Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[Kenisaw]

No, that is not exactly what occurred. Sentient life arose from non-sentient life.

Ok, so according to what natural law can sentient life arise from non-sentient life? Tell me.

Or are you just talking?

What laws? All of them. Nothing about any living thing violates any of the laws of the universe. Life operates entirely within the rules of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, etc.

Sentients did not come directly from non-living things.

Ok, prove that it came indirectly from non-living things. Right back to square one LOL.

The entirety of the fossil record shows that. So does the field of genetics. It's already been proven time and again.

But anywayz, terminologies aside....can scientists go in a lab and create sentient life from nonliving material? No, they can't. Can you guys do it? No, you can't.

Yet, nature was able to do it. So a process with no sight, mind, or intellect was able to do something that human beings with sight, minds, and intellect are able to do...and that is create sentient life from inanimate material.

It's just chemistry. Atoms and molecules doing what is possible under the rules of the universe.

No, he can't. I can't either. No one has yet been able to recreate abiogenesis in a lab.

But nature did it tho. Is nature smarter than human beings?

It's not a question of intelligence. It's a question of what is chemically possible. Life is chemically possible. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here. We just don't know the steps involved when it happened.

The inability to do so, however, does not negate the mountain of evidence showing that life started off as very simple creatures a long time ago and changed over time into the complexity we see today.

What evidence? What is the single, best piece of evidence for abiogenesis?

Fossil record. Genetics. Replicating molecules. Natural lipidic membranes, to name a few.

All life forms are related (genetics)

Could similar genetics mean common designer?

Cart before the horse. Prove the common designer exists, and then we can talk about what this designer did and didn't do. Got any empirical data for that creature? No, of course not.

and life has been around a long time (geology)

How long its been here says nothing about where it came from. How long its been here only says something about.... how long its been here .

The question is, where did it come from.

But the time element does support the theory of evolution, and tracing back the fossil record and the sequenced genes of living things points to a common ancestor a long time ago...

and it's clear that life changed over time from these first simple creatures (paleontology, morphology, biology).

Actually, what is clear is the fact that every creature is bringing forth after their kind, just as the creation account in Genesis narrates.

Fast forward however many years afterwards, and what do we see...animals bringing forth after their kind.

That is what is clear.

It's also clear that all life comes from a common ancestor. Your conclusion goes against 2 billion fossils and the entire fields of genetics, geology, biology, paleontology, etc. But you do have a 2000 year old book put together by men after they finished arguing what should and shouldn't be put in it...bully for you.

These empirical evidences point towards abiogenesis.

The empirical evidence shows life to only come from life. If there is any exceptions to this, I certainly haven't seen it yet...and I am sure that you can't demonstrate it.

The empirical evidence also shows that every single living thing is made up entirely on nonliving parts. Every atom in living things is not alive by any definition of the word. So obviously life comes from non-life...

What data or evidence is there for a god creature existing, much less this creature starting the universe?

Physical reality began to exist at some point in the finite past....and only a non-physical entity with astronomical power and free will can bring physical reality into existence.

The existence of a physical reality only proves that a physical reality does indeed exist. It does not prove where it came from. Please try again.

No, just chemistry. There is nothing about any living thing that violates any law of chemistry, physics, etc. Nothing. Life is chemically possible. If it wasn't, it couldn't possibly exist.

But you can't have life without organic/chemical fine tuning. This is fine tuning at the molecular level, so before you even get to the point of life, you have to fine-tune those chemicals.

And before you can fine-tune those chemicals, you have to have a fine-tuned cosmos...we are talking mathematically precise fine-tuned.

And this would all have to all be done right the first time...only one roll of the dice.

Wrong. Who are you to say under what possible conditions life can possibly arise? You have absolutely no idea what different rules of chemistry, physics, and so forth could allow for some kind of life to emerge. There is a huge range of living things just on Earth. Some that don't need light, some don't need oxygen, some that endure extreme heat or cold. That's all within just this planet under just this set of rules. You can't possibly comment intelligently on what is and isn't required for some kind of life to exist...

Not an "if" at all. Life is chemically possible.

Life from nonliving material is not possible, sir.

Then how are you alive? Everything in you is made up of nonliving pieces...

Do me a favor Kingdom. Tell me which molecules in your body are NOT dead matter. I'd love to hear this...

*sigh* The molecules that I am made up of is dead...yet, "I" am alive. Hmm, how does that work out?

You are taking this places it doesn't even need to go, but since you took it there, lets take it there.

Lets. Answer the question.

[For_The_Kingdom]

What laws? All of them. Nothing about any living thing violates any of the laws of the universe. Life operates entirely within the rules of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, etc.

The orderly laws and structures of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, etc...hmm, that is a lot of low entropy there...for a mindless/blind process that didn't know what it was doing. Lots.

Not to mention the fact that it is question begging....as you can't make such a statement based upon scientific evidence, but rather; "God doesn't exist, and it happened, therefore, it must have happened naturally...I mean after all, nothing else could have sparked the fuse".

Unscientific question begging.

The entirety of the fossil record shows that.

You don't have a complete fossil record though, do you? So much for "entirety".

So does the field of genetics.

Common designer.

It's already been proven time and again.

Yet, I am still demanding that proof be provided.

It's just chemistry.

Sentient life is not "just" chemistry. It requires divine intervention.

Atoms and molecules doing what is possible under the rules of the universe.

What rules, though? What are the rules that will get you sentient life. And don't go talking in generalities, either. I am talking about specific rules/laws that will produce the given phenomenon.

It's not a question of intelligence. It's a question of what is chemically possible. Life is chemically possible.

Not sentient life. I am willing to compromise with you as to whether life, in general, would be chemically possible..and when I say "life" in general, I am talking about life forms such as plants and such....and I am granting that just for arguments sake.

However, when you talk about sentient life...that is a WHOLEEEE nother ballgame. And it will take more than mixing a few chemicals together to get non-sentient material to become conscious agents.

If it wasn't we wouldn't be here. We just don't know the steps involved when it happened.

See, look at that. Intelligent design isn't even considered. SMH.

Fossil record.

Give me one complete one, and then you are cookin.

Genetics. Replicating molecules. Natural lipidic membranes

Presupposes chemical engineering on a molecular level...basically, intelligent design.

Cart before the horse. Prove the common designer exists, and then we can talk about what this designer did and didn't do. Got any empirical data for that creature? No, of course not.

Ok, so when I look at the Mona Lisa painting, I have to "prove that a painter exists", or I can "believe the painting exists based upon different kinds of paint being spilled onto the canvas and thereby forming the image of a woman based on the natural randomness of the paint being splattered over the canvas."

And as crazy as the latter may seem, what you are proposing is even worse than the painting...you go beyond just painting, you are saying that the matter was actually assembled into a conscious human being.

But the time element does support the theory of evolution

Right, because the premise is "given enough time, ANYTHING could happen".

, and tracing back the fossil record and the sequenced genes of living things points to a common ancestor a long time ago...

But then you have to ask how do you get to the point of having DNA spring into existence in the first place? A lot of presupposing going on. I know it is far too convenient to skip the tough questions and focus on the fun stuff.

