How old is the Grand Canyon

[joblo7]

a creation without a creator is ludicrous...

 

""Is it? Are we so important that some being with conscious thought had to have created us?""

 

all creations have a creator.plants,rocks,animals.

 

""We are probably the only species that spends its lives endlessly torturing ourselves, and one another, agonizing over why we're alive. Everything else just seems to be living.""

 

the experience of life IS different for humans because WE have consciousness. consciousness of ourselves and consciousness of a higher ,deeper reality that is elusive. hence THE GAME.

 

animals have a soul,plants have a soul,rocks have a soul but they are not conscious of it.lesser humans are barely aware also (cheney i.e.)

[JayB]

Direct observation of a particular phenomenon is nice, but it's not an essential component of a scientific proof if you can observe, measure, or otherwise verify secondary phenomena that result from whatever it is that you aren't able to verify directly.

 

 

 

Wow, Jay, how do you continually come up with these priceless and informative revelations? You mean we don't have to stick a thermometer into the sun to postulate its core temperature? A stunning concept; secondary...primary...I'm confused already! Were you born gifted, or raised in a utopian commune of genuii? You really need a blog. The world needs to know this stuff.

 

You are your own parody.

 

The only reason I wrote the original point was to refute the claim that the scope of scientific proof is limited to events that are reproducible or observable, or both. This seemed to the central argument that the creationists amongst us were relying upon when attempting to assert that evolution cannot be proven because these preconditions cannot be satisfied. The second point was that even if two propositions cannot be proven with absolute certainty, it's possible to apply tests to each in conjunction with the available evidence and determine which is the more valid of the two.

 

This post was a response to Seahawks et al, and it wasn't clear to me why you responded at all, much less with a needless jibe. It seemed most likely to me that you either misunderstood the post or just skimmed it and went into "auto-retort" mode out of habit. I'm glad that you are well aquainted with these points. After reading through the posts on this topic, it seemed to me that not everyone was familiar with them.

[W]

 

all creations have a creator.plants,rocks,animals.

 

Respectfully: Have you, or anyone else, seen this creator? What do you know of him (her? it?). Have you directly experienced it? On what basis can we undeniably establish this creator as authentic? To what extent could our experience of the creator be a product of our conditioning? I am offering a mere supposition on the possibility that this creator is simply a construct of the human ego's craving for permanence and security. That comes without rejecting the possibility that something or someone did create life.

 

the experience of life IS different for humans because WE have consciousness. consciousness of ourselves and consciousness of a higher ,deeper reality that is elusive. hence THE GAME.

 

Have you experienced life from the perspective of a dog's mind? Or a fish? How do you know what consciousness is for other living things? A dog clearly has a consciousness of itself on some level, in that it knows it's a dog, it relates to each species in distinct ways. Most animals seem to be far more in tune with their instincts and intuitions that humans, actually. This "higher deeper reality": What makes you so sure that this is not an invention of our mind? Does this really exist, or does it only have validity within the context of the individual? Surely the individual word on this matter is not applicable to all of humanity? Therefore it is fragmented and incomplete! I have to wonder if THE GAME you speak of is nothing more than a contrivance based on a quirk of nature that is our mind's ability to be self-aware. Without condemning it outright, it is not necessarily good or something that makes us "more intelligent"... it is what it is.

 

animals have a soul,plants have a soul,rocks have a soul but they are not conscious of it.

 

What is a soul, then? The matter that composes all things is permanent, but it is never in a permanent state. Your cells are in constant change; in some respect you are not the same person you were 2, 10, 20 minutes ago. Memory attempts to hold us in place, yet even that can be witnessed as futile.

[tvashtarkatena]

You might preface your statements about the soul, etc, with "I believe", thus avoiding a factual argument about beliefs than cannot be proved.

[tvashtarkatena]

What is a soul, then? The matter that composes all things is permanent, but it is never in a permanent state. Your cells are in constant change; in some respect you are not the same person you were 2, 10, 20 minutes ago. Memory attempts to hold us in place, yet even that can be witnessed as futile.

