Chance vs Divinity

[RascalPuff]

Creation vs Evolution, George Wald, Nobel Prize, biology.

The Origin of Life

- Evolution’s Dilemma -

Introduction
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution on the origin of life proposes that some four billion years ago, inanimate chemicals developed completely by chance into highly complex, living, single-celled organisms. This process of life coming from non-life is called "spontaneous generation." According to the theory, a single-celled organism eventually evolved into all the complex life forms on earth in a relentless struggle for resources. Every evolutionary theory of life’s origins is based on spontaneous generation.

The evolutionary development of life on earth is commonly depicted as an "evolutionary tree." If life did arise spontaneously and then evolve into increasingly complex life forms, then spontaneous generation represents the trunk of that evolutionary tree and the branches are the various species that evolved from these earlier forms. If the origin of life cannot be shown to be plausible by the interaction of matter, random chance, energy and time then the existence of an evolutionary tree is a dubious proposition at best. Without a trunk there can be no tree. Without spontaneous generation there can be no evolution.

Here's another great example of how chance disproves evolution theory. Suppose we have 10 small blank discs. We number them from 1 – 10 and as we do we throw each into a bucket. So in this example, the question is: How many attempts would it take to randomly draw out the discs in order from 1 to 10? Only one disc is randomly selected from the bucket at a time, noted, and tossed back in the bucket. What is the probability of selecting all ten discs in order?

Since each disc has only one number on it, there is one chance in ten (1/10) of selecting it. The probability of selecting the first one followed by the second one is 1/10 x 1/10 or 1 in 100. To select all 10 in the right order the probability is 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 or 1x1010. This means that the discs would be selected in the right order only once in 10 billion attempts. Put another way, ‘chance’ requires 10 billion attempts, on the average, to count from 1 to 10.
Let's take that example one step further and say there is a bucket with 27 wooden squares inside. Each square has one letter of the alphabet on it and one square is blank. How many attempts would it take to randomly pull letters out one at a time in order to spell the phrase ‘the theory of evolution?’

Each letter of the alphabet plus one space has 1 chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase ‘the theory of evolution’. Therefore chance will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in 2723 outcomes.
This computes to only one success in a mind-boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3 x 1032). Suppose ‘chance’ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then nature could not even have created even this simple sentence, much less any protein, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation.

The information on the discs and squares in the examples above represent the genetic information in DNA. DNA is the storehouse of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until 2001 that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now know that the DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill an entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica.

It would take nature 25 billion years to create the correct sequence of 27 letters. Clearly, it could not have correctly sequenced 3 billion chemicals to make even the simplest life form. So if nature couldn’t create life, Who did?

Regarding the probabilities calculated by Morowitz, Robert Shapiro wrote: "The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."
Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

Regarding the probability of spontaneous generation, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald stated: "One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here–as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." In this incredibly twisted statement, we see that Wald’s dogmatic adherence to the evolutionist’s paradigm is independent of the evidence. Wald’s belief in the "impossible" can only be explained by faith: "…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Despite these incredible odds and insurmountable problems, spontaneous generation is taught as a fact from grammar school to the university level. In fact, NASA reported to the press in 1991 their opinion that life arose spontaneously not once, but multiple times, because previous attempts were wiped out by cosmic catastrophes!

Conclusion
The overwhelming evidence is clear…spontaneous generation is an impossibility. It is a scientifically corrupt theory that, among other things, violates the Law of Biogenesis, which says that that life never arises except from life. Life simply cannot come from non-life. Since spontaneous generation is impossible, so then the foundation that evolution rests on has been shattered. Without spontaneous generation there can be no evolution.

Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, however, there are those who continue to believe in evolution, and are therefore forced to accept and defend some form of spontaneous generation. The reason for this dogmatic adherence to spontaneous generation is eloquently pointed out by George Wald: "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!" According to Wald, it’s not about discovering the truth through the finding of fact, it’s not a matter of evidence, not a matter of science…it’s a matter of philosophy! Like George Wald, many people do not like the alternative: that all life on earth was created by God. So, as Wald said, they are willing to "believe the impossible."

