Comment is free The secret of life won't be cooked up in a chemistry lab

[Ancient lion]

The secret of life won't be cooked up in a chemistry lab

Life's origins may only be explained through a study of its unique management of information.


The origin of life is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science. How did a non-living mixture of molecules transform themselves into a living organism? What sort of mechanism might be responsible?


The secret of life won't be cooked up in a chemistry lab | Paul Davies | Comment is free | The Guardian


That's why atheism is irrational speculations

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

From the article:

A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin produced a convincing explanation for how life on Earth evolved from simple microbes to the complexity of the biosphere today, but he pointedly left out how life got started in the first place.

Darwin did no such thing. While you are certainly free to accuse atheists of making irrational speculations, I would caution against using falsehoods as a means of rebutting them.

 

[Ancient lion]

From the article:

A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin produced a convincing explanation for how life on Earth evolved from simple microbes to the complexity of the biosphere today, but he pointedly left out how life got started in the first place.

Darwin did no such thing. While you are certainly free to accuse atheists of making irrational speculations, I would caution against using falsehoods as a means of rebutting them.

The author is actually an evolutionist agnostic man, that's what he think.

 

[konradv]

The secret of life won't be cooked up in a chemistry lab
Life's origins may only be explained through a study of its unique management of information.

The origin of life is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science. How did a non-living mixture of molecules transform themselves into a living organism? What sort of mechanism might be responsible?

The secret of life won't be cooked up in a chemistry lab | Paul Davies | Comment is free | The Guardian

That's why atheism is irrational speculations

Theories on how life got started aren't irrational and believing them doesn't mean you're an atheist. There are proposed mechanisms that still allow for God to have started it all with "Let there be light", i.e. The Big Bang.

Evolution of DNA

 

[rdean]

How about a "biology" lab?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

From the article:

A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin produced a convincing explanation for how life on Earth evolved from simple microbes to the complexity of the biosphere today, but he pointedly left out how life got started in the first place.

Darwin did no such thing. While you are certainly free to accuse atheists of making irrational speculations, I would caution against using falsehoods as a means of rebutting them.

The author is actually an evolutionist agnostic man, that's what he think.

Does it matter? A falsehood is a falsehood.

My point is that Darwin must be one of the most misquoted and misrepresented scientists in history. His work was about Natural Selection and the Origin of Species, not the origin of life, yet the article presents just that. Whatever the motivations of the writer, it is inexcusable.

 

[Cammmpbell]

From the article:

A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin produced a convincing explanation for how life on Earth evolved from simple microbes to the complexity of the biosphere today, but he pointedly left out how life got started in the first place.

Darwin did no such thing. While you are certainly free to accuse atheists of making irrational speculations, I would caution against using falsehoods as a means of rebutting them.

Not to mention that research scientists have already created single cell life in a test tube and as we speak they have nucleonic devices measuring and conducting hundreds of thousands of experiments each day. They can already take a hair from one's head or ass and tell by DNA whether that hair came from a single individual excluding a population of 7 billion humans and they are able to clone many animals. It's no longer whether.....it's when. The thumpers said we would never go to the moon too....among other things like social security numbers were the mark of the beast and 50's TV antennas were the devil's horns. You know.....real intelligent stuff like conducting exorcisms, handling snakes, drinking lye, speaking in unknown tongues, etc.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

From the article:

A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin produced a convincing explanation for how life on Earth evolved from simple microbes to the complexity of the biosphere today, but he pointedly left out how life got started in the first place.

Darwin did no such thing. While you are certainly free to accuse atheists of making irrational speculations, I would caution against using falsehoods as a means of rebutting them.

Not to mention that research scientists have already created single cell life in a test tube and as we speak they have nucleonic devices measuring and conducting hundreds of thousands of experiments each day. They can already take a hair from one's head or ass and tell by DNA whether that hair came from a single individual excluding a population of 7 billion humans and they are able to clone many animals. It's no longer whether.....it's when. The thumpers said we would never go to the moon too....among other things like social security numbers were the mark of the beast and 50's TV antennas were the devil's horns. You know.....real intelligent stuff like conducting exorcisms, handling snakes, drinking lye, speaking in unknown tongues, etc.