 

Even matter may not be permanent, if the mysterious repulsive force that is accelerating the expansion of the universe eventually tears matter itself apart.

 

A soul embodies the desire for permanent being. Buddhism teaches the letting go of such desire. Personally, I think they're closer to the mark.

[W]

 

Even matter may not be permanent, if the mysterious repulsive force that is accelerating the expansion of the universe eventually tears matter itself apart.

 

That would, I think, again be only a change of state of matter. The theory if I recall is that the amount of matter in the universe is fixed, it is all about what state it is in. I'm no physicist, however...

 

A soul embodies the desire for permanent being. Buddhism teaches the letting go of such desire.

 

That's tricky; who is this entity that is letting go of the desire? And is it letting go in order to gain something- to gain the state of non-desire? Which the current being sees as desirable?

 

A few who've taken it further than the Buddhists will say that being truly free of desire is entirely a matter of full awareness of the workings of your own mind- and cannot be attained by any conscious action to change those workings. The awareness itself creates the insight.

 

 

 

[joblo7]

You might preface your statements about the soul, etc, with "I believe", thus avoiding a factual argument about beliefs than cannot be proved.

that was a conscious choice.

you have been 'proven ' the existence of your soul. you have experienced it leaving your body.therefore it 'exists'. now , there is no religion involved in that. it is factual.

it is an experience.

from there though , one cannot use the mind, the brain to 'understand'. it is like quantum physics to a 1st grader.it can't figure it out! you need another tool. your heart.

 

 

[joblo7]

the soul is permanent, eternal.

the ego is finite, temporal.it is 'attached' to the physical,to this life.

the ego tries, by its nature, to see itself as permanent.

matter is finite. huge but finite.

 

[joblo7]

 

all creations have a creator.plants,rocks,animals.

 

"Respectfully: Have you, or anyone else, seen this creator? something or someone did create life."

 

a creation is ,creator manifested.

 

the experience of life IS different for humans because WE have consciousness. consciousness of ourselves and consciousness of a higher ,deeper reality that is elusive. hence THE GAME.

 

"Have you experienced life from the perspective of a dog's mind? "

 

well yes.! but i was speaking more about the concept of the soul inside all creations..

 

""Without condemning it outright, it is not necessarily good or something that makes us "more intelligent"... it is what it is.""

 

i used self-consciousness , not more intelligence.

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

you have been 'proven ' the existence of your soul. you have experienced it leaving your body.therefore it 'exists'. now , there is no religion involved in that. it is factual.

 

What was factual was that, due to altitude induced hypoxia, I had the sensation of being disconnected from my body. If you believe this experience constitutes proof of the soul, then, by the same logic, you would have to say that hallucinations of giant wombats induced by drugs or fatigue are caused by the fact that there were actually giant wombats flying around at the time. Since our consciousness is imprisoned by our brain and informed by our senses, both of which can malfunction in all kinds of ways to produce a phantasmagoria of tricks and illusions, I would say it's more likely that my experience falls under this category than that my soul actually drifted out of my body.

[kevbone]

This is turning out to be another speculation thread.

[tvashtarkatena]

That would, I think, again be only a change of state of matter. The theory if I recall is that the amount of matter in the universe is fixed, it is all about what state it is in. I'm no physicist, however...

 

A soul embodies the desire for permanent being. Buddhism teaches the letting go of such desire.

 

That's tricky; who is this entity that is letting go of the desire? And is it letting go in order to gain something- to gain the state of non-desire? Which the current being sees as desirable?

 

 

 

The amount of matter and energy in our universe is fixed, as far as we know. Exchanges occur. Of course, we don't even know how many universes there are, so take it with a grain of salt. As far as the acceleration of universal expansion, that was only discovered 4 or so years ago, so no one has any idea where it's going to end up.

