Your analogy is not the equal of mine. It is nonsense. if you bake a cake then it is produced via the intervention of an intelligent source not natural processes.
1. My comparable analogy was nonsense because yours was equally nonsense, but sometimes logical flaws aren't obvious until you demonstrate the other types of conclusions that could be made through the same reasoning. Your reasoning is that flawed.
2. The action itself wasn't the point, the purpose of the analogy was to demonstrate how flawed your reasoning was. It's not like I am arguing that baking is an activity that happens in nature (at least, not the sort that would produce a cake).
Natural processes cannot produce bacteria anymore than the moon can produce the starship Enterprise.
Hahahahahahaha, again, since the process by which a spaceship is made is not comparable to bacteria, your comparison is irrelevant.
They are both examples of complexity. The analogy of a car, jumbo jet etc is used to expose exactly what materialists are proposing. In this case car is analogous to bacteria.
Nope, not even close. You know what, I'll just compare two "complex", created items, just to show you exactly how bad your comparison is (yup, even if bacteria were demonstrably created, your argument for it would be terrible).
So, I will compared a computer and a car. A computer is made by humans in a factory, and a car is made by humans in a factory. The car and the computer were made in the same year, 1986. By your logic, I should also conclude that the process by which they were made was the SAME and that they work the SAME. Not only that, but the process by which they were made DOESN'T CHANGE. None of those things are true. Heck, even when comparing two cars made in the same factory on the same day, the same people didn't necessarily build both.
There are too many differences between cars and computers for their production to be comparable, so why do you insist that the bacteria and cars would be comparable when they are vastly more different?
It is called analogical reasoning. If you are asserting bacteria can self-assemble then by the same standard so can cars.
No. That's entirely wrong. Diamond crystals self assemble under natural conditions on this planet, but Helium doesn't naturally crystallize on this planet. And yet, Helium is a much more simple element than the Carbon that is the primary element in diamonds. Simply put, it's chemistry is distinct from Carbon, thus what Carbon can do naturally is not the same as what Helium can do naturally. Their standards aren't the same, and never can be the same.
There is enough similar to overcome the differences.
Not even close. Cars aren't alive, they don't have genetic material, they don't reproduce, they don't grow and develop through a metabolism... they are nothing like bacteria at all. Cars share more similarities with rocks than bacteria.
You don't like the implications because you are dogmatically fixed to your creation myths and facts take a back seat.
I would much rather have the implications of Christianity be true than what I believe to be true. I am biased in FAVOR of you being right, but your argument is so deeply flawed as to not even be worth my time at this point. This will be the last post I make in response to it.
Fixating of the differences does not invalidate the analogy. Bacteria can duplicate. Cars cannot. In many cases they don't die, they duplicate.
The actual similarities I can name between cars and bacteria:
1. they are made of matter
2. they exist on this planet
And that's about it. Any measure of "complexity" wouldn't even put the car and bacteria as similar to each other.
Garbage. Complexity involves astounding nanotechnology, genetic information processing systems, and enormous amounts of front-loaded digitally encoded information, all indicative of intellgence, not natural processes absent intelligence.
There is no "nanotechnology" in a bacteria. This is what is in a bacteria
http://slideplayer.com/slide/722568...+through+the+bacterium+Bacillus+coagulans.jpg at it's most complex (since not all have flagella or cilia). When cells reproduce, they duplicate their DNA, and each daughter cell gets a copy (though, not a perfect copy as the process has flaws). DNA is often called "information", but it has no actual language, it's just a molecule that other molecules react to and form proteins in response. The "genetic information processing systems", which I would guess is referring to RNA and some of the proteins associated with interacting with DNA, have had billions of years to develop. And RNA does so much work in a cell that it's really no shock that the first life produced via abiogenesis utilized that as the genetic material rather than DNA. Ribosomes are made of RNA, just so you are aware.
Proteins form naturally. RNA forms naturally. Lipids form naturally. Sugars form naturally. What runs a cell are reactions that occur naturally, with some of them catalyzed to occur faster by proteins present. RNA that instigates the production of these proteins to be FASTER can form naturally, and have been measured in lab to form naturally.