Since the impossibility of spontaneous generation is a conclusion that leads to a supernatural creative act by God, it is a conclusion that many choose not to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present politically correct climate, undesirable philosophic and religious implications. It is for that unfortunate and illogical reason most scientists continue to cling to the unscientific, disproved theory that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation.

Best Regards,
- RP (Kai)

[labelwench]

An interesting post, Kai.

Impossibility is unproven, as relates to extremely large numbers, improbability being a more accurate term, IMO.

As for the God debate, the audience is still divided.

Many people claim a belief in 'God', or 'Something' with the ability to imbue life.

We have a sense that we are part of a 'Greater Something', yet for the sake of our combined senses, the complete picture remains out of focus, and so we are reluctant to commit to a concept in which we do not have total certainty.

For those who choose to commit to a religious path, these people claim such experience to be life-changing.

Change, in any form, causes apprehension, and so we would know certainty before we commit, wherever and whenever possible.

The only certainty, in my observation, is change.

Kind regards,

LW

[RascalPuff]

An interesting post, Kai.

Impossibility is unproven, as relates to extremely large numbers, improbability being a more accurate term, IMO.

As for the God debate, the audience is still divided.

Many people claim a belief in 'God', or 'Something' with the ability to imbue life.

We have a sense that we are part of a 'Greater Something', yet for the sake of our combined senses, the complete picture remains out of focus, and so we are reluctant to commit to a concept in which we do not have total certainty.

For those who choose to commit to a religious path, these people claim such experience to be life-changing.

Change, in any form, causes apprehension, and so we would know certainty before we commit, wherever and whenever possible.

The only certainty, in my observation, is change.

Kind regards,

LW

Hi LW:

It seems there's no escaping dilemma, no matter which side of this issue may be adhered to.

You're right of course, 'impossibility is unproven', while on the other hand it certainly holds a strong influence in the argument of divinity vs chance. Although Truly Yours is not a conventionally religious individual, I am aware that reputable scientists are suggesting that various forms of microcosmic life may have arrived on a sterile earth and commenced the process of evolution. Whereas, ostensibly, all this does is remove the question of how and where life started from the earth to another location. 'Nothing begets nothing'. While the human facility tends to demand a 'beginning', it ain't necessarily so. As I have observed in previous posts, the fact that we are communicating is irrevocable proof of the miraculous.

'The universe had to begin somewhere', imo, is a patent non-sequitur.
My response to that being, 'No. The universe does not demand a beginning', neither does it 'have to end somewhere'.

It reminds me of an anomalous 'joke', where a bad guy puts a gun to a scientist's head and delivers the ultimatum:
'Spontaneous generation or supreme intervention?'
The scientist responds: "I don't know, no one seems to know the answer to that question".
The gunman replies: "No excuses. Divine action or spontaneous generation?"
The scientist hesitates for a moment, and then replies: "Shoot".

It is my speculative station that even when the creation of the first life forms are a result of the interaction of various chemicals combined with electrical interactions, we're still talking about a form of divine preoccupation.
Where did the chemicals originate? The protoplasm? The water? The electricity?
I submit that the universe has always been and always will be, acknowledging that it is in a perpetual state of transition.
Imho:
'Matter' has always existed.
'Life' has always existed.
Ostensibly.
Again: 'Nothing begets nothing'.

Best regards,
- RP

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Intelligent Designer

I approached a semitransparent
Theistic Embellishment, rather well lit,
Who was holding out an eyeball—a shove
Of His hand for me to take note of.

“Who might you be?” He proclaimed,
“For I am the God of Intelligent Design,
The One who was made by the signs discerned
When the creationists noted them all unlearned.

“Lo, They saw inexplicable complexity in Nature,
And, thus, they leapt and promulgated that Nature
Must have a Grand Designer of its mechanical dance,
For how could life have come about by chance?”

