If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[Learner]

I agree, it doesn't weaken evolution. Evolution is more credible in comparison to abiogensis. Abiogensis in regards to this discussion, IS the alternative counter-explanation to Aesthetes and theists explanation: It ddn't happen naturally, it was God who made life.

What is the difference between something happening naturally and something happening unnaturally?

Clarify the argument please, natural, unnnatural...

Have we suddenly changed "the difference between God did it and God is not neccessary?" I would have liked to know a little more on your (plural) take on the "God not neccessary" bit.

Religiously speaking, that would be called magicology. Get with the program.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"the difference between God did it and God is not neccessary?"

We can discuss my last submarine for 9 weeks without once mentioning god.
Buoyancy is ptretty well understood. Electricity. Generating electricity.
Using that electricity to move the ship; clean water, move the water; create air, move the air; move hydraulic oil; calculate the fire control problem for the purpose of delivering a warhead to a point in space taking into account the earth's shape, orbit, rotation, specific gravities, inconsistencies in the guidance system and weather over the target.

WHETHER OR NOT god was involved in creating the Earth, the universe, or the laws of nature that we manipulate or work within, we don't HAVE to invoke God to make the whole thing make sense.
Behe and ID proponents insist that one cannot explain life on Earth without at least one step that simply must be attributed to the direct action of a divine being, else there is an insurmountable mystery. This would make God necessary.

I'd swear we covered this bddfors....

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Clarify the argument please, natural, unnnatural...

Have we suddenly changed "the difference between God did it and God is not neccessary?" I would have liked to know a little more on your (plural) take on the "God not neccessary" bit.

I can't clarify because it is your claim, and I don't know what something would be if it is "not natural." You said that abiogenesis would have to be not natural. Something that is not natural is unnatural, correct?

So what would be the difference between something happening naturally and something happening unnaturally?

 

[Lion IRC]

If life from non-life is impossible, how did Jehovah do it?

Jehovah is not "non-life"
He is a personal being with volition.
...unlike a rock which cant decide to turn itself into a living creature. #First_Cause #Aristotle

 

[James Brown]

If life from non-life is impossible, how did Jehovah do it?

Jehovah is not "non-life"
He is a personal being with volition.

Isn't everyone?

...unlike a rock which cant decide to turn itself into a living creature. #First_Cause #Aristotle

"A rock deciding to turn itself into a living creature" is neither Evolution by Natural Selection nor Abiogenesis.

 

[Lion IRC]

Isn't everyone?

...unlike a rock which cant decide to turn itself into a living creature. #First_Cause #Aristotle

"A rock deciding to turn itself into a living creature" is neither Evolution by Natural Selection nor Abiogenesis.

I agree.
A rock deciding to do something is NOT natural selection or abiogenesis. And since rocks can't/dont do this we can exclude this idea from our list of available menu options.

I say God dunnit.
What do you say?
...cue quantum spookiness argument in 3...2...1

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Isn't everyone?

...unlike a rock which cant decide to turn itself into a living creature. #First_Cause #Aristotle

"A rock deciding to turn itself into a living creature" is neither Evolution by Natural Selection nor Abiogenesis.

That's religion. Moses' staff turned into a snake. Religious magic.

 

[ideologyhunter]

That's religion. Moses' staff turned into a snake. Religious magic.

I like the part where Mary of Bethany is washing Jesus' feet and he rubs a balloon on her head, making her hair go spaz. That turned heads in the olden timey days!

 

[DBT]

If life from non-life is impossible, how did Jehovah do it?

Jehovah is not "non-life"
He is a personal being with volition.
...unlike a rock which cant decide to turn itself into a living creature. #First_Cause #Aristotle

Rocks can't turn into life. The world is composed of more than rocks.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If life from non-life is impossible, how did Jehovah do it?

Jehovah is not "non-life"
He is a personal being with volition.
...unlike a rock which cant decide to turn itself into a living creature. #First_Cause #Aristotle

Rocks can't turn into life. The world is composed of more than rocks.

But life does turn into rocks. Even happened in the bible with Lot's wife, but that was magic.

