How do you detect "design"?

[leroy]

Do you seriously think Tour represents the consensus of biologists?

Biologists? Don’t you mean chemist?

But yes, his view represents the consensus………….I challenge you to quote from expert that contradicts any of his claims about the origin of life.

Quote both the actual words of your expert and the quote from James tour and show that one contradicts the other.

He's a born-again Christian; a religious fanatic

So what?

who aargues from incredulity against the ToE.

Support your assertion

 

[Astrophile]

Do you believe that life is chemically based?

Yes.

 

[Astrophile]

Do you know who Galen was?

Vaguely. He was a 2nd-century physician.

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.

For over 1,000 years the creation stories in the book of Genesis were believed and taught. Until 18th and 19th century geologists and biologists had different ideas. Why do you accept William Harvey over Galen and then reject professional geologists and biologists in favour of the book of Genesis?

 

[leroy]

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.

I don’t know about you, but I will keep pressing him on the robot issue, make some popcorn and enjoy the show………..lets see what strategy he uses to avoid a direct and clear answer.


We *know* that robots don’t assemble by themselves because even though metals and the other components of a robot can be formed naturally , there is nothing in the laws of nature that would fold the metals in the correct form and organize each parts in the correct order…………(and given that there are many parts, it cant happen by chance ether)

But we have the exact same issue with life (say self replicating molecules) sure amino acids, sugars, and lipids can be created naturally, but there is nothing in the known laws of nature that would organize everything in the correct order……..( and given that there are many parts, it cant happen by chance ether)

If one insist that there is an “unknown” mechanism that did it, the same can be said about robots.


Also the claim that scientists are “getting closer” to solve the problem on the origin of life is false or at least unsupported.

 

[McBell]

I don’t know about you, but I will keep pressing him on the robot issue, make some popcorn and enjoy the show………..lets see what strategy he uses to avoid a direct and clear answer.


We *know* that robots don’t assemble by themselves because even though metals and the other components of a robot can be formed naturally , there is nothing in the laws of nature that would fold the metals in the correct form and organize each parts in the correct order…………(and given that there are many parts, it cant happen by chance ether)

But we have the exact same issue with life (say self replicating molecules) sure amino acids, sugars, and lipids can be created naturally, but there is nothing in the known laws of nature that would organize everything in the correct order……..( and given that there are many parts, it cant happen by chance ether)

If one insist that there is an “unknown” mechanism that did it, the same can be said about robots.


Also the claim that scientists are “getting closer” to solve the problem on the origin of life is false or at least unsupported.

 

[Brian2]

Why do you creationists work so hard to not learn science? Somewhere in your past someone told you false things about the origins of life, and you believed them without knowing you were being duped. And now that you are interacting with educated people you refuse to understand what science reports. It's such a curiosity that I don't get.

Science does not report that life is chemically based.
So called educated people who are atheists seem to want to go with the idea that science has not found "spirit" so life must be chemically based.
But these same people know they are wrong scientifically and that they just have faith that this is the situation,,,,,,,,,,, and at the same time they attack others for their belief in a designer.
It is such a curiosity.

What gods are true? Show us the evidence. If you have none, then the broad idea of gods are rejected by logical default. Rational minds will only believe in ideas that have some amount of evidence, and is more likely true than not.

That sounds like you believe what takes your fancy, but can't see that a designer is more likely true than not.

 

[PureX]

OK, what is "the source," and what evidence do you have for it, save not understanding the evidence or logical reasoning?

All that physical machination IS the “evidence”. It logically cannot have just randomly popped into being from nothingness. It is organized and purposeful and extremely complex.

 

[YoursTrue]

Vaguely. He was a 2nd-century physician.

For over 1,000 years the creation stories in the book of Genesis were believed and taught. Until 18th and 19th century geologists and biologists had different ideas. Why do you accept William Harvey over Galen and then reject professional geologists and biologists in favour of the book of Genesis?

The Bible is a source of guidance and hope for many. I don't know anyone who believes what Galen said anymore, however there are those who do believe what the Bible says.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science does not report that life is chemically based.
So called educated people who are atheists seem to want to go with the idea that science has not found "spirit" so life must be chemically based.
But these same people know they are wrong scientifically and that they just have faith that this is the situation,,,,,,,,,,, and at the same time they attack others for their belief in a designer.
It is such a curiosity.

That seems to be correct from what I have learned. Somehow, however 'abiogenesis' happened, scientists say life therefore came about from non-life according to the theory, and things (cells) from that point on multiplied and evolved, becoming plants, animals, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don’t know about you, but I will keep pressing him on the robot issue, make some popcorn and enjoy the show………..lets see what strategy he uses to avoid a direct and clear answer.


