The creator did it.

[Dan From Smithville]

This is when you start looking so hopeful its ridiculous. You think things that have never been shown to occur might have occured somehow given enough time but if i propose that something in another realm did it than i am being silly.

Another realm has never been shown to exist, yet you are appealing to it as evidence of your position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure it is. Its crude intentionality.

Its obviously purposed to walk, see, hear, think, smell, grab, and other things. Anything that functions is intended to be.

Just because a human has those abilities, does not eliminate that they could arise from unguided natural processes. It is a huge, very huge, leap to say so, especially in light of all the evidence that demonstrates the evolution of humans. Unless you are claiming all that evidence is intentional too. That opens up more questions and reveals a lot of contradictions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thats how crude and haphazard the intelligence is.

So you are saying an intelligence, just not a very intelligent one.

 

[Rapture Era]

Abiogenesis has never "failed the scientific method". And the study into abiogenesis using the scientific method has a much shorter history than 150 years. We could not even begin to study abiogenesis until we began to have an understanding of life on the cellular level. There has been successful experiment after successful experiment dealing with the topic. There have also been failed experiments and scientists have learned from them too. Perhaps we need to go over the scientific method and how it applies to abiogenesis.

And it is a pity that you did not understand the article that you quoted to @ecco . There was nothing in that article that would lead to a conclusion that abiogenesis was impossible. In fact it told you that it is likely that there were many paths to life, which means that we will probably never be sure of the exact path that was followed.

Here is a simple analogy. Think of a trip from New York to L.A. by road. We know that a person took that trip. We may never know the exact route that he took. Not knowing the route that he took does not make his journey impossible. You are trying to claim that because we do not know, and very likely will never know, the exact route from non-life to life that the trip was impossible. That is a major logical fail.

Thank you for your analogy, I'll comment on that in a minute. First, I understood the article perfectly. What in that article gave you hope that abiogenesis is possible? Please quote anything that is a positive confirmation that abiogenesis is possible. When you say: "In fact it told you that it is likely that there were many paths to life, which means that we will probably never be sure of the exact path that was followed." I have to tell you that many "paths" dont mean very much if those paths fail to give you the end result you are looking for correct? And so far, as technically advanced as we are in our understanding of genetic information, none of these "paths" have panned out. To this day, there is nothing that tells us that the genetic information in the cell can do anything outside of what it is programmed to do, nothing. This is confirmed by science in the article we are referencing. If science confirmed the opposite, trust me, you guys would be jumping up and down, but the fact is, the deeper we go in understanding the vast and almost incomprehensible diversity and operating systems of each of these life forms of living creatures the circumstantial evidence of their existence is really overwhelmingly leading to an immense creation event.
Your analogy is somewhat flawed because you are presupposing many unspoken things, that in the point you are trying to make, that this trip was successful. This is the kind of thinking that naturalists / evolutionists always state as fact. They presume things happened that didnt and when confronted with honest science like the article we are referring to, they backpedal and try to redefine whats it saying. What I posted had a beginning and a conclusion. Ecco says I took it out of context. What he added that he said I left out, and I admit I did, because it offered nothing to negate what first and main problem is.
Look, the bottom line is this, you may not know how life started from a naturalist stand point, but you should be able to show that it possible for genetic information which are the plans for building all living organisms can do this from non life. What we know is that it cannot. Now, once left with that conclusion, supernatural creation is the only one left on the table. When you consider the enormously complex and diverse life on this planet and that at one point it just showed up without any proceeding life forms of evolving supposedly over billions of years because its flat not there! It leaves one to contemplate the profound alternative, which in my view is a massive intelligent designer outside of our time and space. And again, the Genesis account is Gods revelation to us, of his power in creating all that we see around us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your analogy, I'll comment on that in a minute. First, I understood the article perfectly. What in that article gave you hope that abiogenesis is possible? Please quote anything that is a positive confirmation that abiogenesis is possible. When you say: "In fact it told you that it is likely that there were many paths to life, which means that we will probably never be sure of the exact path that was followed." I have to tell you that many "paths" dont mean very much if those paths fail to give you the end result you are looking for correct? And so far, as technically advanced as we are in our understanding of genetic information, none of these "paths" have panned out. To this day, there is nothing that tells us that the genetic information in the cell can do anything outside of what it is programmed to do, nothing. This is confirmed by science in the article we are referencing. If science confirmed the opposite, trust me, you guys would be jumping up and down, but the fact is, the deeper we go in understanding the vast and almost incomprehensible diversity and operating systems of each of these life forms of living creatures the circumstantial evidence of their existence is really overwhelmingly leading to an immense creation event.
Your analogy is somewhat flawed because you are presupposing many unspoken things, that in the point you are trying to make, that this trip was successful. This is the kind of thinking that naturalists / evolutionists always state as fact. They presume things happened that didnt and when confronted with honest science like the article we are referring to, they backpedal and try to redefine whats it saying. What I posted had a beginning and a conclusion. Ecco says I took it out of context. What he added that he said I left out, and I admit I did, because it offered nothing to negate what first and main problem is.
Look, the bottom line is this, you may not know how life started from a naturalist stand point, but you should be able to show that it possible for genetic information which are the plans for building all living organisms can do this from non life. What we know is that it cannot. Now, once left with that conclusion, supernatural creation is the only one left on the table. When you consider the enormously complex and diverse life on this planet and that at one point it just showed up without any proceeding life forms of evolving supposedly over billions of years because its flat not there! It leaves one to contemplate the profound alternative, which in my view is a massive intelligent designer outside of our time and space. And again, the Genesis account is Gods revelation to us, of his power in creating all that we see around us.

