Did Nothing Create Everything?
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
g someday, but that day is not today.
Trump is never wrong!
Miller Urey showed that nature can create the compounds necessary for life.
Joyce-Horning showed that simple RNA molecules - made of those simple compounds - can both synthesize complex functional RNA molecules and replicate simpler molecules. Including itself.
Joyce also showed that even simpler RNA molecules can create cross-chiral copies of themselves.
They have created self-replicating molecules. The difference between that and life is one of semantics.
Do a little research.
Miller-Urey did not create life.
Joyce-Horning did not create life.
No experiment has ever created life from non-life!
I know you do not want to mislead anyone!
And neither do I!
Please provide just one example of an experiment that created life from non-life, and I will stop asking.
It is a simple request!
If you cannot produce such an experiment, my claim is that you only have a faith position. That you “believe” in a kind of a hopeful “Rock of the Gaps” hypothesis, in spite of the current empirical evidence.
You can certainly do that if you really want to!
I am OK with that, though I do understand that you may not want to admit it to anyone. Just our little secret!
Here is an article discussing RNA...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/
Last edited:
If men were meant to fly? Blah blah.
Do you "poo poo" science because you like it or are you just toeing the party line?
Why are you against people seeking knowledge?
BTW: Fuck off.
Says Trump,
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
So you think the sensible stance is to go with random chance based on your 50 or so years exposure to the evidence.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
All I can say is that the creator has got a sick mind.
The Joyce experiment. It showed a self-replicating molecule that could inherit changes.
That is fine, but they did not create life from non-life.
And they never claimed to have created life from non-life. But you can bet the family farm that the press did.
A self replicating molecule that can inherit changes is great, but it is not life. The scientists who worked on these experiments know that.
Is DNA life? No.
Is RNA life? No.
Is protein life? No.
Is water life? No.
These are all just some of the components of life, but they are not life.
This is the typical kind of hopeful, wishful thinking that goes on in the field of origins, all the time.
It is only faith without sufficient evidence.
If you find water on another planet, for example, you have not found life, only a component of life.
OK. So what is your definition of life?
Right. But something that replicates and grows - that's basically life. Even if it's just RNA.
I accept my own ignorance.
Do you?
Do you?
SetiAlpha6:
The only evidence you're offering for your view is to say "I believe whatever James Tour has to say about this. See his video."
It sounds like I'm talking to the wrong person, and I should talk to James Tour instead of you.
I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll take a look at the video you linked above and maybe make some notes. Then we can discuss. I won't get to it immediately, because it's an hour long, after all.
Suppose that you are able, by some means, to show that Intelligence Design is needed. That's only the first step in the process of arguing that your God is needed. How are you going to go from "an unidentified intelligent designer did it" to "the Christian God of the bible did it", or "my preferred conception of the Christian God did it" or whatever? It's one thing to identify the need for a designer. It's another to positively identify the designer.
You keep claiming your conclusions are logical, but these kinds of flaws and missing links in your chain of logic keep coming up. What does that suggest to you? To me, it suggests that you're not really reaching your conclusions based on logical reasoning.
I think either you don't know sound logic when you see it, or you want so desperately to believe I'm wrong that you're willing to just believe that I'm wrong, whether or not you can actually point out any error I've made.
Tell me: what specific evidence convinced you that ID is needed?
You think I'm disrespecting your faith position. Do you think I should defer to your faith instead?
Do you think it's presumptuous of me to ask you to support your claims when you say you have evidence?
What about your right to believe what you like? Let's talk about that, in case there's confusion: as far as I'm concerned, you are free to believe whatever nonsense you like about gods or aliens or psychic powers or anything else, the only proviso being that, as a general rule, I don't think you have a right to harm others as a consequence of something you believe.
This discussion is not primarily about your beliefs at this point. It is about your evidence claim. All I am asking of you is that you put your money where your mouth is and present the relevant evidence you claim you have, whether it be about the need for an intelligent designer, the existence of your preferred god, or your identification of said preferred god with aforementioned intelligent designer.
When it comes to respect, I'm sorry but you don't get a free pass just because you have a religious belief. Religious beliefs aren't immune to rational criticism. At one time, religion might have been a "no go" area, but those days are past (except in certain backwards places where religious authorities are still able and willing to quash questioning with violence).
The only evidence you're offering for your view is to say "I believe whatever James Tour has to say about this. See his video."
