The God Moment??

[Xylo]

Let me preface this by saying I'm an atheist, with a firm belief in science. I am also full of questions. I asked this question on a previous forum and got no substantial answers. So I'll ask this question here. I realize I might be opening a firestorm, but I think we're adult enough to handle it.

Somewhere in that primordial soup of millions of years ago a single cell organism appeared. If that is to be taken as truth, then doesn't there have to be a moment, a singular event, a "god" moment when life came out of non-life.

Was it lightning? Was it a crashed asteroid? What gave Life the impetus to begin and the momentum to succeed?

Is Life the default setting or was there a God Moment?

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

What you describe is a modern creation myth. I don't think that we can know how life came about. See: epistemology.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

Let me preface this by saying I'm an atheist, with a firm belief in science. I am also full of questions. I asked this question on a previous forum and got no substantial answers...

Is Life the default setting or was there a God Moment?

did you get the chance to listen to Bernard Haisch's interview? His theories/conjecture are really amazing, and about as far out as you can get and still make logical sense.

personally, I believe there is a divine, so whatever spark created life, I believe it is divine, not random.

I can hardly wait to see what this thread sparks!

 

[0uterj0in]

Try this on for size: There was no moment. The laws of physics determine how atoms behave, atomic states determine what molecules can be formed, chemistry and themodynamics favor some molecular interactions over others. Many incremental changes in spontaneously formed chemical compounds from slightly different prior versions that result in self-replicating molecules.

Also consider this: There is no clear dividing line between life and non-life. Nature is full of self-replicators such as viruses that are neither "alive" nor inanimate.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

Try this on for size: There was no moment. ...
Also consider this: There is no clear dividing line between life and non-life. Nature is full of self-replicators such as viruses that are neither "alive" nor inanimate.

at one point, one teeny little cell had to emerge as the first one that replicated itself and on and on. Sure, gradual changes would lead to the first cell, but no matter how minuscule the changes are, there still has to be that first ONE.

 

[0uterj0in]

"A cell" ? Ok, how about just a strand of nucleaic acid just floating around in the primordial soup? When it replicated was it "alive"? On the other side of the coin, what about lipid membranes that form spontanously but don't have any DNA living in them? Are they alive?

 

[AnnetteMarie]

What I understand of the first post is the question refers to a single-cell organism - what made it 'alive', gave it the spark of life. Was it something resulting from an asteroid collision, a lightning strike, or a divine spark that brought it to being alive.

there are all manner of organisms that qualify as non-live, but when did the first live one come to being, and what made it live?

 

[0uterj0in]

Fair enough, I still feel like questions like this are hampered by the unstated assumptions in our vocabularly. In other words, when the first live cell was born depends on meaning of "live" and "cell".

 

[Ezechiel]

Was it lightning? Was it a crashed asteroid? What gave Life the impetus to begin and the momentum to succeed?

Is Life the default setting or was there a God Moment?

It depends if you're able to separate science from religion. A scientist will seek the answer through methodological research. If you're in a hurry because you might miss the 12 o'clock mass, you'll probably go for the God moment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7041353.stm

The plan is to re-synthesise these DNA sequences from simple chemicals, stitch them together and create an artificial organism. Some believe the team may be on the cusp of doing just that.

... wait and see

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

The plan is to re-synthesise these DNA sequences from simple chemicals, stitch them together and create an artificial organism.

That would still "prove" pretty much *nothing* in this regard, as it still does not explain "who / what / how" those "simple chemicals" were programmed to have their given properties which enable the doing of such things... it would only be one more step into the layers of the onion is all.

did you get the chance to listen to Bernard Haisch's interview?

I've recently been going back through the back catalog and heard that one a few days ago... wound up looping it for two days straight, and still going to have to spend some more time with it... definitely one of the most interesting guests.

 

[Ezechiel]

That would still "prove" pretty much *nothing* in this regard, as it still does not explain "who / what / how" those "simple chemicals" were programmed to have their given properties which enable the doing of such things... it would only be one more step into the layers of the onion is all.

Looks like we're going to do some programming !!! Check this out !