Wouldn't that support the existence of a higher power rather than random chance, since it required the guidance of an intelligent force to happen?

 

[Cammmpbell]

From the article:



Darwin did no such thing. While you are certainly free to accuse atheists of making irrational speculations, I would caution against using falsehoods as a means of rebutting them.

Not to mention that research scientists have already created single cell life in a test tube and as we speak they have nucleonic devices measuring and conducting hundreds of thousands of experiments each day. They can already take a hair from one's head or ass and tell by DNA whether that hair came from a single individual excluding a population of 7 billion humans and they are able to clone many animals. It's no longer whether.....it's when. The thumpers said we would never go to the moon too....among other things like social security numbers were the mark of the beast and 50's TV antennas were the devil's horns. You know.....real intelligent stuff like conducting exorcisms, handling snakes, drinking lye, speaking in unknown tongues, etc.

Wouldn't that support the existence of a higher power rather than random chance, since it required the guidance of an intelligent force to happen?

Do you realize that the scientists have tracked everything we can see back to one tiny dot at one place 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years years ago? They have looked at the first light emitted by the big bang. If ol' Gawd was there he shouldn't have been phuckin' around with those chemical compounds. His ass is history.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Not to mention that research scientists have already created single cell life in a test tube and as we speak they have nucleonic devices measuring and conducting hundreds of thousands of experiments each day. They can already take a hair from one's head or ass and tell by DNA whether that hair came from a single individual excluding a population of 7 billion humans and they are able to clone many animals. It's no longer whether.....it's when. The thumpers said we would never go to the moon too....among other things like social security numbers were the mark of the beast and 50's TV antennas were the devil's horns. You know.....real intelligent stuff like conducting exorcisms, handling snakes, drinking lye, speaking in unknown tongues, etc.

Wouldn't that support the existence of a higher power rather than random chance, since it required the guidance of an intelligent force to happen?

Do you realize that the scientists have tracked everything we can see back to one tiny dot at one place 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years years ago? They have looked at the first light emitted by the big bang. If ol' Gawd was there he shouldn't have been phuckin' around with those chemical compounds. His ass is history.

Good for them if they did. You're missing my point.

Positive atheists, that is, those that claim without reservation that there is no God or omniscient force, make that claim that life, even the order of the Universe arose out of randomness. To painstakingly put together the conditions that match that from which life arose does not support randomness.

None of this proves or disproves the existence of a deity, God, intelligence omniscient force, etc. It proves the ability of humans to painstakingly create the conditions necessary for life to emerge, and nothing more. My point is that, as a premise that there is no greater power, it serves to suggest just the opposite.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Wouldn't that support the existence of a higher power rather than random chance, since it required the guidance of an intelligent force to happen?

Do you realize that the scientists have tracked everything we can see back to one tiny dot at one place 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years years ago? They have looked at the first light emitted by the big bang. If ol' Gawd was there he shouldn't have been phuckin' around with those chemical compounds. His ass is history.

Good for them if they did. You're missing my point.

Positive atheists, that is, those that claim without reservation that there is no God or omniscient force, make that claim that life, even the order of the Universe arose out of randomness. To painstakingly put together the conditions that match that from which life arose does not support randomness.

None of this proves or disproves the existence of a deity, God, intelligence omniscient force, etc. It proves the ability of humans to painstakingly create the conditions necessary for life to emerge, and nothing more. My point is that, as a premise that there is no greater power, it serves to suggest just the opposite.

May not disprove the existence but if for damn sure doesn't priove the existence of one either. He's been absent all my life......'course I'm just 78.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Then what was your point in posting it in the first place?