It's also clear that all life comes from a common ancestor. Your conclusion goes against 2 billion fossils and the entire fields of genetics, geology, biology, paleontology, etc.

Yeah, 2 billion fossils and not one complete fossil set. Of course, of all of the billions of organisms that have died and perhaps fossilized, we should expect to find fossils. However, I would expect to have a complete fossil set of at LEAST one organism from past-intermediate forms.

After all, if there was all of this evolution taking place over the course of hundreds of millions of years, providing one complete fossil set seems like a obtainable goal. Just one.

But you do have a 2000 year old book put together by men after they finished arguing what should and shouldn't be put in it...bully for you.

Sure, the Biblical canon and deciding what should/shouldn't be put in it was a selective process...kind of like how scientists get together and argue over the latest science of today and which scientific theories are more viable than others..and also what goes into text books and what doesn't.

Same concept.

The empirical evidence also shows that every single living thing is made up entirely on nonliving parts. Every atom in living things is not alive by any definition of the word. So obviously life comes from non-life...

Bruh, are you alive, or are you NOT alive? Simple question. If the answer is "alive", then the above quote is irrelevant.

The existence of a physical reality only proves that a physical reality does indeed exist. It does not prove where it came from. Please try again.

Not so fast...I said physical reality BEGAN TO EXIST at some point in the finite past...so the question immediately becomes; where did it come from?

Physical reality could not have come from physical reality (circular reasoning)...therefore, it would owe its existence to a non-physical reality.

Now, I know that is a difficult pill for you to swallow, but hey..

Wrong. Who are you to say under what possible conditions life can possibly arise? You have absolutely no idea what different rules of chemistry, physics, and so forth could allow for some kind of life to emerge. There is a huge range of living things just on Earth. Some that don't need light, some don't need oxygen, some that endure extreme heat or cold. That's all within just this planet under just this set of rules. You can't possibly comment intelligently on what is and isn't required for some kind of life to exist...

I don't know what "other" possible conditions can life possibly rise...but what I do know is the possibility for this life in this universe can possibly arise.

Check out this article/video...which features prominent non-theist physicist Roger Penrose.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/ro ... 33691.html

Then how are you alive? Everything in you is made up of nonliving pieces...

Well, let me put it to you this way, since you are obviously equivocating the word "alive"...the "living" part of me causes the "nonliving" parts of me to do things.

Simple enough?

Do me a favor Kingdom. Tell me which molecules in your body are NOT dead matter. I'd love to hear this...

My consciousness is the only sentient/living part of me....everything else can be considered sentiently dead.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 272 by For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, so when I look at the Mona Lisa painting, I have to "prove that a painter exists"

To be technical, yes, but have a look at this.


What do we see there? Why...that's a painting, and what's that thing, with all the hair, in front of it?
The painter.
We already have evidence of the painter.
This is the step you skip over in your intelligent design argument.
When you argue "every painting has a painter", no-one disagrees with that because we all already agree that painters exist.
Indeed, the evidence of painters is so widespread, so common, so widely known, that it is axiomatic to say that paintings have a painter. Thus why, whenever you argue "every painting has a painter" you don't actually have to even bother showing the evidence.

However, when you then jump to the universe at large...it's completely different. You cannot use "paintings have painters" to support "universe has universe-designer" because we have evidence for painters, but NOT for universe-designers.

Sentient life is not "just" chemistry. It requires divine intervention.

Where is the evidence for this? Earlier in your comment, I can sorta see the point you're making that Kenisaw is begging the question but so are you here. If we cannot point to the specific natural laws to explain sentient life, not at this moment, this does NOT give you licence to say that therefore, sentient life requires divine intervention.

What rules, though? What are the rules that will get you sentient life.

Please do not argue god of the gaps.

Not sentient life. I am willing to compromise with you as to whether life, in general, would be chemically possible..and when I say "life" in general, I am talking about life forms such as plants and such....and I am granting that just for arguments sake.

However, when you talk about sentient life...that is a WHOLEEEE nother ballgame. And it will take more than mixing a few chemicals together to get non-sentient material to become conscious agents.

Explain how it is you are able to know for a fact that life in general is possible under the natural laws of physics and chemistry...but somehow sentient life isn't?
It's one thing to question another person's claim that Phenomenon X can be explained using natural laws and challenging that person to produce those laws...and then saying that nature CANNOT do Phenomenon X.
How well versed in biology, physics, chemistry are you? Have you explored the entire universe, carefully catalogued any and all occurrences of life throughout the universe, and shown that no matter how many ways chemicals are mixed together, sentient life just doesn't happen?

Right, because the premise is "given enough time, ANYTHING could happen".

Exactly. That's how probability works, or did you never study probability in high school?
Even if something is say ten trillion to one odds against, all one would have to do is wait long enough and eventually it would happen.

Yeah, 2 billion fossils and not one complete fossil set.

Not one single fossil set? Are you claiming that there is not single fossil set of bones for a single individual creature?
I take it you've never been to a natural history museum then?
Why the demand for a complete set? Is an 85% stegosaurus skeleton not good enough?

Sure, the Biblical canon and deciding what should/shouldn't be put in it was a selective process...kind of like how scientists get together and argue over the latest science of today and which scientific theories are more viable than others..and also what goes into text books and what doesn't.

Same concept.

Please. They aren't even remotely the same thing. If a group of scientists are deciding what gets into a high school science textbook, they decide based on empirical data.
What data did the various councils of the first few centuries AD have? What did they do to verify or falsify the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, for example?
Or was that...presupposed?

Bruh, are you alive, or are you NOT alive? Simple question. If the answer is "alive", then the above quote is irrelevant.

How is Kenisaw's quote irrelevant? I am alive, and I am made up of iron etc both.
It's like you're arguing that for something to be in the category 'alive', it CANNOT be made up of elements like iron, phosphorus etc...which is just odd to say the very least.

Well, let me put it to you this way, since you are obviously equivocating the word "alive"...the "living" part of me causes the "nonliving" parts of me to do things.

What part of you is non-living, and if you give us such an example, how exactly are you able to tell the difference?

I don't know what "other" possible conditions can life possibly rise

Wait you don't know...but you somehow know that nature cannot give us sentient life?

My consciousness is the only sentient/living part of me....everything else can be considered sentiently dead.

Kenisaw did not ask you what is 'sentiently dead' (what even is that?). He asked you what part of is not dead matter.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 272 by For_The_Kingdom]

Sentient life is not "just" chemistry. It requires divine intervention.

Does it not simply require a very advanced and complicated brain? Such a brain is THE evolutionary advance that has given homo sapiens our seeming "special" place on this earth compared to anything that has come before ... including the ability to ponder questions on abiogenesis, sentience, etc.

There are plenty of "lower" animals with far greater strength and speed, better eyesight and sense of smell, etc. than humans. So our relatively frail bodies are nothing special at all in that regard.

What we have evolved since homo habilis and its predecessors (australopithecus, ardipithecus, etc. back to the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees and bonobos ~6 million years ago) is a very large brain that is about 80% neocortex. From Wikipedia:

"The neocortex, also called the neopallium and isocortex, is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning and language."