Edited January 14, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[joblo7]

you have been 'proven ' the existence of your soul. you have experienced it leaving your body.therefore it 'exists'. now , there is no religion involved in that. it is factual.

 

What was factual was that, due to altitude induced hypoxia,drifted out of my body.

 

sorry. i just went by what you said.you can have the same experience if you're really focused on anything. my brother is a drummer and he had a similar experience: he saw himself playing from the top corner of the room. it is fairly common.

[joblo7]

so how old is that big crack, anyway? +- a few mill years?

[pope]

Faith is a belief in something without requiring observable evidence. I don't have anything remotely like that regarding the progress of science.

 

Fine, but if you believe that the progess of science can someday prove that life and humans did in fact begin on this planet independent of a creator, I say you exhibit an extraordinary quantity of faith. Firstly, you have to believe that science will be able to ignite that spark, to produce life "from scratch", as you say. Then, you have to believe that this is possible outside a sophisticated laboratory, without the creative hand of man and all that we understand. Of course, this is a verifiable belief (prediction, if you prefer): we need only to observe life originating "from scratch" outside of a laboratory. Finally, if and when science does observe this event, you will need to accept (or demonstrate) that such a low-probability event would be likely to occur without some kind of divine impetus. And if you believe all of this is an eventual triumph of science, you have as much faith in science as the people being criticized in this forum for their faith in a creator.

 

If you have faith in the eventuality of everything I described above, your faith is likely the product of a bias you have, for you seem amazingly capable of taking what is presently "known" in science and stretching it to the point of nearly disproving the involvement of a creator in the process, when no such knowlege currently exists. But that is ultimately our greatest obstacle to understanding. People by nature wish to have an answer, wish to arrive at "truth" often before our observations clearly illuminate it.

 

And if you are correct, I guess you and I are just cogs in the evolutionary wheel, a stepping stone to future forms of life. That's OK if you're content with that line of thinking. I personally hope there is something more. But I also agree that in America of all places, we should be absolutely free to search for our own answers and follow our own convictions, without the federal government adopting policies and practices that favor a particular faith.

 

[JayB]

If an event or phenomenon can't be observed directly or reproduced, then we have no recourse but to rank explanations that presuppose nothing other than the operation of physical law upon matter with...magical causes?

 

It'd be interesting to see how you define life, and then go on to specify at which point in the genesis of life the involvement of the creator that you posit begins and ends. Per your definitions/understanding, is a virus alive? How about cell-free expression systems capable of translating RNA into proteins? If the said being's involvment ends at the moment of the big-bang, the moment the physical laws that have governed the universe from that point onwards were established, how does this practically differ from explanations which omit the said creator?

 

If your creator's involvement was more extensive, how far into the genesis of life did it extend? Since elements can unite in definite ratios to form compounds, and the said compounds can form complex structures, and both clearly occur in the absence of any divine intervention whatsoever, we can assume that this being stepped in to physically manipulate matter until which stage in the genesis of life? The fossil record extends back 3 billion years, to the arrival of single-celled organisms. Did this being stop directly manipulating matter once it had established a population of autocatalytic molecules? Archeabacteria? Eubacteria? Eukaryotes? The fossil record extends back three-billion years, to the single-cell stage. At what point in the fossil record did the active manipulation of matter cease and the simple operation of physical law commence to be sole factor the governed the rise of man? At the primate stage? 10,000 years ago? Is this being still engaged in physically manipulating matter, so that, for example, every sub-process involved in the duplication of genetic material in every single cell of every single living being on Earth requires this being's active engagement? If not, and processes which constitute life can occur in the absence of this being's direct involvement now, why, exactly, was this being's direct involvement a necessary requirement for any stage of life in the past?

[pope]

If an event or phenomenon can't be observed directly or reproduced, then we have no recourse but to rank explanations that presuppose nothing other than the operation of physical law upon matter with...magical causes?

