Chemicals that can be observed to arise randomly are virtually all small, simple compounds, or long, random chains of small, simple compounds. All complex and ordered compounds that I know of are created by life forces of some sort. You could find all the life on any number of planets, and it doesn't change the fact that the laws of chemistry make it incredibly unlikely that they rose randomly.
But the second law of thermodynamics says that DNA and proteins and amino acids randomly become methane or if you get crazy lucky, oil. I can't think of a single observable instance of it happening the other way without life forces arranging it.
Sure there is. Hydrogen atoms combining to form DNA is probably beyond that. Even if the starting point is methane molecules, it'd be in that range.
You assume this Earth is an example of your bias, I allow that it may be an example of mine. How many trillion planets have we examined for the presence or fossil evidence? 0 We are stardust We are golden. It's a long trip but it did happen.
As long as the probability is greater than 0, things can happen in the course of millions of Millennium. Or it could be Zeus, who randomly swing his hammer one lonely night and a random lighting bolt randomly hits Athena right in the rear. The blood of the virgin goddess bonds with a lucky cloud to become the first life form.
This statement is based on how many billions of years of observation? You can round to the nearest billion.
Gotta love when non-scientific types start throwing the second law of thermodynamics out there. I believe there are even creationist websites that specifically tell creationists (or science deniers or whatever they are called) to avoid bringing up the second law of thermodynamics because it usually ends with their asses getting handed to them.
Actually, life spontaneously arising increases entropy. Ultimately, all life on the surface of the Earth gets its energy from the Sun at mostly visible and UV wavelengths and re-radiates at higher entropy infrared wavelengths. Life spontaneously arising does NOT violate the 2nd law.
I teach at a university, so I am quite familiar with the tenets of secular fundamentalism, which is as much a religion as any system of thought that poses answers to life's ultimate questions. Here is the bottom line, there either is a God or there isn't a God. There is a Creator or there isn't a Creator. Are we good so far? There is an afterlife of some sort or there isn't. The details, though not insignificant, are not the main issue. Even the most ardent relativist would have to agree that the above assertions are mutually exclusive. Now, Pilate and all Manhattan dinner parties notwithstanding, there is "truth" on these matters. You or I may not know what it is, but it is out there, somewhere. If the secular fundamentalists are right, when we die we cease to exist. No Final Judgment, no Heaven, no Hell, no nothing. In some ways this is appealing because it eliminates all uncertainty, if true. (Dead all over, like Rover) However, this view is very risky if not true. If the Christian fundamentalist is wrong and the secularist is correct, no big deal. Something to ponder. As disturbing as some of the remarks in D & D are, I applaud the effort to address some of life's most pressing questions. We may be living in the world's first society in which "pop culture" has become the culture. Most spend their lives in trivial pursuits, never addressing the issues that matter the most.
And what if Zoroastrianism is right? What if Islam is right? What if Judaism, Hinduism, or Baha'i is right? What if Scientology is right? The view is not only not risky, it's absurd to think that being a Christian 'just to be safe' is a good idea.
An old argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager This casts believing in God as a decision problem. But you can't decide to believe in something. Genuine belief requires that you weighed it versus the alternatives and determined it makes the most sense, not that its the most advantageous.
Personally, I would be O.K., except if Islam is right. May have a problem with that one. I wasn't suggesting that you choose Christianity just to be safe, but because you believe it to be true. However, on second thought, the notion has some merit.
Agreed, you should commit yourself to the truth as you determine it to be. False belief is of no value. The issue is, given the consequences, that you must make the correct choice.
Those who post regularly in D&D and believe Stephen Hawking and Christopher Hitchens. Well not exactly, because I find Hitchens to be a very engaging and fascinating speaker and writer. Ironically, his brother is a militant Christian whose efforts to convert him are ongoing.
It seems like a reactionary label given by religious folks who feel threatened by the non-religious. Similar to the "atheism is a religion" idea perpetuated by some despite the fact that the phrase makes as much sense as saying "bald is a hair color."
Stephen, using his brilliant mind has come to the conclusion that he is unable to answer the big question. It didn't of course need all of his brilliance to reach that stage! To off set all of this, Stephen has now started to create so called new theories among which are the above and the parallel universe theory , just his ideas, no proof, just spoof! Gets people thinking and believing theories without foundation, as though they become mindless Steve Hawkins followers
