How do you detect "design"?

[leroy]

Theists tend to be Vitalists. They regard 'life' as a sort of mysterious, intangible essence; a divine 'stuff', beyond just an emergent property of chemistry.

No matter how well we can document the spontaneous formation and assembly of the several components of life by ordinary chemistry, they'll remain unconvinced, and continue to appeal to magic.

Curious I have a different impression.

It seems to me that no matter how big and difficult an obstacle is, you will always say “nature did it” ……. You will always appeal to “unknown natural mechanisms”………….. there doesn’t seem to be a hypothetical point where you would stop and say “hey maybe this is better explained with ID”

just an emergent property of chemistry

If life is just an emergent property of chemistry, why don’t we see life emerging from chemicals?

Challenge

1 take all the amino acids sugars and lipids that you what

2 simulate any environment (assume any temperature, any pressure, any source of energy etc… that you what)

3 given 1 and 2 make a self replicating molecule…………..the only condition is that you can´t use preexisting life to do that.

Can you do that? no can any scientist do that?................... why not?

 

[YoursTrue]

you are being too generous……….. The issue is not that they don’t know exactly………….the issue is that there is no a single viable hypothesis………….any hypothesis has ether devastating objections or insuperable obstacles.*

I believe you are right.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no known natural mechanism that can create self-replicating proteins (ether RNA o something else) without preexisting life.

Please admit this simple and uncontroversial fact of science.........................If you want to believe by faith that an unknown natural mechanism did it………..feel free to do it but you would not be in a position to criticize creationists that believe by faith in talking snakes both are equally absurd based on what we currently know

Some aren't going to admit that. Just as some here will keep insisting that humans are monkeys.

 

[Brian2]

I'm curious if you are familiar with the
concepts of intellectualual / scientific
integrity ( honesty) ?

A bit of time with Google for a refresher might
be in order

There is a PhD paleontologist who notable said
"...even if all the universe turns against yec, I will,still
be yec, because that's what the bible seems to indicate"

Do yiu recognize the integrity issue there ?

Suppose ALL the detectives' evidence pointed to the, say, killer of your child but one juror said that none of the facts
matter because what he thinks the bible seems to say
negates all the data.

That's what Dr. K Wise, cited above, is doing.
Because he is a born- again. All the facts in the universe
make no difference.
Same with the hypothetical juror.

This Jsaes Tour is good at nano tech.
He is a born again.

It is impossible to be a born again and accept deep
Time / evolution as real. Impossible to have scientific
integrity. Cannot be done. J Tour has no choice.

So he forces himself into intellectual dishonesty and
worse seeks tospread it.

A good q to ask is why the one guy going off the
reservation to make claims he is not qualified to make
Is the Light, the beacon, the one scientist who is right,
and all the others are wrong.

Is this a reasonable position for you ( or that juror)
to take?

Do you believe that life is chemically based?

 

[F1fan]

Sure, share and develop your hypothesis and I ´ll tell you the obstacles or flaws in your hypothesis

You don;t know wjhat a hypothesis is. Not only do you not understand science, you are hostile towards it.

Grated, some problems have been solved, ……..that is not a big of a deal, even YEC have solved many problems,

YECs haven't solved anything. They can't even show their God exists, nor that it's the cause.

Abiogenesis is the only plausible explanation so far. And it works. No magic needed.

That doesn’t change the fact that there is not a single viable hypothesis for abiogenesis, all hypothesis fail for some reason or an other...Except for those mysterious hypothesis that only you know about

The old throw the baby out with the bathwater. The problem for creationists is that abiogenesis actually can work. Creationists have no factual alternative.

 

[F1fan]

Some aren't going to admit that. Just as some here will keep insisting that humans are monkeys.

It's creationists that keep claiming this false notion. If only creationists we well informed, they would keep making such mistakes.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don;t know wjhat a hypothesis is. Not only do you not understand science, you are hostile towards it.

YECs haven't solved anything. They can't even show their God exists, nor that it's the cause.

Abiogenesis is the only plausible explanation so far. And it works. No magic needed.

The old throw the baby out with the bathwater. The problem for creationists is that abiogenesis actually can work. Creationists have no factual alternative.

Do you know who Galen was? For over 1,000 years his theory about blood circulation was believed and taught. Until William Harvey had a different idea. Discovery of the cardiovascular system: from Galen to William Harvey - PubMed.

 

[F1fan]

Do you know who Galen was? For over 1,000 years his theory about blood circulation was believed and taught. Until William Harvey had a different idea. Discovery of the cardiovascular system: from Galen to William Harvey - PubMed.

Not at all extraordinary. Some guy gets his arm cut off in an accident and blood squirts all over the place until he dies. It doesn't take too much brain power to conclude that it is under pressure. And people way back then killed animals and could see hearts beating and how the beating correlated to blood being under pressure. When hearts stopped the bleeding stopped. It's all simple observation, and testing. I'm surprized it took them that long.

Notice how science gets more accurate over time. Yet you reject evolution for an old, obsolete interpretation of Genesis.

Even before that humans figured out that plants come from seeds, and they could collect seeds and plant them in places they wanted. Now we can engineer seeds.

 

[F1fan]

Do you believe that life is chemically based?

What do you think amino acids are? It's 7th grade science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Abiogenesis is the only plausible explanation so far. And it works. No magic needed.