 

You can believe whatever you want. Yet the willingness to assume that our limited observations of the fossil record are sufficient evidence to dispose of any notion of divine intervention require an equal amount of faith to the belief of intelligent design and an omnipotent creator. Your point seems to be that "magical causes" are not a necessary assumption for explaining our origin. I have no argument with this point, but it's important to acknowledge that even if you believe the fossil record traces our origins back to single cells that existed "3 billion years ago", that doesn't preclude the influence of a cosmic, creative force in the process.

 

 

It'd be interesting to see how you define life, and then go on to specify at which point in the genesis of life the involvement of the creator that you posit begins and ends. Per your definitions/understanding, is a virus alive? How about cell-free expression systems capable of translating RNA into proteins? If the said being's involvment ends at the moment of the big-bang, the moment the physical laws that have governed the universe from that point onwards were established, how does this practically differ from explanations which omit the said creator?

Perhaps when we finally understand all of the dimensions of these "physical laws which governed the universe", we will only understand the "mind of God" instead proving God is absent.

 

If your creator's involvement was more extensive, how far into the genesis of life did it extend? Since elements can unite in definite ratios to form compounds, and the said compounds can form complex structures, and both clearly occur in the absence of any divine intervention whatsoever, we can assume that this being stepped in to physically manipulate matter until which stage in the genesis of life? The fossil record extends back 3 billion years, to the arrival of single-celled organisms. Did this being stop directly manipulating matter once it had established a population of autocatalytic molecules? Archeabacteria? Eubacteria? Eukaryotes? The fossil record extends back three-billion years, to the single-cell stage. At what point in the fossil record did the active manipulation of matter cease and the simple operation of physical law commence to be sole factor the governed the rise of man? At the primate stage? 10,000 years ago? Is this being still engaged in physically manipulating matter, so that, for example, every sub-process involved in the duplication of genetic material in every single cell of every single living being on Earth requires this being's active engagement? If not, and processes which constitute life can occur in the absence of this being's direct involvement now, why, exactly, was this being's direct involvement a necessary requirement for any stage of life in the past?

 

Please remember that all dating techniques depend on extrapolating an observable mathematical relationship, namely that the rate of change of some isotope is proportional to the quantity of the isotope present in the sample, which leads to a model wherein the quantity of some isotope is an exponential function of time. This is verifiable within the parameters of a very limited range of known dates. To assume the model is correct for billions of years through history is a major leap of faith.

 

[catbirdseat]

Like to see you prove your side. It can't.

 

I highly doubt it would matter if I could. I've been in these debates before. You have a belief system built up that doesn't permit alteration. Thus, even when presented with evidence to the contrary, you'd deny it. At least a scientist, when presented with actual credible evidence of a supernatural being, would say 'Hey, look at that!' and try to study it and learn more. You seem happy wallowing in your medieval pig sty of ignorance.

 

Okay then go back to page 4 the paper I put on there and debunk it. You cna't prove a thing and I can't. You have your atheist religion and I have mine. Don't try to tell me yours is the truth and I will not tell you mine is. Your so blinded by yours that you say its 100% right when it not. At least I can say neither can be proved. Who is more closed minded?

 

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy — also known as the second law of thermodynamics — stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems — in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found — not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists — that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Here is another shining example of your posting material of which you have not a clue to its meaning. Entropy is overcome every day you are alive. It takes energy to overcome entropy, lots of energy.

 

Look at the equation dG = dH - TdS. Where G is the Gibbs Free Energy, H is the Enthalpy, T is temperature and S is Entropy.

 

If dG is negative the reaction proceeds in the forward direction. A large negative dH term can overcome the TdS term, especially at lower temperatures.

 

It is disingenuous to say that mutations are never beneficial. The vast majority are not. Take HIV for example. This virus mutates very rapidly and manages to acquire resistence to antiretroviral drugs. This resistence is beneficial to the virus in that it enables it to replicate itself to a larger extent. Go ahead and say that a virus isn't "alive", if you want, but it is an example of system of replicating nucleic acids common to us all.

