GameOver22 said: timmah said: A point on the origin of life, we have yet to, with our own *supposedly* high intelligence, create life from non-life in a laboratory environment, let alone anything that can reproduce and evolve. If we haven't figured out how to make that happen in a tightly controlled test environment under the best possible circumstances, with all of the amino acids necessary present by design, how is that supposed to have happened on its own in the harsh primordial environment of the early earth? We have caused single celled organisms to develop into multi-celled organisms, but we started out with life that already existed in all of these cases and purposefully made the change happen. Every single living thing that we observe can be traced to the living thing that comes before it, but there are absolutely zero examples of any observed living thing existing without a living precursor. The postulation that life came from non-life is simply not backed up by any current testable science, and therefore must be accepted on some level of faith. An important point! Its really the question of whether our experiments are externally valid.....as in, can we extrapolate our findings within the laboratory to the outside world. Have we really not created life though? I thought we had....maybe just the basic building blocks of DNA atleast?

We've created the chemical requirements for life, but that's like saying we created Steel by chance, so a complex plumbing system can happen by chance. Their's a big leap between the bricks and the building.

With all of our ingelligence and technological advances, we cannot even create true Artificial Intelligence yet, let alone consciousness. In fact, consciousness is such a complex and incredible thing that Science has no explanation for it. All of our technology (which required a lot of intelligent design), pales in comparison to the human mind, not even taking into account the complex and interdependent systems that support its function and the unexplainable human consciousness. In spite of this, I'm supposed to believe that systems with far more complexity than what we can create with our intelligence (again, we can't even create a SINGLE LIVING CELL from non-living matter with our big brains) somehow exist without any design behind them. To me this seems like the biggest logical fallacy that could possibly exist.

timmah said: dsgrue3 said: timmah said: A point on the origin of life, we have yet to, with our own *supposedly* high intelligence, create life from non-life in a laboratory environment, let alone anything that can reproduce and evolve. If we haven't figured out how to make that happen in a tightly controlled test environment under the best possible circumstances, with all of the amino acids necessary present by design, how is that supposed to have happened on its own in the harsh primordial environment of the early earth? We have caused single celled organisms to develop into multi-celled organisms, but we started out with life that already existed in all of these cases and purposefully made the change happen. Every single living thing that we observe can be traced to the living thing that comes before it, but there are absolutely zero examples of any observed living thing existing without a living precursor. The postulation that life came from non-life is simply not backed up by any current testable science, and therefore must be accepted on some level of faith. Life took billions of years to develop. Why would be able to speed up the process? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment Describes how amino acids formed on Earth, more than necessary for life. http://www.gizmag.com/bringing-life-to-inoganic-matter/19855/ Inorganic chemicals may be able to evolve and self-replicate. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html RNA is self-replicating Not sure what further confirmation you need. Throwing in a large amount of time does not automatically make something possible. You're saying it took Billions of years for life to get where it is now, I'm saying we can't even prove that living matter can come from non-living matter, even at the single cell level. Sure, amino acids can form, we've confirmed that. That still doesn't bridge the gap from non-living matter to living matter. There is still no scientific proof of that at all. Inorganic chemicals created purposefully by intelligence self-replicated. Ok, so can this happen without us 'making' and 'designing' those chemicals? This still does not prove that life can come from non-life without DESIGN, since those chemicals were specifically designed by intelligent beings (so you're kind of proving my point) RNA is self-replicating, sure, but that goes back to my point that all life is self-replicating and there is always a precurser of other, pre-existing life. The RNA cannot self-replicate unless RNA already exists. Not a single example above shows even a single living cell coming from non-living matter.

No, I'm saying it took billions of years for the very first organic molecule to be considered "life" to form. Not humans. That took even more time.

Amino acids form WITHOUT design as has been PROVEN in the Miller-Urey experiment.

These such amino acids are the building blocks of life.

Amino acids bond with each other forming peptides, and peptides to polypeptides.

Peptides bond with Nucleic Acids to form RNA (Vital for replication).

There you have it. Life.

dsgrue3 said: No, I'm saying it took billions of years for the very first organic molecule to be considered "life" to form. Not humans. That took even more time. Amino acids form WITHOUT design as has been PROVEN in the Miller-Urey experiment. These such amino acids are the building blocks of life. Amino acids bond with each other forming peptides, and peptides to polypeptides. Peptides bond with Nucleic Acids to form RNA (Vital for replication). There you have it. Life.

