Life Is Not An Accident

by metatron 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  see:

  http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/19642.asp

  This article articulates what needs to be said and understood about life in the universe. Life does not originate because molecules randomly bump into each other. Life is a 'law' like gravity or any other aspect of physics. Biology is NOT simply a subset of chemistry but rather a separate field with its own natural 'laws'.

  This point is subtle and difficult to fully articulate- but here goes: Stop looking for a personal Creator who sits on a throne and start thinking about the Universe as the practical equivalent of God. It does what God does. More than that, the laws of the universe themselves evolved and may even evolve in the future.

  This is a synthesis of both Creationism and Evolution. I believe that science wiil eventually be forced to accept it, as trying to find complex behavior and morphology 'blueprinted' in simple genetic codes becomes an absurdity - and especially when those codes mean completely different things in different creatures.

  metatron
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Metatron

  Physical and chemical laws, like gravity, or gas laws can be quantified. There are also classical mendelian genetics, and ecological models that quantify things biology and some are laws.

  But I see no basis outlined for this "law of emergence of life". I only see an assumption and assertion that the universe and its physical and chemical laws will lead to life...not alot of evidence to make me really conclude its a law.

  Don't get me wrong. I'm partial to the idea of panspermia and such a "law" would fit nicely but again where's the data to quantify it?

  Have you read some of the other stuff on that page?
• 

  jaguarbass

  You bring up a good possibility regarding our existence.

  As I see it Dawkins/ Darwin and their brand of evolution is the polar extreme antithesis of the Bible and neither give satisfying or scientific answers to explain our condition.

  Evolution and the belief in the bible are opposite sides of the coin called religion/fatih.. Truth is where you find it. And its very difficult to explain.

  I think the problem starts with when one believes in evolution it is often assumed they are atheist. If your an atheist and believe in evolution then life would most likely start with abogenisis.

  Go to dictionary.com wich I dont think is a christian or religious site and look up abnogenisis and you get.

  "the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation."

  If that deffinition can be given any credence than all the evolutionist are on the same page as the christians and arguing about adaptation, or micro evolution which everyone is in agreement on.

  Anyways, what you are putting forth sounds like what Carl Sagan put forth in his movie Contact ,their is a mytery out there that has been going on forever and we dont understand it.

  That I can buy which makes me an agnostic. And takes me off either side of the coin called religion/faith.
• 

  FairMind

  their is a mytery out there that has been going on forever and we dont understand it.

  Maybe the mystery is GOD?
• 

  Nathan Natas

  Au contrere, mon frere. Ask my Mom; since I was 8 years old she told me repeatedly that I was an accident.
• 

  SweetSweetApostasy

  Me too!
• 

  Narkissos

  I tend to share the same general "intuition" but I found the article rather disappointing.

  Perhaps classical concepts as "chance," "accident" or "laws" are just inadequate to describe the "continuity" and "difference" between the "phenomena" we categorise as "physical," "chemical," "biological" and "cultural". Perhaps language-borne "science" is bound to perceive the "real" it both emerges from and attempts to explain as "mystery" -- which doesn't imply any positive knowledge of "it," just a structural and functional limit of language, due to its practical orientation.

  Language is a practical tool we have designed over generations to analyse "reality" (taking it apart, as it were) so as to use and change it. In this way it works very well. Maybe too well, both for "us" and "reality," but that's another question. Through theory we're trying to reverse the orientation of language -- from action on reality to a "pure," "gratuitous," "disinterested" "vision" or "understanding" of it. It never works. And from this perspective I doubt we have made any significant "progress"... Instead of "gods" we have learnt to read "ideas" or "laws" into "reality," but are those not imaginary concepts we substitute to "reality" as we fail to "reach" it?

  (How many "quotes" in that post? )