The Molecular Origins of Life. Cambridge University Press. p. 1.
Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s)
So the atoms in the molecules are magic atoms? lol.. Tell us the difference between animate matter and supposed non-animate matter. Here, this video might help ya:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... -life.html
Yep, scientists managed to use chemistry to make the building block of RNA called Aribal(sp?) Nucleotide. We have a natural pathway to two of the 4 RNA code.
Again even the video you sent me said that physics and chemistry cannot account for life. Get your stuff straight.
Again your quote mining.. If you don't understand the subject, don't bother posting on it.
You have a very bad habit of quoting from others and not citing or giving credit to them, and this is one of many hypothesis.
Quoting others is showing I am not taking credit.. It's just sharing information..
I can cite others. In fact the most current is they are of extraterrestrial origins but that just puts the question on another planet or part of space. The fact remains as of to date, we still don't know how nature was able to select left handed amino acids from right handed amino acids which is required in the assembly of complex proteins.
No, we don't know exactly how it did it in exacting detail. We know the answer isn't going to be magic, and will consist of natural evolutionary pathway.
The only known way of doing this is with an intelligent agent in a lab. All other mixtures are racemic. Stanley Miller's work is a good example of that.
Umm.. we don't control the reactions themselves. Hence, the chemicals do the work, we only see how they do the work by playing with them to see how they can do it.
A radio is also non living inert material and this is what the analogy was based on.
Your analogy of a radio vs biochemistry really tells me you nothing about chemistry or the periodic table.
Im not sure why a radio being non living has to do with electro magnetism.
All atoms are non-living.. Only when do they form self-replicating molecules do they become something we call a living organism.
As for cognitive systems the universe is fine tunned to allow for intelligent creatures like ourselves, hence cognitive systems? In fact many cosmologist have come to the understanding that not only is the universe fine tuned but that is fine tuned to allow intelligent life to actually observe the universe as it is.
How does a cognitive system create cognitive systems so itself can exist? Your reply did not answer my question or address the complexity problem of cognitive systems... It was a poor attempt to avoid it.
In fact even Laurence Krauss admits that we are in a special place in the universe where we can actually observe the universe accurately.
So what, he also states no GOD necessary.. Just because we are here doesn't mean there is magic man. It's not even an argument for a magic man... The argument in reality is no different than saying winter is the special time period in which snowflakes to form..
Also see the Privileged Planet. I.e. if we were any other place in the galaxy not only would we be outside of the habitable zone, but we would not be able to appreciate the age and scope of the universe.
Life may not require being in the so called habitable zone. That zone was made up before we discovered organism that can live in condition well outside that zone..
Penrose also speaks of the problems of cognition with naturalism. Cognitive systems is not a problem for intelligent design theory.
Yes it is.. it's a problem because it's far more complex than what you claim can't exist without it.. You don't get it do you? ID theory requires assuming something far more complex could be the only answer to the complexity of life or the world around us.. As if the highest level of complexity magically creates complexity so itself can be complex and exist.
It in fact can't exist without relying on the same systems, mechanisms, and processes you claim can't support life, or account for the complexity of life.
Tell us, what's more complex.. A plant that forms and operates on a reactionary system with feedback, or a being reliant of cognitive systems that can't exist without first basic reactionary systems, or the same systems with feedback, or furthermore, highly more complex sensory systems that would be required to support even the most primitive cognitive system capable of producing a fully conscious state?? What do you think is required to even support a fleas level of awareness and intelligence? Your the one claiming a flea, an example of life, can't exist without magical intelligent design right?... I love how theists talk about the complexity of cognitive systems, and the sensory systems magically needing a GOD. I just about fell over when you said the Universe was fine tuned to support it when knowing I was nut just referring to this Universe, but to reality itself. That is just an utter fail...
Basically theists are stating that their GOD can create that which itself is slave to require in order to exist, so itself can exist.
Probability theory is used in science all the time.
Not in dealing with this context. Probability arguments on chaotic systems is worthless, or when used to assume something can't ever happen..Especially when it's all made up with nothing actually to base it on in terms of measurable empirical statistical value. But I can say more empirically that the probability of the existence of consciousness is fare less likely than the existence of a self replicating molecule. Or I could say 100^100 billionth power.. So under your logic, it's impossible for any conscious being to exist.