You are conflating different ideas. We know how "new information" is acquired. That has been observed.

As to abiogenesis , not that much so called information was needed for the earliest of life. Yes, we don't know the exact path and probably never will since there are multiple possible routes to life. And the original life was not a goal as you seem to think it was. It was a result. That is another attempt at a mistaken odds argument on your part, assuming that the original life was the one that was aimed for instead of just being the version that we ended up with.

And you ended up with an argument from ignorance. Even if we never could prove abiogenesis to be possible that is still not evidence for the supernatural. You need to find actual evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you for your analogy, I'll comment on that in a minute. First, I understood the article perfectly. What in that article gave you hope that abiogenesis is possible? Please quote anything that is a positive confirmation that abiogenesis is possible. When you say: "In fact it told you that it is likely that there were many paths to life, which means that we will probably never be sure of the exact path that was followed." I have to tell you that many "paths" dont mean very much if those paths fail to give you the end result you are looking for correct? And so far, as technically advanced as we are in our understanding of genetic information, none of these "paths" have panned out. To this day, there is nothing that tells us that the genetic information in the cell can do anything outside of what it is programmed to do, nothing. This is confirmed by science in the article we are referencing. If science confirmed the opposite, trust me, you guys would be jumping up and down, but the fact is, the deeper we go in understanding the vast and almost incomprehensible diversity and operating systems of each of these life forms of living creatures the circumstantial evidence of their existence is really overwhelmingly leading to an immense creation event.
Your analogy is somewhat flawed because you are presupposing many unspoken things, that in the point you are trying to make, that this trip was successful. This is the kind of thinking that naturalists / evolutionists always state as fact. They presume things happened that didnt and when confronted with honest science like the article we are referring to, they backpedal and try to redefine whats it saying. What I posted had a beginning and a conclusion. Ecco says I took it out of context. What he added that he said I left out, and I admit I did, because it offered nothing to negate what first and main problem is.

Isn't this what many of us Christians do? We make assumptions and then build an argument around those assumptions. For instance, the creation story is the inerrant word of God written down by people describing exactly how life was created. This is an assumption and not an established fact and one that is the a source of contention and debate between Christians. There is no evidence that it is more than just the thoughts of these early Hebrews that eventually ended up in writing and finally was included in the collation of the book we call the Bible.

Look, the bottom line is this, you may not know how life started from a naturalist stand point, but you should be able to show that it possible for genetic information which are the plans for building all living organisms can do this from non life. What we know is that it cannot. Now, once left with that conclusion, supernatural creation is the only one left on the table. When you consider the enormously complex and diverse life on this planet and that at one point it just showed up without any proceeding life forms of evolving supposedly over billions of years because its flat not there! It leaves one to contemplate the profound alternative, which in my view is a massive intelligent designer outside of our time and space. And again, the Genesis account is Gods revelation to us, of his power in creating all that we see around us.