And rocks are covered with living things that eat the rocks. I spread ground up rocks on my garden and the plants eat the rocks, so rocks actually do turn into life, but not abracadabra style like in the bible stories. It's a natural geological and biological process. We all have rocks in our heads, we really do.

But none of that is natural, Learner told me so it must be true.

 

[skepticalbip]

Isn't everyone?

...unlike a rock which cant decide to turn itself into a living creature. #First_Cause #Aristotle

"A rock deciding to turn itself into a living creature" is neither Evolution by Natural Selection nor Abiogenesis.

I agree.
A rock deciding to do something is NOT natural selection or abiogenesis. And since rocks can't/dont do this we can exclude this idea from our list of available menu options.

I say God dunnit.
What do you say?
...cue quantum spookiness argument in 3...2...1

Quantum??? WTF?

Try chemistry. And you don't start with rocks but elements that form molecules quite naturally. The molecules then combine to make more complex molecules... That is how chemistry works and would be obvious to you if you had taken chemistry. Under normal, natural conditions, large and complex molecules can and do form. In organic chemistry, this results in such molecules as amino acids, proteins, etc.

 

[abaddon]

Why pretend it's an argument over science? Creationists assert life has to be intended or it cannot happen. There's no way of knowing that's true and it's very clear that the only reason it's argued is because they want to feel intended by a Being.

Biochemistry's a good place to start regarding abiogenesis. Still, at this point in time, we don't know the details about how life first started. And I don't think there's a more reasonable stance than to just acknowledge it.

A creationist told me that "I don't know" is the stance of the incurious. Worse than wrong, as usual with creationists, because it actually increases one's curiosity to know that you don't know. Incurious people grasp at prefab answers because they need to feel a sense of certainty.

I wonder what puzzle about nature that theism ever solved? Can anyone name a scientific question that got solved by jeering at naturalism and finding a supernatural answer?

EoG would be an interesting hypothesis if there was any track record. Some creationists (Learner is on about this a lot) suggest that a theistic science would be more complete but don't say how so. They talk as if the study of God would reveal wonders, but when asked about God they never have new news to tell - it's just right back to "biblical sources". So "God dunit" explains nothing at all. A curious mind would want to know more, even at the cost of his sense of certainty (that he's answered "the big existential questions" in a way that feels ego-comforting).

 

[Jarhyn]

I agree.
A rock deciding to do something is NOT natural selection or abiogenesis. And since rocks can't/dont do this we can exclude this idea from our list of available menu options.

I say God dunnit.
What do you say?
...cue quantum spookiness argument in 3...2...1

Quantum??? WTF?

Try chemistry. And you don't start with rocks but elements that form molecules quite naturally. The molecules then combine to make more complex molecules... That is how chemistry works and would be obvious to you if you had taken chemistry. Under normal, natural conditions, large and complex molecules can and do form. In organic chemistry, this results in such molecules as amino acids, proteins, etc.

This guy is calling the complex carbon chemistry at a volcanic vent "rocks"...

Dudes, if you can't understand that sometimes rocks roll downhill, and that sometimes chemicals follow paths that satisfy force gradients, and sometimes these gradients are very interesting in organic chemistry, that is, any chemistry involving carbon.

 

[Aesthete]

Something I find sadly amusing is this.

The number of people who insist that the evidence for speciation through natural selection doesn't reach their high standards for evidence. But the evidence for Jesus's Death and Resurrection does.

What's with that?
Tom

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people. But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection. These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

 

[Keith&Co.]

obody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people. But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection. These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

So, you think the gospels were written by the people someone else named them after?
Really?

Why?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Is that why the four gospels differ as to the day and hour of his execution, as to whether many dead people came out of their graves and walked about ("seen by many"), as to who showed up at the empty tomb, as to whether the rock was in place or was moved by an angel, as they watched, whether some sort of earthquake occurred (in Matthew), as to whom they encountered (an angel, a young man, two men, no one)...Read the beginning of Matthew 28 and John 20 and see if that's the same event. Going back to the dead coming out of the graves, in Matthew 27, do you believe that "many saw them" -- their own dead come to life -- but only one gospel writer got the story?

