How the Origin of Life Points to the Existence of God

let's go to the third one we happen to have life that emerges from non-life I'd say that always bugged me as an atheist trying to figure out how that could happen is a problem I had a case one time where a cellphone had this text on it it was the victims cell phone next to his body at the murder scene here was the text I wasn't quite sure what to make of it is if this is a butt-dial an accident you know what does that even mean it didn't seem like it was really information I couldn't decode it what is he what's what's the tech what's the message I don't know well it turned out this message came from his wife Rachel who had been cheating on him for a number of years he didn't even know and on this night she'd had enough she wanted to kill him he was working late he wanted her boyfriend to go over and kill him at the place of business but he was getting ready to leave and he had called her and says I'm coming home so she texted him to hold him in place so that the boyfriend could kill him this text like many other I found before it basically says don't go anywhere I'll be there in 30 minutes so this is how they would talk about you know I'll be there in 30 be there in 15 almost there or whatever he waited 30 minutes for and was killed in 20 so that's this was actually end up being a piece of it for me now one way we discover what this is is by asking good detective questions right these are the kinds of questions we all are familiar with am i right I want to ask just one tonight when it comes to the origin of life to get us started I asked all of them in the book but tonight I just want to cover the where question where do it natural ists who are not believers think life originated in the universe because we've all got to account for the origin of life from inorganic materials and these proposals have been really broad and widespread lots of proposals have been offered as a matter of fact some people will say well I think it happens in the atmosphere some will say no I think it happens in the actual waters of some nature of some place in the planet or they think it happens in some kind of terrestrial form icon clay I mean I studied every single origin of life theory on this some will say no what happens at the deep-sea vents under the tourists crusts some will say no if this don't work it has to happen in the atmosphere it asked up another the space and could be delivered to our planet why are there so many theories about where this occurred you know why because no one agrees as a matter of fact each of these famous scientists thinks the other guy is desperately wrong he's certain they're wrong and it gets worse because it goes the other way too and the reason why they think they're wrong is because none of these work every location that's been examined to explain the origin of life fails miserably not just slightly miserably origin of life studies are no closer than they were 35 years ago we've done nothing in terms of progress except made the problem more difficult because now we know that there are several chicken and egg problems when it comes to origin of life really all life at the Millat the biological level all life is built out of building blocks Legos that are called proteins proteins are the building blocks of life the problem is proteins are generated in little factories called ribosomes and what do you think these ribosomes are made with proteins that's the problem you've got a chicken and egg problem which came first and to be honest with you it gets worse the deeper you look it's not just in ribosome factories it's in every aspect of the cell including the cell membrane you can't get this complex behavior to occur unless it's protected in some way but the protection for this complex system is made up of the very things that are in the complex system that's the problem you got to have everything in place all at once in order to make this work and that's why it's so hard to locate a place where all of this could happen without any intelligent intervention and it gets worse because it turns out there is one thing that defeats the chicken and egg problem there's one way to defeat it you know how its defeated its defeated with something we call DNA this molecule the largest molecule known in all of science right built from all the different nucleotides that build up DNA these four nucleotides are built are used to build DNA this is the instruction manual that tells proteins how to form it tells ribosome machines how to manufacture proteins it constructs and directs all traffic in biological systems the problem of course is what is this this is a series of nucleotides that are in certain order like information like letters that are directing traffic here's the problem and Stephen C Meyer does the best job of saying this now Stephens a believer but he's also got his Oxford PhD in the philosophy of science and what he says in a book that is the biggest takeaway about this first book he wrote signature on the cell is simply this there's not a single example in the entire history of science or the universe in which information ever comes from anything other than intelligence so if this is information in the genome what is the intelligent source that has put it there because you cannot get information any other way let me show you what I mean he actually some work I looked at I'd love this guy's work his name is dr. Werner yet he's an engineer IT specialist in Germany he's written a book in which he talks about the five levels of information why do we think that DNA is truly information and requires an intelligent source well because if you look at information it comes in five levels let me introduce them to you here's my dog do you guys have dogs I went over to Pastor Paul's house today and I got to see his dogs he's got cute dogs I have a Corgi a pembroke Corgi this is the best dog in the planet if you have a dog your dog is nothing compared to this dog put on your dog this is the smartest dog in the world but it's a dwarf it's been recording and they are like little shrunken down sheepdogs and they can't type if I put a typewriter in front of this dog it is not gonna be able to type Bliss's go with me for a second do a little thought experiment let's say I put a typewriter in front of Bailey and Bailey I said Bailey do me a favor typed me out of sentence and after banging heard little paws against that typewriter I write down on the chalkboard of what she's typed she's typed this is that information yeah actually it is what is she saying I don't know is she trying to say anything I don't know but is it information well in some sense it is it's very unusual and specific if you think about what are the odds of her typing that same thing again probably never happen what if I had Scrabble pieces that in that format and I threw him on the ground how many times but I have to throw them