Edited January 14, 2007 by catbirdseat

[G-spotter]

I'd like to know, in the history of the internet, how many opinions have been changed.

 

I changed YOUR MOM's opinion pretty good last night 8D

[TREETOAD]

I'd like to know, in the history of the internet, how many opinions have been changed.

 

I changed YOUR MOM's opinion pretty good last night 8D

 

Yor mama

[joblo7]

yo mama tambien!

[olyclimber]

thats like your opinion man. i bet you believe in dinosaurs too.

[JayB]

If an event or phenomenon can't be observed directly or reproduced, then we have no recourse but to rank explanations that presuppose nothing other than the operation of physical law upon matter with...magical causes?

 

You can believe whatever you want. Yet the willingness to assume that our limited observations of the fossil record are sufficient evidence to dispose of any notion of divine intervention require an equal amount of faith to the belief of intelligent design and an omnipotent creator. Your point seems to be that "magical causes" are not a necessary assumption for explaining our origin. I have no argument with this point, but it's important to acknowledge that even if you believe the fossil record traces our origins back to single cells that existed "3 billion years ago", that doesn't preclude the influence of a cosmic, creative force in the process.

 

 

It'd be interesting to see how you define life, and then go on to specify at which point in the genesis of life the involvement of the creator that you posit begins and ends. Per your definitions/understanding, is a virus alive? How about cell-free expression systems capable of translating RNA into proteins? If the said being's involvment ends at the moment of the big-bang, the moment the physical laws that have governed the universe from that point onwards were established, how does this practically differ from explanations which omit the said creator?

Perhaps when we finally understand all of the dimensions of these "physical laws which governed the universe", we will only understand the "mind of God" instead proving God is absent.

 

If your creator's involvement was more extensive, how far into the genesis of life did it extend? Since elements can unite in definite ratios to form compounds, and the said compounds can form complex structures, and both clearly occur in the absence of any divine intervention whatsoever, we can assume that this being stepped in to physically manipulate matter until which stage in the genesis of life? The fossil record extends back 3 billion years, to the arrival of single-celled organisms. Did this being stop directly manipulating matter once it had established a population of autocatalytic molecules? Archeabacteria? Eubacteria? Eukaryotes? The fossil record extends back three-billion years, to the single-cell stage. At what point in the fossil record did the active manipulation of matter cease and the simple operation of physical law commence to be sole factor the governed the rise of man? At the primate stage? 10,000 years ago? Is this being still engaged in physically manipulating matter, so that, for example, every sub-process involved in the duplication of genetic material in every single cell of every single living being on Earth requires this being's active engagement? If not, and processes which constitute life can occur in the absence of this being's direct involvement now, why, exactly, was this being's direct involvement a necessary requirement for any stage of life in the past?

 

Please remember that all dating techniques depend on extrapolating an observable mathematical relationship, namely that the rate of change of some isotope is proportional to the quantity of the isotope present in the sample, which leads to a model wherein the quantity of some isotope is an exponential function of time. This is verifiable within the parameters of a very limited range of known dates. To assume the model is correct for billions of years through history is a major leap of faith.

 

Again - two propositions that cannot be proven with absolute certainty are not equally likely to be accurate. You wouldn't accept this line of reasoning in any other sphere, so why do you insist that it's acceptable here? If $10,000 dissapears from your home, and determining what happened to it with absolute certainty proves to be impossible, and the police told you that magical dissapearance was just as likely as theft, would you accept this explanation? Why not?

 

What does your overstatement of the uncertainties associated with dating by radioisotopes have to do with the fundamental questions that I posed, and that you didn't even attempt to answer? Even if the margin of error involved in fixing the age of the earth with radioisotopes was plus-or-minus three billion years, and even if your bizzare contention that the physical laws which govern radioactive decay have changed massively since a conglomeration of matter coalesced into the body that we call Earth had any merit whatsoever, the original questions still stand. To restate:

 

Firstly what, in your mind, are the essential characteristics of life?

