Doesn't our existence contradict all human logic and scientific theory?

So I have to assume you know nothing of science or natural history.

Actually right now I think both are just as probable. The chances of forming DNA is ridiculously unlikely but anything is possible, the chance of an intelligent being molding a life form is ridiculously unlikely as well but anything's possible. The reason why the scientific explanation for life is followed is because it falls into the laws science has created while creationism doesn't. Both explanations only seem more likely if you believe in one of those sets of rules. You could also believe in an entirely different set and say we aren't even alive right now and believe it's more likely.

Given that we exist I believe you can't say just because one thing is unlikely the other popular belief must be more likely. It's really a moot question, we'll never know till we can make a functioning timemachine and even then we can't be certain.

Edit-

Miller-Urey sounds about right ^^ I agree there are issues with the experiment but no offense just because it's not perfect doesn't mean you're right.

Once again scott may I ask how your syllogism makes any point into logic?

If one thing is unlikely than the other possibility is more likely.

Abiogenesis is unlikely

Therefore creationism, the other popular theory out of a billion others is the more likely.

So says you.

Please provide the logical argument, the scientific evidence or the mathematical proof to support your claim.

Or could it be more like: "I do not understand the science behind how life began and produce humans, so I am going to create an imaginary being and claim he did it because that gives me a simple answer that I do not have to think about."

Take a deck of cards. Shuffle them. Deal them recording each card as it is dealt.

O.K. the odds of getting that order is 52! Or about 8x10^67. That is 80 thousand billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion to 1

This is so unlikely to happen, is it not more likely that someone set up the cards first?

I suggest that you do some research to find out the real probabilities of a suitable planet for life occurring, given the incredibly huge number of stars in the universe. And of life starting, given the huge about of time it took. I would suggest that one you realise that the odds of life occurring in the universe is about .99999999999999999999999 to 1, or even greater that the anthropic principal will make any question of how we got to exist here rather meaningless.

As with the card trick, it had to come out one way or another. It is only when you look back and predict one particular life form or one particular card sequence that the odds become meaningful.

No.

>> "Not to criticize science at all, but our own existence isn't something that can pass the scientific method or our natural sense of logic."

That statement doesn't criticize science in any way. What it criticizes is your lack of understanding of either science or logic. You think naturalistic causes of existence don't jibe with science because you don't actually understand science. In fact, naturalistic causes are the only ones that science can make any statement about.

--------------

>> "skeptic: Really? Please then enlighten us as to how science has proven any explanation? Feel free to email me and show me the error of my thinking. Your arrogance doesn't allow you to understand. I fully understand logic and science, you have just proven you don't."

The fact that you used the word "proven" in this context demonstrates that you actually understand neither science nor logic. I am sorry that you are so mistaken as to think that you understand science more than working scientists do. But real working scientists don't share your opinion.

--------

Incidentally, where did you ever get the idea that lightning is "spontaneous energy?" Even better, just what precisely do you mean by the term?

It seems some conclude that if they can debate one aspect of evolution then the opposing theories (ID, Creation) are correct by default. But there still should be logical proof for the competitors, right? It's against all logic to rely on faith in scientific explanations. I still have yet to understand whether you're supporting the existence of a diety (which I just can't subsribe to) a force or other unknown aspect of physis.

No our existence does not contradict all logic. Simply saying that something is too complex to understand, is due to a failure to apply science. That is the absolute opposite of what science represents.

Edit: I mean back to the Miller–Urey experiment. For the aboitic synthesis of biological monomers (ie amino acids, nucleotides, monsaccharides, fatty acids) You said this theory turned you off because it requires lightning in order for this reaction to take place. No, you do not need lightning. But you do need an electron source. Was lightning the only electron source that was available 4 billion years ago on earth? No, the atmosphere was a reducing environment which provides the source of electrons and energy to drive the polymerization reaction. Hydrogen, methane, all electron rich. No offense, but the only reason this is illogical to you is because of your in ability to understand it.

The Big Bang is a scientific guess.

Religion is a divine guess.

They're both guesses, and neither has enough proof to back it up enough to be believed by everyone.

As for your question, your saying that...a divine being making the universe with his infinite power that he acquired from somewhere or other makes more sense than anything else?

Your logic is a bit odd.

Let's assume the position that what you said made any sense.

If we, being the intelligent creatures (well most of us, anyway) that we are, were not able to reach such a high degree of mental ability of our own accord, why would our creator be exempt from such a rule? He/she too would have had to have been created, and then so on extends the chain. When would this chain of events come to and end? The answer is, it couldn't for your theory to remain valid.

It's an utterly ridiculous concept left only to speculation as there is no evidence for anything like that taking place.

it is acceptable in science

The big bang is a scientific theory and so is abiogenesis, so of course it's acceptable in science. Even if they are proved wrong, they are acceptable in science at the moment.

Not to belabour the point but abiogenesis is being tested at the moment, scientists have been about to produce spontaneously occurring RNA, the first steps to life. It's only one of the tests I'm sure they will carry out in the future, but it is testable, and so falls very much in the realm of science.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucl...

I can relate because Yahoo answers is often extremely rude and just interrupted ans answer I had by claiming to be unavailable and also gave me a violation notice for mention of Global Warming.

My answer a few minutes ago was good as well carefully typed out.

Spontaneity has no contradiction to science. The complexity of our species clearly indicates a long evolutionary process with many vital factors at the heart of it (including the chemical makeup of our planet, our distance from the sun, the time at which our species rose up relative to other eras in Earth's history, etc.)

But spontaneous reactions aren't antithetical to science, they just add a more challenging dimension to science.

And according to your response, our origin is based in theory. Therefore- how do you know how spontaneous it is?