@Poseidon384,
Poseidon384 wrote:
Life as we know it isn't even life. Life is the tiny microscopic organisms that make up our bodies and fill the air, water, and dirt. But those are what I am going to ask about. Why does it exist. I mean, I am Catholic and believe that God made us, but I don't believe he just makes us out of mud. Every miracle and thing he has done, was natural to our eyes. Which means he must have created life naturally. Life just doesn't seem possible, yet there it is. On the screen of the thing you are using to read this and right there on your fingertips. In fact, making up your fingertips. Please try to answer my question with truth and if you want, something you came up with and believe to be true. I want to hear all of the answers.
It's funny, this reminds me of when I was first learning chemistry. I had previously taken quite a few biology classes and there was some very minor brushes with chemistry which sparked my interest in taking some chemistry classes. Pondering over their relation it is easy to come to the conclusion that the way in which the chemicals that make up life interact is so basic and simple that it is bound to happen when the conditions arise for it. But it still in no way touches on why it is that these chemical directives want to naturally come about.
It was easy to lean towards the idea that there must be some intelligent motivation behind why this process occurs. But as I continued to learn chemistry the whole idea actually turns out to not be as readily possible as I once considered. What it comes down to is statistics, but we are narrow minded because we are the statistic.
Let me explain what I mean. With so many stars in our galaxy, and assuming each star has a planetary system, then given enough time the conditions for the chemical combinations will occur some where at some point. It HAS to because of the possibility of these chemical interactions. Yet we assume that this condition was spontaneous or motivated. It is not. We are here because it HAD to happen somewhere.
But using words like HAD and HAS seems a bit aggressive. But when you take into account all the pieces, the chemistry, the numbers and the biology it all makes sense in the frame work of statistics.
Maybe a better way of explaining it is to have a machine. This machine has multiple cylinders filled with different spices, like salt, pepper, garlic, onion and so on. Also a few of the cylinders have water, oils and broth of some sort, like chicken or beef, ect.
Now this machine randomly selects a cylinder drops in a random amount of it's contents into a pot below it. Not all the cylinders are selected, the machine just runs out a series of plausible combinations.
You run this system once and you try out the soup. You chart each result and look over the results after running the system a hundred times. You will start to see that a huge majority of the combinations are terrible, such as too much salt, not enough water, ect ect. What you come to see is there is a small window of these results that are actually appealing, not necessarily good, but good enough to eat. However; you might get one or two results that are in the great, or perfect taste.
This analogy is not perfect but it gives the visual that when you run a system enough times, a good result is bound to happen eventually at some point. Well that is how I see life on Earth, it was bound to happen at some point, some where in our galaxy and we are THAT result.
The conditions on Earth were "open" enough to allow for the chemical processes that derived life. There is no need for intelligence or a motivation by some divine being. It is purely statistics of chemistry.