 

[Wiploc]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people.

Okay.

But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection.

Wait, didn't you just say that nobody ever observed such a thing?

Or maybe your claim is that Jesus wasn't a person?

Or that he hadn't really died?

Or that he wasn't really alive after the resurrection?

These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

Now you're saying ... what, that all religions are true?

I know a witness who says she experienced god -- did something like a Vulcan mind-meld -- and discovered that he is just one person, not a trinity. If eyewitness testimony is reliable, we have to accept that, right?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people.

Oh, hey, are you under the impression that in science, "repeatable observations" means 'eye-witnessed'?

'Cause if thsst is what you think, you're wrong. And if it isn't what you think, then you're wrong in a different way.

But either way, you're still denying evolutionary theory by throwing in things that are not part of evolutionary theory. So you're just PRATTing away with nonsense.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wonder what puzzle about nature that theism ever solved?

There was that time a ship was sinking, and they drew lots to see who was to blame, and the lots said, "Jonah's fault" and they were right.

 

[skepticalbip]

Something I find sadly amusing is this.

The number of people who insist that the evidence for speciation through natural selection doesn't reach their high standards for evidence. But the evidence for Jesus's Death and Resurrection does.

What's with that?
Tom

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people.

True, but then no one ever claimed that anyone ever did observe such a thing (if someone did watch such a thing happening then it would disprove the theory of evolution). Also nobody observed a god 'poof' dust into people either though you seem to believe there is a god and that he/she/it did do the poofing magic.

But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection.

Nope. There is a claim that some people found an empty tomb. Then later there is a claim that some people saw Jesus, though some of them didn't recognize him.

 

[Lion IRC]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people.

Oh, hey, are you under the impression that in science, "repeatable observations" means 'eye-witnessed'?

Eyes are the sensory organ I typically use to 'observe' stuff.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people. But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection. These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

I really wish you'd answer my original question but I'm not holding my breath.

To your claims here, life is nothing but complex chemistry. Complex chemistry can arise from simple chemistry, which arises from simple physics, which arises from simpler physics, all the time. If you would learn some science you might change your mind about some of your claims. It's interesting that you say something is only real if someone saw it.

Gotta go, Superman is on my back porch, dropped in to chat.

 

[abaddon]

It's interesting that you say something is only real if someone saw it.

Maybe what he meant is it's only known to be real if someone saw it with eyeballs. ;-)

Like God creating the universe for example.

 

[Aesthete]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people. But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection. These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

I really wish you'd answer my original question but I'm not holding my breath.

Which is what?

To your claims here, life is nothing but complex chemistry. Complex chemistry can arise from simple chemistry, which arises from simple physics, which arises from simpler physics, all the time. If you would learn some science you might change your mind about some of your claims. It's interesting that you say something is only real if someone saw it.

Gotta go, Superman is on my back porch, dropped in to chat.

This is completely ridiculous. Life is complex chemistry, you say. That statement is meaningless. My computer is made from the simple elements of the earth. Is it something complex arising from something simple? Yes, but not without a maker. There's no law of physics that favors the development of life over its non-development! Quite the contrary - if a self-replicating system could have gotten started all on its own, all the laws of the universe are against its continuation and in favor of its degradation and disappearance.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Life is complex chemistry, you say. That statement is meaningless.

Well, yes, it is. But you were the one claiming that life is "too complex" to be unplanned, without even suggesting a way to measure complexity.
So, apparently yoh like arguing by meaningless statements.


"if a self-replicating system could have gotten started all on its own, all the laws of the universe are against its continuation "

ALL the laws? Really? You can show that? I doubt you can list all the laws of the universe, much less show how life as we know it is in violation of all the laws of the universe.
THAT would be an impressive demonstration, one of those things that actually require the existence of God to explain.

But, no, no such demonstration will be offered to support this absolute claim.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people. But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection. These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

I really wish you'd answer my original question but I'm not holding my breath.

Which is what?