I replied, “You’re right about chance’s stance,
But wrong about chance, too, for little greatness,
If any at all, comes about by mere chance,
Especially as some giant leap in one bound
Up the sheer cliff-side of Mt. Improbable—

“To find on its top a great complexity
Of something like the eye that You show me;
However, it is actually an error to suppose
That Chance is the scientific alternative
To Intelligent Design, for that’s quite negative.

“Natural Selection is the means of the design,
For it, unlike a one-shot chance, being not in kind,
Is a cumulative effect that ever winds
And slowly and so gently climbs
Around the mountain’s other side, behind the sight,
To eventually arrive at the great height
Of complexity—from which we can then view
The beautiful sights through our eye anew.”

“But the widespread Watchtower Zines
Always pronounce that the biological Designs
Were created by Me instead of by chance!

“Just look at these eyeballs—take a glance—
And the optic system hanging behind them!
How could that come about by chance, these gems?”

“You, like your followers, may listen,
But You do not hear, writing with untruth’s pen.
IDers deceive by this wrong approach,
Whether they mean to or not; I give reproach.

“Chance is not the opposite of Nature’s design;
Evolution of the Species through the graduality
Of Natural Selection is the path to complexity;
Your ploy falls as flat as an imaginary line.

“A flatworm has but an optical system’s spark
That can only sense but light and dark;
Thus, it sees no image, not even a part;

“Whereas, Nautilus has a ‘pinhole camera’ eye
About as good as half a human eye
That sees but very blurry shapes;
Thus they are examples of intermediate stages.

“‘Rome’ can not be built in a day by chance;
Chance is not a likely designer at all!
Really now, could a 747 ever be
Assembled by a hurricane blowing free
Through Boeing’s warehouse of all the parts?
Now is this the sum of Your conversational art?”

“No, Austin—it’s quite unlikely—’tis just to confuse,
And that’s why we always so misleadingly use
This 747 argument as the contrast to ID…

So, then, Austie, chance and Intelligent Design
Are not the two candidate solutions we’ll find
To the riddle posed by the improbable?
It’s not like a jackpot or nothing at all?”

“‘God’, Your ID ideas persist, as repetition,
But, again, chance, for one, is not a solution
To the highly improbable situated Nature,
And no sane anti-creationist, for sure,
Ever said that it was; your tale is impure.

“Intelligent Design, is neither, a solution—
Because it raises a much bigger question
Than it solves, as You will soon see, in a lesson.”

“Well, I’ll be darned,” replied the Designer.
“Natural selection is a good answer;
It is a very long and summative process,
One which breaks up the problem’s mess
Of improbability into smaller pieces, less,
Each of which is only slightly improbable,
But not prohibitively so, thus it’s reasonable
As the product of all the little steps, of which,
Would be far beyond the reach of chance—it’s rich!

“The creationists have been looking askance,
Seeing only the end product, perchance,
Thinking of it as a single event of chance,
Never even understanding
The great power of accumulation.

“Such they didn’t know much else—their fall,
Not having any other natural ideas at all,
So, they outright claimed that ID did it, as the Tree
That can magically grow the All, namely Me.”
“So, ‘God’, You have now seen the light
Of the accumulative power’s might;
This is the elegance of Evolution’s ‘sight’.”

“Yes, but what is to become of Me, the Person,
For I only ‘exist’ through their speculation.
In fact, the improbability of Me is so High,
And so much more so from where I lie so ‘sure’,
Compared to that of ‘simple’ Nature,
That My own origin…”

“…Is a near-infinitely LARGER dilemma, Mate,
For the creationists—the problem that they love to hate;
That being that You, therefore, can only be explained
By another, Higher Intelligent Designer claimed.

“Far from terminating the endless regress,
They’ve aggravated it with a vengeance
That is way beyond repair or redress—
As beyond could ever be yonder of! Out west!”