I'm not an expert in this, but I read that the Miller_Urey experiment only yielded male versions of the molecules. Apparently there are two formations (male and female) required to form life, is that correct?

Like I said, I could be wrong.

Edit: Nevermind, I don't know what I'm talking about here.

dsgrue3 said: timmah said: dsgrue3 said: timmah said: A point on the origin of life, we have yet to, with our own *supposedly* high intelligence, create life from non-life in a laboratory environment, let alone anything that can reproduce and evolve. If we haven't figured out how to make that happen in a tightly controlled test environment under the best possible circumstances, with all of the amino acids necessary present by design, how is that supposed to have happened on its own in the harsh primordial environment of the early earth? We have caused single celled organisms to develop into multi-celled organisms, but we started out with life that already existed in all of these cases and purposefully made the change happen. Every single living thing that we observe can be traced to the living thing that comes before it, but there are absolutely zero examples of any observed living thing existing without a living precursor. The postulation that life came from non-life is simply not backed up by any current testable science, and therefore must be accepted on some level of faith. Life took billions of years to develop. Why would be able to speed up the process? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment Describes how amino acids formed on Earth, more than necessary for life. http://www.gizmag.com/bringing-life-to-inoganic-matter/19855/ Inorganic chemicals may be able to evolve and self-replicate. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html RNA is self-replicating Not sure what further confirmation you need. Throwing in a large amount of time does not automatically make something possible. You're saying it took Billions of years for life to get where it is now, I'm saying we can't even prove that living matter can come from non-living matter, even at the single cell level. Sure, amino acids can form, we've confirmed that. That still doesn't bridge the gap from non-living matter to living matter. There is still no scientific proof of that at all. Inorganic chemicals created purposefully by intelligence self-replicated. Ok, so can this happen without us 'making' and 'designing' those chemicals? This still does not prove that life can come from non-life without DESIGN, since those chemicals were specifically designed by intelligent beings (so you're kind of proving my point) RNA is self-replicating, sure, but that goes back to my point that all life is self-replicating and there is always a precurser of other, pre-existing life. The RNA cannot self-replicate unless RNA already exists. Not a single example above shows even a single living cell coming from non-living matter. No, I'm saying it took billions of years for the very first organic molecule to be considered "life" to form. Not humans. That took even more time. Amino acids form WITHOUT design as has been PROVEN in the Miller-Urey experiment. These such amino acids are the building blocks of life. Amino acids bond with each other forming peptides, and peptides to polypeptides. Peptides bond with Nucleic Acids to form RNA (Vital for replication). There you have it. Life.

No, there you have it, the BUILDING BLOCKS of life, not life in a living, reproducing form. These are very, very different things. Sounds nice on paper, but we've never seen these steps actually play out even in controlled lab environments with the end result of life. There's a massive jump from chemicals to a living, functioning cell. A single strand of RNA is not life and cannot become life without the chain being arranged in just the right way (and let's not get into just how complex the RNA in even the simplest cells is) and there must be a cell around it to support the functions of life. This is why cells divide to reproduce, because you need a cell to create another cell. Each part of a cell has to exist together at the same time and arranged in the right way for life to exist.

Individual stones are the building blocks of early buildings, but no stone structure has ever built itself. Rivers create stones and sand, sand, when combined with certain chemicals turns into mortar, stones + mortar are the building blocks of stone structures, there you have it STONE STRUCTURES! No humans needed

timmah said: dsgrue3 said: timmah said: dsgrue3 said: It isn't a testable hypothesis. I am not claiming anything. And I am telling you that you can't claim anything either.    So, you've both agreed that neither the existence or non-existence of God can be determined with 100% certainty. I guess the big question is, who has more to lose if they're wrong? I think the answer to that question is obvious. A better question is where does the evidence lead us? Does the evidence or lack thereof point toward a supernatural being, or no? I think the answer to that question is obvious as well, but perhaps that's just me. To somebody who believes in God, the immense complexity of the natural world, the amazing interconnected systems that allow all levels of life to function, the interdependence of plant and animal life, the necessity for such precision in the distance of the earth from the sun, exact composition of the atmosphere, necessity of magnetic poles to repel deadly cosmic radiation, and the countless other exact specifications necessary for life that exist on earth add up to an unsurmountable pile of evidence for intelligent design. You see it otherwise. I can see one of those things as being mathematically possible via some equation, but when you add all of them up, there is no way in my view that the entirity of the systems on this life sustaining planet could possibly happen by random chance. This is why it really depends on what evidence you look at it, and how you interpret that evidence.