Here’s the post:

I wonder where he draws the line between what he calls "life" and what he calls "non-life." Is the CO2 I exhale alive when it's in me but not alive once it reenters the atmosphere? Does it become "alive" again when an oak tree takes it up? And what about an electron? Is it alive when it's part of my makeup but not alive when it's running along a power line in front of my house? What changes?

That's why I use the word abracadabra. Much easier to wave the magic wand and believe in spooky magic than to actually think about questions like this.

Later I added:

I still am curious about how the Genesis magic works when it comes to making life. Aesthete, would you like to enlighten us?

Please tell us the difference between life and what you call non life in terms of its parts. Is CO2 alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, etc? And if life cannot come from what you call non life, how does a magic creature do it? Is it just that it’s magic and that magic creatures can do anything they want?

And if no one saw this magic creature make the universe, how do you know it did? You claimed things don't happen because no one sees them happen. Curious your answers but again, not holding my breath.

 

[Aesthete]

Which is what?

Here’s the post:

I wonder where he draws the line between what he calls "life" and what he calls "non-life." Is the CO2 I exhale alive when it's in me but not alive once it reenters the atmosphere? Does it become "alive" again when an oak tree takes it up? And what about an electron? Is it alive when it's part of my makeup but not alive when it's running along a power line in front of my house? What changes?

That's why I use the word abracadabra. Much easier to wave the magic wand and believe in spooky magic than to actually think about questions like this.

Later I added:

I still am curious about how the Genesis magic works when it comes to making life. Aesthete, would you like to enlighten us?

Please tell us the difference between life and what you call non life in terms of its parts. Is CO2 alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, etc? And if life cannot come from what you call non life, how does a magic creature do it? Is it just that it’s magic and that magic creatures can do anything they want?

And if no one saw this magic creature make the universe, how do you know it did? You claimed things don't happen because no one sees them happen. Curious your answers but again, not holding my breath.

Your question did not interest me because it seems like you are trying to define life out of existence. Are viruses alive? Whether they are or not has no real impact on the empirical fact that life exists and doesn't come from non-life (that is, not without the power of God).

 

[Keith&Co.]

... the empirical fact that life exists and doesn't come from non-life (that is, not without the power of God).

wonder what Aesthete thinks 'empirical' actually means?

 

[TomC]

Here’s the post:


Later I added:

I still am curious about how the Genesis magic works when it comes to making life. Aesthete, would you like to enlighten us?

Please tell us the difference between life and what you call non life in terms of its parts. Is CO2 alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, etc? And if life cannot come from what you call non life, how does a magic creature do it? Is it just that it’s magic and that magic creatures can do anything they want?

And if no one saw this magic creature make the universe, how do you know it did? You claimed things don't happen because no one sees them happen. Curious your answers but again, not holding my breath.

Your question did not interest me because it seems like you are trying to define life out of existence.

I can't speak for any other members...

But this post sure sounds, to me, like "I can't answer your questions without overturning my cart of assertions so I'm not interested."
Assertions like "life cannot come from non-life, except for God".

Evidence suggests differently, even if you prefer not to examine the evidence.
Tom

 

[skepticalbip]

Your question did not interest me because it seems like you are trying to define life out of existence.

I can't speak for any other members...

But this post sure sounds, to me, like "I can't answer your questions without overturning my cart of assertions so I'm not interested."
Assertions like "life cannot come from non-life, except for God".

Evidence suggests differently, even if you prefer not to examine the evidence.
Tom

It does tend to negate all his claims that life can not come from non-life if he is unable (or unwilling) to define what he is claiming is the difference between life and non-life.

 

[Aesthete]

Your question did not interest me because it seems like you are trying to define life out of existence.

I can't speak for any other members...

But this post sure sounds, to me, like "I can't answer your questions without overturning my cart of assertions so I'm not interested."
Assertions like "life cannot come from non-life, except for God".

Evidence suggests differently, even if you prefer not to examine the evidence.
Tom

It does tend to negate all his claims that life can not come from non-life if he is unable (or unwilling) to define what he is claiming is the difference between life and non-life.

Try defending a murderer in a court of law that way. "Your honor, my client is innocent, because there's no difference between life and non-life."

 

[Keith&Co.]