With that, the poor Guy faded toward oblivion,
Which, remarkably, which was the very location
I was visiting, but, hence he soon reappeared,
Although in another guise, but quite well attired:

[God created Adam, then Eve, of Adam’s rib,
Both fully formed, imbued with God’s knowledge
And memories of times that never were,
Such as childhood.
They believed a shifty talking snake,
Ate the verboten fruit,
And were cast out, to fend for themselves,
God being quite surprised at their sin…]

[SteveA]

Our view of time isn't necessarily fundamental. There can exist differences in rates of times between things.

If two things were completely detached in time, there would be no logical way to comparison timings of events between these.

What's the answer to the limit of x/y if both x and y are allowed to be unrelated growths? It's not determined.

Now consider this, if we saw both views of x/y and y/x, which view of time would be one we'd see as persisting? (There appears to be a requirement of viewing both simultaneously, otherwise there would no observable relationship at all) I'd assume it would have to be that the observations occur from the "smaller" of these two quantities and from that perspective, one already did everything the other would ever do.

Of course if we pick some random number, n and ask where that is in relationship to either x or y, well it might take some time to determine from the progression of n, n+1, n+2, ... which possible relationships exist between all these (n, x and y) (any finite sample would appear to always leave an unlimited number of possibilities, though we could still potentially refine things to have a very high confidence level ... but yes, I don't think there's anyway to precisely know which version of a storyline things are at, but still we could potentially determine things to some arbitrarily desired level of confidence ... it depends upon the importance of something, so a potentially "optimal" manner to allocate confidence would appear to be dependent upon how various unknowns or uncertainties influence desires).

[austintorn@aol.com]

The God of Irreducible Complexity

“Hello, Austino, it’s time for more perplexity;
For I am now the God of Irreducible Complexity.”

“That you are, being the unmade All,
And so it shall become your downfall.”

“Eh? I’m never to be at all?”

“Your believers have given You some fine new clothes:
But, Intelligent Design is falsely based, God knows,
On Irreducible Complexity—
So I still recognize You as the God of ID.”

“That I am is what I really am now.”

“Well, Darwin said long ago that his theory
Would break down if Irreducible Complexity
Were shown to be true, and, yet,
No proposal has ever stood up to the analysis.”

“Still, here I am, Mr. A, alive merely by possibility,
Myself indeed quite complex, even irreducibly,
For I am the be all and end all—the Prime Maker,
And so I keep tabs on every form and splinter
Of the Universe, planning its every constituent
That I designed. So, then, simple I am NOT.
Yes, man, I am an extremely complicated System,
Yet I have no parts, for then My parts that stemmed
Would be even more fundamental than Me!”

“Yes, ‘God’, if You existed you would surely be
Very very very complex, irreducibly so…”
“…So…”

“…So, by the Creationist Theory, such as it must be,
You cannot be explained except by a larger ID.”

“I’m falling…”

“…Into the hole that they dug for you.”

[Mikal]

In his book “God after Darwin” theologian John Haught made a compelling case that Darwin’s theory far from ruling a God out, gives us insight into an intelligence that pours its creative essence into the universe and gives it free rein to go and make things happen. Rather than pulling puppet strings, this deity voluntarily relinquishes control to its creatures so that new and autonomous things may arise. This enhances creation by bringing forth the unplanned, the unscripted, the random and the other that flows naturally from this act. Haught argues that, in creating the universe, God deliberately relinquishes omnipotence over this realm so as not to interfere with the free will of creation’s beings. The universe is thus invited to participate in its own crafting. This ongoing participatory act of creation is in fact the ultimate expression of God’s love.—Bernard Haisch-Astrophysicist—The God Theory

Haught writes….

“Love by its very nature cannot compel, and so any God whose very essence is love should not be expected to overwhelm the world either with a coercively directed power or an annihilating presence. Indeed an infinite love must in some ways absent or restrain itself, precisely in order to give the world the space in which to become something distinct from the creative love that constitutes it as other. We should anticipate therefore, that any universe rooted in an unbounded love would have some features that appear to us as random and undirected.”

I thought this was quite beautiful so wanted to share it with you Rascal….smiles….


