Does it exist before science....

[nPeace]

I see no evidence for such a creator. The evidence you suggested (from DNA) does not even come close. it doesn't even prove intelligent intervention for the development of life on Earth, let alone the existence of a creator for the universe as a whole.

I already am aware that you said you "see no evidence for a creator".
What evidence did I suggest from DNA?

Well, we were talking about the origin of DNA. We only know of DNA on Earth. That sort of limits the discussion to what happened on Earth.

We were? I was not aware of that. I thought you were talking about chemicals.

You asked about the origin of our DNA. That happened on Earth.

Where did I ask that?

 

[Polymath257]

I already am aware that you said you "see no evidence for a creator".
What evidence did I suggest from DNA?

We were? I was not aware of that. I thought you were talking about chemicals.

Where did I ask that?

You gave the 'evidence' here:

Does it exist before science....

We've been discussing that since.

 

[nPeace]

You gave the 'evidence' here:

Does it exist before science....

We've been discussing that since.

I did? Be specific. What evidence did I give?
I know I tried to correct your mistake in this post, but you still went headlong down a one tracked lane. So what exactly have "we" been discussing?

 

[Polymath257]

I did? Be specific. What evidence did I give?

Well, you mentioned Flew's views about DNA in the context of giving evidence. I answered that.

Flew evidently considered the complexity of DNA to be evidence of a deity. I pointed out how it is not. In particular, I discussed how it could arise naturally.

I know I tried to correct your mistake in this post, but you still went headlong down a one tracked lane. So what exactly have "we" been discussing?

What mistake? You asked how the properties of the precursor chemicals were relevant and I answered. You then asked if those chemicals and their properties were just there or had been created.

I answered that they were on the Earth prior to the formation of the DNA (which happened on Earth). So *in the context of the formation of DNA*, those chemicals were already there.

You then asked if they were always around or had been created. I answered that the elements that make up those chemicals were formed inside of stars and that the chemicals are thereby very common in the universe (they were formed when the elements were distributed into space).

So, no, they were not always there: they formed by natural processes.

Finally, I pointed out that creation is not the same as formation. Formation does not require any intervention by an outside intelligence, while creation does. And that means you were giving a false dichotomy: the options are not 'always been there' and 'creation'. The latter option should, instead, be 'formation'.

 

[nPeace]

Well, you mentioned Flew's views about DNA in the context of giving evidence. I answered that.

Yes, you eagerly want to answer everything according to your view.

I didn't post anything for you to exercise your brain muscles, with your vastly superior views.
I did mention that skeptics were specific about the evidence that convinced them, and Flew's views were more than a superficial look at DNA.

Did you say exactly what it was about DNA that convinced Flew... other than that he was senile?
Was Flew not convinced both by the lack of evidence for your self forming self assembling and self-replicating RNA, and the evidence that the arrangement and intricacy of these chemicals strongly supports design by an intelligent first cause?

According to the RNA world hypothesis, RNA spontaneously came together through geochemical processes. Scientists studying the origins of life have spent the past 40 years trying to figure out exactly how this could have happened, analyzing the likely chemical components of early Earth and devising chemical reactions to bring them together. “The chemistry of making RNA is so difficult that it’s hard to imagine that you could have a one-pot reaction, where molecules come together and spontaneously make this complex molecule,” Hud said.

A pair of RNA-like molecules can spontaneously assemble into gene-length chains...
Origin of life researchers have long thought that RNA, the molecular cousin of the DNA that encodes our genes, may have played a starring role in the initial evolution of life from a soup of organic molecules.
...there are problems with this so-called RNA World hypothesis. For starters, in water, the four chemical components of RNA—the nucleotides abbreviated A, G, C, and U—don't spontaneously assemble to create sizable molecules. So it remains a mystery how the first long gene-length chains of RNA could have taken shape in Earth's ancient oceans. This and other conundrums have led many to believe that RNA may itself be the product of early molecular evolution, and that proto-RNAs arose first and eventually gave way to RNA. "RNA is so perfect today that it has to be the product of evolution," says Nicholas Hud...

Flew evidently considered the complexity of DNA to be evidence of a deity. I pointed out how it is not. In particular, I discussed how it could arise naturally.

No, not just DNA.
DNA research is just one area, where he was led to his conclusion about the evidence.

You pointed out how it could. Flew pointed out how God could.
I don't see why you think your god is better than his, or your belief is better than his... other than that you think you are brilliant beyond any one who believes otherwise, because they are senile.
Is that it?

What mistake? You asked how the properties of the precursor chemicals were relevant and I answered. You then asked if those chemicals and their properties were just there or had been created.

The mistake of focussing on DNA.
The quote includes other chemicals, which you didn't seem to consider, but rather focussed on DNA molecules, and the behavior of the properties of chemicals.
Am I mistaken?

I answered that they were on the Earth prior to the formation of the DNA (which happened on Earth). So *in the context of the formation of DNA*, those chemicals were already there.

See? I was right, then.

You then asked if they were always around or had been created. I answered that the elements that make up those chemicals were formed inside of stars and that the chemicals are thereby very common in the universe (they were formed when the elements were distributed into space).

So, no, they were not always there: they formed by natural processes.

So you believe chemicals formed from stars? All of them?

Finally, I pointed out that creation is not the same as formation. Formation does not require any intervention by an outside intelligence, while creation does. And that means you were giving a false dichotomy: the options are not 'always been there' and 'creation'. The latter option should, instead, be 'formation'.

Then perhaps tell the authors of science journals to stop using the words "create", "creates", created", and stick to "form", "forms", "formed"... and if you do, I'd be happy if you report back on their response.