Rest in Pieces

[Dimmesdale]

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #1]

I wonder where the goal posts will shift to next after scientists manage to start from simple atoms to replicating DNA.

They've recently managed to create replicating RNA. One source, fact check yourself: https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/pres ... 00210.html

I'm not clear what any of this has to do with atheism though, but I guess this is a common apologetic attack vector when nothing else is working. Atheism is about not believing in gods and has nothing to do with open science questions.

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #2]

So.... would this chemical environment be the kind that existed naturally during primordial times on the earth?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #1]

I wonder where the goal posts will shift to next after scientists manage to start from simple atoms to replicating DNA.

They've recently managed to create replicating RNA. One source, fact check yourself: https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/pres ... 00210.html

I'm not clear what any of this has to do with atheism though, but I guess this is a common apologetic attack vector when nothing else is working. Atheism is about not believing in gods and has nothing to do with open science questions.

Since it came from a team of researchers who had to go to great lengths to develop it, we can safely assume it was intelligently and painstakingly designed. It did not occur under natural circumstances. All this shows is that intelligent human design can produce bits and pieces of what God already made as a whole from non-living matter. It’s faith that sees this as demonstrating life from non-life. But what is demonstrated clearly is that intelligent design is needed..

[Mae von H]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #2]

So.... would this chemical environment be the kind that existed naturally during primordial times on the earth?

I once read a peer reviewed article that purported to show how single cells became two cellular. Atheists in the discussion were thrilled. The scientists had centrifuged single cells (no joke) 60 times. I asked where there’s a centrifuge in nature. So we’ve seen these “break through” discoveries of how “evolution diddit” only to find that the conditions they employed could never have occurred in nature.

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #2]

So.... would this chemical environment be the kind that existed naturally during primordial times on the earth?

I once read a peer reviewed article that purported to show how single cells became two cellular. Atheists in the discussion were thrilled. The scientists had centrifuged single cells (no joke) 60 times. I asked where there’s a centrifuge in nature. So we’ve seen these “break through” discoveries of how “evolution diddit” only to find that the conditions they employed could never have occurred in nature.

Precisely.

I would be interested in a chemical environment that mimics primordial earth. That's what I meant in the meme. Barring that, I don't care about any modern concoction, which by definition is artificial.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #2]

So.... would this chemical environment be the kind that existed naturally during primordial times on the earth?

I once read a peer reviewed article that purported to show how single cells became two cellular. Atheists in the discussion were thrilled. The scientists had centrifuged single cells (no joke) 60 times. I asked where there’s a centrifuge in nature. So we’ve seen these “break through” discoveries of how “evolution diddit” only to find that the conditions they employed could never have occurred in nature.

Precisely.

I would be interested in a chemical environment that mimics primordial earth. That's what I meant in the meme. Barring that, I don't care about any modern concoction, which by definition is artificial.

The chemical environment, from what I understand, was primarily of inert elements. Oxygen, carbon, even the combination, are inert. That are so stable that they don’t spontaneously change or effect change on that scale. So even the Miller-Urey experiment required an ammonia rich environment which itself was toxic to the amino acids formed requiring an elaborate trap to quickly isolate them from the environment. So not only was the environment necessary unlikely, it would have been toxic to the life it supposedly generated. (That part they don’t put in biology books.)

After reading the details of the celebrated break throughs in “proving” evolution, I became very suspicious. Since I work in research, I have access to the full article which without exception showed that the detailed design required was never available in nature as well as highly intelligent planning precluded spontaneous development of life.

To be fair, any experiment to establish the likelihood of spontaneous and undirected life from non-life requires such a high degree of intelligence and sophistication in execution, they’re doomed before the first step. If they restrict themselves to the prebiotic soup, they’ll never see any life from non-life. If they intelligently design something, the mere fact that intelligence is necessary puts them into our camp. We knew intelligent design was necessary and was present. We even know who. But it’s clear they continue to believe nevertheless.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #2]

Evolution is pivotal to the atheist position and Dawkins himself, a famous scientist, said plainly that evolution gave him a reason to stop believing in God. It is those who reject God who say they need evolution, not the Christians.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #2]

So.... would this chemical environment be the kind that existed naturally during primordial times on the earth?

I guess you should read the paper(s) and see what they say.

What difference would it make? The entire point is that scientists are busy discovering HOW it MAY have happened. They are not at the point (yet) of recreating a 'primordial Earth'. And even if and when they get to that point, you will simply move the goal posts (as I see Mae has already done) and now claim an intelligence is required to make it all happen just because some intelligence was needed to sort out the HOW.

The science is to determine the mechanism and what's possible. If we can discover that a natural set of conditions will produce life, then that's one more science problem solved. Don't worry though, there will still be a gap left for your preferred deity until science can figure out how this universe came to be. Theists will simple move the goal posts one more time and use that final gap if/when all the other ones have been closed.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #2]

Evolution is pivotal to the atheist position and Dawkins himself, a famous scientist, said plainly that evolution gave him a reason to stop believing in God. It is those who reject God who say they need evolution, not the Christians.

Wow, more wrong claims. When will they stop?

Evolutions has absolutely zero to do with my position as an atheist. I was at one point a devout Christian who also understood what the scientific theory of evolution was all about and had no issues with it. At the time, science discovering how God may have done things was not a stumbling block.

I became an atheist due to research in the Bible, the church, and theism in general.

Why some theists continue to hang their hat on misunderstood science is beyond me. It's not helping your cause whatsoever. When claims are shown to be untrue, it's not helping your position or converting anyone. If anything, it's likely driving people the other direction. So, I guess good job, keep it up!