Regards Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

The God of the Gaps

Yet another Theity appeared, out of the mist.

“I am the God of the Gaps, of all those missed.
I Myself personally fill in all the gaps withstanding
In the present-day knowledge of non understanding,
Albeit a very large and unwarranted assumption,
But I surely do fill them all in—via the fiat lent
To Me by the creationist’s fine endorsement.”

“These gaps shrink as science advances anew.”

“And so there is less and less for Me to do.”

“What worries me is not so much that You
May be eventually laid off, having nothing to do,
But that those of Religion think it is a virtue
To be satisfied with not understanding a quandary;
Enigmas drive scientists on—they exult in mystery.”

“True, My believers exult in mystery
Remaining as mystery,
And so they go no further,
But, it keeps Me from being history!
They worship all these evolutionary gaps as being Me.”

“With no justification?”

“We have a ‘get out of jail free’ card—a vocation;
It’s an immunity to the rigorous proofs of science;
We just claim by the ‘say so’.
All must respect that stance.”

“You lead a charmed life, then, one with no faults,
But You seek ignorance in order
To claim victory by default,
As a weed thriving in the gaps
Of science’s fertile fields.
Scientists rejoice in (temporary)
Uncertain yields,
Whereas You halt all inquiry.”

“I remain as a mystery.”

“You’re the same God
Of Intelligent Design assumed—
Now known by a much more
Desperate nom de plume.”

“I repeat that I intervene
To fill the evolutionary gap.
I even alter DNA.”
(We could check the evidence for that.)

“We researchers fill the gaps in the fossil record.”

“Then there are twice as many gaps. Absurd."

"I’d laugh, but I know You’re not joking.”

“No joke. Try what we’ve been smoking.
Lack of 100% complete documentation
Of Evolution means that I aid its motion.”

“‘God’, That is not a good default stance.”

“It’s an unknown happenstance.”

“So, do we let criminals go
Because we don’t have a video
Of their every intermediate foot step
To and from the lawless event?”

“No, of course not, but we now have great worry
About our precariously perched gappy theory.
Also, you made a typo—it’s a God default stance,
Certified by nothing more than proclamation
Of Our Bull of Decree covering all instantiation.”

“An edict, huh.”

“Why not, duh.”

“It was also once avowed that an Evil Spirit,
One that You Yourself allowed to exist,
Produced physical illnesses, on us weighing,
But, thank God—just an old saying—
That scientists persevered, and still do,
Such as finding out about the immune system’s zoo—
Our defense against the non evil spirits
Of germs, viruses, and bacterial fits.”

“Yes, agreed; that claim was dead wrong; take pills,
But evil spirits still cause the nonphysical mental ills
That are called sins and bad thoughts,
Even crimes of wills.”

“Still trying to halt scientific inquiry,
I see, for the burning.
Mental lapsing ‘sins’
Stem from upbringing, wrong learning,
And/or low serotonin and
Such imbalances, needing cures,
Not to mention the many differences in cultures,
Such as other religions being a problem of stability,
For people think this undermines
Their own belief’s credibility.”

“Okay, I give up for now, AustinTorn. Be.
Go on with your work, with My blessing,
To discover important truths about reality,
But some fossils are evidently missing!”

“Only a tiny fraction of corpses fossilize;
However, not even a single fossil guy
Has shown up in the wrong geological stratum;
How’s that for absolutely no erratum?”

“Well… it’s sad for Me, but true.
I’d still love to find wrong a few,
Like a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian.
I’d have planted one there if I exited then.”

“Dream on. Lazy reasoning is all that’s behind
These declarations of the irreducible complexity kind.”

“Yes, but all this ignorance, for sure,
Of the possible steps of Nature
Has kept Me forever alive,
Allowing Me to ever thrive.”

“And has just as soon forgotten You, in truth,
But for those sustaining your being without proof.”

“Wait, what about an arch of bricks?
(I’ll try to use this one as a trick.)
Pull one away and the arch falls apart;
It cannot survive the subtraction of a part,
So, how, then, was it built in the first place?
With this insight I can win the human race.”