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aWNwdtOMONZ8&refer=home

March 7 (Bloomberg) -- Harvard University scientists are a step closer to creating synthetic forms of life, part of a drive to design man-made organisms that may one day be used to help produce new fuels and create biotechnology drugs.
Researchers led by George Church, whose findings helped spur the U.S. human genome project in the 1980s, have copied the part of a living cell that makes proteins, the building blocks of life. The finding overcomes a major roadblock in making synthetic self-replicating organisms, Church said today in a lecture at Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The technology can be used to program cells to make virtually any protein, even some that don’t exist in nature, the scientists said. That may allow production of helpful new drugs, chemicals and organisms, including living bacteria. It also opens the door to ethical concerns about creation of processes that may be uncontrollable by life’s natural defenses.

The main function of bacteria is to break down organic material... What came first ? Matter or anti-matter ?

There's always an onion layer to remove, that's the beauty of science LOL notice the guys name is Church

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

Looks like we're going to do some programming !!!

What they're talking about is still programming with pre-existing, pre-programmed elements. Just because we can take the periodic table and do neat things with it does not mean we have in any way proven that the very elements themselves were not created by an intelligence. If they can "create life" in a lab and they've still only done it with building blocks that were provided by The Universe.

Also, they would not have necessarily created life itself just because of having created a life form. They might simply be creating a circumstantial setup of chemical and electrical arrangement that allows life to enter a form.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

...
I've recently been going back through the back catalog and heard that one a few days ago... wound up looping it for two days straight, and still going to have to spend some more time with it... definitely one of the most interesting guests.

I went to some lengths to find his book, and still haven't read more than the first page. I took one look in the middle and decided it was not something I was going to be able to just skim through. I have had the book since about 3 weeks after his interview.

You know how sometimes you think a great truth is around the corner, but you are afraid to peek? I sort of feel like that about reading his book, and I am afraid also that after so much promise from his interview I will be very, very disappointed. If I don't read the book, I can always anticipate something awe-inspiring, right?

 

[AnnetteMarie]

Fair enough, I still feel like questions like this are hampered by the unstated assumptions in our vocabularly. In other words, when the first live cell was born depends on meaning of "live" and "cell".

Maybe just go with the proviso that it is a cell like what we see today, capable of reproducing itself, and that live means capable of behaving counter to instinct. Those two conditions still leave scads of room to speculate.

 

[Xylo]

"A cell" ? Ok, how about just a strand of nucleaic acid just floating around in the primordial soup? When it replicated was it "alive"? On the other side of the coin, what about lipid membranes that form spontanously but don't have any DNA living in them? Are they alive?

From what I understand tRNA can spontaneously be created and will self replicate but not DNA.

But I think you bring up an important point: What is the definition of Life? Are virii considered living?

To paraphrase the movie Jurassic Park: Does Life find a way?

I'm in the process of reviewing all the links posted. I'll respond to them after I've had a chance to peruse them.

With regards to the Bernard Haisch (sp?) interview, no I have not listened yet. I'm currently listening to the entire backlog of the show...I'm up to April 15th, 2007 right now.

 

[Ezechiel]

What they're talking about is still programming with pre-existing, pre-programmed elements. Just because we can take the periodic table and do neat things with it does not mean we have in any way proven that the very elements themselves were not created by an intelligence. If they can "create life" in a lab and they've still only done it with building blocks that were provided by The Universe.

Also, they would not have necessarily created life itself just because of having created a life form. They might simply be creating a circumstantial setup of chemical and electrical arrangement that allows life to enter a form.

These building blocks have an evolutionary source. Remember that supernovas are necessary in order to provide the heavy elements.

If you want an observer around, you need life, and if you want life, you need heavy elements. To make heavy elements out of hydrogen, you need thermonuclear combustion. To have thermonuclear combustion, you need a time of cooking in a star of several billion years. In order to stretch out several billion years in its time dimension, the universe, according to general relativity, must be several billion years across in its space dimensions.

Unfortunately, for creationists, finding the missing link for life creation sends the 'God moment' to perhaps the creation of the universe itself. Then again, if you talk to Susskind, Thorpe or Hawking... universes may be the result of a brane collision in a multi-verse setup. Untested string theory kicks in and pushes back the God moment further.