[Xenjin]

In Biology, there are two schools of thought which seek to rationally explain the origin of life. Evolution is based on the premise that living creatures with the genetic makeup that best survives the changing environment will continue to live on and subsequently change, eventually becoming something else - usually something superior.

Intelligent Design was born out of the premise that evolution doesn't quite explain everything. It is based on the argument that there are some biological processes that are simply irreducible when comes to the potential for evolution. Evolution fails to explain how some of the most simple biological processes came to be - like the simple machines in bacteria. There's no logical way that those machines could've evolved to such a state because there is nothing simpler than what they already are.

Evolution also fails to explain how molecules miraculously came together to form living organisms. The best explanation is that of the "atomic magnetism" of organic compounds in bodies of water. This suffers from the same logic problems in evolution theory that attempts to explain how bacteria came to be. It's as if evolution subscribers have reverse engineered nature until they get to a point where they've hit a brick wall and just invented a "magical" solution to "sweep" this problem under the carpet.

Intelligent Design simply suggests that there has to be some supernatural force at work that created the irreducible complexity in these simple machines, thus spawning the potential for evolution simply because the scientific explanation doesn't hold water. Physicists ran into a similar problem when trying to explain the causation of the big bang. Their solution was M Theory, which in its simplest context resembles very much the idea of God that monotheistic religions define him to be.

Thus, my question to the board is this:

Would you agree that it is rationally impossible to explain the origin of all things without going right back to God?

[Nathan H]

I disagree with this, because of the large fatal flaw in that argument, God cannot exist. God is supposedly without time and created whatever stage of the universe, but what created god. It is simply rationally impossible to explain the origins of life through any means. Using science of strongest survive, I will admit does not show why organic life started at all, but using any sort of religion defies the laws of physics. Ie Mass and Energy are constant (Except in certain situations but thats particle physics).
No one explanation can possibly explain everything, every single idea has some fatal flaw, all we can ever do is best guess, which is all science is, best guess at aplying rules and patterns to things. Something as immensly complex as organic life will probably be forever beyond the human mind to comprehend, even today in advanced medicine operations still are chances.
So in answer to the question it is rattionally impossible to explain the origin of life in general because God as a being, Entity, or collection of Gods cannot exist. All life must die for that seems to be the only meaning to it. Nothing can exists since the beginning of time because that is an impossibiliy. What man can only do is try to explain, what we can't we leave to "faith" because as a race we fear the unknown so we create beings to makes us fell as though we have a purpose and to explain things we cannot comprehend

[Xenjin]

What if we're wrong about all this? Fine, we know that science doesn't have all the answers. But are we as a race being too arrogant? I agree with the idea that religion was fostered out of mankind's overly conscious awareness of his own mortality. However, what if we, using structured guesswork (which is what science is, really) have effectively guessed wrong? What if even though each individual religion is a manifestation of fear, mankind is ignoring the possibility of some supernatural existence?

[Nathan H]

All existence is governed by certain facts, following patterns that no life form can deny. All things that have a beginning must have an end. A supernatural entity like the one that is described would have neither an end nor a beginning and thus would never exist. How can something that logically can not be create something? Although your argument has basis human beings are extremely arrogant, and while yes science is best guess, these guesses are constantly being revised and adapted. A supernatural entity is not being ignored by science, science seems to merely be placing logic first testing and analysing everything that happens has some reason behind it, some logical pattern, science is not ignoring a supernatural existance merely trying to prove and explain what happens. Science has never promised an answer to one question, nor has it given us one, "Why?" Science explains well "How" and "What" never why. If a supernatural existance existed maybe it is within this question that one can exist, the human consious can become obssessed with the "Why", creating images of Gods, Goddesses and Demons simply to fill an answer to a question no one seems to have a solution for.

[MadameSkylark]

You've made a fatal flaw in your original post. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. It is only a name for the process by which organisms change over time. They are not two different theories on how life came to be, because evolution has nothing to with the origin of life, and has never claimed to explain it.

No, I would not agree that it is impossible to explain the origins of life without God. God is just the easiest answer. It doesn't take much thought if every answer is "God did it."

[Nathan H]

With your response we have to first answer how do we define life, from single cell aemobia (*sp) or full fledged logical thought processes like the human beings. Or even down to the first self-sustaining life for like a plant. Who knows whether it was a freak accident that forced specific combinations of carbon that exploded into life as we know it today, or some other forces were at work

[MadameSkylark]

The first life was the first cell...pretty straight forward. Anything with cells, alive. Anything without them, not alive. Only time this is not true is in the case of something that is made up of dead cells.

[powerof9]

We are biological organisms, made out of organs, then tissues, then cells, then within a cell, it's organelles, then molecules, atoms, electrons/quarks/...
We keep searching for the smaller... what if there is never an end?
An infinity...
just like how 1/10 of a 1/10 size continues.
1/10 -> 1/100 -> 1/1000 -> 1/10000....

[xav0989]

Originally Posted by UnFoundBug

I disagree with this, because of the large fatal flaw in that argument, God cannot exist. God is supposedly without time and created whatever stage of the universe, but what created god. It is simply rationally impossible to explain the origins of life through any means. Using science of strongest survive, I will admit does not show why organic life started at all, but using any sort of religion defies the laws of physics. Ie Mass and Energy are constant (Except in certain situations but thats particle physics).

You did here what you told was impossible, you admitted that there was a superior force that could change the "normal" rules of science. This force is God, maybe called something else in other religions. This is why I think that Science is the completion of Religion, and vice-versa.

Originally Posted by powerof9

We are biological organisms, made out of organs, then tissues, then cells, then within a cell, it's organelles, then molecules, atoms, electrons/quarks/...
We keep searching for the smaller... what if there is never an end?
An infinity...
just like how 1/10 of a 1/10 size continues.
1/10 -> 1/100 -> 1/1000 -> 1/10000....

Yes we are constituted of smaller organism, but what makes them alive, and to bring up a new question (we are getting some good philosophical questions here) what makes us know that we are thinking, like how come sometime we feel like we are watching our brain think, and command muscles to move us?

Originally Posted by MadameSkylark

The first life was the first cell...pretty straight forward. Anything with cells, alive. Anything without them, not alive. Only time this is not true is in the case of something that is made up of dead cells.

I agree with that. It also continues on my point: scientists have been able to create in-vitro cells that are exactly like a human cell (can't remember witch) but it was missing one thing, the little spark called Life, and I believe that it's God that can provide this little spark.

[Nathan H]

Originally Posted by xav0989

You did here what you told was impossible, you admitted that there was a superior force that could change the "normal" rules of science. This force is God, maybe called something else in other religions. This is why I think that Science is the completion of Religion, and vice-versa.

I did not admit to a God like force, what I am sujjesting is a force we have yet to comprehend, Science is constantly evolving, from for example our understanding of matter has evolved through Atoms, to SubAtomic Particles down to Quarks. Maybe the next level will yield answers. My reference that normal rules cannot apply (Energy is constant) is taught at A-Level in the UK during particle physics. Where Mass and Energy are actually interchangable in the famour formula E=MC^2. This was predicted by eintstien and is the basis of all Fission/Fusion reactions. But out of particle physics. There will forever be something smaller and until we reach the limits of this endless cycle maybe then can a true answer be given to the meaning.