on the ground before it would form that combination again probably never happened so it is in some sense very specific detailed information but it doesn't really tell me anything I think that natural processes of physics or chemistry to get you this this looks like random generated sequences what if I give you one more what if she typed this this would be really cool tt spacebar TT spacebar TT spacebar if she did that you'd say it's a smart dog wouldn't you I think there are some there's actually some physical properties physical processes of physics and chemistry that could produce simple patterns that's information folks but what is she saying I don't know nothing really what does she had a beer pattern she typed Wow T 1 3 T spacebar T 1 3 T spacebar now she's really really smart but what is she telling me I don't know nothing really but this is information in the sense that it's specific and detailed and I think there are actually some laws of physics and chemistry that can give you more detail like snowflakes great patterns so is this information yeah but it's the lowest level of information this information is called statistics it is the lowest is this what DNA is no let's go up one level what if Bailey could type this Wow now you're impressed aren't you she's mastered words a selection she can actually put the letters together and group them into words but is she telling me I don't know I mean I don't quite sure what she's telling me we're up one level we've mastered in words but we don't have any content yet this is called Co syntax what if she could type this now we have words in a proper linkage that gives us a concept we can recognize she's actually telling us something and we understand what she's saying do you see how much different that is than this how do we get this through natural processes you can get this oh you might stretch and say you can get this I don't think you can you can't get this though this is another level of information which is called semantics I've been places where people have mastered something between these two they understand the words but not quite sure how to put them together maybe English as their second language I was in Malibu at its high food restaurant right I go into the restroom this sign is hanging in the restroom at a Thai food restaurant in Malibu California on PCH please do not throw paper wiping hand down toilet I think I understand what he's trying to say and he's somewhere between Co Centex and semantics he kind of has the right words almost in the right order what does my dog Bailey could type this wow this is actually a request information that requests a response is different than this information describing something information that requests action is another level that is called pragmatics and if you expect that the person you're talking to is actually going to respond and do this for you that's even another level called a poetics these are the highest levels of information requests with an expectation of response if you want to differ between this and this one easy way is to simply ask yourself a question if I change one character does it change the meaning of this sentence of course not that's not really information it's the lowest level of information so if I look at this and I say just take one character out the comma this has no change at all on this sentence because they didn't mean anything before it anything now I think some of you know where I'm headed with this look on your face but at the bottom at the highest level of information you know it's high information because if I make one change like take the comma out of that sentence now everything changes right now the sweet Bailey who was wanting to Grandpa to feed her has now become the evil Bailey who wants to eat grandpa see the difference and that's why we know that this information is at a much higher level small changes have dramatic changes in meaning so the same thing happens in your DNA right here's Billy the Kid gourmet this is Jesse James I forget who this is but if I look at his genetic code the stuff that actually structures who he is and I make a small change take out let's say this one nucleotide and replace it that change results in a change in Billy something is going to change why because this DNA is not just statistics it's the highest level of information it's a pragmatic request that's expected to be met this is hard to explain in a naturalistic universe and even The Naturalist recognize that so Paul Davies a physicist from a CSU says we are still left with the mystery of where biological information comes from if the normal laws of physics can't inject information and if we are ruling out miracles of course they are then then how can life be predetermined and inevitable rather than a freak accident how is it possible to generate random complexity and specificity together in a law like manner we've always come back to that basic paradox how do you get this by staying in their room well I've described a couple of ways people try to get it one thing you can do is simply say Lots this chance you do it long enough hard enough if these things will happen by chance but that really misunderstands the level of information involved or you can argue that there's some natural law that could cause information give me an example of that you won't there're known ignored are no examples of natural law ever giving you money anything more than statistical information the lowest level of information so if you want to stay inside the room you've got to go there by chance or by law those things don't work why because we're seeing true information in the room and that means you've got to have a source of true information next it's got to get you outside the room that's the problem so here's the problem with asking these questions I ask these questions all the time in homicides but I don't stop here I don't ask these questions and stop if I did that I'd never solve a case the next question I have to ask is the money question it's a who question all these questions point to the who question if I refuse to ask a loo question then trust me you're never going to get an answer so the folks who are doing origin of life they don't want to ask any who questions Campea who has to be a what that's why you can't solve this folks because it's a who you're looking for and this is what we're get says about that he says yeah you're looking for a who a necessary requirement for generating meaningful information is the ability to select from alternatives and that requires intelligent volitional entity because unguided random processes cannot do this not in any amount of time because this selection process demands continuous guidance by intelligent beings that have a purpose that's how you get information if the source of that information has been an intelligent communicative being outside the box I could explain information inside the box