“By scaffolding, the same as seen in Evolution.”

“I was afraid that would be the solution.”

With that, the holely God of the Gaps separated
And nearly evaporated
To become a discontinuity Himself,
But the creationists gave Him help
By Holding Him together
With their last ditch effort.

(Yes, ‘gapping’ still goes on, it seems.
When the argument first gathered steam,
There were but a few transitional forms known,
Although good ones, enough for the idea to own:
One being the bridge to vertebrates
And another the bridge to flying creatures.

But there are many more now, a wide range,
So, then, it is the data that has changed.
These ‘gap’ arguments were already down
To the faint hope that scientists, as clowns,
Wouldn’t find any more natural explanations;
But the finds were the most inevitable situations.

Creationists yet remain at the pointward
Of not being able to ‘push forward’,
So, all that’s left to is push backward,
Albeit at the firmly established fact words
Of evolution. Even the Pope concedes this,
But tries to salvage the faith, and solve,
By saying that the mind was not at all involved.)

“In the darkness I alit from the Wiz,
And tried to make sense of this world of His.
Now I’ve found the answer to life’s dark quiz:
One must live this life by what light there is.”

[SteveA]

Thank you very much for the beautiful post, Mikal. I haven't been actively religious in a long time, and don't really intend to become religious either, but some of those ideas were too beautiful to give up completely ... it's been quite an adventure circling back around through science and finally being able to see better what people were talking about the whole time (I know I have a long way to go to really understand things, but it's beautiful to see the "path", though it leads everywhere - and if it's described as a point, it escapes that definition and if we describe it as anything specific at all, that still fails to describe it, and it's amazing to look back at all the failed attempts to describe it - some of those are beautiful enough to deserve a retelling and there's still more, but no need - the "cup" is full enough and that's beautiful as well - we've progressed to the day where drinks come in 48 oz. cups ... yes, we could do 64 or 10^100 oz, but there's a point where you'd have to grew another set of taste buds if you wanted to appreciate it, and the ones already there work fine. The rest can be left for another day)

Thanks for your great comments,
Steve

[labelwench]

Hi LW:

It seems there's no escaping dilemma, no matter which side of this issue may be adhered to.

You're right of course, 'impossibility is unproven', while on the other hand it certainly holds a strong influence in the argument of divinity vs chance. Although Truly Yours is not a conventionally religious individual, I am aware that reputable scientists are suggesting that various forms of microcosmic life may have arrived on a sterile earth and commenced the process of evolution. Whereas, ostensibly, all this does is remove the question of how and where life started from the earth to another location. 'Nothing begets nothing'. While the human facility tends to demand a 'beginning', it ain't necessarily so. As I have observed in previous posts, the fact that we are communicating is irrevocable proof of the miraculous.

'The universe had to begin somewhere', imo, is a patent non-sequitur.
My response to that being, 'No. The universe does not demand a beginning', neither does it 'have to end somewhere'.

It reminds me of an anomalous 'joke', where a bad guy puts a gun to a scientist's head and delivers the ultimatum:
'Spontaneous generation or supreme intervention?'
The scientist responds: "I don't know, no one seems to know the answer to that question".
The gunman replies: "No excuses. Divine action or spontaneous generation?"
The scientist hesitates for a moment, and then replies: "Shoot".

It is my speculative station that even when the creation of the first life forms are a result of the interaction of various chemicals combined with electrical interactions, we're still talking about a form of divine preoccupation.
Where did the chemicals originate? The protoplasm? The water? The electricity?
I submit that the universe has always been and always will be, acknowledging that it is in a perpetual state of transition.
Imho:
'Matter' has always existed.
'Life' has always existed.
Ostensibly.
Again: 'Nothing begets nothing'.

Best regards,
- RP

What dilemma?

Things are exactly as they are.

We are the only species for whom the gift of life poses such problems.

A strange title for a thread placed under the Science designation, in my opinion.

I leave this debate for others.

Regards.