Genes do not build life from non-life. You seem to have some confusion over the facts of biology and the hypotheses of abiogenesis.

You have not eliminated the possibility that a creator is just another living thing, like some alien race or being. That just moves the origin of life, but the point is that you have not eliminated the possibility. The intelligent design movement claims the possibility, though, like you, it is clear who they really want the creator to be.

As I pointed out, the assumption you end with remains unsupported. I take the gist of it on faith, but I would never be so arrogant to call it an unassailable and supported fact.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

People are free to do just that and believe as they choose. This is a recognized freedom and protected in the constitutions of many countries.

One point I would make regarding your opening statements is that science has demonstrated that existing life does not arise fully formed from inert and non-living matter. In other words, spontaneous generation does not take place.

That simple life could arise from non-living chemical processes and events has not been determined. In fact, the description of God creating man is a description of life forming from non-living matter. In that case, it is believed to have been under the will and action of God, but aside from that difference, the essence of the issue roughly aligns with current scientific hypotheses.

Crystals, black holes, fire, all exhibit some of the same properties associated with the definition of a living organism(life). Is a virus alive or dead? I agree that life must come from life, but this rule does not apply to the first living organism. What you fail to understand, is that life is not simple. It ranges from the most primitive, to the most complex(degrees of specialization). What you also fail to understand is that there are precursors to the first complete life. So, to imply that simple life could not come from non-living chemicals, is misleading and intellectually dishonest. You ignore all the precursors to the first life. These include, self-replicating molecules, carbon-based compounds, heat and light, a liquid medium, oxygen precursors, and many other non-living matter. Individually, these materials are not living(by definition), but when combined over time, and under the right conditions, they can produce the first primitive life. We are all composed of billions of these primitive organism, all working together to maintain life. Do you consider the cell living? What about the parts that make up the cell? What about the molecules that make up those parts of the cell? Are they also living? 99% of our entire mass is made from 11 chemical element. Without even one, we would die.All living organisms on the planet is the evidence for chemical evolution.

If we were made of "corbomite" and used energy from an alien source, then humans being created might be a rational explanation. But we're not and we don't, so supernatural creation is just another way of saying, "I don't know". Unless the will and actions of a God is the 5th force in nature, your argument is just special pleading, and an appeal to ignorance. Maybe you can demonstrate just how you know this? Or, are you just asserting that the fact is self-evident, like most believers?

The Constitution not only protects its citizens freedom of religion, but it also protects its citizens freedom FROM religion. Our founding fathers were very much aware that government must be kept separate from Religion.

 

[Rapture Era]

On the contrary, the results we *do* have from abiogenesis research show that many things that were thought to be obstacles to the origin of life naturally are not actually so. As more research is being done, more and more of these proposed obstacles have been shown to be easily circumvented. That alone says that we have to seriously consider the natural explanation of how things came about.

What examples can you provide?

But, let's face it, invoking a supernatural is *never* a good 'explanation'. It is ultimately a 'just so' story because it cannot be tested. The details of procedure for creating life can never be determined. That is almost the definition of a supernatural: it cannot be tested and we cannot know what rules it works by (if we could, it would be natural).

This is exactly why God has revealed his creating power in Genesis so that we can KNOW. With out this revelation, I would be right there with you trying to figure out our origins, our purpose and our destiny 100%. But God wanted us to know, and he told us through the scriptures. I know this might burn, (I'm just joking) but for the sake of our conversation, read the first chapter in Genesis keeping in mind that he is communicating to you and all mankind. There might be something in that account that will touch you. Try it.

This, by the way, is a separate question from the one asking if there was an intelligence involved in the formation of life on Earth. It is quite possible that we will find that life can only come about naturally in circumstances that are not at all like those of the early Earth. We could find that given what we know about the early Earth, no natural process could have produced life. In that case, it isn't unreasonable to say that some sort of intelligence was involved. But this only pushes off the question of the *first* life to another part of our universe. At *some* point there was no life (say, right after the Big Bang) and at some later point (now) there is life. That means that at some point non-life became life.