Chemical bonding can be explained because it is redundant and repeated. Not complex specified information which is unique and produces a host of different results. Chemistry can tell us why the ink bonds to the paper but it does not tell us the origin of the message nor does it account for the uniqueness of the message.
-_- there's no message in DNA, and it changes so frequently (yes, even within your cells right now, they are screwing up) that if there had ever been one, it would have been lost within a few generations. You do realize that DNA doesn't exist as a single strand in our cells, right? Hence the 46 chromosomes. Furthermore, just by chance, strands of the same length with be 25% similar to each other, because there are only 4 different nucleotides in DNA. Even considering the codons and how redundant they are, that makes 24/64 of them actually necessary. No "alphabet" is that redundant.
Furthermore, you shot yourself in the foot by saying "Chemistry can tell us why the ink bonds to the paper but it does not tell us the origin of the message nor does it account for the uniqueness of the message", when you argue that it is the complexity of these chemical processes which demands that cells be created.
They have not demonstrated nature can produce bacteria anymore than the moon can produce the starship Enterprise or activity in space can produce Morse code like signals containing building instructions for a spaceship.
Your persistent denial is not an argument for anything except your stubbornness. I can't even fathom why it would matter to you if life can form naturally in the universe. Maybe your god made it that way on purpose, that by making a universe that could support the life it created, it happened to produce a universe that could naturally produce life as well. Why does it matter to you personally if life can form naturally or not? Is it that the only way you can hold on to your belief is if life NEEDS a creator?
The universe actually doesn't have an outside. It's unfortunate that a lot of diagrams of the universe present it from an "outside" perspective, but there is no outside to the universe. Even if there were, this "outside" would lack space, time, matter, and energy, and thus would not be habitable to anything.
The source of the universe would logically be extrinsic of the universe.
Why? The physics under which our logic is based didn't exist prior to the universe expanding, so all bets are off.
The fact being all the universe was incompatable with bio life everywhere.
Actually, life on this planet functions utilizing the most common elements in the universe, and that doesn't even cover all the possibilities of life, necessarily. Maybe on some hellish planet on which life as it is on this planet could never exist, there are silicon-based lifeforms. We honestly don't know enough about life possibilities to determine if life is rare or not.
If life developed elsewhere within then it would have had time to develop.
Well, sure, doesn't mean that they would have the technology or desire to give our remote planet a visit. Societies leaps and bounds beyond ours could have died out before the first land plants appeared on our planet. Likewise, there could be dozens of planets in which life is just beginning to form right now, or ones on which life will form long after the star this planet orbits dies.
There are also much more unfortunate outcomes, such as planet collisions killing all the life in a solar system before it even becomes multicellular.
The scenario is highly unlikely.
So is winning the lottery, but people do it every year. "Unlikely" is a bit of an irrelevant phrase when it comes to something as large as the universe. Something that would only have 1/10 trillionth of a chance of occurring would still inevitably occur from time to time. But again, we simply don't know enough about life forming in order to determine if it is common or not. It could be almost standard for at least 1 planet in every given solar system to harbor life at some point in time, no matter how briefly. Or, life could be extremely rare, and thus planets with life so distant from each other that organisms from different planets never end up crossing paths. It's simply not known.
Things that start have to have an origin. If the source is outside the unverse then it did not necessarly have a start.
Things that have a start have an origin, as per the physics that developed after the universe expanded. It's entirely possible that pre-expansion physics were so wonky than even a universe could just spontaneously form. That said, I will repeat that the universe doesn't have an "outside".
Intelligent sources makes cars and living beings produce living beings.
Living beings produce living beings that are mostly the same as themselves. Pigs don't give birth to humans. A deity creating non-deity life isn't any more comparable a process than the production of a car and a baby forming in a uterus.
The only kndown cause for an ash layer in th presnt is a volcano eruption in the past. they know how to make that determination.
And yet, you ignore that deities aren't a known cause of anything, and that they haven't even been found to exist.