It sounds like I'm talking to the wrong person, and I should talk to James Tour instead of you.
I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll take a look at the video you linked above and maybe make some notes. Then we can discuss. I won't get to it immediately, because it's an hour long, after all.
I'm not aware of anything that would suggest that anything I've said runs counter to any actual evidence. I assume that James Tour's video will show where I'm going wrong, so I'll get back to you after I've watched it.
Your approach isn't logical. You don't get your God by default. I already covered this.
Suppose that you are able, by some means, to show that Intelligence Design is needed. That's only the first step in the process of arguing that your God is needed. How are you going to go from "an unidentified intelligent designer did it" to "the Christian God of the bible did it", or "my preferred conception of the Christian God did it" or whatever? It's one thing to identify the need for a designer. It's another to positively identify the designer.
Nobody has said rocks do experiments. You're trying to set up a straw man. That's a waste of everybody's time.
Even if every attempt by human scientists has failed so far, that does not prove that natural processes can't do the job. All that would prove is that human beings haven't been smart enough to work out how to do it yet. You can't validly conclude that it therefore can't be done by any conceivable natural process.
You keep claiming your conclusions are logical, but these kinds of flaws and missing links in your chain of logic keep coming up. What does that suggest to you? To me, it suggests that you're not really reaching your conclusions based on logical reasoning.
I will look, as I said. I don't know what you're talking about regarding "Christophobia". I have friends and relatives who are Christians. I used to be one myself. I have no fear of Christ or Christianity, and nothing I have written on this forum would suggest otherwise.
It's strange. When I say your logic is flawed, I point out specifically what's wrong with it. See above, for example. But when you claim my logic is flawed you provide nothing apart from your own assertion that I'm in error. Why is that?
I think either you don't know sound logic when you see it, or you want so desperately to believe I'm wrong that you're willing to just believe that I'm wrong, whether or not you can actually point out any error I've made.
Give me one or two examples. Or, why not just give me your single best piece of scientific evidence that shows that ID is needed? You keep making this claim, but all I've seen from you in support is vague hand-waves towards unspecified evidence and an instruction to go watch a video from James Tour.
Tell me: what specific evidence convinced you that ID is needed?
Like I said, it sounds like I'm talking to the wrong person. You're just relying on the authority of James Tour to make your case for you, rather than trying to make it yourself.
Ah! Now we're getting to it.
You think I'm disrespecting your faith position. Do you think I should defer to your faith instead?
Do you think it's presumptuous of me to ask you to support your claims when you say you have evidence?
What about your right to believe what you like? Let's talk about that, in case there's confusion: as far as I'm concerned, you are free to believe whatever nonsense you like about gods or aliens or psychic powers or anything else, the only proviso being that, as a general rule, I don't think you have a right to harm others as a consequence of something you believe.
This discussion is not primarily about your beliefs at this point. It is about your evidence claim. All I am asking of you is that you put your money where your mouth is and present the relevant evidence you claim you have, whether it be about the need for an intelligent designer, the existence of your preferred god, or your identification of said preferred god with aforementioned intelligent designer.
When it comes to respect, I'm sorry but you don't get a free pass just because you have a religious belief. Religious beliefs aren't immune to rational criticism. At one time, religion might have been a "no go" area, but those days are past (except in certain backwards places where religious authorities are still able and willing to quash questioning with violence).
At least we know that random chance is trying.
There's no reason at all to go with supernatural intervention, since nothing supports the idea that such a thing has ever occurred.
Here is one definition...
Living things are organisms that display the key characteristics of life. These characteristics include the ability to grow, reproduce, take in and use energy, excrete waste, respond to the environment, and possess an organized structure more complex than that of non-living things.
Can you find a quote from the scientists who worked on the experiments, where they claim they created life from non-life?
Where did they get the RNA from, that they started with?
OK let's go with that.
They reproduce themselves. They take in and use energy; they use the chemical energy in the RNA "soup" they are in. They excrete waste (incorrectly formed duplicates.) They will stop reproducing when they run out of "food" thus responding to the environment. They possess a very specific organized structure.
So the only way they do not qualify is that they do not grow. Five of six. So that's why scientists do not refer to it as life, because they tend to be very precise. (It should be noted, though, that if you want to be that precise, a human male with a vasectomy is not alive either.)
They did not claim to create life, because they know they did not create life.
You really have more faith, than I do!