Watchmaker Theory

[shmogie]

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.

How could a synthetic cell, that was researched and planned for ten years, by groups of people, with a human, manipulating synthetic DNA into the cell, be evidence of any natural process ? It is evidence that many intelligent people designed, planned, and created the cell, with many , many hours of research leading to the plan, there is nothing natural about it. IF, those raw materials were placed somewhere, and treated by conditions that MAY have existed, and then, with no further interference, burst into life, that would be evidence

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Right now, in your body, the cells are doing what you're saying is impossible. Non-living matter becoming alive.

 

[shmogie]

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.

I probably could, it would take time and effort, I know some, have read others, but in truth, I don't care what you believe, and I don't want to put forth the effort

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How could a synthetic cell, that was researched and planned for ten years, by groups of people, with a human, manipulating synthetic DNA into the cell, be evidence of any natural process ?

Because they use natural, chemical processes to create it. If it is possible for cells to form by utilising chemicals, then it is strong evidence that life can form through natural, chemical processes.

It is evidence that many intelligent people designed, planned, and created the cell, with many , many hours of research leading to the plan, there is nothing natural about it.

Are you assuming that they used magic?

IF, those raw materials were placed somewhere, and treated by conditions that MAY have existed, and then, with no further interference, burst into life, that would be evidence

That's like saying "The fact that the knife had the victim's blood on it is not evidence that the knife was used. Only if we have video evidence of this specific knife actually being used in the murder can we consider it evidence."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I probably could, it would take time and effort, I know some, have read others, but in truth, I don't care what you believe, and I don't want to put forth the effort

You have made a specific claim. If you are unwilling to support your claim, don't make it. I am not assuming there are no scientists who accept I.D - I just doubt the veracity of their claims, whether or not their fields of study actually relate to life or the Universe forming, and whether or not they consider I.D science.

 

[shmogie]

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?

The obvious inference was a natural process, as far as possible, representing what occurred with no humans, no research, no designing, no experimenting, JUST natural chemicals, in the alleged right environment. I don't reject what you posted, I think it is astounding and wonderful. It does little to shed light on, as far as I am concerned, the spontaneous generation of life

 

[shmogie]

Because they use natural, chemical processes to create it. If it is possible for cells to form by utilising chemicals, then it is strong evidence that life can form through natural, chemical processes.


Are you assuming that they used magic?


That's like saying "The fact that the knife had the victim's blood on it is not evidence that the knife was used. Only if we have video evidence of this specific knife actually being used in the murder can we consider it evidence."

It is idirect evidence. If I attacked the evidence, and produced an alternate reasonable explanation for the blood on the knife, there could be doubt in the jury's mind. Best evidence is the term in law for the best you can produce at the time, your video would certainly be direct evidence to help help to corroborate the knife. I simply require the best, direct evidence, not circumstantial or indirect evidence to convince me, the jury, of the facts. The jury the quality and value of the evidence, not the presenter. Yes, I have seen juries come to a verdict that in no way matched the evidence as I saw it

 

[shmogie]

You have made a specific claim. If you are unwilling to support your claim, don't make it. I am not assuming there are no scientists who accept I.D - I just doubt the veracity of their claims, whether or not their fields of study actually relate to life or the Universe forming, and whether or not they consider I.D science.

So, you know they exist, why do you need a list of names ?

 

[shmogie]

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.

So then, you have a reasonable doubt that the spontaneous generation of life, through natural processes, in the alleged primordial sea, actually occurred ?

 

[Valjean]

Shmogie, from your commentary you don't seem to be versed in biology, chemistry or science in general, nor do you seem familiar with the ongoing research involving abiogenesis.

The scientists aren't 'intelligently creating' life. They're recreating natural conditions and watching what happens.

You say:

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 ?

Some simple cells have DNA, some RNA. Both came from natural chemical interactions.
Some molecules and molecular patterns self-replicate -- basic chemistry.

You seem bent on questioning a natural origin of life; you ask for evidence, even proof, but what alternative to the natural workings of chemistry is there? "Intelligent Design" is a proposal of magic, and there's no evidence for it whatsoever.

Life vs non-life is not an all or nothing affair. It's unlikely life popped into existence fully formed with all the qualities we associate with life today.. Think quasi-life -- molecules with some features of life, but not yet actual organisms.
Life, eyes and flagella develop slowly; step by step.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So then, you have a reasonable doubt that the spontaneous generation of life, through natural processes, in the alleged primordial sea, actually occurred ?

What do you mean exactly, when you say "spontaneous generation of life?"

 

[shmogie]

What do you mean exactly, when you say "spontaneous generation of life?"

The theory is, earth was essentially a rock, through rain runoff from that rock, and environmental conditions not known, inert, non living chemicals were present in that primordial sea, from that, living organisms arose. Much like Aristotle thought muddy water produced tadpoles

 

[SkepticThinker]

The theory is, earth was essentially a rock, through rain runoff from that rock, and environmental conditions not known, inert, non living chemicals were present in that primordial sea, from that, living organisms arose. Much like Aristotle thought muddy water produced tadpoles

I'm asking because the phrase you are using refers to the obsolete idea that fully formed organisms spontaneously arise from non-living matter. Your reference to Aristotle just cinched it.

The idea that simple organic compounds (or their components) can come together to form self-replicating molecules, given the right conditions, is not the same thing as "spontaneous generation." The Miller-Urey experiments and many that followed, demonstrated that the former is at least possible.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I have been having a discussion with a local 'leader' of a religion, not about their religion but about the concept thereof. They brought up the watchmaker theory, that is to say, "If you found a watch on the floor eventually you would have to accept that it had a maker or maker(s), would you not?". Now my argument to this is the age old "but where did the maker come from by the logic that all things do indeed have a maker/creator?".

What are the opinions out there on the beginning of the universe and the Earth and that if they surely must have had an intelligent creator then how did the intelligent creator come about?

I would say that the idea of the Watchmaker came about when it wasn't too considered that things are comprised of particles, and because this is so, the world is actually the opposite of the order the naked eye perceives. Existence is actually a constantly swirling vortex of particles. I see nothing intelligently designed about this, and think this could explain the nature of sentience.

 

[Valjean]

Watches don't reproduce and adapt. If they could: