, one of which has to be true.

First possibility is that a single celled life form started out of lifeless chemicals in water, started dividing and reproducing. and gradually evolved all by itself into the myriads of complex interrelated life forms we see on Earth today.
The second is that an intelligence created the first single celled organisms, then watched over the process of evolution as they grew into more complex organisms, tweaking the process now and again until the complex and interrelated life forms we see today resulted.

One of the major tweaks the creator made was to send or somehow guide an asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and opened the way for mammals to become one of the dominant life forms.

Neither of those two possibilities denies evolution, of course, but they still are very difficult to believe.

But one or the other has to be true.

Unless, of course, you want to believe in magic.

Abiogenesis is magic, not the Biblical account of God's creation.


Even in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.” 13

Abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible. No wonder both Orgel and Crick called it a miracle. Other scenarios have therefore been suggested. Hoyle and others postulate life was transplanted from outer space14 —which moves the origins problem to another time and place. The multiverse hypothesis, proposed by leading origin-of-life researcher Eugene Koonin,15 is currently in vogue—it replaces infinite time with an infinity of universes to account for the extraordinarily improbable existence of at least one life-sustaining planet (see here).

The real answer may be that abiogenesis is the creation myth of a culture with no need for God—a culture to which physicist Lee Smolin can proclaim: “there is nothing outside the universe.”16 This statement is an unsustainable myth, yet a creator is the only alternative to abiogenesis, and this undermines the mythological foundation of the faith of atheists.

The next article will continue this theme with a discussion of macroevolution, another critical part of the theory of evolution.