Of course one of the current theories is that life somehow arose from a chaotic soup. How many times do you think scientists think life arose from that chaotic soup and continued growing?

 

[Brian2]

What do you think amino acids are? It's 7th grade science.

Amino acids are organic chemicals. What do you think they are?

 

[F1fan]

Of course one of the current theories is that life somehow arose from a chaotic soup. How many times do you think scientists think life arose from that chaotic soup and continued growing?

It's irrelevant.

What does matter is that organic chemicals can emerge from non-organic chemicals in nature. The amino acids can emerge naturally. These building blocks can arrange naturally into protein chains, and these form into simple forms of life. It's all plausible. Your religion can't offer any factual alternative. What do you have? Magic from a God not known to exist. And how did you arrive at this? Bad interpretation of an old story.

Amino acids are organic chemicals. What do you think they are?

You answered your own question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's creationists that keep claiming this false notion. If only creationists we well informed, they would keep making such mistakes.

Actually by cladistics humans are "monkeys'. There are both New World and Old World monkeys. The problem is that they are not a monophyletic group. To make them monophyletic one has to include the apes. There is another term that one could use and that would be "simians". All of us, Old World Monkeys, New World Monkeys, Lesser apes (gibbons) and Great Apes are all simians:

Separating off the two groups of monkeys would be a paraphyletic group. And that is not a proper grouping in modern animal classification.

 

[Copernicus]

There is no known natural mechanism that can create self-replicating proteins (ether RNA o something else) without preexisting life.

Please admit this simple and uncontroversial fact of science.........................If you want to believe by faith that an unknown natural mechanism did it………..feel free to do it but you would not be in a position to criticize creationists that believe by faith in talking snakes both are equally absurd based on what we currently know

If you are going to quote me in your replies, please be careful not to attribute words to me that someone else wrote. In your reply, you took material from a reference I quoted in a reply to someone else and posted it as something I said. That reference and the associated text were:

The RNA World and the Origins of Life​

They have observed the chaotic soup of organic molecules the exist in nature, and they have discovered molecules that appear to represent precursors to RNA molecules.To fully understand the processes occurring in present-day living cells, we need to consider how they arose in evolution. The most fundamental of all such problems is the expression of hereditary information, which today requires extraordinarily complex machinery and proceeds from DNA to protein through an RNA intermediate. How did this machinery arise? One view is that an RNA world existed on Earth before modern cells arose (Figure 6-91). According to this hypothesis, RNA stored both genetic information and catalyzed the chemical reactions in primitive cells. Only later in evolutionary time did DNA take over as the genetic material and proteins become the major catalyst and structural component of cells. If this idea is correct, then the transition out of the RNA world was never complete; as we have seen in this chapter, RNA still catalyzes several fundamental reactions in modern-day cells, which can be viewed as molecular fossils of an earlier world​

​

You are just dead wrong in your skepticism about the scientific basis for RNA World theory. There are examples of all kinds of self-replicating processes in nature that are not RNA and DNA molecules. Those molecules just happen to be the ones that resulted in living cellular life. Of course, there are also self-replicating viruses which are not living organisms in the same sense. We have also found self-replication processes taking place in clays and crystal growth. Self-replication is a very natural phenomenon in nature, and we also see them emerging in chaotic deterministic computer simulations. So the means by which life seems to have emerged abiogenetically are well-known and well-established by scientists. OTOH, there is no empirical evidence to support creationist claptrap, but I harbor no illusion that I can talk you out of taking it seriously.

If you want to believe in creationist mythology, that is your prerogative.

 

[PureX]

Theists tend to be Vitalists. They regard 'life' as a sort of mysterious, intangible essence; a divine 'stuff', beyond just an emergent property of chemistry.

No matter how well we can document the spontaneous formation and assembly of the several components of life by ordinary chemistry, they'll remain unconvinced, and continue to appeal to magic.

They understand that the mechanism is not the source.

You don't.

 

[Audie]

Do you believe that life is chemically based?

Presumably you'd go on a date with some girl
who showed enough interest in you to ask you a question
about yourself.

Your response would be to ask her something wholly
irrelevant, showing you didn't hear a word she said and /
or have no intention of answering, nor showing the least
respect for her.

The probable response would be to give you a brief
look, then walk out.

 

[Audie]

You don;t know wjhat a hypothesis is. Not only do you not understand science, you are hostile towards it.

YECs haven't solved anything. They can't even show their God exists, nor that it's the cause.

Abiogenesis is the only plausible explanation so far. And it works. No magic needed.

The old throw the baby out with the bathwater. The problem for creationists is that abiogenesis actually can work. Creationists have no factual alternative.

I'd sure like to hear what yecs have solved.

 

[Audie]

Do you know who Galen was? For over 1,000 years his theory about blood circulation was believed and taught. Until William Harvey had a different idea. Discovery of the cardiovascular system: from Galen to William Harvey - PubMed.

You are trying to give science lessons?

 

[Brian2]

You answered your own question.

To go from a definition of amino acids to a belief that life is chemically based would require a belief in scientism imo. Is that correct?

 

[McBell]

To go from a definition of amino acids to a belief that life is chemically based would require a belief in scientism imo. Is that correct?

Until there is something offered up to explain how life began that is not merely wishful thinking, no, not scientism at all.