solid proof of evolution

[PostmodernProphet]

Knocking on life's door

a chemical reaction.....nothing more.....

[Darth Omar]

No it doesn’t. We only know that life occurred and that the probability of it occurring by chance or randomly or by Devine intervention is unity, e.g., 1.0.

What we simply do not know is how it happened. The argument you are trying to make is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

And you’re trying to make a non-assumption out of an assumption lol.

Of course life occurred. How it occurred is the question. The reigning assumption is that life will happen anytime the conditions are met [conditions + time].

Until that is demonstrated, it’s an assumption.

[Mott the Hoople]

And you’re trying to make a non-assumption out of an assumption lol.

Of course life occurred. How it occurred is the question. The reigning assumption is that life will happen anytime the conditions are met [conditions + time].

Until that is demonstrated, it’s an assumption.

No it isn’t. Show me a peer reviewed document where that is assumed? The consensus in science is we simply don’t know the historical origins of life.

[PostmodernProphet]

No it isn’t. Show me a peer reviewed document where that is assumed? The consensus in science is we simply don’t know the historical origins of life.

then why do so many people think that abiogenesis is science?.......

[Darth Omar]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0109173205.htm
A pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.

The work was recently published in the journal Science.

In the modern world, DNA carries the genetic sequence for advanced organisms, while RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles such as building proteins. But one prominent theory about the origins of life, called the RNA World model, postulates that because RNA can function as both a gene and an enzyme, RNA might have come before DNA and protein and acted as the ancestral molecule of life. However, the process of copying a genetic molecule, which is considered a basic qualification for life, appears to be exceedingly complex, involving many proteins and other cellular components.

For years, researchers have wondered whether there might be some simpler way to copy RNA, brought about by the RNA itself. Some tentative steps along this road had previously been taken by the Joyce lab and others, but no one could demonstrate that RNA replication could be self-propagating, that is, result in new copies of RNA that also could copy themselves.

Those kinds of experiments are interesting but they only focus on one aspect of the problem.

There’s the replication problem and there’s the information problem. Mott doesn’t like my computer analogies but here goes lol. What is demonstrated with self-replicating RNA is analogous to randomly generated computer code. In other words, it wouldn’t code for anything biologically meaningful.

You also have to keep in mind that conditions in a lab are tightly controlled, to put it mildly. Synthesizing even simple organic compounds is tricky business. RNA is a complex molecule—it would interesting to know how many steps are involved in synthesizing it.

To think it ‘could just happen to happen’ in nature, begs for at least a degree of skepticism.

[rjhenn]

The universe isn’t somehow ‘less scientific’ if God created it lol.

Granted, the creative event itself would lie beyond science but the rest of the universe would be amenable to science. In fact, a universe that is the product of an infinite mind would be MORE ‘scientific’ because all the physical laws and constants would ultimately be based in rationality.

The usual wishful thinking. The physical laws and constants are based on what works.

And what do we find?

Patterns, mathematical symmetry in the laws and constants. All the planets, asteroids and comets obey Newtonian physics which causes them to be as predictable as any Swiss watch.

All of the physical constants are fined tuned to such an extent that if any of them varied a tiny a bit I wouldn’t be sitting here typing this.

But something completely different would be.

Biology is infused with rationality and it is more scientific on account of it. DNA functions exactly like computer code—except that ours is primitive by comparison. All cellular structures and events proceed in strict accordance with a *rational* code contained in the DNA molecule.

I would argue the universe is MORE scientific if it the product of an infinite mind.

And even more wishful thinking. As NOVA said, primitive herders invented God to explain what they couldn't understand. Belief in God survives for the same reason. As human knowledge increases there's less and less room for any gods.

[Darth Omar]

No it isn’t. Show me a peer reviewed document where that is assumed? The consensus in science is we simply don’t know the historical origins of life.

Who needs a document?

Life is *assumed* to be present elsewhere in the galaxy or we wouldn’t be looking for it. The underlying assumption is that life will occur on any planet—given the proper conditions.

[PostmodernProphet]

As human knowledge increases there's less and less room for any gods.

so the only god you have room for is human knowledge?........hopefully you won't have to rely on that for an eternity........

[PostmodernProphet]

Who needs a document?

Life is *assumed* to be present elsewhere in the galaxy or we wouldn’t be looking for it. The underlying assumption is that life will occur on any planet—given the proper conditions.

or that the conditions and the life there were created.......

[Darth Omar]

or that the conditions and the life there were created.......

Meh, I don’t even think creating the conditions would cut it.

[rjhenn]

Not really, someone can believe the genesis story is allegorical and that God initiated evolution as his mechanism to create man in his image.
I think it's unlikely that was the author's intent with genesis, but it is less stupid than your belief that it is literal and therefore all the science
it defies is wrong. I think those people are coming to an uncomfortable accommodation, and you should let them. Their only alternative
is to leave the fold or accept your narrow, rigid exegesis? Your membership will winnow down from a global religion to the population
of Mississippi.

Funny, Genisis says thay God made Adam out of dirt, and somehow that's better than being descended from animals.

[PostmodernProphet]

Funny, Genisis says thay God made Adam out of dirt, and somehow that's better than being descended from animals.

yes it is......

[rjhenn]

lol

Oh, the irony!

Thus the reason he's on ignore.

[Darth Omar]

Funny, Genisis says thay God made Adam out of dirt, and somehow that's better than being descended from animals.

Even if Genesis is taken strictly as allegory, it’s remarkable that the ancients were intuitively aware that the only difference between man and dirt was how their respective atoms were arranged.

Man being ‘formed from dirt’ is what you believe lol. You just throw a bunch of steps in between.

[rjhenn]

I hate to repeat myself, but it seems you don't quite understand the written word....I don't know if a god exists or he doesn't exist....far above my pay grade to come
to a conclusion on that.....Its you that have come to conclusions with absolutely no logical proof.....not me. You think lack of proof proves your conclusion...thats a very
stupid mind set.

The thing of it is, there's absolutely no evidence for the existence of any gods. That's at odds with the idea of an omnipotent God who is both benevolent and wants us to believe in Him. The rational conclusion is that there is no such beast.