We have about 1000 cm3 of neocortex (80% of ~1250 cm3 average brain volume) compared to a chimp at 175 cm3 (50% of ~350 cm3 brain volume). That is a factor of 5.7 more volume of raw neocortex, and goes a very long way towards explaining our seemingly "divine' gift of smarts compared to any other creature on this particular planet. There is no need to invoke divine explanations for this ... we simply have phenomenal brain organs capable of incredibly complex thought.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 272 by For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, so when I look at the Mona Lisa painting, I have to "prove that a painter exists"

To be technical, yes, but have a look at this.


What do we see there? Why...that's a painting, and what's that thing, with all the hair, in front of it?
The painter.

I fail to see your point. Anyhow, I thought you said you was leaving this forum, rikuo? If you are going to remain here, then it would be nice if you would accept my challenge to a debate on the MOA.

We already have evidence of the painter.

Oh, so are you saying that even if we don't know who painted the painting, and therefore having no "evidence of the painter", that it would still be within logic and reason to give rise to the possibility of the paint randomly spilling on the canvas and thereby forming specific patterns of trees, grass, and mountains..which would be patterns of independent objects that nature knows nothing of?

Quite some faith you got there, pal.

This is the step you skip over in your intelligent design argument.

I just go where the evidence takes me, my friend.

When you argue "every painting has a painter", no-one disagrees with that because we all already agree that painters exist.

Fine..but that does not undermine my point that there is just no logical reason to think that if the painting requires intelligent design, then so does the design of whom the painting is of.

Higher degrees of complexity will only require higher degrees of intelligent design. The more complex you want to get, the more "brain power" will be required. And what is brain power? Intelligence.

However, when you then jump to the universe at large...it's completely different. You cannot use "paintings have painters" to support "universe has universe-designer" because we have evidence for painters, but NOT for universe-designers.

I wasn't necessarily talking about the universe at large, but since you want to take it there, we can take it there.

Sentient life is not "just" chemistry. It requires divine intervention.

Where is the evidence for this? Earlier in your comment, I can sorta see the point you're making that Kenisaw is begging the question but so are you here. If we cannot point to the specific natural laws to explain sentient life, not at this moment, this does NOT give you licence to say that therefore, sentient life requires divine intervention.

What rules, though? What are the rules that will get you sentient life.

Please do not argue god of the gaps.

Not sentient life. I am willing to compromise with you as to whether life, in general, would be chemically possible..and when I say "life" in general, I am talking about life forms such as plants and such....and I am granting that just for arguments sake.

However, when you talk about sentient life...that is a WHOLEEEE nother ballgame. And it will take more than mixing a few chemicals together to get non-sentient material to become conscious agents.

Explain how it is you are able to know for a fact that life in general is possible under the natural laws of physics and chemistry...but somehow sentient life isn't?
It's one thing to question another person's claim that Phenomenon X can be explained using natural laws and challenging that person to produce those laws...and then saying that nature CANNOT do Phenomenon X.
How well versed in biology, physics, chemistry are you? Have you explored the entire universe, carefully catalogued any and all occurrences of life throughout the universe, and shown that no matter how many ways chemicals are mixed together, sentient life just doesn't happen?

Right, because the premise is "given enough time, ANYTHING could happen".

Exactly. That's how probability works, or did you never study probability in high school?
Even if something is say ten trillion to one odds against, all one would have to do is wait long enough and eventually it would happen.

Yeah, 2 billion fossils and not one complete fossil set.

Not one single fossil set? Are you claiming that there is not single fossil set of bones for a single individual creature?
I take it you've never been to a natural history museum then?
Why the demand for a complete set? Is an 85% stegosaurus skeleton not good enough?

Sure, the Biblical canon and deciding what should/shouldn't be put in it was a selective process...kind of like how scientists get together and argue over the latest science of today and which scientific theories are more viable than others..and also what goes into text books and what doesn't.

Same concept.

Please. They aren't even remotely the same thing. If a group of scientists are deciding what gets into a high school science textbook, they decide based on empirical data.
What data did the various councils of the first few centuries AD have? What did they do to verify or falsify the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, for example?
Or was that...presupposed?

Bruh, are you alive, or are you NOT alive? Simple question. If the answer is "alive", then the above quote is irrelevant.

How is Kenisaw's quote irrelevant? I am alive, and I am made up of iron etc both.
It's like you're arguing that for something to be in the category 'alive', it CANNOT be made up of elements like iron, phosphorus etc...which is just odd to say the very least.

Well, let me put it to you this way, since you are obviously equivocating the word "alive"...the "living" part of me causes the "nonliving" parts of me to do things.

What part of you is non-living, and if you give us such an example, how exactly are you able to tell the difference?

I don't know what "other" possible conditions can life possibly rise

Wait you don't know...but you somehow know that nature cannot give us sentient life?

My consciousness is the only sentient/living part of me....everything else can be considered sentiently dead.

Kenisaw did not ask you what is 'sentiently dead' (what even is that?). He asked you what part of is not dead matter.[/quote]

[Kenisaw]

What laws? All of them. Nothing about any living thing violates any of the laws of the universe. Life operates entirely within the rules of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, etc.

The orderly laws and structures of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, etc...hmm, that is a lot of low entropy there...for a mindless/blind process that didn't know what it was doing. Lots.

Everyone no doubt notes here that Kingdom can’t actually deny that life (sentient or not) is possible under the laws of the universe. If it wasn’t, we couldn’t be here. But instead of admitting that his question (“Ok, so according to what natural law can sentient life arise from non-sentient life? Tell me.�) is answered accurately and decisively, we instead get a deflection attempt. Kingdom switches to a made up comparison of “orderly� laws allowing a “mindless/blind process� to occur. Of course since the “mindless/blind process� occurs within the limits of the “orderly� laws, there is no conflict here, despite Kingdom’s attempt to make it look so by the use of opposing words. He throws in “low entropy� as well for no good reason.

We see what you did, Kingdom….

Not to mention the fact that it is question begging....as you can't make such a statement based upon scientific evidence, but rather; "God doesn't exist, and it happened, therefore, it must have happened naturally...I mean after all, nothing else could have sparked the fuse".

Unscientific question begging.

More deflection from Kingdom. Nowhere do I state that the existence of a god has anything to do with life being possible under the laws of the universe. The fact that it is patently obvious that it is possible for all life to exist, or else it couldn’t be here right now, renders your sentences meaningless. You ARE the scientific evidence, Kingdom. There’s no need for a spark for atoms and molecules to do what is possible under the laws of the universe…

The entirety of the fossil record shows that.

You don't have a complete fossil record though, do you? So much for "entirety".

Fossil record at dictionary.com: “A term used by paleontologists ( see paleontology ) to refer to the total number of fossils that have been discovered, as well as to the information derived from them.�

It is ridiculous that it even needs be explained that fossil record does not mean we’ve recovered all fossils, or have a fossil of every single species that ever existed. Or perhaps you couldn’t argue against the billions of fossils found to date and had to deflect by playing word games. I’m not sure which one is worse to be honest…

So does the field of genetics.

Common designer.