It does tend to negate all his claims that life can not come from non-life if he is unable (or unwilling) to define what he is claiming is the difference between life and non-life.

Try defending a murderer in a court of law that way. "Your honor, my client is innocent, because there's no difference between life and non-life."

You're the one saying you know the difference AND you know it's insurmountable. Except when it is surmountable, of course.
But you won't tell us where the line is, or how you know.
Try telling that to a judge. "The evidence fully exonerates my client?"
"What evidence? And when will you submit it?"
"Fully exonerated!"

 

[skepticalbip]

It does tend to negate all his claims that life can not come from non-life if he is unable (or unwilling) to define what he is claiming is the difference between life and non-life.

Try defending a murderer in a court of law that way. "Your honor, my client is innocent, because there's no difference between life and non-life."

You are still evading and throwing out a strawman. No one said that there is no difference between life and non-life. The question is, where is that line. Now try defending a client in court with "I know he is innocent but I ain't gonna tell you how I know. Now render your verdict of not guilty".

You seem to be only making a distinction between humans as life and rocks as non-life with nothing else being meaningful. Such simplistic ideas lead to simplistic reasoning. The theory of evolution does not propose that rocks mutated into humans in one step although the Bible does say that there was only one step between dust and humans. So, in order for you to poo-poo evolution, you need to show how the many-many steps and branches that led to the current proliferation of life in all its myriad forms do not make sense.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here’s the post:


Later I added:

I still am curious about how the Genesis magic works when it comes to making life. Aesthete, would you like to enlighten us?

Please tell us the difference between life and what you call non life in terms of its parts. Is CO2 alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, etc? And if life cannot come from what you call non life, how does a magic creature do it? Is it just that it’s magic and that magic creatures can do anything they want?

And if no one saw this magic creature make the universe, how do you know it did? You claimed things don't happen because no one sees them happen. Curious your answers but again, not holding my breath.

Your question did not interest me because it seems like you are trying to define life out of existence. Are viruses alive? Whether they are or not has no real impact on the empirical fact that life exists and doesn't come from non-life (that is, not without the power of God).

So your answer is "blah blah blah ... the power of god." Like I said, I wasn't holding my breath.

And you didn't answer how you know a god made the universe if no one saw it. Or how you know that a god made life if no one saw it.

So hopefully you have some appreciation for why you are so utterly unconvincing in your claims about gods and life.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It does tend to negate all his claims that life can not come from non-life if he is unable (or unwilling) to define what he is claiming is the difference between life and non-life.

Try defending a murderer in a court of law that way. "Your honor, my client is innocent, because there's no difference between life and non-life."

You're the one saying you know the difference AND you know it's insurmountable.

Correct. No one said there isn't a difference. Aesthete claims some kind of spooky magical difference having to do with creatures that have magical powers. I'm simply asking him what that difference is, and I've given him examples of my thinking to get him to give an answer. But he obviously does not have an answer other than it's very spooky so just believe everything I say because the spookiness salesmen have all the answers and it's all written in the book of spookiness. Not very convincing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But he obviously does not have an answer other than it's very spooky so just believe everything I say because the spookiness salesmen have all the answers and it's all written in the book of spookiness.

Polar-rectangular conversions were difficult for me in A school, but once i understood them, i could explain them to others, manipulate them in story problems. The classmates who just programmed the conversion into their calculators could only do the problems if asked in that way. They were helpless in story problems that, say, gave the answer and asked for the variables....

I suspect Aesthete accepted these statements uncritically, and thus is helpless to explain how one actually comes to these conclusions by any means other than 'authority figure says.'

 

[Jarhyn]

Here’s the post:


Later I added:

I still am curious about how the Genesis magic works when it comes to making life. Aesthete, would you like to enlighten us?

Please tell us the difference between life and what you call non life in terms of its parts. Is CO2 alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, etc? And if life cannot come from what you call non life, how does a magic creature do it? Is it just that it’s magic and that magic creatures can do anything they want?

And if no one saw this magic creature make the universe, how do you know it did? You claimed things don't happen because no one sees them happen. Curious your answers but again, not holding my breath.

