I have been asking you to show empirical evidence that physic and chemistry alone can account for life and you just continue to repeat the mantra and offer nothing more as if just saying makes it true.
We did, you continue to ignore it. And you also continue to ignore the problem of your argument discussed here:
Come again? wha? .. Did this make any coherent sense at all? Well, it does if you realize that this statement is a self-refutation.. Hence, proving evolutionary principles and naturalistic law and governance do account for all the complexity of this world, or of existence entirely.. Yeah, Consciousness can't exist without cause, and thus is subject to require the same principles inherent in evolutionary theory to even be plausible. If anything that requires more cause to exist, it would be anything related to being a product of a cognitive system.. life on this planet will require far less cause to exist than some conscious being.. So to sit there and tell me that life couldn't self emerge on this Earth due to it's complexity is just utterly nonsensical..
You have not shown the complexity of life even remotely requires intelligent design. And this is what you are also intentionally ignoring:
Life is made of atoms son... And so is physical chemistry.. You can feel free to show us a living organism here on Earth missing their atoms, or functioning without electromagnetism. All living things are made of non-living matter..AKA Atoms.. Life is simply atoms, animated matter, or self-replicating molecules made of atoms. And I suggest you learn the periodic table and the reactivity between different atoms to understand why you are entirely wrong.
but lets go over your answer:
When did I say that living things were not made of atoms?
Did you not try to make the argument that life can not be made from non-life and even tried to use a radio as some sort of argument while ignoring this, and ignoring the differences between bio-chemistry and the radio?
If you don't understand by now after repeating myself over and over that I said that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life. Then you just don't get it.
You failed to provide how it can't, you are a making an assertion and repeating things you have no understanding of. Especially concerning chemistry..
Airplanes and televisions are also made of atoms.
So are boiling volcanic pools of amino acids and other compounds. there is a huge difference of what you are talking about and what we are talking about. Yes airplanes are made of atoms as much as is a petrified tree. However, you have made no valid point.
Do you think this proves that airplanes and televisions can come about without purposeful planning?
We made no such argument on things we know were made by us... You are disingenuously using examples you know were made by people in order to equate the entire sum total of reality requiring some sort of intelligent creation whilst ignoring, wait for it..., :
Come again? wha? .. Did this make any coherent sense at all? Well, it does if you realize that this statement is a self-refutation.. Hence, proving evolutionary principles and naturalistic law and governance do account for all the complexity of this world, or of existence entirely.. Yeah, Consciousness can't exist without cause, and thus is subject to require the same principles inherent in evolutionary theory to even be plausible. If anything that requires more cause to exist, it would be anything related to being a product of a cognitive system.. life on this planet will require far less cause to exist than some conscious being.. So to sit there and tell me that life couldn't self emerge on this Earth due to it's complexity is just utterly nonsensical..
*To say life can't emerge out of the same system is basically collapsing any conceptual hope for the existence of any sort of higher complex systems such as a cognitive system capable of even supporting the mind complexity of a flea.
There is no such thing a simple life and the periodic table does not prove abiogenesis. Without a fine tuned universe we wouldn't even have these forces or complex chemistry.
There is no such thing as simple cognitive systems.. And yes the periodic table does prove abiogenesis..You can't have life here on Earth without it. And without a fine tuned reality / existence you can't have the complexity of cognitive systems..Hmmm that really defeats your argument doesn't it?
Your argument is a fail to start with..
If you can speak of chaos theory then I can speak of anything I want too. You keep ignoring your own citation agreed with me and you can repeat your mantra all you want.
I can speak of chaos theory because it deals with evolution and is shown to deal with it. ID on the other hand has no empirical evidence to support it's claims in regards to the evolution of life, or the start of life. You base it off loose interpretation that if something looks like it had design, it must have an intelligent designer.. You need to show us exactly how complexity can't emerge through unconscious processes. Especially in a world that does this every day.
The current paradigm is the (RNA world) hypothesis, and even RNA would have had to take time through some kind of chemical evolution process before it eventually became RNA.
Well, we already proved a very key possible natural pathway.. Your best argument is making an unsupported assumption "Oh that couldn't happen naturally" as a major backpedal.. And all you ended up doing is jump to the next gap and fill the blank in with "GOD DONE IT".. Man GOD plays one hell of a game of hopscotch in your arguments!
You do not know this. You assume this. Chemical reaction happen all the time. Show me one that can bring non life into life.
Again someone needs to learn something about chemistry, the difference of atoms, electromagnetism, and the periodic table.... And show you? Yep, those pesky atoms again making up self-replicating molecules!
Assuming? No it is you who is assuming the most perfect conditions necessary.
No, it's you assuming that perfect conditions need exist, or hadn't.. Please provide a peer review on how you established this assumption as some sort of fact. You don't even realize you are relying on this argument as some sort of probability argument in order to ignore the fact that it's chemically possible, and all that needs happen is for it to happen. News flash, earth is a giant chemical mixing pot.
There is no reason to believe that the primordial earth would have had controlled conditions and was able to select only the
positive chemicals required in an open and hostile environment.
Chaos theory, order from chaos.. feedback in the system provides the control, and doesn't require intelligence. Your argument is as bad as saying snowflakes are impossible because the conditions must be controlled by some magical intelligence.. Maybe you can try again..??
Try creating a living thing in a nuclear reactor. Try creating a non racemic mixture of amino acids.