The original reply I wrote was “The entirety of the fossil record shows that. So does the field of genetics. It's already been proven time and again.� Why you would chose to split that up in to three things to respond to I can’t say, but “common designer� has nothing to do with any of it. Both the fossil record and the field of genetics show that sentient life came from non-sentient life, and non-sentient life came from the first life form. None of the facts in play point to the existence of a common designer, or that this design creature actually made anything.

It's already been proven time and again.

Yet, I am still demanding that proof be provided.

While asserting the baseless “common designer� and continuing to fail to provide evidence for such a critter? Fascinating double standard, which only exists in the first place because you continue to ignore the data and facts presented to you at this website in multiple threads over many months by dozens of individuals. You’ve been giving your proof, you’ve been told where you can go to find more, but you seem unable to take your blinders off. P.S. – Don’t forget your evidence for the designer critter this time…

It's just chemistry.

Sentient life is not "just" chemistry. It requires divine intervention.

I substituted “nacho cheese� for “divine intervention�, and it had the exact same amount of evidence supporting it…There is no empirical data or evidence that supports the claim that divine intervention or nacho cheese is needed for sentient life to exist. And of course we’ve all noted your inability to provide any, Kingdom…

Atoms and molecules doing what is possible under the rules of the universe.

What rules, though? What are the rules that will get you sentient life. And don't go talking in generalities, either. I am talking about specific rules/laws that will produce the given phenomenon.

What generalities? Sentient life has to be possible under the laws of the universe, or else we couldn’t be having this conversation. All of those very specific rules allow for it, if any of them didn’t it wouldn’t be in existence. As it relates to biology, it is clear from those that suffer from physical damage or growth issues in their brain that sentience can only happen when the neural network and the development of the brain are fully functionable. Sentience is a result of the physical brain. And we can see this in newborns, who are still on the road to sentience at the earliest stages of life. Here’s an interesting article on that topic:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ess-arise/

It's not a question of intelligence. It's a question of what is chemically possible. Life is chemically possible.

Not sentient life. I am willing to compromise with you as to whether life, in general, would be chemically possible..and when I say "life" in general, I am talking about life forms such as plants and such....and I am granting that just for arguments sake.

However, when you talk about sentient life...that is a WHOLEEEE nother ballgame. And it will take more than mixing a few chemicals together to get non-sentient material to become conscious agents.

That’s what happens when babies develop. They aren’t sentient at conception. Only after the appropriate physical structures are in place (the brain stem has been identified as one critical component) does sentience become achievable. Sentience is tied to physical structure, and is at its peak during waking hours too by the way: http://www.ibtimes.com/where-does-consc ... ce-2444536

If it wasn't we wouldn't be here. We just don't know the steps involved when it happened.

See, look at that. Intelligent design isn't even considered. SMH.

Neither is nacho cheese. You know why? Because there is no evidence that nacho cheese has anything to do with it. And at least we can prove the existence of nacho cheese. Can you prove the existence of the intelligent designer? Of course not, you’ve never been able to provide any data or evidence at all that such a thing exists. Why should be consider a baseless assertion as a possible explanation for something?

Fossil record.

Give me one complete one, and then you are cookin.

Here you go again splitting up responses. Anyway, what’s your definition of complete? If the fossil record of early whales and their ancestors allow us to see an incredible transition – from fully 4 legged and terrestrial animals to those living in the water and unable to survive on land, would that count as “complete�? Take a look at Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Kutchicetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus and others in order and you can watch the change happening – the nostrils fuse together and move back over the head to form a blowhole, the teeth become more simple and peg-like, the snout elongates, the neck shrinks, the back becomes more flexible to swim better, the hands become more flipper-like, the legs and pelvis reduce and disappear, the bones become more dense. Exactly the kinds of transition demanded – one �kind� of animal (an ancient antelope-like ungulate) has turned into another (a whale). It’s all there and well documented with numerous fossil finds, anatomical characters quite clearly changing, the fossils independently dated to the order in which they would be expected to appear, family trees showing the changes occurred in sequence (and match the ages of the fossils too) and more. If you cry that you need more fossils, I’d have to ask why. What are you going to find between any of the intermediate stages that is going to change any of that?

There are all kinds of lines of discovery in the fossil record like that. What isn’t complete about it?

Genetics. Replicating molecules. Natural lipidic membranes

Presupposes chemical engineering on a molecular level...basically, intelligent design.

Basically that is nonsense. How does it presuppose “chemical engineering�? Replicating molecules exist, it’s a known fact. They aren’t alive in any sense of the word, but they actively make copies of themselves. There’s a protein in a yeast that does it in tap water. Where’s the “chemical engineering�? Lipids form natural water tight membranes. They do so because it is chemically possible. Where’s the “chemical engineering� in lipids forming chains through everyday chemical bonds?

Cart before the horse. Prove the common designer exists, and then we can talk about what this designer did and didn't do. Got any empirical data for that creature? No, of course not.

Ok, so when I look at the Mona Lisa painting, I have to "prove that a painter exists", or I can "believe the painting exists based upon different kinds of paint being spilled onto the canvas and thereby forming the image of a woman based on the natural randomness of the paint being splattered over the canvas."

Deflection. We can all agree that a painting has to have a painter for it to exist. We can even prove that painters exist. It’s common knowledge. But your analogy is worthless because an intelligent designer is not similar to that. There is nothing about living things that violate any rules of the universe. There’s nothing about life that requires intelligence in order for it to happen.

We all get that you think an intelligent designer is required. We understand that you don’t think that life can happen naturally, or that sentience can arise via evolution. But I think it’s high time you start proving that you are right. Where’s the evidence for the existence of the creator? Where’s the evidence that sentience must be designed from something? There is literally nothing about life and its associated functions that violates any law of the universe, but you still say they can’t happen naturally. So prove it!

And as crazy as the latter may seem, what you are proposing is even worse than the painting...you go beyond just painting, you are saying that the matter was actually assembled into a conscious human being.

Evolved into a conscious human being to be precise. At least conscious after sufficient development in the womb and subsequent exposure to stimuli. And I base that only on all the facts and data that we have to date for the last few hundred years in all the combined fields of research that mankind has ever engaged in. Only on that…

But the time element does support the theory of evolution

Right, because the premise is "given enough time, ANYTHING could happen".

No. I don’t think anyone thinks that, given enough time, a design creature that can ignore the laws of the universe and be all knowing and all powerful at the same time and have unconditional love and send people to hell could ever actually happen. That just sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it?

, and tracing back the fossil record and the sequenced genes of living things points to a common ancestor a long time ago...

But then you have to ask how do you get to the point of having DNA spring into existence in the first place? A lot of presupposing going on. I know it is far too convenient to skip the tough questions and focus on the fun stuff.

Actually it was probably an RNA world first, and DNA came from that. I know it is far too convenient to skip being informed about the topic before trying to discuss it, but maybe we should focus on the current research instead of some kind of misunderstanding about it.

For information sake by the way, here is a paper on RNA to DNA evolution, in case you wanted it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

So the question should have been, how do you get to RNA. Here’s an article worth reading:
https://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientist ... r-rna.html

Or one that mentions one type of RNA that just so happens to also be a self replicating molecule…go figure:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/

It's also clear that all life comes from a common ancestor. Your conclusion goes against 2 billion fossils and the entire fields of genetics, geology, biology, paleontology, etc.