It's really not that unlikely when you think about it. Our galaxy alone has over 100 billion planets. And our galaxy is one of at least 3-400 billion galaxies in the known universe. I'm no mathematician, so the total number of planets in the universe is probably a number I don't even know. Suffice to say, the chances of at least one planet having those characteristics you mentioned is rather high. In fact, there's probably tons of planets like Earth that we haven't discovered.

We've already found several Earth-like planets in a very tiny portion of the universe actually. http://youtube.com/watch?v=xlEDoO3w5CY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxlEDoO3w5CY

Jay520 said: timmah said: dsgrue3 said: timmah said: dsgrue3 said: It isn't a testable hypothesis. I am not claiming anything. And I am telling you that you can't claim anything either.    So, you've both agreed that neither the existence or non-existence of God can be determined with 100% certainty. I guess the big question is, who has more to lose if they're wrong? I think the answer to that question is obvious. A better question is where does the evidence lead us? Does the evidence or lack thereof point toward a supernatural being, or no? I think the answer to that question is obvious as well, but perhaps that's just me. To somebody who believes in God, the immense complexity of the natural world, the amazing interconnected systems that allow all levels of life to function, the interdependence of plant and animal life, the necessity for such precision in the distance of the earth from the sun, exact composition of the atmosphere, necessity of magnetic poles to repel deadly cosmic radiation, and the countless other exact specifications necessary for life that exist on earth add up to an unsurmountable pile of evidence for intelligent design. You see it otherwise. I can see one of those things as being mathematically possible via some equation, but when you add all of them up, there is no way in my view that the entirity of the systems on this life sustaining planet could possibly happen by random chance. This is why it really depends on what evidence you look at it, and how you interpret that evidence. It's really not that unlikely when you think about it. Our galaxy alone has over 100 billion planets. And our galaxy is one of at least 3-400 billion galaxies in the known universe. I'm no mathematician, so the total number of planets in the universe is probably a number I don't even know. Suffice to say, the chances of at least one planet having those characteristics you mentioned is rather high. In fact, there's probably tons of planets like Earth that we haven't discovered. We've already found several Earth-like planets in a very tiny portion of the universe actually. http://youtube.com/watch?v=xlEDoO3w5CY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxlEDoO3w5CY

Even if you have all of those characteristics on a planet, you still have to add up all of the probabilities that lead you to even a single cell of reproducing life, as well as the fact that, if it would take billions of years for that fragile, single cell to develop, there is zero chance that the climate and conditions of the planet
 stay stable enough for that entire time for this fragile, first life to develop over that massive amount of time.

timmah said: With all of our ingelligence and technological advances, we cannot even create true Artificial Intelligence yet, let alone consciousness. In fact, consciousness is such a complex and incredible thing that Science has no explanation for it. All of our technology (which required a lot of intelligent design), pales in comparison to the human mind, not even taking into account the complex and interdependent systems that support its function and the unexplainable human consciousness. In spite of this, I'm supposed to believe that systems with far more complexity than what we can create with our intelligence (again, we can't even create a SINGLE LIVING CELL from non-living matter with our big brains) somehow exist without any design behind them. To me this seems like the biggest logical fallacy that could possibly exist.

As that other guy said, it took billions of years for life/consciousness to develop. Even if we have the ability to create life from nonlife, that doesn't mean we should be able to NOW. Humans may not create life from nonlife at all during our lifetime. It may be another 1000 years before we do create life. My point is: just because we haven't done so yet, doesn't mean we can't do it at all. The humans species is incredibly young; the civilised humans are even younger. We just discovered how to harness electricity not too long ago (which many people thought was impossible at the time). To expect us to create life NOW is simply unreasonable.

timmah said: Rubbish

Where to begin...

So amino acids form without intelligent design, but nothing else did right? lol. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

The Earth was way different when the first organism formed. We can only theorize what conditions were present, so to even begin to attempt to provide the proper environment, we'd have literally billions of scenarios to consider.

fedfed said: I would marry you so wise, so real, so right.. Oops Sorry being gay is a bad thing!

you're female? 

And I'm in Canada, even if I had a penis and you had a penis, we could still marry :P