Yes, thank you for your honesty, this is a great question and comment! At one point I think we can both agree, there was nothing. The naturalist says the Big Bang did it. The creationist says an omnipotent being brought everything into existence, namely God. Both take faith to believe because no one was there in either case. So you have to look at and consider whether our fine tuned universe, the laws that nature must obey and all of life we can see and study was apart of some natural process or creation. We have to decide which one of these fits the data more reasonably.

But, yes, after an initial self-replicator that is subject to mutation and natural selection, we *do* expect to find increasingly complex structures forming. We *do* expect to see the amazing complexities of life that we see around us arising from these processes.

I hear what you are saying, but honestly, we are not seeing that this is possible. What is the "initial self replicator"? That needs to be confirmed first because without it, there is no mutation and natural selection. To say that "We *do* expect to see the amazing complexities of life that we see around us arising from these processes." sounds good, the problem is, and the article we have been referring to above affirms that if the mechanistic question of abiogenesis is a result of random chemical events that accidentally led to simple living systems and if life had emerged in such an arbitrary way, then the machanistic question of abiogenesis would be fundamentally without explanation- a stupendously improbable chemical outcome whose likelihood of repetition would be virtually Zero as the article states. We have to seriously consider that.

I've noticed that creatioists and IDers like to talk about the workings of 'random chance'. They seem to think that the laws of physics and chemistry are just 'random' and that there is no inherent structure to the atoms and molecules that make up the universe. But, of course, we know this is not the case. It is NOT 'random chance' that produced the first life: it was chemistry and physics working under the same laws that we know and understand now.

Well, the ID'ers speak of random chance because if everything came about by the big bang theory, there is no intelligence or order involved. It's just a bunch of matter in space. So, consequently, everything that follows is just that, meaningless purposeless matter doing nothing but existing. But thats not what we see do we? Everything follows the laws you mentioned and so it would be reasonable to ask, where did these laws come from? Because we experience a highly ordered world and universe with set laws, the opposite is chaos and random chance. Because the naturalist/evolutionist does not want to acknowledge a created order by an omnipotent creator who caused all of this in his creation, we are only left with the atithesis.

 

[Polymath257]

What examples can you provide?

Origin of life: Simulating how Earth kick-started metabolism
Clay-armored bubbles may have formed first protocells: Minerals could have played a key role in the origins of life
Model Suggests How Life's Code Emerged From Primordial Soup
How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

This is exactly why God has revealed his creating power in Genesis so that we can KNOW. With out this revelation, I would be right there with you trying to figure out our origins, our purpose and our destiny 100%. But God wanted us to know, and he told us through the scriptures. I know this might burn, (I'm just joking) but for the sake of our conversation, read the first chapter in Genesis keeping in mind that he is communicating to you and all mankind. There might be something in that account that will touch you. Try it.

I've read it many times. It is a story written by humans (men, actually) to promote their particular belief system and power structure.

Yes, thank you for your honesty, this is a great question and comment! At one point I think we can both agree, there was nothing. The naturalist says the Big Bang did it. The creationist says an omnipotent being brought everything into existence, namely God. Both take faith to believe because no one was there in either case. So you have to look at and consider whether our fine tuned universe, the laws that nature must obey and all of life we can see and study was apart of some natural process or creation. We have to decide which one of these fits the data more reasonably.

No, I do NOT agree that there was a time when there was 'nothing'. And neither do you. For me, whenever there was time, there was also matter and energy. For you, there was always a deity.

While nobody was there, there is a LOT of evidence remaining to help us figure out what happened. That is why we know a Big Bang type expansion occurred: initial hot, dense universe with nuclear reactions, cooling to give the background radiation and eventually galaxies.

I hear what you are saying, but honestly, we are not seeing that this is possible. What is the "initial self replicator"? That needs to be confirmed first because without it, there is no mutation and natural selection. To say that "We *do* expect to see the amazing complexities of life that we see around us arising from these processes." sounds good, the problem is, and the article we have been referring to above affirms that if the mechanistic question of abiogenesis is a result of random chemical events that accidentally led to simple living systems and if life had emerged in such an arbitrary way, then the machanistic question of abiogenesis would be fundamentally without explanation- a stupendously improbable chemical outcome whose likelihood of repetition would be virtually Zero as the article states. We have to seriously consider that.