Yeah, 2 billion fossils and not one complete fossil set. Of course, of all of the billions of organisms that have died and perhaps fossilized, we should expect to find fossils. However, I would expect to have a complete fossil set of at LEAST one organism from past-intermediate forms.

After all, if there was all of this evolution taking place over the course of hundreds of millions of years, providing one complete fossil set seems like a obtainable goal. Just one.

There are plenty of fossil sets, as mentioned earlier.

But you do have a 2000 year old book put together by men after they finished arguing what should and shouldn't be put in it...bully for you.

Sure, the Biblical canon and deciding what should/shouldn't be put in it was a selective process...kind of like how scientists get together and argue over the latest science of today and which scientific theories are more viable than others..and also what goes into text books and what doesn't.

Same concept.

What goes into text books is based on the latest data and evidence. What went into the Bible was changed before it went in, or was excluded because it came from the gnostic side of Christianity which the early church didn’t like. Different concepts.

The empirical evidence also shows that every single living thing is made up entirely on nonliving parts. Every atom in living things is not alive by any definition of the word. So obviously life comes from non-life...

Bruh, are you alive, or are you NOT alive? Simple question. If the answer is "alive", then the above quote is irrelevant.

I am alive, made entirely of non living parts. I am a self-replicating carbon unit. I am a replicating molecular structure. The quote isn’t irrelevant, it’s 100% accurate, and you have no way to counter it…

The existence of a physical reality only proves that a physical reality does indeed exist. It does not prove where it came from. Please try again.

Not so fast...I said physical reality BEGAN TO EXIST at some point in the finite past...so the question immediately becomes; where did it come from?

Prove it began to exist.

Physical reality could not have come from physical reality (circular reasoning)...therefore, it would owe its existence to a non-physical reality.

You mean like virtual particles?

Wrong. Who are you to say under what possible conditions life can possibly arise? You have absolutely no idea what different rules of chemistry, physics, and so forth could allow for some kind of life to emerge. There is a huge range of living things just on Earth. Some that don't need light, some don't need oxygen, some that endure extreme heat or cold. That's all within just this planet under just this set of rules. You can't possibly comment intelligently on what is and isn't required for some kind of life to exist...

I don't know what "other" possible conditions can life possibly rise...but what I do know is the possibility for this life in this universe can possibly arise.

You don’t even know that about just the Earth, since not all life forms on Earth have been discovered. You seem to make a habit of claiming you know things that you actually don’t. You certainly have no idea what possible range of “life� could exist in this universe. Do you think silicon based life is possible? If you can’t say for sure, then that makes your statement seem rather inaccurate…

Then how are you alive? Everything in you is made up of nonliving pieces...

Well, let me put it to you this way, since you are obviously equivocating the word "alive"...the "living" part of me causes the "nonliving" parts of me to do things.

Simple enough?

Sure. Where’s the living part?

Do me a favor Kingdom. Tell me which molecules in your body are NOT dead matter. I'd love to hear this...

My consciousness is the only sentient/living part of me....everything else can be considered sentiently dead.

Your consciousness comes from the inanimate matter making up the physical structures of your brain. I thought you said life can’t come from non-life….

[For_The_Kingdom]

Everyone no doubt notes here that Kingdom can’t actually deny that life (sentient or not) is possible under the laws of the universe. If it wasn’t, we couldn’t be here.

Sure, and the Mona Lisa painting is also possible under the laws of nature...but it just isn't possible without intelligent design. Catch my drift?

But instead of admitting that his question (“Ok, so according to what natural law can sentient life arise from non-sentient life? Tell me.�) is answered accurately and decisively, we instead get a deflection attempt.

That is simply not true...the question hasn't been answered "accurately and decisively". It hasn't been answered at ALL.

Kingdom switches to a made up comparison of “orderly� laws allowing a “mindless/blind process� to occur. Of course since the “mindless/blind process� occurs within the limits of the “orderly� laws, there is no conflict here, despite Kingdom’s attempt to make it look so by the use of opposing words.

I don't understand your point.

He throws in “low entropy� as well for no good reason.

Nonsense. I explained why...now can you explain why not?

More deflection from Kingdom. Nowhere do I state that the existence of a god has anything to do with life being possible under the laws of the universe. The fact that it is patently obvious that it is possible for all life to exist, or else it couldn’t be here right now, renders your sentences meaningless. You ARE the scientific evidence, Kingdom. There’s no need for a spark for atoms and molecules to do what is possible under the laws of the universe…

No one is denying that life is possible, sir. My contention is that life is POSSIBLE only via intelligent design. There is no mindless/blind process out there creating life, brains, and consciousness.

If you can believe that a disorder/chaos can create order/organization...then you will also believe that an explosion at a paint factor will create the paintings on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. But you won't believe that, will you?

It is literally the same concept.

Fossil record at dictionary.com: “A term used by paleontologists ( see paleontology ) to refer to the total number of fossils that have been discovered, as well as to the information derived from them.�

It is ridiculous that it even needs be explained that fossil record does not mean we’ve recovered all fossils, or have a fossil of every single species that ever existed. Or perhaps you couldn’t argue against the billions of fossils found to date and had to deflect by playing word games. I’m not sure which one is worse to be honest…

Look, first of all..I don't know why you feel the need to quote definitions to me as if I am in error, because after all, it was Charles Darwin himself that raised the SAME question when he asked "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?�.

[Darwin, C. 1902. On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 6th Edition. New York: P. F. Collier & Son. 233.]

And it is a legitimate question...and it is called "proving evidence for your theory", which is what I thought science was supposed to be all about. Apparently not.

"Not only is the link missing, the entire chain is missing".

The original reply I wrote was “The entirety of the fossil record shows that. So does the field of genetics. It's already been proven time and again.� Why you would chose to split that up in to three things to respond to I can’t say, but “common designer� has nothing to do with any of it.

Actually, it has a lot to do with it based on the fact that I had already responded to the "fossil" thing and was now responding to the "genetics" thing...and my response to the genetics thing was simply that any similarities in genetics could very well mean COMMON DESIGN...the intelligent designer used the same blueprint (genetic code) for his creation.

Because Lord knows it is to much of a hassle to ask naturalists how in the hell did DNA originate in the first place...but we shouldn't get into that toughy, should we?

Both the fossil record and the field of genetics show that sentient life came from non-sentient life, and non-sentient life came from the first life form. None of the facts in play point to the existence of a common designer, or that this design creature actually made anything.

So basically; "For the simple fact that fossils and genetics exist, therefore, God doesn't exist".

That is a text book case of begging the question if I've ever seen one.

While asserting the baseless “common designer� and continuing to fail to provide evidence for such a critter?

I did.

Fascinating double standard, which only exists in the first place because you continue to ignore the data and facts presented to you at this website in multiple threads over many months by dozens of individuals. You’ve been giving your proof, you’ve been told where you can go to find more, but you seem unable to take your blinders off. P.S. – Don’t forget your evidence for the designer critter this time…

Based on the fact that science is logically UNABLE to prove/disprove anything that has to do with questions beyond the physical universe...I find it interesting that you maintain that so much evidence has been provided to negate intelligent design.

