Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Talking of poor analogies, here's another - millions of years of billions of simultaneous experiments across a whole planet is comparable to a handful of scientists running a few thousand experiments in less than 100 years. How is it conceivable that they haven't created life yet?There is no of evidence of the existence of immediate simpler antecedents to that simplest cell, or any structure proposed for them. With all their intelligence chemical plant designers do not expect far simpler chemical plants to work first time. Indeed with all our wit there is no such chemical plant on earth that is similar complexity, if there was it would take decades to build...before being able to refine the next experiment.. In many ways the science of "proto cells" has barely advanced since I first saw it as a schoolkid in new scientist 50 years ago. Same old arguments. Same lack of evidence. Despite a fortune pumped by NASA harvard, and various benefactors all there is is conjecture.
And an argument from incredulity to wrap things up.Your guesses on origin of life are just as much a faith, as anyone else. The entire field of abiogenesis is assumptions repeated so often they have gained the status of fact with not a shred of evidence any of it ever happened. It just has to have happened right? Or the atheist thing falls apart without it!
Talking of poor analogies, here's another - millions of years of billions of simultaneous experiments across a whole planet is comparable to a handful of scientists running a few thousand experiments in less than 100 years. How is it conceivable that they haven't created life yet?
Lot to unpack there. In the first place, no one supposes that life came about when the necessary inorganic chemicals just happened randomly to bump into one another. The odds against that happening are pretty much as you suppose. There would have to be a population of "almost" cells before it could happen, and then the odds are pretty good.You ignore all the problems take casualties.
If 0123456789( etc to 1000 digits) is the only random chance sequence of bits that works, you expect a huge number of some of the others like 1345678902 to be found as casualties in random chance assembly, on the way to just one random living cell..
And none is to be expected. For all we know, the emergence of life could be a pretty common occurrance happening even now, but the simple proto-life produced would almost instantly become food for some existing creature and we wouldn't know about it.Indeed considering the staggering complexity of the simplest known cell the world would be awash with the still born casualties. There are none. No intermediate antecedents . No nearly right but actually wrong casualties. No evidence of any kind.
Now all you have to do is show that such a thing exists in natural objects. You have to present us with a complex natural biological system, and demonstrate that it could not have been produced by a stochastic process.Enough time and places does not solve the problem of irreducible complexity.
Just another argument from incredulity. If you want to argue probabilities you'll need to provide your maths. Without that you're simply making an unsupported assertion which can be dismissed out of hand.You ignore all the problems take casualties.
If 0123456789( etc to 1000 digits) is the only random chance sequence of bits that works, you expect a huge number of some of the others like 1345678902 to be found as casualties in random chance assembly, on the way to just one random living cell..
Indeed considering the staggering complexity of the simplest known cell the world would be awash with the still born casualties. There are none. No intermediate antecedents . No nearly right but actually wrong casualties. No evidence of any kind.
Enough time and places does not solve the problem of irreducible complexity.
indeed the scientists have the advantage they can ignore most of the non Chance combinations , so they need orders of magnitude less time. They still get nowhere.
Cars are a lot simpler. Bicycles simpler still. Why are there not a heap of nearLy cars from random chance assembly of bits without designer. Ones with the gearstick where the steering wheel should be? There are none in the fossil record. Why not? If time and places is all it takes? They are a much simpler accident.
There is no evidence of any antecedents or casualties along the way to the simplest cell.
It is hideously complex.
As a math modeller this ridiculous wishful thinking on progressive change is what’s wrong with much of what is written on climbing mount improbable. Dawkins knows nothing about it. Life would get stuck on the first small foothill. It could never leave without jumps, so still born casualties. A junk yard of failures. And if it really happened that way, there would be a production line still continuing all the way from soup to complex living cells. There isn’t. Just a hideously complex minimum cell.
Hows a creationist to argue withoutJust another argument from incredulity. If you want to argue probabilities you'll need to provide your maths. Without that you're simply making an unsupported assertion which can be dismissed out of hand.
Would you know it, if we didn't?Hows a creationist to argue without making things up?
The simplest cell we know is a self repplicating, self repairing, self evolving programmable chemical factory that produces thousands of proteins under instruction of genetic codes. It is horrendously complex. The function of much of the genetic code is still unknown, how some parts of organsims function is still completely unkonw.