 

Secondly, at at which point did the being that you have postulated no longer have to actively manipulate matter in order to create or sustain life? Since matter assembles into atoms, which can combine in definite proportions to form compounds, which can themselves form higher-order structures in the absence of any devine intervention whatsoever, what specific actions were necessary to bridge the gap between these inherent properties of matter and the properties that you assert are the specific domain of life as you've defined it.

 

Finally, having defined what "life" means in concrete terms, specify until what stage in the origin of life it was necessary for the being you posit to physically manipulate matter, and explain how it is that life can continue in the absence of that direct manipulation of matter if such an intervention in the physical universe was a necessary step in the origin of life.

 

If you even attempt seriously think about these questions, much less construct answers that are informed by the state of contemporary scientific knowledge, I think you'll find that the line between "life" and "non-life" is less clear than you've imagined, and the necessity and scope of the magical causation that you're clinging to as an explanatory device in the void created by personal incredulity and incomprehension becomes less and less clear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Fine, but if you believe that the progess of science can someday prove that life and humans did in fact begin on this planet independent of a creator, I say you exhibit an extraordinary quantity of faith.

 

As I've already clearly stated, my prediction that we will someday be able to create life from scratch, which, being a prediction, is not conveyed with 100% certainty, is just that. No dictionary in the world would equate that with religious faith, or absolute, certain belief in something without observable evidence, and, after all, we are bound to argue in our native tongue. I would suggest you look up the the definition of 'faith', in a religious sense (yes, it has other non religious definitions which are not equivalent). I don't really feel the need to hold your hand on this one.

Firstly, you have to believe that science will be able to ignite that spark, to produce life "from scratch", as you say.

There is no magic spark. It is a continuum. Simple, self replicating entities are nothing more than micromachines (look at them under a microscope, and you'll see what I mean). If you assemble the machine, it works. No divine 'jump start' or 'spark' required. It doesn't matter whether man or nature does the assembly. The object in question doesn't care.

 

A virus is a relatively simple molecular package with a shape that fits with certain cellular membranes that allows it to inject its relatively simple genetic material into the cell to coopt the cell's more complex reproductive machinery to manufacture more viruses. Assemble the virus, and it works, because whatever energy is required for it to function is embodied in its molecular bonds; the same kinds of molecular bonds found in rocks, ice, and other inanimate materials. Is a virus alive? Kind of, but not really. It's organic, but it doesn't respirate, eat, or metabolize. It's nothing more than a crystal which, unlike 'more alive' organisms, could lie dormant under the right conditions pretty much indefinitely without any inputs, (just like a rock) and become viable again once exposed to the proper host. It's more inert Lego building block than organism. And there are simpler self replicating organic systems than viruses. More complex organisms, such as cells, operate using the same kinds of molecular bonds; aborbing, releasing energy to fabricate or destroy more molecules. What 'spark' are we talking about, exactly?

 

Finally, if and when science does observe this event, you will need to accept (or demonstrate) that such a low-probability event would be likely to occur without some kind of divine impetus.

If and when man makes life, that in itself will prove, by definition, that this 'low probability' event has a probability greater than zero.

And if you are correct, I guess you and I are just cogs in the evolutionary wheel, a stepping stone to future forms of life. That's OK if you're content with that line of thinking. I personally hope there is something more.

 

I do believe that, except that we aren't necessarily stepping stones to anything; it is much more likely (given the finite histories of past species) that we are just another evolutionary dead end, slated for extinction. You may find this depressing, but I find it keeps my ego in check. Also, I tend to focus more on the time scale of my own life, rather than what will occur millions of years from now. Unless we migrate to other star systems, a formidable task in the extreme, our final end is a certainty.

[G-spotter]

The fear of death is the start of control. skull