How do you detect "design"?

[McBell]

What is more difficult to appear on its own due to natural processes: a robot or a human?

Human.

 

[leroy]

How did you not learn that in school?
Biologists have been describing and clarifying the natural mechanisms by which life "created itself" for decades. Just Google, there are millions of articles and videos, from simple to advanced, all over the web.

That type of arrogant answers (or non answers) show that @Eli G has a point and that you are being cornered and unable to answer.

1 why is the idea of a robot assembling itself is unacceptable? (You obviously have an answer)

2 why can´t that same answer be applied to abiogenesis?

why is abiogenesis fundamentally different from robots?

 

[McBell]

Please, don't lie to yourself that bad.

Competition to fierce for you?

 

[Valjean]

That is not evidence.

But inasmuch as life did appear on Earth, and no evidenced or reasonable alternatives to chemical abiogenesis are known, the hypothesis stands, as the only reasonable, known mechanism.

 

[McBell]

That type of arrogant answers (or non answers) show that @Eli G has a point and that you are being cornered and unable to answer.

Nope.
Not even close.

 

[Valjean]

That type of arrogant answers (or non answers) show that @Eli G has a point and that you are being cornered and unable to answer.

1 why is the idea of a robot assembling itself is unacceptable? (You obviously have an answer)

2 why can´t that same answer be applied to abiogenesis?

why is abiogenesis fundamentally different from robots?

I know nothing of these robots, their genesis, function, mechanisms or history. I have no opinion about these robots.
Organisms, on the other hand, are well known.

 

[Eli G]

That type of arrogant answers (or non answers) show that @Eli G has a point and that you are being cornered and unable to answer.
...

He's another robot. That's why I just stopped taking it seriously.

You have to find out when the person driving the robot leaves, and leaves it alone...
or suddenly you're going to be talking to a stupid repetitive machine.

 

[Valjean]

I dont think you adressed the argument/point made by Eli..............
Why can´t a robot assemble itself in a planet in space by unknown chemical and physical mechanisms?....why is that idea fundamentally different from abiogenesis?

we know that iron, copper and other metals are produced naturally by stars....................so why Can´t a robot assemble itself?

I don't know, and I never gave an opinion on this matter.
As I said, I know nothing about the history, environment or mechanics of these robots. The robot example is not mine. I can't reasonably speak to a thing I know nothing of.

The answer is obvious, there are many many many possible combinations in which metals can exist, but only very few combinations would produce a robot……it is simply very unlikely for metals to simple organize themselves by chance to produce a robot. …

The issue is that we have the exact same problem with abiogenesis ………….just change metals for amino acids, lipids, and sugars. And you have the exact same problem.

The biological mechanisms and biochemical possibilities are known. I don't know that your alternative proposed analogy is even analogous.

Granted biological mechanisms are known, and none of those mechanisms can produce life....................

"Eppur si muove..."

Yet there is life, and the proposed mechanisms are robust, observable and understood. I don't understand why you find them insufficient, or why you consider magic a reasonable and sufficient alternative.
Where does the natural mechanism fail? What makes it impossible? What makes magic possible?

Are you defending a religious ego-identity, arguing from incredulity, or just ignorant of the proposed biotic mechanisms and state-of-the-art?

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, a living biological being as based on what we know about robots.

But what do we know about robots?
The original term is Czech for " labor, worker" or forced laborer. The book that coined the term featured organic, not metal robots.
Until whoever proposed the analogy here clarifies just what these robots be, we can't reasonably address the analogy.

 

[Valjean]

What is more complex: a robot or a living cell?

Arrrgh!!
What do you mean by "robot," a mechanical man? A metal man? What are these robots made of and how are they manufactured/born?

You assume everyone knows what's meant by "robot." Everyone does not. The analogy is too nebulous to be useful.

 

[Valjean]

It matters because if you think that there is at least 1 viable hypothesis you should be capable of sharing and developing such hypothesis.

The alleged fact that I refuse to learn is irrelevant you are still expected to provide that hypothesis.



Educated people agree with me, there is not a viable hypothesis, .............. Anyone who reads the actual science would agree with me

quote from an educated person:
"THOSE WHO THINK scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory.

The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery."

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

Do you seriously think Tour represents the consensus of biologists?
He's a born-again Christian; a religious fanatic who aargues from incredulity against the ToE.

 

[Valjean]

Evolutionists believe that some thunderstorms in the distant past did something that has never been seen: create life.

Interesting. Link?

None of the storms that are occurring in the US have created anything... they have only destroyed many things and taken some lives.

Has anyone looked? If thunderstorms created some sort of simple procaryotes, would anyone likely have noticed?

 

[Valjean]

Abiogenesis is a fact, but nobody knows how that event occurred and there is not a single viable hypothesis……………….do you disagree with this statement?

There are multiple viable hypotheses, but magic is not one of them.

 

[Valjean]

Evolutionists seem to be clinging to their hypotheses because they cannot find other alternatives. Their imagination has already worn out... from using it so much.

Enlighten us, then. Cite an alternative hypothesis.

 

[McBell]

Enlighten us, then. Cite an alternative hypothesis.

um...
GodDidIt...?

 

[Valjean]

You seem to be suggesting that the fact that complex natural processes occure……………..somehow shows that abiogenesis occurred by such processes.

What viable alternative do you know of?

 

[Valjean]

After repeating it so many times, you can try to prove it just once... or keep fooling yourself, as evolutionists usually do.

LOL! I can't "proove" the Earth is round or that germs cause disease, and neither can science.
Do you understand how science works, and what it does?

 

[Valjean]

You seem to be suggesting that the fact that complex natural processes occure……………..somehow shows that abiogenesis occurred by such processes.

Not quite. I'm suggesting that complexity is not evidence of conscious design.

 

[leroy]

I know nothing of these robots, their genesis, function, mechanisms or history. I have no opinion about these robots.
Organisms, on the other hand, are well known.

You are had waving an avoiding the question.

Let’s start with baby steps

1 do you agree on that the idea of a robot assembling itself is unacceptable? Do you agree that appealing to unknown natural mechanisms to explain the self assembling of the robot is unacceptable?

I know nothing of these robots,

Well lets use any robot that you know of (or computer, or car, or machine etc.)

 

[leroy]

There are multiple viable hypotheses,

ok share and develope one..............I will then try to tell you why that hypothesis fails