 

[Cammmpbell]

Then what was your point in posting it in the first place?

I think you might have missed a major point. This thread openly and aggressively attacks the idea that there isn't an ancient god. The savior iof the world, crucifiction, resurrection fable was first conjured about 3000 years before Jesus. Dozens of renditions have been prevalent for 5000 years. That's one helluva long time.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Then what was your point in posting it in the first place?

I think you might have missed a major point. This thread openly and aggressively attacks the idea that there isn't an ancient god. The savior iof the world, crucifiction, resurrection fable was first conjured about 3000 years before Jesus. Dozens of renditions have been prevalent for 5000 years. That's one helluva long time.

No, I got it, which is exactly why I ask your motivations of bringing up your initial post. Knowing your general agenda, it is to make a point that there is no God. That's fine, but the premise is enormously flawed, given that the conditions to produce life had to be painstakingly contrived, which would suggest that not a "chance" at all, but a carefully designed set of circumstances. This is a concept you seem to be failing to grasp. In the end it proves nothing, why is such a thing being used as a premise one way or another?

 

[Avatar4321]

Then what was your point in posting it in the first place?

I think you might have missed a major point. This thread openly and aggressively attacks the idea that there isn't an ancient god. The savior iof the world, crucifiction, resurrection fable was first conjured about 3000 years before Jesus. Dozens of renditions have been prevalent for 5000 years. That's one helluva long time.

No, I got it, which is exactly why I ask your motivations of bringing up your initial post. Knowing your general agenda, it is to make a point that there is no God. That's fine, but the premise is enormously flawed, given that the conditions to produce life had to be painstakingly contrived, which would suggest that not a "chance" at all, but a carefully designed set of circumstances. This is a concept you seem to be failing to grasp. In the end it proves nothing, why is such a thing being used as a premise one way or another?

To provide excuses not to think about the subject anymore. and more important to justify not going to God and learning from Him directly, like those in ancient times did.

 

[Cammmpbell]

I think you might have missed a major point. This thread openly and aggressively attacks the idea that there isn't an ancient god. The savior iof the world, crucifiction, resurrection fable was first conjured about 3000 years before Jesus. Dozens of renditions have been prevalent for 5000 years. That's one helluva long time.

No, I got it, which is exactly why I ask your motivations of bringing up your initial post. Knowing your general agenda, it is to make a point that there is no God. That's fine, but the premise is enormously flawed, given that the conditions to produce life had to be painstakingly contrived, which would suggest that not a "chance" at all, but a carefully designed set of circumstances. This is a concept you seem to be failing to grasp. In the end it proves nothing, why is such a thing being used as a premise one way or another?

To provide excuses not to think about the subject anymore. and more important to justify not going to God and learning from Him directly, like those in ancient times did.

Those in ancient times believed in ghosts, witches, healing by touching, raising from the dead, magic, spells, demon possession, etc. and thought the earth was flat. Damn man....get your shit together. Ancient god worship was all conceived and connived by a bunch of half civilized primitives who were afraid of their own shadows.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Cammmpbell, everything you say is a cliche.

 

[Avatar4321]

Those in ancient times believed in ghosts, witches, healing by touching, raising from the dead, magic, spells, demon possession, etc. and thought the earth was flat. Damn man....get your shit together. Ancient god worship was all conceived and connived by a bunch of half civilized primitives who were afraid of their own shadows.

People now believe in those things. Heck, we've had people who say they're witches posting on this very board. People have been healed by touch. I've been healed by the Spirit myself. People have been raised from the dead. There are spirits. People can be possesed by demons.

Just because you want to ignore what's going on in the world doesn't mean it's not going on.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Cammmpbell, everything you say is a cliche.

LOL....if you're half as up-to-date on cliches as you think you are on god worship there's no way you believe that!

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Cammmpbell, everything you say is a cliche.

LOL....if you're half as up-to-date on cliches as you think you are on god worship there's no way you believe that!

meaning?