I substituted “nacho cheese� for “divine intervention�, and it had the exact same amount of evidence supporting it…There is no empirical data or evidence that supports the claim that divine intervention or nacho cheese is needed for sentient life to exist. And of course we’ve all noted your inability to provide any, Kingdom…

And what empirical data or evidence supports the claim that life naturally rose from nonliving material? None. And the whole "because we are here, thats why" statement is non sequitur.

What generalities? Sentient life has to be possible under the laws of the universe, or else we couldn’t be having this conversation.

Possible with or without intelligent design? That is the question.

All of those very specific rules allow for it, if any of them didn’t it wouldn’t be in existence.

What specific rules? Can't answer that, can you? Just good ole speculation, isn't it?

As it relates to biology, it is clear from those that suffer from physical damage or growth issues in their brain that sentience can only happen when the neural network and the development of the brain are fully functionable. Sentience is a result of the physical brain. And we can see this in newborns, who are still on the road to sentience at the earliest stages of life. Here’s an interesting article on that topic:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ess-arise/

Correlation. There is definitely a correlation between mind/body...but just because two things correlate with each other, doesn't mean that one is the source of the other.

That’s what happens when babies develop. They aren’t sentient at conception. Only after the appropriate physical structures are in place (the brain stem has been identified as one critical component) does sentience become achievable. Sentience is tied to physical structure, and is at its peak during waking hours too by the way: http://www.ibtimes.com/where-does-consc ... ce-2444536

If you go back in time far enough, you will get to the point where the was no life at all, sentient or otherwise. So it is up for YOU (science in general) to provide an answer as to how natural reality went from no life whatsoever, to conscious, sentient human beings.

All of this stuff you are talking about babies is stuff that happened AFTER life began...when my argument is more focused on where life came from in the first place.

And what is even more amazing about this is the fact that human beings, being intelligent and all, can't go in a lab and create life from nonliving material...but yet some believe that a non-thinking, sightless process was able to do it.

If that is what you want to believe, fine...but that isn't science.

Neither is nacho cheese. You know why? Because there is no evidence that nacho cheese has anything to do with it.

We do have evidence that nacho cheese had nothing to do with it. Why? Because nacho cheese began to exist. Did you think that you raised such a difficult issue, there?

And at least we can prove the existence of nacho cheese. Can you prove the existence of the intelligent designer? Of course not, you’ve never been able to provide any data or evidence at all that such a thing exists. Why should be consider a baseless assertion as a possible explanation for something?

I can prove the existence of an intelligent designer...Jesus Christ.

Here you go again splitting up responses. Anyway, what’s your definition of complete? If the fossil record of early whales and their ancestors allow us to see an incredible transition – from fully 4 legged and terrestrial animals to those living in the water and unable to survive on land, would that count as “complete�? Take a look at Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Kutchicetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus and others in order and you can watch the change happening – the nostrils fuse together and move back over the head to form a blowhole, the teeth become more simple and peg-like, the snout elongates, the neck shrinks, the back becomes more flexible to swim better, the hands become more flipper-like, the legs and pelvis reduce and disappear, the bones become more dense. Exactly the kinds of transition demanded – one �kind� of animal (an ancient antelope-like ungulate) has turned into another (a whale). It’s all there and well documented with numerous fossil finds, anatomical characters quite clearly changing, the fossils independently dated to the order in which they would be expected to appear, family trees showing the changes occurred in sequence (and match the ages of the fossils too) and more. If you cry that you need more fossils, I’d have to ask why. What are you going to find between any of the intermediate stages that is going to change any of that?

There are all kinds of lines of discovery in the fossil record like that. What isn’t complete about it?

First off, I don't believe any nonsense about whales being once land-dwelling animals. That is as ridiculous to me as you believing that God parted the Red Sea for the Israelites.

Basically that is nonsense. How does it presuppose “chemical engineering�? Replicating molecules exist, it’s a known fact. They aren’t alive in any sense of the word, but they actively make copies of themselves. There’s a protein in a yeast that does it in tap water. Where’s the “chemical engineering�? Lipids form natural water tight membranes. They do so because it is chemically possible. Where’s the “chemical engineering� in lipids forming chains through everyday chemical bonds?

You keep talking about what is chemically possible, but I am talking about what is chemically possible as it relates to sentient LIFE. And you can't talk about genetics without presupposing DNA, and that is my point; when you mention genetics, you are, by default, presupposing DNA, which is a whole nother set of words for the naturalist.

And DNA requires chemical engineering on a molecular level.

Cart before the horse. Prove the common designer exists, and then we can talk about what this designer did and didn't do. Got any empirical data for that creature? No, of course not.

Deflection. We can all agree that a painting has to have a painter for it to exist. We can even prove that painters exist. It’s common knowledge. But your analogy is worthless because an intelligent designer is not similar to that. There is nothing about living things that violate any rules of the universe. There’s nothing about life that requires intelligence in order for it to happen.

It is similar. Which is more complex, the painting of the woman, or the woman that the painting is of?? Obviously, the latter...so if the painting of the woman requires an intelligent designer, then so does the actual, physical woman.

I know that I keep hammering that point home, but it is true.

We all get that you think an intelligent designer is required.

Because it is a no-brainer (no pun intended).

We understand that you don’t think that life can happen naturally, or that sentience can arise via evolution.

Do you have scientific evidence that says otherwise?

But I think it’s high time you start proving that you are right. Where’s the evidence for the existence of the creator? Where’s the evidence that sentience must be designed from something? There is literally nothing about life and its associated functions that violates any law of the universe, but you still say they can’t happen naturally. So prove it!

The evidence is overwhelming.

Evolved into a conscious human being to be precise. At least conscious after sufficient development in the womb and subsequent exposure to stimuli. And I base that only on all the facts and data that we have to date for the last few hundred years in all the combined fields of research that mankind has ever engaged in. Only on that…

Oh, is that what you got out of it? I got something completely different.

No. I don’t think anyone thinks that, given enough time, a design creature that can ignore the laws of the universe and be all knowing and all powerful at the same time and have unconditional love and send people to hell could ever actually happen. That just sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it?

It sounds just about as ludicrous as you being blindfolded and being asked to draw the human anatomy on a piece of paper...everything; the skin, the bones, the muscles, hair, eyes, etc.

I don't think you can pull that off. So why would I think that a mindless/blind process do something even more magnificent than that, which is to go beyond just drawing the human anatomy, but CREATING actual physical humans from preexisting material...and not only creating the human, but giving it consciousness.

Yeah, sure.

Actually it was probably an RNA world first, and DNA came from that.

I know it is far too convenient to skip being informed about the topic before trying to discuss it, but maybe we should focus on the current research instead of some kind of misunderstanding about it.

For information sake by the way, here is a paper on RNA to DNA evolution, in case you wanted it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

So the question should have been, how do you get to RNA. Here’s an article worth reading:
https://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientist ... r-rna.html

Or one that mentions one type of RNA that just so happens to also be a self replicating molecule…go figure:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/

First of all, the question of origins applies to ALL of that good stuff...so if you want to push the question of origins back further, fine. I don't see how that helps you, because that is just one more thing whose origins needs to be explained and also one more thing that you will have to admit that you are ignorant of.

