Life has already been created. How did that happen?

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

As an aside, I am dumbfounded by the inability or unwilingness to see the point thus far (we're hardly through).

All of the experiments that you can point to (which you consider thoroughly scientific), take existing parts of life, and manipulate them.

Is that how life was created? Life from life?

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Nonsense, of course. Look at the Miller-Urey experiment for a start - amino acids from simple household chemicals.

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

Kuresu, jar and I were talking about self replicating cycles.

But since you brought it up... those experiments are now thought to be totally irrelevant since they do not reflect the current understanding of the atmosphere of the early earth at the time suggested for the arrival of the first life forms. The first 3 1/2 minutes of this 10 minute video segment, nicely captures the argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql_4eNMcA2s

But hypothetically... what if we could start with all of the chemicals necssary having proved a way to reasonably explain the arrival of each chemical component?

That would be awesome!

The 3 1/2 minute segment also captures what we can scientifically, and repeatedly expect if we start with all of the chemicals.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

How exactly is unknown. However, there are certain principles that can be demonstrated. Chemistry happens. Self replicating molecules can naturally form in the kind of environment that evidence points that the early earth had. Have those two factors, and add in variation and NS, and you got the basis for having simpler components becoming more complex.

It doesn't matter. Abiogenesis covers all of simple chemicals to life. Life from life doesn't enter into it.


On the contrary, the Miller-Urey experiment is now thought to have been even more successful than before. And similar experiments have been done under many different conditions. It seems that amino acids, at least, form spontaneously under a vast range of conditions.

But the topic isn't about what science can do, it's about what "intelligent design" can do. When are you going to address the need for empirical/material evidence for both the creator and the creative process?

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

All your article does, is confirm that the original experiment found additional amino acids in conditions irrelevant to early earth.

And yes, using 'modern methods' (which include acid hydrolysis- though perhaps not in these particualr tests) can also 'produce' amino acids, as with the Murchison meteor.

I do hope you can comprehend the difference between the terms production and extraction.

And Bada (the scientist mentioned in your article) was front and center in the paper on the meteor: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1022.pdf

How much would you like to wager that Bada is up to his old tricks?

We had a whole thread about it at EVC Ringo. And I don't remember your participation: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi? ... 3&t=92&m=1

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Please Rob, try to stay with the discussion.

That was discussed earlier in the thread, in this message, this message, and in this mesage.

As I already answered in the Latter:



It is irrelevant how life here actually started. It did start. What is of interest is the question "How can non-living matter transform into living matter?"

It is THAT question which is being studied.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Your objection is irrelevant. If life can be created in the lab under any conditions, then life can be created in the lab.

But again, the topic is not about what science can do. It's time for you to address the question of what "intelligent design" can do. It's time for you to address Dawkins' requirement: Where is your empirical evidence of a creator and of the creation process?

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

And an interesting question it is...

I would like to make 2 points. The first of which is for our debate, which certianly can continue along these lines. The 2nd is a personal opinion.

point 1 In the first 10 seconds of the video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxsQrBa0ECE ), Dawkins immediately accuses Stein of 'begging the question' by asking 'who created the heavens and the earth?'. Watch it real quick and see...

But are you not also begging the question, by assuming that non-living matter transformed into living matter apart from intelligence?

Why is it ok to presume a 'what' but not a 'who'?

I assume the first objection would be that, what other life is there but material life? And I agree that there is, by definition, no emperical evidence for somethng (or someone) that is by definition 'unemperical'. But there is also no emperical evidence for gravity, certain theorized subatomic particles (and we can't necessarily even call them particles). We know of the existence of those things because of their effects on the material. Things like dark matter are the epitome of belief in the 'unempirical' even amongst materialists. So ringo... please do consider your question expunged.

Is gravity itself material? Is energy (the substance matter is ultimately made of) material?

How shall we even frame the question? What is energy? Who is energy?

Things are not so black and white as you would like. And I am particularly unimpressed with your preying upon the simple minded nature with which most average Joes would perceive the reality of things. I think we are all capable of stepping it up here...

point 2 I don't think that we will ever create life in the lab. I think much of our culture is so intoxicated by the success of relative human achievement, that we forget ourselves.

That being said, I ask you to consider respectfully the fact that the knowledge of creating life would lead to incredible power. If we can put non-living matter together into life (especially if it is relevant to our own), it is conceivable that we would then be able, later on... to more fully (even fully) repair existing life. The 2nd law of thermodynamics may be an ultimate barrier, but not a temproray one from what I understand.

The knowledge of such things has been withheld from us thus far. I believe it exists behind the quantum curtain (though that is my opinion). Most everything is very obscure and unintelligeble at that level. I don't think it is a legitimate objective for 'power gone amuck reasons alone', but the main reason I don't believe we will ever succeed is because God closed that door on us. And I believe He also did so in the realm somwhere behind that ethereal quantum.

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

I answered your second question in my response to jar.

As to you first. Intelligent design can potentially create life in the lab. But the chemicals certainly won't without it or the lab techs.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Because we can bring the "what" into the lab and measure it. When you can do that with the "who", "intelligent design" may have a leg to stand on.

As for dark matter, it has no relevance whatsoever to the creation of life.


We don't know that.

You're suffering from "Reverse Dunsapy Syndrome" (RDS). If scientists can produce life in the lab, all that will prove is that they discovered the conditions under which life can arise spontaneously. It will not prove that intelligence had anything to do with the process.

And furthermore, if you can haul your "intelligent designer" into the lab, measure his shoe size and describe - in minute detail - how he created life in his lab, all that will prove is that he discovered the conditions under which life arises spontaneously. It will not prove any kind of woo-woo nor disprove the natural origin of life.

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

That has been explained to you many, many times. The who is totally irrelevant and gives us no new information unless and until you place the Who on the lab table for examination, and the Who publishes his material in a peer reviewed environment so that the who's methods may be tested and replicated.

Even should that happen the Who is unimportant except as a footnote, a note that a certain Who was the first to accomplish the task. The methods and procedures are what is important.



You are free to believe that however it is also totally irrelevant and pretty much as usual, unsupportable. All you have there is an argument of personal incredulity and personal fear.

Your personal fears and incredulity have nothing to do with the merits of the topic.

It is pertinent to things like the Infomercial "Expelled" and the ID movement. They too seem to be driven by nothing more than personal incredulity and fear, fear that people will realize that the religion they are being taught is false and a perversion.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

You failed to answer the quesiton. You answered a question I did not ask...

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

If you look at what you wrote, and I quoted, you asked "Why is it ok to presume a 'what' but not a 'who'? You even quoted my answer.

I answered that question.

The reason it is "ok" to presume a "what" but not a "who" is that determining what happened provides us with new information while determining a "who" tells us nothing.

Who is irrelevant, unimportant, worthless and contentless except as a footnote for attribution.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950