Channel: Cold-Case Christianity with J. Warner Wallace

Views: 548,358

Rating: 4.2821102 out of 5

Keywords: Evidence for God's Existence, Evidence for God, Theism, Origin of Life, science and faith, apologetics

Id: E4uRWk06Wo0

Length: 14min 38sec (878 seconds)

Published: Tue Sep 29 2015

Reddit Comments

[u/DoglessDyslexic]

The reason there are so many theories, is because nobody agrees...each of these famous scientists think the other guy is desperately wrong.

This is, at best, an exaggeration. The reason there are multiple theories is because we have not been able to eliminate any of those theories because we have limited information from which to extrapolate from. Any of those things could be an answer that is correct. You'll note, however, that none of those theories from famous scientists is "a magical invisible sky wizard did it with his magicky magic". Because that is a ridiculous theory with no evidence at all, no value as a hypothesis, and no way to evaluate it.

For each of those postulated scenarios, scientists have postulated a mechanism, they've demonstrated how that mechanism would work, and they've evaluated the little evidence available and explained how that evidence could point to their favored hypothesis.

And the claim that each of them thinks the other is desperately wrong is almost certainly false. The limits of our knowledge on the origin of life are well known. If a scientist is of the opinion that "evidence free" the other guy is desperately wrong, then that is a bad scientist. Most scientists are not bad scientists and understand that in situations where data is limited, there are a number of possible correct answers.

Most importantly, even if everything he said above is true, it has no bearing on the plausibility of gods existing, or of them being responsible for the origin of life.

and the reason they think they're wrong is because none of these work..every location that's been examined for the origin of life fails miserably.

We have a saying here "that's not even wrong", as a way of representing claims that are so flawed in their conception that they don't even make sense. This is one such claim. Unless this person has a time machine, and has personally seen scientists use that time machine to go back 3.5 billion years to examine the evidence in various places, this claim is ridiculous. It is very predictably very difficult to accurately assess what was going on in tide pools, volcanic vents, mud, and the atmosphere 3.5 billion years ago. But our best guesses based on our best evidence have no difficulty proposing scenarios where life could emerge.

chicken and egg problem..with every aspect of the cell

And here he commits the insanely well refuted error of using the modern cell to try to build an argument from incredulity as to how that cell could arise in primordial conditions. This is so well documented from so many scientists that it is impossible to believe that this is an error made out of ignorance. He is purposefully using an argument known to be fundamentally flawed to dishonestly mislead his audience.