OK, so can we at least agree that with an initial self-replicator, the complexity of life follows naturally from mutation and selection? And did you notice the article above showing a self-replicating stretch of RNA?

Well, the ID'ers speak of random chance because if everything came about by the big bang theory, there is no intelligence or order involved. It's just a bunch of matter in space.

But then the use of the word 'random' is incorrect. Matter doesn't interact randomly: the laws of physics are not random.

Saying that the universe is 'just a bunch of matter in space' is like saying that good literature is 'just letters on a page'. While both are true, it misses some crucial points.

So, consequently, everything that follows is just that, meaningless purposeless matter doing nothing but existing. But thats not what we see do we?

Yes, actually. We see that 'purpose' is what *we* give. Overall, however, there is no 'purpose', only matter interacting via physical laws.

Everything follows the laws you mentioned and so it would be reasonable to ask, where did these laws come from?

Let me suggest you ponder what *could* be an answer to that. if they 'came from' something else via some process, then there are laws governing that process. All that means is that we don't have the fundamental laws.

But, this shows that the *fundamental* laws cannot be caused. They simply are what they are. To even suggest they are caused implies that there is a law governing that causality.

Because we experience a highly ordered world and universe with set laws, the opposite is chaos and random chance. Because the naturalist/evolutionist does not want to acknowledge a created order by an omnipotent creator who caused all of this in his creation, we are only left with the atithesis.

And the appropriate antithesis is 'ordered' laws of physics that govern all matter and energy. This is what we see. Those laws *cannot* be caused, so it is meaningless to ask where they came from. Like the universe at large, they 'just are'.

But you are proposing something far and away past what we can verify. First, you are proposing an intelligence that made those laws and the universe. But that requires laws governing how the universe and its laws can be made: those are deeper laws. Furthermore, the intelligence, by the very nature of intelligence, must be vastly more complex and ill determined than the matter and energy right after the Big Bang. So, of the two positions, the BB is by far the more reasonable one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Crystals, black holes, fire, all exhibit some of the same properties associated with the definition of a living organism(life).

Agreed.

Is a virus alive or dead?

I do not know. In my first biology courses as a young student, the prevailing view was that they were not alive, but since then, I have learned much more and my concept of what a living thing is, has changed.

I agree that life must come from life, but this rule does not apply to the first living organism. What you fail to understand, is that life is not simple. It ranges from the most primitive, to the most complex(degrees of specialization). What you also fail to understand is that there are precursors to the first complete life. So, to imply that simple life could not come from non-living chemicals, is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

It would be if that is what I have done, but I did not. Let me reiterate within the context that my previous post was misunderstood. I stated that the creationist concept of spontaneous generation was refuted by the work of scientists like Redi and Pasteur and that it is different from the scientific hypotheses of abiogenesis which are about life originating from pre-existing chemistry.

You ignore all the precursors to the first life.

No. I have not. I recognize them. My understanding of abiogenesis is based on what is known about these precursors.

These include, self-replicating molecules, carbon-based compounds, heat and light, a liquid medium, oxygen precursors, and many other non-living matter. Individually, these materials are not living(by definition), but when combined over time, and under the right conditions, they can produce the first primitive life.

That is the basis of the hypotheses and I agree it is reasonable and logical to consider it so, given what we know.

We are all composed of billions of these primitive organism, all working together to maintain life.

That is an interesting way to put it. I would have said billions of individuals acting in concert, but tomato...

I do not consider them that primitive either.

Do you consider the cell living?

Yes.

What about the parts that make up the cell? What about the molecules that make up those parts of the cell? Are they also living? 99% of our entire mass is made from 11 chemical element. Without even one, we would die.All living organisms on the planet is the evidence for chemical evolution.

These are some interesting questions and I have no definitive answers. Must the constituent parts that make up living cells, themselves, be alive? They do not appear to independently possess all the characteristics of life, but those cells need them to maintain and perpetuate. A definitive answer is beyond the scope needed to address what we have been talking about so far, but I would conclude, under my current understanding that the organelles and molecules that make up cells are not alive in the same sense that the cell is, but working in concert, the emergent property we see is...life.