We *know* that robots don’t assemble by themselves because even though metals and the other components of a robot can be formed naturally , there is nothing in the laws of nature that would fold the metals in the correct form and organize each parts in the correct order…………(and given that there are many parts, it cant happen by chance ether)

But we have the exact same issue with life (say self replicating molecules) sure amino acids, sugars, and lipids can be created naturally, but there is nothing in the known laws of nature that would organize everything in the correct order……..( and given that there are many parts, it cant happen by chance ether)

If one insist that there is an “unknown” mechanism that did it, the same can be said about robots.


Also the claim that scientists are “getting closer” to solve the problem on the origin of life is false or at least unsupported.

Popcorn does sound good now but I'll try to hold off until tomorrow. The mere mention of the word set in my brain a little longing to get a bag. But! I'll wait. (hopefully)

 

[F1fan]

Science does not report that life is chemically based.

False, amino acids that make up DNA strands are chemicals. You need to get science right if you want to be taken seriously.

So called educated people who are atheists seem to want to go with the idea that science has not found "spirit" so life must be chemically based.

This is the Dunning Kruger Effect right here. Look at your contempt for science, and in expertise of very complicated subjects that you have no knowledge about. And many experts in science are theists, they just get science right, unlike you.

But these same people know they are wrong scientifically and that they just have faith that this is the situation,,,,,,,,,,, and at the same time they attack others for their belief in a designer.
It is such a curiosity.

The only curosity is why you insult scientists like this. Is your religious faith so weak?

That sounds like you believe what takes your fancy, but can't see that a designer is more likely true than not.

What designer? Notice you'd rather insult educated people than show us evidence of a designer existing outside of human imagination. Is there a problem? No evidence?

 

[Pogo]

Even if true, that is not a valid excuse for not sharing a viable hypothesis for the origin of life

The Bible is a source of guidance and hope for many. I don't know anyone who believes what Galen said anymore, however there are those who do believe what the Bible says.

So argument ad populum is wrong in one case but right when it is yours?

 

[YoursTrue]

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:View attachment 92128

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

@shunyadragon

 

[F1fan]

All that physical machination IS the “evidence”. It logically cannot have just randomly popped into being from nothingness.

How is it illogical? You made this claim, but offered no reasoning process that is fact based.

It is organized and purposeful and extremely complex.

As is all material behaving via the natural laws. Feel free to show evidence of an alternative that we can take seriously.

 

[F1fan]

That seems to be correct from what I have learned.

Where did you learn that false information, and why are you using bad sources?

Somehow, however 'abiogenesis' happened,

Because it is all plaausible in nature. What alternative do you have that has facts? Nothing. So abiogenesis is all we have.

scientists say life therefore came about from non-life according to the theory,

Not really true. Inorganic chemicals converted to organic chemicals, and these organic chemicaals formed compounds naturally, and these were the building blocks of life. There's no excuse for not getting science right.

and things (cells) from that point on multiplied and evolved, becoming plants, animals, etc.

There are explanations available for free if you want to be informed. There's no excuse for getting science wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@shunyadragon

So now you understand that you are a monkey too. Excellent. Though I am sure that @shunyadragon prefers the more scientific term of "simian". How about you? Do you prefer to be called a monkey or a simian? Personally for me, I do not care either way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That seems to be correct from what I have learned. Somehow, however 'abiogenesis' happened, scientists say life therefore came about from non-life according to the theory, and things (cells) from that point on multiplied and evolved, becoming plants, animals, etc.

Yes, we both accept the fact of abiogenesis. At one point there was no life on the Earth and later there was. Scientists and rational people in general believe that it was by natural abiogenesis. Creationists believe that it was by God magic abiogenesis. God is not alive in the biological sense at all so if he created life that is still a form of abiogenesis, life from non-life.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon

Plese do not cite me to play one against another When you reject the science of evolution based on a religious agenda, Yes I prefer simians.

Regardless ALL the primates are related in the evolutionary tree of life..

 

[Valjean]

Biologists? Don’t you mean chemist?

But yes, his view represents the consensus………….I challenge you to quote from expert that contradicts any of his claims about the origin of life.

Ridiculous. Biologists -- and most other scientists -- overwhelmingly support evolution. It's the foundation of the whole discipline, and of our entire understanding of life. Scientifically literate skeptics are rarer than hens' teeth.

 

[Valjean]

But we have the exact same issue with life (say self replicating molecules) sure amino acids, sugars, and lipids can be created naturally, but there is nothing in the known laws of nature that would organize everything in the correct order……..( and given that there are many parts, it cant happen by chance ether)

But there are.
You really need to keep up with the discipline. Biology journals are replete with new discoveries of such mechanisms.

If one insist that there is an “unknown” mechanism that did it, the same can be said about robots.

There are numerous known and proposed pathways, and please drop the robot thing. We don't know what you mean by robots, you haven't described them to the point that we can make any assumptions about them or draw any valid conclusions.

Also the claim that scientists are “getting closer” to solve the problem on the origin of life is false or at least unsupported.

There are none so blind....
Now you're just spouting propaganda and denying basic biology.