Scientists create living eating and growing machines...

[Dan From Smithville]

Go ahead, im listening.

It has not been my experience that you listen.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Gumans are intelligence?

I guess you proved his point?

Creationists are humans and gumans are intelligence. So, baby making is from intelligence.

Also the baby making machinery is built from intelligence.

This evidence, if it is the production of life, would be evidence that humans are intelligent and that they produced life. That is it. You would have to show much more than you have or are capable of showing to extend it beyond these facts.

Grasping at straws is not evidence that your claims are correct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The atheist needs to preform / demonstrate / display how life arrived from non-life ie: matter alone < the challenge stands

Is that not what the OP is indicating. Even if it is not life, it is a step in the direction of it forming by natural means from non-living chemicals.

 

[Valjean]

Indeed .... ONLY intelligence can create life ....

How do you come to this conclusion?
Evidence?

nothing to be proven wrong here ?? .... display how DNA code is not code but rather random 'sequence' ??

What does this have to do with intelligence? DNA is naturally occurring code, and no-one ever claimed it was random.

It proves scientists create life.
Its evidence only intelligence creates life.

Where do you get "only?" If I knock down a tree, does it prove than only an intelligent human can knock down a tree?

 

[Jollybear]

This evidence, if it is the production of life, would be evidence that humans are intelligent and that they produced life. That is it. You would have to show much more than you have or are capable of showing to extend it beyond these facts.

Grasping at straws is not evidence that your claims are correct.

Hey dan! Long time no see. How ya been doin lately?

Humans designing life is proof humans designed life.

But its evidence intelligence designs life, and that non intelligence does not design.

 

[Jollybear]

How do you come to this conclusion?
Evidence?
What does this have to do with intelligence? DNA is naturally occurring code, and no-one ever claimed it was random.
Where do you get "only?" If I knock down a tree, does it prove than only an intelligent human can knock down a tree?

No, but, its a evidential inference that only intelligence creates life.

You have a inference that none intelligence created life.

 

[Darkstorn]

Simple misstype.

Won't change this: Even though the people responsible for this discovery are humans and intelligent, they used regular chemical processes to achieve it.

I.E it's still a counter to the so-called "life can't come from non-life" absurdity. Because they used means found in the nature which actually implies that natural processes are all that's needed.

Opposite of what you think it means.

If you think it's proof for your deity, awesome. But it's not. Logically or evidently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that still tips it toward evidence of intelligence more so then none intelligence creating life, lol

No, you are not thinking logically. Since we don't have millions of years to wait scientists have to test parts of abiogenesis. This in no way at all supports ID, or any other superstitious belief.

 

[Jollybear]

Won't change this: Even though the people responsible for this discovery are humans and intelligent, they used regular chemical processes to achieve it.

I.E it's still a counter to the so-called "life can't come from non-life" absurdity. Because they used means found in the nature which actually implies that natural processes are all that's needed.

Opposite of what you think it means.

If you think it's proof for your deity, awesome. But it's not. Logically or evidently.

They used chemicals, parts and intelligently put them together to create life.

So, your wrong. It dont take non intelligent natural processes.

 

[Jollybear]

No, you are not thinking logically. Since we don't have millions of years to wait scientists have to test parts of abiogenesis. This in no way at all supports ID, or any other superstitious belief.

None intelligence creating life, that is superstitious.

 

[Darkstorn]

They used chemicals, parts and intelligently put them together to create life.

So, your wrong. It dont take non intelligent natural processes.

So's law? You just shot yourself and whatever's left of your credibility in the foot.

What you said there is not logical. You're basing it on an assumption. You didn't show us how you concluded that "It dont take non intelligent natural processes. " You merely asserted it.

 

[Darkstorn]

None intelligence creating life, that is superstitious.

Your incredulity is in itself no evidence for this claim's truth value.

 

[tas8831]

The atheist needs to preform / demonstrate / display how life arrived from non-life ie: matter alone < the challenge stands

Like I said...

And what of YOUR end of the bargain? Where is YOUR demonstration of Tribal Deity Creation of a man from dust? Why is the 'challenge' unidirectional? Surely, you do not think that deity-magic is the default?

Show me where creationists have re-created the act of making a man from dust? No can do? No credibility.

 

[Jollybear]

So's law? You just shot yourself and whatever's left of your credibility in the foot.

What you said there is not logical. You're basing it on an assumption. You didn't show us how you concluded that "It dont take non intelligent natural processes. " You merely asserted it.

Your basing your view on an assumption that none intelligence created our life.

 

[Darkstorn]

Your basing your view on an assumption that none intelligence created our life.

Incorrect.

Your move.

 

[Jollybear]

Incorrect.

Your move.

Correct.

Your move.

 

[Darkstorn]

Correct.

Your move.

Again, this is not a kindergarten. If you accuse me of something with no evidence, I can dismiss it without evidence.

Mostly based on the facts that you can't read minds nor have I given you MY view to begin with. ALL i'm arguing is the subject of this thread and your mischaracterization of its evidence to fit your viewpoint.

I'm still waiting for you to use either evidence OR logic to show how you can come to the conclusions you assert.

I'm waiting for you to present a more convincing argument for your claims. That is it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey dan! Long time no see. How ya been doin lately?

Busy this time of year, with all the egg hunts. You know. Rabbit.

Humans designing life is proof humans designed life.

Sure. If life is truly what was designed. We are very good at designing things. We have the only evidence that something intelligent can design and does.

But its evidence intelligence designs life, and that non intelligence does not design.

No. It is evidence only that humans designed something. Anything more that you claim from that cannot be supported. Things do not exist, because they meet YOUR default version. YOUR default version is not a universal default.

That humans design things is only evidence for humans. Sorry. Stretch it all out of proportion as you like to do. Throw in the mind reading ghost of Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster out of an alien spaceship as part of a near death experience and it still does not support your claims.

Birds create things too, but there is no evidence that it is more than biologically driven behavior.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Correct.

Your move.

Incorrect.

I would say 'your move', but you only have the one.

 

[Valjean]

Nothing indicates that ONLY intelligence creates life

True...

indeed, DNA the atheist's kryptonite .... DNA: the tiny code that's toppling evolution

How do you come up with this?
If we can explain how polymers can occur naturally, how they link together and how a functional order is achieved, why is any intelligence or purposive direction needed?

In order for the atheist to gain any credibility ...
The atheist needs to preform / demonstrate / display how life arrived from non-life ie: matter alone < no can do

No. Atheism is the epistemic default position, it's the theists making the extraordinary claim.
Moreover, science is working on just these questions. You might want to look into that.

You're just plain wrong. Nothing indicates that non intelligence creates life. There is no evidence. There is wishful thinking and outright lies but that's all we've gotten from you

There is evidence that life exists, and that there was a time it did not. We can conclude it was "created," but there is no evidence that an intelligence was involved, or even that such an intelligence exists.

We have, however, observed the components of life assembling and reproducing themselves, by ordinary chemistry.

Concluding that a phenomenon that you don't understand must needs be supernatural is illogical.