This is a post of mine from another site. Sourced via writings of Rabbi Moshe Averick.
''There is no scientist in the world today that would have the chutzpah to claim that he or she knows how life began.''
Because that's not what theories mean. Theories are the most likely model of how things work as determined through experimentation. Know suggests proof, which isn't a thing in science, but rather math. There is always the possibility of being wrong when it comes to a theory or hypothesis. However, not being 100% certain doesn't make the "deity did it" conclusion more valid.
Also, this guy is no scientist, and not even a Christian, why are you quoting him.
“Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on the Earth 3.5 billion years ago, is a fool or a knave.”
Again, I addressed this. Abiogenesis experiments have depicted a POSSIBLE process by which life formed on this planet. It is possible that life formed on this planet through a process that was a bit different. It's possible it was created (though, there is no evidence supporting that conclusion). In fact, most ongoing abiogenesis experiments don't have precisely the same conditions, since our understanding of what the ancient Earth was like has improved over time. I'm going to note that this guy is currently 77, because I noticed a theme going through these.
''The enormous, gaping chasm that separates non-living chemicals from the simplest living bacterium is described by renowned biologist,
“To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.”
1. Quote from a person that died 2 years before the abiogenesis experiment I mentioned published its findings.
2. No one is saying that the protocells produced in that experiment are bacteria. The first life wasn't a bacteria. Why are you so stuck on bacteria?
''Every theory mentioned above has nothing to do with Science. All current Origin of Life theories are pure speculation. Speculation, even when it is the product of a brilliant scientific mind, does not magically become Science. None of these theories are supported by anything even remotely resembling any type of conclusive evidence. In fact they are hotly disputed among researchers themselves.'' Physicist and information theorist
Is this still from Dr. Lynn Margulis? How old is this quote even? Furthermore, this scientist is well known for, in the last decade of her career, playing "devil's advocate", usually supporting the fringe theories and hypotheses of science. She wasn't respected in the community for her work within that decade; mostly for her work in the 1970s.
“A scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. The entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception.”
This man isn't a biologist, but a physicist. He did publish a book critical of abiogenesis, however, he also viewed the origin of life as "an unsolvable problem". That's a pretty defeatist perspective for a guy to have on a matter outside of his profession. He died last year, not sure if he was still reading up on scientific journals at the age of 96 when the 2013 article was published.
Nobel Laureate, Dr. Werner Arber: “Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not know how life came about …how such already quite complex structures came about is a mystery to me.”
At least this guy is still alive (age 88), though you need years for these quotes, as well as an understanding of what these people studied. This guy's focus wasn't abiogenesis to begin with.
“We do not know how life originated on the Earth.”
First guy on this quote mine list that actually worked directly in the study of abiogenesis at all. Here's a little NASA link for you
https://spacescience.arc.nasa.gov/staff/chris-mckay
Again, "know" is a strong word when it comes to a hypothesis, isn't it? Even a successful abiogenesis experiment doesn't necessarily match up with how life on Earth formed, hence the presence of "maybes" and "possible" present in talk about it. Also, I only seem to find this quote in lists of quote mines from creationists sites with no links to context. A NY Times article is mentioned, but not linked to, and the only article I seem to find that predates this quote is from 1991, and it doesn't have that quote in it
Can Mars Be Made Hospitable to Humans?
I can't find the original source of the quote at all, perhaps you can? I'm not saying it isn't real, I just want the context. Thus far, this seems to be the youngest person you've brought up, though I actually have trouble finding his exact age. Seems to be 50-60s to me.
“The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated…that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened.”
Note "almost" impossible. Also, concepts being beyond imagination for one person is not a relevant argument for anything. This guy has been dead since 2001. Why are all your sources for quote mines old/dead? Jack Szostak is looking young compared to this crowd, and he's 64. Heck, wouldn't the most damning type of quote be one from him, since he's my reference? That'd at least take effort from me to recover from, in terms of a debate, not mentally.
(National Academy of Sciences): “Nobody understands the Origin of Life, if they say they do, they are probably trying to fool you.”