Your question did not interest me because it seems like you are trying to define life out of existence. Are viruses alive? Whether they are or not has no real impact on the empirical fact that life exists and doesn't come from non-life (that is, not without the power of God).

Prove it.

There are claims whose facts are not in evidence: that life doesn't come from nonlife. You just assert that without evidence.

See, my own knowledge of O-chem in fact insist that life and complicated carbon chemistries are INEVITABLE when there is no life around to blow away the "fragile" building blocks of it.

It's kind of like flushing a toilet. You have a tank, and the toilet will only "flush" when there is sufficient mass in the tank... The issue with life is that once the toilet flushes once, the tank can no longer refill because it will just drain endlessly at that point: life consumes or coopts the protolife that would "fill the tank" prior to the biogenesis event and immediate proliferation. Rapidly, the carbon out there gets metabolized, eventually something starts consuming the CO2, producing oxygen. Eventually the reactive oxygen prevents the conditions leading to reactive carbon species, and the faucet filling the tank shuts off entirely. It's one of the reasons we have to use a sterile lab: life is just too ready to eat the low hanging fruit of protolife.

The issue is that you are trying to demand that gods exist in this process when the reality is that there is no such need: organic chemistry merely is, particularly near volcanic vents.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Lets see what non life I ate today. Had some soup, non life. Tuna from a can, definitely dead, non life. Cooked squash with a touch of oil and salt, definitely not alive. White and black beans blended with capers and olives with a touch of olive oil, definitely all non life, dead as a door nail. And finally some turkey, definitely dead as a can of corned beef.

So I should be dead, unless my life is being sustained by non life. How can that be?

I think the best way to think about Aesthete's god is to think of a house that someone says is haunted by the ghost of the previous owner who was found dead in the basement. Is the house haunted? Of course it isn't. But our planet is haunted by a ghost called god, according to Aesthete. Very spooky stuff, or just get a life, grow up.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lets see what non life I ate today. Had some soup, non life.

There was a feedback lettter to TalkOrigins, i dunno, twenty years ago? A creationist chef and his wife had just noticed that everything they served as food came from something that had previously been alive. They were absolute. Nothing in their menu was a non-living, never-been-living component. This proved, they said, that life could not evolve. Needs other life to eat.

The TalkOrigins replies suggested:
Water.
Salt.
Lye (for that Norse way of preserving fish? Tastes like expended uranium? Can't remember the name....).
A couple other minerals.

 

[Aesthete]

Your question did not interest me because it seems like you are trying to define life out of existence. Are viruses alive? Whether they are or not has no real impact on the empirical fact that life exists and doesn't come from non-life (that is, not without the power of God).

Prove it.

There are claims whose facts are not in evidence: that life doesn't come from nonlife. You just assert that without evidence.

See, my own knowledge of O-chem in fact insist that life and complicated carbon chemistries are INEVITABLE when there is no life around to blow away the "fragile" building blocks of it.

It's kind of like flushing a toilet. You have a tank, and the toilet will only "flush" when there is sufficient mass in the tank... The issue with life is that once the toilet flushes once, the tank can no longer refill because it will just drain endlessly at that point: life consumes or coopts the protolife that would "fill the tank" prior to the biogenesis event and immediate proliferation. Rapidly, the carbon out there gets metabolized, eventually something starts consuming the CO2, producing oxygen. Eventually the reactive oxygen prevents the conditions leading to reactive carbon species, and the faucet filling the tank shuts off entirely. It's one of the reasons we have to use a sterile lab: life is just too ready to eat the low hanging fruit of protolife.

The issue is that you are trying to demand that gods exist in this process when the reality is that there is no such need: organic chemistry merely is, particularly near volcanic vents.

Here's a chemist (a practicing scientist) who demolishes the idea of molecules magically turning into life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg

As he says, even if you had all the materials available, you couldn't make a cell. It's far too complex.

 

[skepticalbip]

Here's a chemist (a practicing scientist) who demolishes the idea of molecules magically turning into life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg

As he says, even if you had all the materials available, you couldn't make a cell. It's far too complex.