Is that what passes as logic in your world? As bad examples go, it is a very bad example.
How about mine. The simplest cell we know is a self repplicating, self repairing, self evolving programmable chemical factory that produces thousands of proteins under instruction of genetic codes. It is horrendously complex. The function of much of the genetic code is still unknown, how some parts of organsims function is still completely unkonw.
There is no of evidence of the existence of immediate simpler antecedents to that simplest cell, or any structure proposed for them. With all their intelligence chemical plant designers do not expect far simpler chemical plants to work first time. Indeed with all our wit there is no such chemical plant on earth that is similar complexity, if there was it would take decades to build...before being able to refine the next experiment.. In many ways the science of "proto cells" has barely advanced since I first saw it as a schoolkid in new scientist 50 years ago. Same old arguments. Same lack of evidence. Despite a fortune pumped by NASA harvard, and various benefactors all there is is conjecture.
There is also the problem. Irreducible complexity. A hydrogen atom is not self repairing, self evolving or self replication. Because it isnt complex enough. At very least the minimum needs the structures for replcation , it needs a genetic code to evolve, and the processes to interpret the code. Remove parts of that structure and it the irreducible cell is dead in the water. Obviously. Because It neither replicates or evolves. Without which there is no life. How did that happen? With no designer?
As for random chance origin of it all - there is no heap of debris of nearly working (but actually failing) chemical factory cells, or a long line of simpler almost cells for for there to be a random chance that one of them works by pure accident. Since there is no guiding hand in your world there must be a near infinite number of failures for just one to be lucky enough to work. And that process should be continuing. But There is nothing. No designer to build it or turn it on. Just a few plausibility arguments for how some bits of it might possibly happen. ( with a following wind and lots of optimism, and even if those bits are shown that they might have happened, there is still no evidence they actually did happen or happen that way!)
So the reality is you know nothing. All you have is conjecture and the ability to marvel at the hideous complexity of nature, with no idea where any of it came from.
Certainly not by shaking rocks in a box, with or without your magical gremlins (whose existence i am inclined to doubt).
Your guesses on origin of life are just as much a faith, as anyone else. The entire field of abiogenesis is assumptions repeated so often they have gained the status of fact with not a shred of evidence any of it ever happened. It just has to have happened right? Or the atheist thing falls apart without it!
Lot to unpack there. In the first place, no one supposes that life came about when the necessary inorganic chemicals just happened randomly to bump into one another. The odds against that happening are pretty much as you suppose. There would have to be a population of "almost" cells before it could happen, and then the odds are pretty good.
And none is to be expected. For all we know, the emergence of life could be a pretty common occurrance happening even now, but the simple proto-life produced would almost instantly become food for some existing creature and we wouldn't know about it.
Now all you have to do is show that such a thing exists in natural objects. You have to present us with a complex natural biological system, and demonstrate that it could not have been produced by a stochastic process.
Yes, I know it was bad logic. That was the point. I was trying to point out that the argument "The genetic code is ordered, therefore it must have been designed" was equally bad.
Plausible ideas for the forerunners of cells have been presented since at least the 1920s. And it's entirely plausible that enzyme could have formed self-replicating molecules.
So the atheist mantra that somehow they take a logical view of what is near inevitable given enough time and places to happen is hogwash. Atheist belief in random chance abiogenesis with no designer is just that: a totally unsupported belief bordering on the magical that Dawkins so attacks.
God is Creator of all things, Heaven and Earth, every living creature, everything.
We call those people "mission fields."I know you believe this but there are people who see no evidence that this is true and are inclined to accept scientific, fact based explanations.
You might as well call them "wishful thinking." It might be possible to bring a person like Occam's Barber to Christ, but you will never bring him to Fundamentalism.We call those people "mission fields."
And IF that could be in any way shown to be anything butGod is Creator of all things, Heaven and Earth, every living creature, everything.
Wny do you think that isYou might as well call them "wishful thinking." It might be possible to bring a person like Occam's Barber to Christ, but you will never bring him to Fundamentalism.
Thats not how I' d have put it, but key word for me theteToo much fatuous nonsense added to the Gospel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?