A person will always be able to ask "ok, so where did that come from" and eventually you will get to the point to where you have to admit that you just don't know. But those are all your problems, not mines.

What goes into text books is based on the latest data and evidence. What went into the Bible was changed before it went in, or was excluded because it came from the gnostic side of Christianity which the early church didn’t like. Different concepts.

Maybe they had good evidence/reasons why they didn't like it and didn't accept it. Ever think about that? But of course, since you attitude is "but there can be no good evidence to accept anything related to religion", I don't expect you to understand.

I am alive, made entirely of non living parts. I am a self-replicating carbon unit. I am a replicating molecular structure. The quote isn’t irrelevant, it’s 100% accurate, and you have no way to counter it…

I am talking about the part of you that is "alive"...however you want to define the part of "you" that is "alive", that is what I am talking about. So all of this "non living" part stuff is irrelevant because that is not where the game is being played.

Prove it began to exist.

Saying that the universe began to exist is a religiously neutral statement which can be found in any contemporary text book on cosmology. That is the latest science of the day, if you haven't heard.

You are not denying contemporary science as it relates to cosmology, are you?

You mean like virtual particles?

Yup, like virtual particles.

You don’t even know that about just the Earth, since not all life forms on Earth have been discovered. You seem to make a habit of claiming you know things that you actually don’t. You certainly have no idea what possible range of “life� could exist in this universe. Do you think silicon based life is possible? If you can’t say for sure, then that makes your statement seem rather inaccurate…

I am just going with, you know, the latest science of the day.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/ro ... 33691.html

Now, if you know of anyone that has questioned/refuted Roger Penrose' calculations, inform me.

Sure. Where’s the living part?

My consciousness is the living part..because after all, we are talking about sentient life, and that what sentient life is, right? Conscious life.

Your consciousness comes from the inanimate matter making up the physical structures of your brain. I thought you said life can’t come from non-life….

Ok, so right now my consciousness is thinking of an apple. Can you tell me what inanimate matter which makes up the physical structures of my brain is allowing me to think of the apple? In other words; why is there the image of an apple in my brain...when nothing in my brain has nothing to do with an apple?

[Willum]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

RE: Mona Lisa
By your reasoning, wouldn't it be easier to assume that only nature produces life, and intelligent things can ONLY produce inanimate things?

So, in short, God or man can't produce life, but only watches and paintings and such, while only nature can produce life?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 276 by For_The_Kingdom]
Here I was thinking FtK was done with this thread...

Sure, and the Mona Lisa painting is also possible under the laws of nature...but it just isn't possible without intelligent design. Catch my drift?

Notice that this isn't something we declare to be true (unlike some people). We have evidence. We have evidence of agents with minds creating paintings like the Mona Lisa, and no evidence at all of paintings like the Mona Lisa being formed via nature i.e. without an intelligent mind in play.

No one is denying that life is possible, sir. My contention is that life is POSSIBLE only via intelligent design.

In which case, provide us with the evidence. I can see cells dividing under a microscope and at no point do I see another agent involved in the process. I see the natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology at work.
Remember when I posted that picture of the painter and his painting? THAT was when we could point to something that requires an intelligent design. We've got the evidence of the painter.
Where's your (similar) evidence of an intelligent designer?

There is no mindless/blind process out there creating life, brains, and consciousness.

Where is the intelligent mind you say is responsible when I see mitosis occurring? I see mitosis occurring but I see nothing to indicate there is a mind at work there.

then you will also believe that an explosion at a paint factor will create the paintings on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. But you won't believe that, will you?

Because I have evidence of what exactly is needed for the Sistine Chapel. From evidence elsewhere, I have learned that a human was responsible for painting the Chapel's ceiling.

because after all, it was Charles Darwin himself that raised the SAME question when he asked "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?�.

Because fossils need certain conditions in order to form, for those conditions to last long enough for fossils to be found.
By the by...why didn't you read further from Darwin who actually ANSWERS this question? Darwin wasn't saying this is a problem he's noted with his own theory, he was anticipating challenges to his theory and just further down the page, he rebuts it (pre...rebuts it?)

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote.

You're looking very dishonest here, FtK. You took the trouble to quote from Darwin him asking a question on his own theory, yet apparently did not read further on. Either you already knew about the answer he gives further down the page, but did not include it because it conflicts with the narrative you're trying to write...or you saw the question from Darwin, thought to yourself something like "Even Darwin doubts his own evolutionary theory!" and didn't bother reading on to see what exactly he says.

And it is a legitimate question...and it is called "proving evidence for your theory", which is what I thought science was supposed to be all about. Apparently not.

"Not only is the link missing, the entire chain is missing".

You use quotation marks, and yet...who or where is that from?

and my response to the genetics thing was simply that any similarities in genetics could very well mean COMMON DESIGN...the intelligent designer used the same blueprint (genetic code) for his creation.

In which case, your 'intelligent' designer is anything but intelligent. If I were a designer designing life, I wouldn't use a method where the code I'm using can be overwritten by simple viruses, thus threatening my creations.

Because Lord knows it is to much of a hassle to ask naturalists how in the hell did DNA originate in the first place...but we shouldn't get into that toughy, should we?

As opposed to asking creationists who say "Goddidit" and call it a day?

At least we naturalists are honest enough to say "We don't know how it happened" when we quite honestly do not know.

So basically; "For the simple fact that fossils and genetics exist, therefore, God doesn't exist".

Nope.
"For the simple fact that fossils and genetics exist, therefore, there was no intelligent designer (at least, not as we class intelligence)".
There may still be a God who simply has nothing to do with life's formation.

I did.

Citation, please.

Based on the fact that science is logically UNABLE to prove/disprove anything that has to do with questions beyond the physical universe

Even if I or others were to grant this, does this mean we should just nod our heads whenever someone like yourself says "Life was designed by an intelligent designer" (which by the way is a thing WITHIN the physical universe), and you don't have to verify it?

And what empirical data or evidence supports the claim that life naturally rose from nonliving material? None.

Are you or are you not made up of non-living elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, iron, phosphorus etc?
For you to continue to assert 'can't get life from non-life' is to assert that we humans do NOT have non-living particles. A hydrogen atom is not alive, yet we actually are made up of hydrogen.
Seems to me that life comes from non-life.

Possible with or without intelligent design? That is the question.

So far in this thread, you do not allow for the possibility of 'without intelligent design'.

Correlation. There is definitely a correlation between mind/body...but just because two things correlate with each other, doesn't mean that one is the source of the other.

Okay. Show me a mind that is not contained within some sort of physical/biological structure.

All of this stuff you are talking about babies is stuff that happened AFTER life began...when my argument is more focused on where life came from in the first place.

Which no-one, neither myself, Kenisaw, or you FtK, can answer, yet you are all too willing to say "Intelligent Designer!"

And what is even more amazing about this is the fact that human beings, being intelligent and all, can't go in a lab and create life from nonliving material...but yet some believe that a non-thinking, sightless process was able to do it.