When people quote a sentence or two from a scientist, and don't give a source for the quote, they are also probably trying to fool you. Again, since the understanding of abiogenesis has picked up within the past 5 years, this quote could be from any point in time between now and 1969, when he got his degree.
“I’m always running out of metaphors to try and explain what the difficulty is. But suppose you took Scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters, containing every language on Earth, and you heap them together, and then you took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, “to be or not to be that is the question,” that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule appearing on the earth.”
Hahahahaha, this guy is a straight up physician, his doctorate has nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does his work. Just to make it a little funnier, he's a Urologist. Also, he's wrong, since nucleotides are common in the environment, and form nucleic acids quite frequently.
So, out of the 9 people you decided to quote, 3 had or have careers irrelevant to abiogenesis, a couple died before the 2013 abiogenesis article I mentioned existed, and all but perhaps 1 seems to be well above the age of 65 right now (I didn't bother checking if the Rabbi was, since his input is irrelevant to begin with).
In short, quote mine fuel, since their careers are long and span points in time in which our understanding of evolution and abiogenesis were much worse, quoting what they said in the past as if it is still relevant is intellectually dishonest, made even more so by the lack of necessary sources for the quotes. I don't think you even looked up their names to know who they were before you copy and pasted your quote mine list in your original post you are quoting from now.
It would be blind faith and counter to all we know about life. Did a rock give birth to you?
*resists urge to answer yes to your question" life didn't come from rocks, no one who knows anything about abiogenesis would ever say life came from rocks. Sugar monomers, lipids, etc. formed from gases in the atmosphere and came down to the surface of the planet via precipitation. They didn't come from rocks. The closest thing to a "rock" being relevant to abiogenesis is that the presence of clay particles in water makes lipid bubbles form more easily. It's not even necessary for it, the presence of them just makes it more frequent.
Nobody is arguing independent part can exist. The argument is over self-assembly or proposed ancestors to bacteria, the simplest life form.
Bacteria are only the simplest life form around today... until the abiogenesis experiment produced the amazing protocells.
We must concede that bacteria--prodigiously complex biochemical factories, endowed with a system of self-replication, containing DNA and RNA themselves very complex molecules--have no identified ancestors.
What are you even talking about? They do have identified ancestors, there are fossils of single celled organisms. We identify them as bacteria, but they are hardly the same thing as the modern cells we know.
Alexandre Meinesz, professor of biology, University of Nice.
''The [problem] I find most insurmountable is the one most rarely talked about: all living things seem to have a minimal complexity below which it is impossible to go.[it dies].... Dr. Sturart Kaufman
Wait, is this a quote from Alexandre Meinesz quoting Stuart Kaufman? Or did you forget to paste in one? Also, surmounted, been there, done that. What people feel is impossible isn't necessarily so in the end.
It cannot be demonstrated empirically. that is what you need.
Literally demonstrated via abiogenesis experiment. This is why I am not going to respond to you after this, it's like showing a blind man paintings, there's no point to wasting the time.
Provide one observed example where life was generated via natural processes alone.
I linked you to it, did you read the actual article, or just the simplified one on the "Panda" site?
Life always involves prior life. Zero evidence. If they are looking for the first cause of bio life here then they are looking for a living cause. Excuse the typos am out of time. May clean it up later.
I'm just going to leave this off with the futility of your entire argument:
1. even if life was created, that doesn't mean that the creator was alive, still exists, or has any other such properties. You can only convert the very gullible/stupid to your religion with an argument that doesn't even exclude the other world religions.
2. even if life was created, that doesn't mean it was created for a purpose, or that any purpose it was created for would be fulfilling. Said purpose could be downright depressing, that the creator has a lust for agony and created living things on this planet to watch them suffer.
3. even if life can form naturally, that doesn't mean life on this planet did form naturally, so acting as if abiogenesis is a threat to you implies that your faith hinges on life demanding creation, which is pathetic.
4. Complexity is entirely irrelevant to if something is created artificially or not. The entire argument from complexity has been destroyed numerous times over the years just through that issue alone.
