Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you know anything about these alleged early magically produced from rain runoff from rock creatures. There is no fossil record, there is no life being created from inert substances to be observed, you weren't there. Don't simple one celled replicating cells have DNA ? DNA is information, where did that come from ?
Evidence. You made a lot of assertions about how they couldn't possibly exist, so how can you make claims about them and I can't? At least my claims are based on scientific study.
We have fossils of organisms from 3.5 billion years ago:
But we have the evidence. See the links I posed above.
If science relied entirely on personally observing phenomenon, there would be no need for the scientific method. Everything is based on evidence. And if your only way to deny the evidence is to say "you weren't there", then your argument probably isn't a strong one.
See the links I posted above. We already know RNA can be produced through natural, chemical processes under early earth conditions. Arguments from ignorance are not compelling.
Natural chemical processes resulting in a living organism from any combination of chemicals has never been observed, never been re created, the process has never been identified. The scientific method. There is no proof. Amino acids are not alive, none of the alleged building blocks are alive. So, it remains, a guess, a theory, a concept, not a fact. I can demonstrate that no chemical process ever known has ever produced life from inert chemicals
Uhm... if the building blocks of life are not in themselves alive, then you're contradicting yourself saying that there's no evidence that inert (non-life) chemicals (the building blocks of life) can't produce life.
Again, the links I have posted demonstrate how the building blocks of life can be formed by natural chemical processes under early earth conditions. What's more, life has been created in the lab using methods derived from predictions of how early organisms formed in nature:
Proof is for maths and alcohol. Science utilises evidence.
But they are the building blocks of life, and contain all of the necessary chemicals for RNA to form. What's more, we have since created life in the laboratory.
A guess and a theory are not equivalent. It is a model that thus far has produced strong positive evidence that indicates that life can form under early earth conditions through natural, chemical processes.
Please demonstrate that, then.
Fossils from 3.5 billion years ago, these aren't those very first organisms, are they ? RNA is not DNA in a living creature, you know that, don't put up the ignorance ad hominem to promote your alleged superiority, it won't fly. Evidence isn't proof, evidence is subjective based upon a persons evaluation of it. You can make all the claims you want, but if they are the assertion that something happened that no one can prove, as fact, you get corrected
Do you expect us to have them? Fact is, we have fossils which indicate that early life was extremely simplistic and fit exactly with the predictions of abiogenesis and evolutionary theory.
So? It's still strong evidence of the ability of DNA to be produced naturally. We have evidence that living things can arise through natural, chemical processes. Where is your evidence that they can't?
It's not an ad hominem - an argument from ignorance is a form of logical fallacy, and you are using it.
Then you're not discussing science. Science uses evidence, not proof. No single fact can ever demonstrate the truth of a given proposition.
False. Evidence are facts that lend credibility to a given claim or hypothesis.
You are the one making assertions. I am demonstrating facts and showing relevant scientific studies. All you have done is make claims.
Please, just tell me where it can be naturally observed, the process of chemicals turning into living organisms, or direct me to the lab where where it has been replicated, or at least to the paper that thoroughly explains the process, with experiments to follow. I am not a scientist, my education, training and experience is in the law, and I do know, a bit about proof and evidence. I am asking for direct physical evidence as proof, you can't provide it, instead, you offer circumstantial evidence, which can be superb evidence if there is enough to lead to a belief beyond a reasonable doubt.......................that you have not provided
Evidence leads to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, proof. People had strong evidence that the sun rotated around the earth, it wasn't proof. How can I prove something didn't happen ? That is a ridiculous idea, You are making the claims, the burden is on you to prove them. But you aren't dealing in multiple facts to prove anything, your evidence leads to a conclusion, I am applying the same standard as required in a criminal trial, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Your evidence doesn't meet the standard
Every cell in your body does it.
Have you heard about nutrition or diets or such? What do you think it is that you're eating and producing a living body out of?
False. Evidence and proof are not equivalent, and proof doesn't exist in science. Science reaches conclusions via inference.
No, they had an intuition based on observation. It wasn't until the scientific method and investigation was applied that we had actual, solid evidence of what revolved around what. If anything, the fact that people once believed the sun revolved around the earth is a blow against your "you have to directly observe something before you can claim it to be true" logic, since direct observation of the sun lead to the intuition that it moved through the sky. It is only through inference and evidence that we have since concluded otherwise.
Then why are you claiming it?
So the ability to create amino acids by replicating early earth conditions, the existence of early fossils of bacteria, and the fact we have created synthetic cells in the laboratory using chemicals aren't evidence that life can arise through natural, chemical processes?
Your article on the synthetic cell was quite interesting, thank you for sharing. However, the process was a manipulation, created by an intelligent designer(s), with no parity to alleged natural processes that occurred. Early organisms did not occur by someone planning their construction, manipulating the process, by using material that nature does not produce ( or did they ? !) Strong evidence and enough of it can be considered proof
Just put all those things together, treat them with radiation, electricity, any and all gasses, heat, cold, shake them, use magnetism, absolutely anything that is likely to have occurred in nature, then tell me when a living organism emerges
So when you requested examples of life being formed from chemicals in the lab, you were just going to dismiss any examples presented to you? Why did you ask, then?
I have already linked you to several experiments that demonstrate how the building blocks of life can be produced by early earth conditions.
How many times do I have to write that proof doesn't exist in science?
No, they had evidence based on observation, that was strong enough to convince them, till stronger evidence came along. How do you know what early earth conditions were ? I am only claiming that you do not have strong enough evidence to convince me, and multi millions of others, as well as biologists, cosmologists, chemists that believe in, based upon the evidence, intelligent design. A manipulated synthetic cell is proof of intelligent design, not inert natural chemicals bursting into life
Unfortunately, your synthetic cell is proof of one thing, intelligent design. Those conditions, those materials, the manipulation, the planning, are not natural processes.
Evidence.
Can you give me a list of biologists, cosmologists and chemists who claim that the evidence for abiogenesis is insufficient or believe, based on evidence, in intelligent design?
No it absolutely isn't. It is EVIDENCE that life can form through natural, chemical processes.
Once again, proof doesn't exist in science. And secondly, no it is not. You specifically asked for examples of life being created in the lab as evidence of abiogenesis, and when I present you with an example you shift the goalposts and claim that it somehow "proves intelligent design". It doesn't.
So what was the point in asking for an example of life being produced in the lab if you're just going to reject it?
Lets not use the word proof, lets use the term evidence that leads to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, let's use the term "evidence" for what it actually means, rather than simply defining evidence in the exact same way you would define proof. There are no singular facts which can confirm a scientific hypothesis or theory "beyond reasonable doubt", as all scientific theories and claims function on inference and falsifiability. Evidence is what lends credibility to a claim. It doesn't have to lead us to conclude that the claim is true beyond reasonable doubt, it just needs to be consistent with the claim in such a way that it lends credibility to that given conclusion or falls neatly within the predictive framework of the theory.