If we were made of "corbomite"

I love that episode. Cosmic poker with Kirk bluffing a win.

and used energy from an alien source, then humans being created might be a rational explanation. But we're not and we don't, so supernatural creation is just another way of saying, "I don't know".

Aliens creating us does not constitute a supernatural cause, but I am not advocating that they created us either. I have a faith-based view, but bringing it to bear is not required or even of any value in a discussion about what we know and can demonstrate in the physical world. I cannot demonstrate my belief, only the basis, but then again, they cannot be falsified either. In my view, they have no bearing on the validity of science.

Unless the will and actions of a God is the 5th force in nature, your argument is just special pleading, and an appeal to ignorance.

I have not made an appeal to God as the cause of what we see in this discussion. That may be my personal belief, but I do not have the arrogance to just go with that or to conclude such foolishness as others do not see it because they are in collusion against God. There is a lot of nonsense bandied about by others that I do not believe either. None of it would be relevant in addressing the questions of the OP. I have stuck with the facts.

Maybe you can demonstrate just how you know this?

I just demonstrated that I never said that. I do not know it to be a truth that I can demonstrate to others. I believe it to be, but that is not relevant to the discussion.

Or, are you just asserting that the fact is self-evident, like most believers?

If it was self-evident, then there would be no discussion or need for one. Like I said, there are a lot of believers that make a lot of silly statements. I do my best to refrain from joining them. In science discussions, I have no interest in bringing my personal beliefs, willfully into the discussion. Unless you know otherwise, they are not relevant.

The Constitution not only protects its citizens freedom of religion, but it also protects its citizens freedom FROM religion. Our founding fathers were very much aware that government must be kept separate from Religion.

True, but not relevant to answering the questions of the OP. The OP asks if someone can ignore science and believe as they choose and I stipulate that they can and that doing so is even protected by law in some countries. I did not make any claims about the wisdom of doing so or that it gave the believer special rights to force their personal beliefs on others. I so stipulate now, that I do not see any wisdom in doing so, but that does not change the fact that people can do so.

I am a Christian, to be sure, but I am not a strict creationist, immersed in dogma at the expense of reason and observation. I do not believe that I should look at all the evidence and then lie to myself and sacrifice my intelligence in obedience to the unsubstantiated interpretation of a minority. I believe in the spirit of Biblical teaching, but I do not believe the Bible is an inerrant, literal work of science or history. I do believe that much can be learned from the Bible and that even viewing it allegorically, it remains the basis of a theology. However, I go to lengths to keep my personal beliefs out of discussions about science. I believed I was successful in doing that here, but apparently not for all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What examples can you provide?

This is exactly why God has revealed his creating power in Genesis so that we can KNOW. With out this revelation, I would be right there with you trying to figure out our origins, our purpose and our destiny 100%. But God wanted us to know, and he told us through the scriptures. I know this might burn, (I'm just joking) but for the sake of our conversation, read the first chapter in Genesis keeping in mind that he is communicating to you and all mankind. There might be something in that account that will touch you. Try it.

Yes, thank you for your honesty, this is a great question and comment! At one point I think we can both agree, there was nothing. The naturalist says the Big Bang did it. The creationist says an omnipotent being brought everything into existence, namely God. Both take faith to believe because no one was there in either case. So you have to look at and consider whether our fine tuned universe, the laws that nature must obey and all of life we can see and study was apart of some natural process or creation. We have to decide which one of these fits the data more reasonably.

I hear what you are saying, but honestly, we are not seeing that this is possible. What is the "initial self replicator"? That needs to be confirmed first because without it, there is no mutation and natural selection. To say that "We *do* expect to see the amazing complexities of life that we see around us arising from these processes." sounds good, the problem is, and the article we have been referring to above affirms that if the mechanistic question of abiogenesis is a result of random chemical events that accidentally led to simple living systems and if life had emerged in such an arbitrary way, then the machanistic question of abiogenesis would be fundamentally without explanation- a stupendously improbable chemical outcome whose likelihood of repetition would be virtually Zero as the article states. We have to seriously consider that.

