kcrady, Azdgari, and Irish, when you refer to a pill being metabolised, or chicken nuggets or photosynthesis you have living things, humans and plants, making living things, so it confirms the law “all life is from life”.
The point we were making is that there is no difference between "living matter" and "non-living matter" from the perspective of the matter itself. "Living matter" is simply matter participating in a set of self-perpetuating chemical reactions. Since life is a process of chemistry, there is nothing that forbids its simplest form from self-organizing under the proper conditions. This does not require an intelligent person any more than snowflakes require tiny snowflake faeries fashioning each one with little chisels.
Even if abiogenesis is wildly improbable, given the size and age of even the visible Cosmos (not to mention whatever might exist outside of our light-cone), there are worlds enough, and time. No matter how improbable it might be, it is far more probable, by many orders of magnitude, than the incredibly intricate assembly of component parts necessary to form any sort of thinking, designing person. Persons just seem
easy because we look at Universe through person-colored glasses.
Azdgari, life is special because it always comes from life.
You haven't come close to demonstrating the "always" part of your claim. All you've got so far is that scientists have not replicated abiogenesis in a lab--yet
. To make your absolutist claim stick, you have to be able to prove that they can't ever
replicate abiogenesis, because abiogenesis is physically impossible,
like perpetual motion machines.
Is your creator "life?"
If yes, and "life always comes from life," then what life did "he" come from? And where did that
life come from? If you want to say, "No, he was always there, he's eternal," then you have an example of life (presumably the very biggest, specialest, life-y-est life form there is) that does not come from life, and your claim that "life always comes from life" fails.
If no--i.e., "he" is something Other, a different category of being than "life" as we know it (i.e., he does not have a metabolism, doesn't reproduce, isn't composed of matter/energy, exists "outside of space and time," etc.)--then once again, we have an example of life coming from non-life, and your claim fails.
Since even your own model does not support the claim that "life always comes from life," we have no reason to accept that claim. Since a self-replicating molecule is so much simpler and more parsimonious than any hypothesis involving intelligent persons, it has the status of a default explanation.
But the big question is the first living cell appearing 3.2 billion or so years ago, there was no other living thing around, so it had to come alive all by itself, this has never been observed anywhere, not even in a lab.
Likewise for Invisible Magic Persons of any sort (gods, devils, djinn, nature-spirits, etc., etc.). Likewise, for Magic itself. In fact, every single thing we have ever come to understand about reality has turned out to be: Not Magic. Thunderstorms can happen without requiring the existence of a Zeus or Thor. Microorganisms and viruses are sufficient to explain disease without demon-possession or malign spells cast by the little old lady down the street. And so on.
There was a time when virtually everything, from the movement of the celestial bodies to weather to fertility to victory or defeat in battle, was thought to be caused by one Invisible Magic Person or another. Then we developed the tools to start making a systematic effort to understand how reality works. IMP-based explanations for things were supplanted by natural explanations for things over and over and over again, in an unbroken string of scientific discoveries, for 400 years. Based on this track record, we have every reason to expect that abiogenesis will also turn out to have a natural explanation, especially since we already have some of the puzzle pieces.
Can you refer me to the lab report on the self assembling proteins, I’d like to read it, thanks.
Respond to the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis you've already been given with enough technical mastery to indicate that you're operating on a par with the professionals in the field, then
we'll start looking up published papers and "lab reports." BTW, can you provide any published papers or lab reports about cells (or anything else) being created by magic
? Please include the relevant equations showing how the magical being(s) work, and how whatever they're made of interacts with matter/energy and time. I'd like to read it, thanks.
And sorry about my references to the creator as a single male god, (ie “he”) that’s just habit, which comes from years of research, but I don’t want to force my opinions on people.
You are trying to persuade us that your views are correct, aren't you? Assuming that your "years of research" is not equivalent to "I learned it in Sunday School and believed it ever since," you can presumably demonstrate that there's only one god, that it's male, and that it is specifically (your understanding of) the Christian god. Since no other theologian has been able to accomplish this feat,
you should at the very least expect to be hailed as the greatest theologian in the history of Christendom, even if you don't win a Nobel Prize.
In reality the key question isn’t how we define the creator, the question is, does science indicate that one is required for us and the universe to exist.
There you go again--just assuming that "the creator" is going to be a singular entity. Most major design projects (e.g. a new airliner, rocket, city, car, computer operating system, whatever) are the result of teamwork, we have no reason to assume a single creator even if we had evidence for creation. If a proposed creator is modeled as a semantic-thinking, language-using person, then it makes more sense to assume it is a member of a civilization, than to suppose that it modified itself to have a capacity for language and invented a language for itself when, in its original state, it would not have the concept of "other person" much less any actual examples to talk to.
As to the question of whether science requires creators to explain the existence of the Cosmos or us, the answer, according to the community of trained, qualified, and practicing scientists, is "no." If you know so much more than them, and your ideas are better validated than theirs, where's your trophy case full of Nobel Prizes? Once again: any personal being is far, far, faaaaaaaaaaaaar
more complicated than a self-replicating molecule
or early cell. If we have to pick one or the other as more likely to "just happen," the molecule or cell wins hands down.
I’d like to see that list of gaps in the theory of evolution, maybe we all should have a combined effort at it, with our combined brain power we should come up with a fairly comprehensive one.
I note your complete disinterest in the vast tracts of understanding that the theory of evolution has filled in
, and the literal mountains of evidence in its favor.
Irish, why don’t I kill myself? good point and most christians don’t even realise what I’m about to say, but the only reason, and I mean ONLY reason God doesn’t whisk them up to heaven when they ask Jesus to save them is because he wants them here to help others get saved too, if they were all whisked away there’d be no one to spread the word.
So, your proposed creator can design and create more than a hundred billion galaxies and innumerable -illions of worlds, but he can't advertise himself to the population of one little planet without humans
to do it for him? Really? Isn't Yahweh supposed to have myriads of angels at his command? "Angel" comes from a Greek word meaning "messenger." What does he have messengers for, if not to "spread the word?"