Nobody studying the origins of life proposes that the earliest life was anything as complex as the modern cell. Here is a good article discussing this stupidly flawed approach from 1998. Yes, 21 years ago. And this is far from the first critique of this argument. So this dishonest fuck is using a well debunked argument that has been publicaly debunked multiple times for fucking decades.

And this is where I stop listening, because this guy is a dishonest fuck and I've got better uses of my time. If you find him convincing, then understand that this is because you have no understanding of the science involved. I'm not saying this to you to be insulting, but rather because it is true. I have no particular issue with you not being knowledgeable about biology, but where I find this reprehensible behavior on your part is your willingness to promote this video as compelling, when you actually have no idea what the issues are being discussed. This would be like me claiming a video about a famous soccer goalie's play style seems insightful when in fact I cannot name a single famous soccer goalie, and have only the barest understanding of soccer. In other words, you are talking out of your ass. I would strongly recommend that you do more research next time before talking out of your ass.

[u/Johannason]

Is this what we're doing now? Posting apologetics videos from throwaway accounts and asking r/atheism to refute them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
I fielded one of these just yesterday. Is this you?
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/cf08ic/thoughts_on_this_guys_laughable_reasoning/
There is no argument that could possibly demonstrate god. It's not going to happen. Until some form of verifiable evidence comes up, apologetics can only be 1/3 word salad and 2/3 philosophical masturbation.

[u/bloomindaedalus]

math. its always math with these pseudo intellectual misunderstandings of likelihood.. people don't understand statistics or how to create an appropriate mathematical model.

[u/Loyal-North-Korean]

Say hypothetically I or no one else can can posit an explanation for something that doesn't then make your explanation "good" or correct.

You have either shown your explanation is correct or you haven't.

(I haven't watched vid but am just guessing it's going down the, "you can't explain this, so god did it" path.)

[u/HAL9000_1208]

To me it seems like he's saying that because of the complexity of the DNA it couldn't happen just by chance which is, when you consider the scale of the universe, a rather stupid point to make... Also for the protein argument he doesn't even mention the Miller-Urey's experiment (probably because it would undermine the point he's trying to make)

P.S. comments disabled on the video are a dead giveaway that he knows that his arguments don't hold water

[u/Aka_Sora]

Some points I found were simply confusing here :

• the scientists gave different explanation to same phenomenon, and are desperately seeking others to be wrong. I strongly disagree, because that's how the science works. You collect facts, search for patterns and make a hypothesis then test it on practical experiences. And almost all the hypothesis given so far have been disproved by new findings, even Newton's laws, which were considered universally acceptable were disregard in case of quantum mechanics.

• information are not put in by an intelligent being but are perceived by intelligent beings as information. Same information may mean something completely different for two different scholars in different scientific fields. The hypothesis of a dog typing sentence in and itself is irrational to begin with as it is not supported by facts but rather assumptions.

• as far as it is about probability, then universe is 13 billion years old and earth itself is 4 billion years old and life began as a single cell on earth a couple of hundred million years ago. And through that time earth went from solid rock of molten lava with no atmosphere to covered in ice for thousands of years. So there are different conditions which can make ideal conditions.

• and it was totally absurd to compare the formation of protein to chicken-egg question.

Though these are just my thoughts.

[u/OCPEoireitum]

Are we claiming a deist notion? That things are set in motion and then the ‘god’ retires? I’m ok with that as a hypothesis but it simply begs the observation - there’s been no sign of him/her/it ever since - so who cares? If god isn’t interventionary there’s no point in religion or believing. Except to say thanks, maybe. And that’s it.

[u/papops]

Flip a coin ten thousand times and record heads or tails after each flip. After you have finished, what are the odds that you will get the result that you recorded? Now do it a million times. Afterwards, what are the odds?

The answer to both of those questions are 1. The odds of obtaining any given sequence before flipping the coins are small. The odds after-the-fact are either 0 (it didn't happen) or 1 (it did).

[u/KittenKoder]

Chance has nothing to do with why we don't believe the claims that a god exists.