Well, the ID'ers speak of random chance because if everything came about by the big bang theory, there is no intelligence or order involved. It's just a bunch of matter in space. So, consequently, everything that follows is just that, meaningless purposeless matter doing nothing but existing. But thats not what we see do we? Everything follows the laws you mentioned and so it would be reasonable to ask, where did these laws come from? Because we experience a highly ordered world and universe with set laws, the opposite is chaos and random chance. Because the naturalist/evolutionist does not want to acknowledge a created order by an omnipotent creator who caused all of this in his creation, we are only left with the atithesis.

This presupposes that meaning can only arise from existing meaning and that is not known to be a fact. Meaning may be what you find and your intelligence can sort out of all the information. It seems to me that meaning can arise from any source and if you do not think so, you have not looked hard enough.

Random chance does not mean chaos. It means that an event that occurred was not the result of directed action to make that event occur. That given enough attempts, an event can naturally occur by chance, but that is an event within the structure and rules of nature and not just any event imaginable.

 

[Polymath257]

These are some interesting questions and I have no definitive answers. Must the constituent parts that make up living cells, themselves, be alive? They do not appear to independently possess all the characteristics of life, but those cells need them to maintain and perpetuate. A definitive answer is beyond the scope needed to address what we have been talking about so far, but I would conclude, under my current understanding that the organelles and molecules that make up cells are not alive in the same sense that the cell is, but working in concert, the emergent property we see is...life.

I might well make an exception for mitochondria. They have their own DNA and, according to Margulis, are likely the result of a symbiosis of a type of bacteria with the early eucaryotes. Chloroplasts are another organelle that seem to be borderline in the same way.

 

[He has Risen!]

We can say that something has not been observed to form from nothing, but it has not been demonstrated that something cannot arise from nothing. We do not know.

Very well stated. But the idea of something coming from nothing is not just a matter of semantics, because whether it is observed or demonstrated... we never see/experience such things happening naturally.

 

[Polymath257]

Very well stated. But the idea of something coming from nothing is not just a matter of semantics, because whether it is observed or demonstrated... we never see/experience such things happening naturally.

We don't see such from the action of intelligence either.

 

[He has Risen!]

This presupposes that meaning can only arise from existing meaning and that is not known to be a fact. Meaning may be what you find and your intelligence can sort out of all the information. It seems to me that meaning can arise from any source and if you do not think so, you have not looked hard enough.

Random chance does not mean chaos. It means that an event that occurred was not the result of directed action to make that event occur. That given enough attempts, an event can naturally occur by chance, but that is an event within the structure and rules of nature and not just any event imaginable.

What is considered statically possible is not meant to say that it is plausible. We understand that.

 

[He has Risen!]

We don't see such from the action of intelligence either.

What of DNA information that screams of design and is more complex than any computer operating system?

 

[Polymath257]

What of DNA information that is designed and more complex than any computer operating system?

Well, it has also had about 4 billion years to develop complexity by natural selection and mutation. If you actually look at the *type* of complexity seen, it doesn't correspond to what we expect from design, but rather what we expect from evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it has also had about 4 billion years to develop complexity by natural selection and mutation. If you actually look at the *type* of complexity seen, it doesn't correspond to what we expect from design, but rather what we expect from evolution.

Or design from a very incompetent designer. In fact I would not have such a problem with ID if ID believers accurately described what we see. Incompetent Design could be used to argue for a God, yet strangely no theist seems to want to do so

 

[He has Risen!]

What of DNA information that screams of design and is more complex than any computer operating system?

I am replying to myself because this point should be understood by all, "Why should non life organize itself (impossible of course) into a form that now posses life?" It stretches our credulity to believe that abiogenesis is probable under any condition or time frame other than supernatural means, as I have stated before, this idea is preposterous...and it is not because I say so...it is Darwinian wishful thinking.

 

[osgart]

Or design from a very incompetent designer. In fact I would not have such a problem with ID if ID believers accurately described what we see. Incompetent Design could be used to argue for a God, yet strangely no theist seems to want to do so

Incompetent intellect is exactly what i see in nature. And i dont argue for a God.