Because I have evidence of such, or do I need to bring up the 'babies in their mother's womb' line of debate again?
To remind you, babies form in their mother's womb and yet no design is taking place. The mothers are not willingly designing anything, it's a process that takes place over the course of 9 months (on average) with no conscious choice-making from the mother.
If you want to assert that there IS some design going on, you'll have to give me evidence of the designer and not merely assert it.
It can't be the mother, and I really don't see evidence for any other entity that could be making decisions, designing the baby...

Besides, what is the criteria for what you say above? Humans can't get certain molecules to stick together to form amino acids, and can't get those amino acids to stick together to form proteins, for example?
Why is it you use "Humans can't do X" to jump to "Therefore, Y is responsible for X"?

We do have evidence that nacho cheese had nothing to do with it. Why? Because nacho cheese began to exist.

For someone so willing to use evidence here, I have to point out that you HAVE NO evidence of your Intelligent Designer. Just (very badly thought out) logical inferences.

If you wanted to rebut Kenisaw's point there by using Intelligent Designer, pray tell us...where is the evidence for the IDer? Other than your inferences, that is?

I can prove the existence of an intelligent designer...Jesus Christ.

Oh Jesus H. Christ (don't know what the H stands for)...REALLY? You're just gonna toss Jesus Christ out there as being an intelligent designer WITHOUT PROVIDING EVIDENCE THAT HE DESIGNED ANYTHING AT ALL?

Heck, in the Passion of the Christ movie, we're told Jesus designed a table, yet there is no evidence for that. So tell us...what evidence have you that Jesus Christ designed ANYTHING? (table, chair...life?)

First off, I don't believe any nonsense about whales being once land-dwelling animals. That is as ridiculous to me as you believing that God parted the Red Sea for the Israelites.

Why do you call it ridiculous? Kenisaw lays out his evidence, only for you to brush it off. The reason Kenisaw and myself say it's ridiculous that God parted the Red Sea is because there's no evidence to support that claim, other than the story it originates from.

You keep talking about what is chemically possible, but I am talking about what is chemically possible as it relates to sentient LIFE.

You fail to mention the difference.

And you can't talk about genetics without presupposing DNA, and that is my point; when you mention genetics, you are, by default, presupposing DNA, which is a whole nother set of words for the naturalist.

And DNA requires chemical engineering on a molecular level.

You criticize Kenisaw for presupposing something...then you go right ahead with presupposing something yourself.
There's a word for that.

It is similar. Which is more complex, the painting of the woman, or the woman that the painting is of?? Obviously, the latter...so if the painting of the woman requires an intelligent designer, then so does the actual, physical woman.

Going right back to beating this tired dead horse, are we?
Readers, let the record stand that I have already debunked FtK's argument of 'complexity' by giving evidence for painters and pointing out that FtK does not provide evidence of 'life-designers'.

Do you have scientific evidence that says otherwise?

Says the guy who doesn't provide scientific evidence for his designer...

The evidence is overwhelming.

Readers...do you see anything else that FtK might have written after this? I don't see anything. I just see a CLAIM that the evidence is overwhelming, but WHAT that evidence is must have gotten lost in the inter-tubes on it's way to my laptop's screen.

Oh, is that what you got out of it? I got something completely different.

If you're going to talk about humans developing while in the womb, care to give me evidence of the designer? Can't be the mother, and that's the only agent both you and I agree exists.

It sounds just about as ludicrous as you being blindfolded and being asked to draw the human anatomy on a piece of paper...everything; the skin, the bones, the muscles, hair, eyes, etc.

May not be quite what you were asking for...
[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]
...you were saying?

I don't think you can pull that off. So why would I think that a mindless/blind process do something even more magnificent than that, which is to go beyond just drawing the human anatomy, but CREATING actual physical humans from preexisting material...and not only creating the human, but giving it consciousness.

We've been over this before.

I don't see how that helps you, because that is just one more thing whose origins needs to be explained and also one more thing that you will have to admit that you are ignorant of.

But FtK isn't ignorant? FtK KNOWS how life formed, how it originated?

...why haven't you collected your Nobel Prize yet?

A person will always be able to ask "ok, so where did that come from" and eventually you will get to the point to where you have to admit that you just don't know. But those are all your problems, not mines.

...I'm waiting for the explanation, FtK, of how an admittance of ignorance is a problem for the naturalist, but not the creationist.

Maybe they had good evidence/reasons why they didn't like it and didn't accept it. Ever think about that?

Yes. All the time. It is known there were Christian sects that taught that the crucifixion was an illusion (see Docetism).
Why is it that I, the atheist, seem to understand YOUR religion to a far higher degree than you yourself FtK?

But of course, since you attitude is "but there can be no good evidence to accept anything related to religion", I don't expect you to understand.

CAN BE? As in, excluded even as a possibility?
That attitude is displayed by one person in this conversation, and I don't think it's either Kenisaw or myself.

I am talking about the part of you that is "alive"...however you want to define the part of "you" that is "alive", that is what I am talking about. So all of this "non living" part stuff is irrelevant because that is not where the game is being played.

Because you seem to have a novel definition for 'alive' that no-one else agrees on. A definition that allows for ONE AND ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY.

The definition that Kenisaw and myself are working with allows for the possibility of a designer - we just don't see any evidence for the designer. It could be there, but no-one has provided evidence of it yet.

I am just going with, you know, the latest science of the day.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/ro ... 33691.html

Now, if you know of anyone that has questioned/refuted Roger Penrose' calculations, inform me.

You say 'latest science of the day', yet give us a link to a page with a video published in 2009 (eight years ago).

Can you give us the FULL lecture Penros gave there? I notice in the comments several people saying this is a quote mine.

My consciousness is the living part..because after all, we are talking about sentient life, and that what sentient life is, right? Conscious life.

So for some reason, when Kenisaw asks you 'where's the living part', you talk about your consciousness, thus revealing to readers like myself that FtK considers ONLY CONSCIOUS CREATURES to be life-forms.
I guess bacteria, trees, etc that do not have structures for thought or analogous structures do not count as 'alive' in FtK's book.
Readers, see where FtK's special definition for 'alive' has led him?

Ok, so right now my consciousness is thinking of an apple. Can you tell me what inanimate matter which makes up the physical structures of my brain is allowing me to think of the apple? In other words; why is there the image of an apple in my brain...when nothing in my brain has nothing to do with an apple?

This does nothing to rebut what Kenisaw just said to you.

The electrical impulses that run my computer are able to generate images of apples on to a computer monitor...yet it would be hilarious if either you or myself said that the CPU has something to do with an actual apple.
The process by which computers can do this is very well understood (to the point that we humans are able to build and design computers with regularity). It's an understanding of the physical, biological and chemical laws of the universe. It's not a process where we humans, the intelligent designers, somehow FORCE computers to do something that is against the laws of the universe, as you imply happens with regards to life.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

I thought you said you were done with this forum, rikuoa? If you are still active on here, I'd like/expect you to accept my debate challenge on the MOA.

You had originally declined because you said you were leaving, which is understandable...but if you are still here, then accept the challenge...because after all, you are quick to bring it up any chance you get...so use that same energy in a debate on the very subject.