"Scientist"? I guess so but a really poor one. The "irreducible complexity" argument was attempted by "scientists" in the lawsuit Kitzmiller et al. versus the Dover School District but there were much better scientists that demonstrated during the trial that the complexity argument was pure bullshit based on religion rather than science.

 

[abaddon]

"So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, 'If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!'" ~ https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

Aesthete, referring to another person motivated by the same reason you are, to repeat the non sequitur "it can't happen therefore the bible story is true", doesn't help your case.

The real problem is the huge question-begging claim about the Bible as a true story if science fails to explain origins.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Still looking for a means of measuring complexity.
And an explanation. When is something TOO complex to be an unguided result?
And, how? How does that work? What sort of experiment would one craft to prove that an unguided process with a billion years to attempt it, cannot ever reach a complexity level of X units-of-complexity?

 

[DBT]

If complexity can work fine without someone to make it work, a creator, it's not a big stretch to imagine that the chemistry of life can form spontaneously.

 

[Lion IRC]

Still looking for a means of measuring complexity.
And an explanation. When is something TOO complex to be an unguided result?
And, how? How does that work? What sort of experiment would one craft to prove that an unguided process with a billion years to attempt it, cannot ever reach a complexity level of X units-of-complexity?

Ten thousand monkeys typing random letters for a hundred thousand years and accidentally coming up with a Shakespearean Sonnet is not "complexity".

You're asking...how can I tell the difference between the monkey's unintended output and the real thing. But that's not the test of whether the Sonnet is real or a fake/fluke.

You might as well ask the monkey if it can tell the difference. (Hint - no. It can't.)

 

[ideologyhunter]

At a lower rate of complexity, I could see monkeys coming up with an e.e. cummings poem.

 

[hyzer]

At a lower rate of complexity, I could see monkeys coming up with an e.e. cummings poem.

Well, at least the monkeys would have an easier time signing e.e.'s name as that would be one less time to use the shift key.

 

[hyzer]

Still looking for a means of measuring complexity.
And an explanation. When is something TOO complex to be an unguided result?
And, how? How does that work? What sort of experiment would one craft to prove that an unguided process with a billion years to attempt it, cannot ever reach a complexity level of X units-of-complexity?

Ten thousand monkeys typing random letters for a hundred thousand years and accidentally coming up with a Shakespearean Sonnet is not "complexity".

You're asking...how can I tell the difference between the monkey's unintended output and the real thing. But that's not the test of whether the Sonnet is real or a fake/fluke.

You might as well ask the monkey if it can tell the difference. (Hint - no. It can't.)

If only there were a means of selecting the monkey's output as it got better and better . . . .

 

[4321lynx]

Still looking for a means of measuring complexity.
And an explanation. When is something TOO complex to be an unguided result?
And, how? How does that work? What sort of experiment would one craft to prove that an unguided process with a billion years to attempt it, cannot ever reach a complexity level of X units-of-complexity?

Ten thousand monkeys typing random letters for a hundred thousand years and accidentally coming up with a Shakespearean Sonnet is not "complexity".

You're asking...how can I tell the difference between the monkey's unintended output and the real thing. But that's not the test of whether the Sonnet is real or a fake/fluke.

You might as well ask the monkey if it can tell the difference. (Hint - no. It can't.)

It took "slightly" more than 100,000 years, but it produced one "monkey" with a real intended output not of just one sonnet, but of all the works of W.S. (and all that without a typewriter!!)

 

[DBT]

Still looking for a means of measuring complexity.
And an explanation. When is something TOO complex to be an unguided result?
And, how? How does that work? What sort of experiment would one craft to prove that an unguided process with a billion years to attempt it, cannot ever reach a complexity level of X units-of-complexity?

Ten thousand monkeys typing random letters for a hundred thousand years and accidentally coming up with a Shakespearean Sonnet is not "complexity".

You're asking...how can I tell the difference between the monkey's unintended output and the real thing. But that's not the test of whether the Sonnet is real or a fake/fluke.

You might as well ask the monkey if it can tell the difference. (Hint - no. It can't.)

Evolution isn't random.