It might actually work.. Perhaps we should test it out. However, it's not the nuclear reactor we are discussing here, it's that anywhere you find uranium, there is a good chance of finding life. But life isn't said to come from reactors, but rather the chemistry and conditions of early earth likely near volcanic activity where you have amino acidic environments and chemical mixing conditions.. This includes deep sea vents, or that oil from volcanoes can provide being a catalyst for many such reactions. You are the one just assuming "Oh it's impossible" while clinging to the idea of something far more impossible in terms of complexity and needing of cause would magically be required or even the answer. Your argument fails to impress or provide an explanation based on a complexity argument and gaps argument.
Your just repeating yourslef
These membranes were created by intelligent agents in a lab under controlled conditions through trial and error and they still became unstable after time, and don't forget you accused me of making this up.
All they did was show what the chemicals can do under certain conditions. Your assumption that these conditions can't exist on Earth is pretty nothing more than a blind assertion. Tell us, has behe proven anything? Nope. Did he make blind assertions? Yep!
I wouldn't talk abut citations if I were you.
Why not? Your citations are terrible.
As I said before, you said it was foolish to believe that physics and chemistry alone could not account for life.
It is, it can't be done without it.. Please prove life without chemistry and physics..
You then send me a video that speaks of a (chaos theory) that you support, and in that same video it also says that chemistry and physics cannot account for life.
Quote mine alert!
The never ending "just so" mantra.
So you can't answer to that and you wonder why you're quote mining..
The video is still posted Why don't you watch it for yourself. Do you want me to give the minutes and seconds that it says that physics and chemistry cannot account for life? Why would I lie and humiliate myself when anyone reading this can view your chaos theory video and check for themselves
Do I need to give you the minutes and seconds where it explains what they meant by that? Do you even comprehend what quote mining is? Do I need to define that term for you?
You said that 2 peer review articles were removed and you named them.
Please find me those articles on a reputable journal site. You know, one that actually doesn't just post anything and everything?
That journal has no barring on the subject... Pleas show me where Nature has posted David L Abel's paper, or the other paper in question..
Of course the Journal still exist. What does that have to do with you making things up?
Read the journal.. I could go over this in another thread with you.. And show me where it exists on any reputable journal site.
SCIENCE NEWS
“But while this is a step forward, it’s not the whole picture,� Ferris points out. “It’s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It’s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn’t happen in the ancient world.�
Dr. Joyce said he had hoped an explanation for the one-handedness of biological molecules would emerge from prebiotic chemistry, but Dr. Sutherland’s reactions do not supply any such explanation. "One is certainly required because of what is known to chemists as “original syn
The author, John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, likened his work to a crossword puzzle in which doing the first clues makes the others easier. "Whether we've done one across is an open question," he said. "Our worry is that it may not be right."
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=5277
Anyone notice the backpedalling? Gap gets filled and the Creationist jumps to the next gap and says "GOD exists here".. Wow that is amazing!.. Now when science proves something it becomes "Oh that's impossible in nature", and "oh but the next step is impossible"... Gotta love the false probability argument Creationists cling to.. All scientists really have to show is that this can happen chemically.. That's all they need to show.
Although Sutherland has shown that it is possible to build one part of RNA from small molecules, objectors to the RNA-world theory say the RNA molecule as a whole is too complex to be created using early-Earth geochemistry.
So now it goes from RNA is too complex, and then science shows a natural pathway to the first two blocks of RNA, and now it's the "whole RNA molecule" that is too complex based on an assumption "to be created by early earth geochemistry" in what was likely amino acidic conditions.. Again here is the complexity argument problem again,.. wait for it...:
Come again? wha? .. Did this make any coherent sense at all? Well, it does if you realize that this statement is a self-refutation.. Hence, proving evolutionary principles and naturalistic law and governance do account for all the complexity of this world, or of existence entirely.. Yeah, Consciousness can't exist without cause, and thus is subject to require the same principles inherent in evolutionary theory to even be plausible. If anything that requires more cause to exist, it would be anything related to being a product of a cognitive system.. life on this planet will require far less cause to exist than some conscious being.. So to sit there and tell me that life couldn't self emerge on this Earth due to it's complexity is just utterly nonsensical..
*To say life can't emerge out of the same system is basically collapsing any conceptual hope for the existence of any sort of higher complex systems such as a cognitive system capable of even supporting the mind complexity of a flea.
"The flaw with this kind of research is not in the chemistry. The flaw is in the logic — that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth," says Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University.
The flaw in his argument is his assumption of amino acidic environments couldn't possibly do so..As if earth is chemically inert and doesn't have any chemical reactions and interactions, or quantum transaction ect going on at all.
Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.� He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.�
But again this is making assumptions... All that needs to be shown is that it's chemically possible..
"Ultimately, the challenge of prebiotic chemistry is that there is no way of validating historical hypotheses, however convincing an individual experiment," points out Steven Benner,
This is probably the only coherent fact presented..
Again even the video you sent me said that physics and chemistry cannot account for life. Get your stuff straight.
Quote mine alert!
I'm quoting from your own video and within context.
Incorrect.
I don't ink you understood. The point was to not take credit for others. Thats why your supposed to cite your sources like I do and most everyone else does.
Is this your excuse to ignore it?
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.
And yet you are claiming GOD done it and assuming it cant'... Nobody here argued we know exactly how.. Also, How about the assembly of cognitive systems, and sensory systems?
You're the one who believes that these bio systems can come together on their own.
How about the assembly of cognitive systems, and sensory systems?
So not only is it you who believes in magic
Energy doing the work is not magic. Understanding what chemistry is, or what electromagnetism is does not deal with "magic" .. Please try again..
but since you cannot demonstrate it with empirical evidence then you also have great faith that it happened that way.
Sure I can, because it couldn't happen any other way.. Show me a living organism without electromagnetism, atoms, or chemistry.. Heck, show me a cognitive system not requiring the same reactionary systems..
