Makes you wonder how special and unique we truly are... all of the right conditions had to happen, millions of conditions, maybe billions of conditions with any one condition leading in the wrong direction would mean that we never came into existence. What are the probabilities? I'd suggest that they are astronomical.
dsrtsage wrote (post 13):
In order for you to continue breathing, billions of independent processes have to work exactly right, and these processes happen between organisms constantly every milisecond of every day that may or may not even share your DNA. Just try to explain how combinations of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and other atoms can come together and not only create consciousness but also to think.
Robert A. Cook, PE wrote (post 20):
Just remember, there are some 10^57 atoms (higher-weight nuclei) in just our solar system alone. And every one of them had to be created, transformed inside stars, and re-ejected multiple times in just the right sequence to get re-absorbed in the next star-supernova. Then travel drifting through space just in time to get trapped into out gravitation fields to become planets, continents, plants and rocks. .... But the miracle of creation is doubted by many.
You've each very eloquently made the vital point that an impossibly complex chain of circumstances must be intricately choreographed (please forgive if I've summarized your own statement sloppily in order to make one statement that applies to all). I write to refer you to a scholar's list that specifically details what you've expressed, so that you can see the actual conditions. The list is by Christian astronomer and apologist Dr. Hugh Ross and appears on his Reasons to Believe website (Reasons.org) in two versions, both with supporting citations to the scientific literature justifying each listed item.
The first list, Fine Tuning for Life on Earth, lists the 154 factors required for any life to exist only briefly on earth; advanced life persisting for a long time requires a greatly expanded list. Please note that this list is current only as of 2004; as a charity, Reasons to Believe does not possess the resources, especially of Dr. Ross' time, which he estimates would take at least six months of his undivided attention (at age 70), to update it again; he is far too busy writing books and speaking all over the world. He has updated the list several times and it always grows greatly as more scientific discoveries reveal new dependency factors.
The second list, Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body, computes the actual probabilities known as of 2004, yielding a conservative estimate:
"Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^282 (million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles." (emphasis added)For perspective, please note there are only 10^78 atomic particles in the known universe. The probabilities are indeed astronomical, in fact more so, just as dhs12345 predicted.
Finally, as to the point of JimSEA's posted article. Earlier discoveries of life within ten million years of the cessation of the Late Heavy Bombardment (to which Jim referred in post 1), c. 3.85 billion years ago, had already decimated any possibility of life occurring naturally on earth, there being insufficient time (and also the wrong conditions). This latest discovery at 4.1 bya, if true, further devastates the position of those who rely on anything but a Purposeful, Benevolent, Intelligent Creator to explain earth's life.
Will read in detail later.
I wonder what the odds are now that they have discovered that the DNA strand has twice as much information in it than they thought? (Shadow or mirror DNA or something).
What is most surprising is that many “scientists” are convinced that there is absolutely no chance of there being a divinity.
Interestingly, just 100 years ago scientists thought that they had “it all figured out” and had the world and nature pegged. Fast-forward to modern times and it is clear that their concept of the world was very limited and grossly incorrect. What is even stranger is that modern science is heading off into directions that are so abstract that there is very little connection to our perception of “reality” and what our senses tell us about the world. How much will our scientific perception of the world change in another 100 years?
As for the idea of a God. Many people argue that humanity’s concept of deity is derived from the fact that we all see a hierarchy in nature. That is, we see organisms smaller and less complex than ourselves and so we infer that there must be something bigger even more complex than ourselves and that something must have created us. I suggest that the concept of a God is deeper than that. That there some fundamental “force” or “connection” that gives us the concept of a God. Just my opinion.
Bottom line: As we stumble clumsily along trying to understand a nature through science and the scientific process, we should be humbled by the fact that there is so little that we know and understand.