And yet if I say that our species doesn't yet know how to make life from scratch, that's proof that it's impossible?
No. But as you yourself noted, if the Universe, Life etc has a Creator, then It obviously has to be something even more complex and wondrous than It's Creation, perhaps infinitely so.
I also didn't say it was impossible to know or understand the Creator. I said it's probably impossible to do so with the conscious mind.
I could expand on this notion, but then we would be going way off topic.
Currently unknown? Yes.
Inexplicable? Probably not. And I don't know of many in this grouping who say that the process of pathogenesis cannot be explained or understood. You may as well go back 500 years and say that a lodestone's attraction to iron will never be explainable.
But we're not talking about pathogenesis. We're talking about abiogenesis, something which Scientists have been tackling for in one form or another for centuries, with no success.
Everything we know about Life, tells us that Life only comes from Life. But it had to start somewhere right?
But, there exists a good chance that we could build a computer that is either more intelligent than we are, or which is at least intelligent enough to begin learning how it might accomplish this.
To me, intelligence is a reflection of conscious activity (which is unique to life forms), so unless a computer could ever become conscious (extremely unlikely), it will likely be limited to processing only, and not actual thinking.
Keep in mind too, the life forms we see today aren't purely accidental. It was just "poof" and everything appeared exactly as it is. You've got a long process going on, all the way back to some exceptionally simple little molecules. As far as those go, I would grant that those are indeed mere coincidence, just as it's coincidence that Earth formed where it did, around a sufficiently calm star. You've got a big ocean, lots of chemicals mixing around, and a constant influx of sunlight, and other energy transfer methods, such as volcanoes, chemical reactions, or lightning. Once a single molecule forms, in an environment with materials it can metabolize, which is capable of replicating itself, you've got a foothold scenario, and it can start going nuts, making much more of itself. A "mutation" at that stage would be little more than something like two of these molecules combining, or chancing upon a different substance that also can fulfill the requirements for reproduction.
Like I said before, we live in a
RATIONAL Universe that obeys certain laws. It's irrational to believe that molecules would self assemble and form extremely intricate and orderly parts and processes that make our present intelligence driven technology look positively stone age in comparison; and to top it all, also become endowed with consciousness with no external creative input at all.
If that is possible, then it's even more possible that you could get a Boeing 747 if you toss a few tons of steel, aluminum, rubber, plastic, jet fuel etc into a pile and let it sit for a billion years.
A Boeing 747 is
FAR less complex, intricate and orderly than even basic life forms after all, yet who in their right mind would believe such a thing?
Yes, and I still think it's something of a semantics argument over the precise definition of the word.
This more than anything boggles my mind. You seem like a reasonable guy, yet even after me posting several sources from Scientific experts, text books, encyclopedias that state the genetic code is 100% synonymous with a code, you instantly become incredulous.
I don't expect you to take my word for it, but I expect you to acknowledge the wide body of Scientific evidence in support of the genetic code, being classified as an actual code.
It's more a commentary on how everyone gets all "oh wow, life is so incredibly amazing and all that!" Many people see what life is like now, but at the same time, seem to forget about just how long the timescales discussed really are. As I said, we've only known about DNA for less than 100 years. And no doubt, a lot of life forms do now have considerable complexity. The process to get here has also been about 3 billion years. That's a lot of time in which to accumulate complexity.
It's not just complexity though, it's ingenuity and harmony. I've read books on molecular biology, and I've always come away stunned at not only how complex living structures are, but how harmonious and
INGENIOUS they are as well.
One of the most amazing aspects of living creatures is the ATP synthase.
We apparently have "quadrillions" of these things in our bodies, and each one is akin to a rotary atomic motor more sophisticated than any nanotechnology we've yet devised, that can convert energy in one form to another, and back again with ease.
I see life as one of those things that, given the right ingredients and conditions, will just happen, inevitably. Our tiny sample size severely restricts us.
What evidence is there to support such a notion?
Beyond that, the order. Mass extinctions, plagues wiping out large numbers of creatures, natural disasters that can kill entire small populations. Orderly? The one consistent part of this order is that this planet is extremely proficient at killing individual life forms, to the degree that the only way that life is able to survive is by the individuals constantly making fresh copies of themselves, in preparation for the day when this wonderful, orderly planet kills them.
If there's one thing thats true, it's that life is inherently tough and full of suffering.....which is why I've never subscribed to the belief in a personal and caring God.
To me, God is completely and utterly transcendent, remote and unknowable to our conscious, physical selves.
To understand God, requires that you raise your consciousness beyond the waking, physical state. Thats the purpose of meditations.
Just because I can't make a better system from nothing, that doesn't mean that I can't point out that there are some pretty significant flaws in the current system. That is of course unless it's somehow been the intention of this creator that our own DNA is capable of killing or torturing us in a stunning variety of ways. In which case, this creator is just sadistic.
But the point is, what you think are flaws, may in fact be some necessary part or function. Junk DNA is just the tip of the iceberg in that regard. You have tonsils, the appendix, the coccyx etc which were once thought to be either completely useless or "vestigial," but were eventually found to exhibit important functions.
I'd honestly be more ok with the idea of a creator if people would at least stop assigning benevolence as one of its inherent properties. From what I've seen in this world, "cruel and violent malevolence" is closer to the truth. The majority of this world's population lives in severe poverty, and a lot live in war-torn areas, the latter of which would arguably be due to a genetic predisposition to overly-aggressive behavior. Besides that, this planet's got a wonderful penchant for various destructive and deadly disasters, many of which strike without warning. Then let's not forget the hazard of large objects like asteroids. Nothing like a good extinction level event to let a creator prove how benevolent he really is.
I already addressed this earlier, and I agree. No one with any honesty can say that the Creator is benevolent. Personally, I think the Creator is above petty, dual concepts such as good and evil.