For you believers...

[Denny Crane]

I used a metaphor.

The ingredients for life were there, without any need for a creator. We have life.

You could not have life without the ingredients. That we did not witness the moment life arose does not indicate any sort of mythical being intervened. No indication.

No indication, whatsoever. Not one teeny weeny bit of evidence of intervention.

No evidence of a creator, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.

 

[crowTrobot]

Eat it and tell me

your girlfriend might get jealous

 

[magnifier661]

I used a metaphor.

The ingredients for life were there, without any need for a creator. We have life.

You could not have life without the ingredients. That we did not witness the moment life arose does not indicate any sort of mythical being intervened. No indication.

No indication, whatsoever. Not one teeny weeny bit of evidence of intervention.

No evidence of a creator, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.

Actually there is more than a tiny weeny. No life has been observed without a life form creating it. There is no gap. It is what it is. You can have all the soup in the universe and still no observation of what you suggest.

There is much less evidence that life came from non life. That number is zero.

 

[magnifier661]

your girlfriend might get jealous

Doh!!!!

You must modify. She is my wife now.

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually there is more than a tiny weeny. No life has been observed without a life form creating it. There is no gap. It is what it is. You can have all the soup in the universe and still no observation of what you suggest.

There is much less evidence that life came from non life. That number is zero.

See, you're completely wrong in everything you wrote here.

There is no evidence of a creator or other mythical beings I mentioned.

The fact there is life is evidence life came from non life, or that it always existed. That number is in the trillions of live lifeforms on just the earth today.

 

[magnifier661]

See, you're completely wrong in everything you wrote here.

There is no evidence of a creator or other mythical beings I mentioned.

The fact there is life is evidence life came from non life, or that it always existed. That number is in the trillions of live lifeforms on just the earth today.

Read what you just wrote. Lol!!!!! The point you mentioned trillions of life forms on this planet; all of which observed use life to create itself. All of which are extremely complex; yet not a single one has been observed to have been created without life; only supports my belief of a creator.

There is more probability that a spaghetti monster designed us with its meatball sperm; than proteins forming and actual DNA code morphing from nothing.

 

[magnifier661]

And furthermore; even evolution supports "learn behavior" and "genetic mutations". Those are traits of something programed that reprograms itself and advances in the process. The gap is what programmed it in the first place?

Has anyone ever observed something programming from nothing? A computer program can't create itself. And don't use the modern self programming models; because those models were once programmed by a creator; man...

 

[Denny Crane]

Mutation isn't the result of some sort of programming. Now you're just pulling my leg or something.

 

[magnifier661]

Mutation isn't the result of some sort of programming. Now you're just pulling my leg or something.

Absolutely a form of programming. Let's say a DNA has it programmed to be a red blood cell and function like one. Then it mutates and does another function. So is that cell still a red blood cell; or did it change because the mutation changed the program?

 

[Further]

Absolutely a form of programming. Let's say a DNA has it programmed to be a red blood cell and function like one. Then it mutates and does another function. So is that cell still a red blood cell; or did it change because the mutation changed the program?

But what made the mutation happen is not programming, it's chance. mutations happen all the time, the vast majority of those mutations are either neutral or disadvantageous to the survivability of the cell/organism. Those mutations simply don't usually take hold. But, if the mutation, completely randomly, improves survivability then the mutation will become fixed. At that point, you may call it programming, but the original mutation is not, it's just a mistake. If I were giving you directions to drive from LA to Portland, and by total mistake I say left instead of right at some point. Those directions are no longer the program because they don't give the intended directions. of course, this could be another case of semantics. You could call it programming or not, that's of little consequence. The point is that it is completely random and unguided.

 

[Denny Crane]

Absolutely a form of programming. Let's say a DNA has it programmed to be a red blood cell and function like one. Then it mutates and does another function. So is that cell still a red blood cell; or did it change because the mutation changed the program?

That's not mutation. That's differentiation. And a cell doesn't change from a red blood cell to some other kind of cell. The DNA is the same for all cells in an organism. Differentiation occurs when certain bits of the DNA are stressed by the cell.

 

[Spud147]

scientists don't believe in a creator because there is no evidence for one.

also, although there's no reason to think so, if it happened to be true that natural abiogenesis is impossible how do you know life hasn't always existed continually seeding more life as the natural state of an infinite universe? no need for a creator in that scenario, so that's one (of many) alternate hypothesis you'd have to disprove to validate "life requires a creator".

I don't want to get in the middle of this argument but I do need to clarify something. You say scientists don't believe in a creator because there is no evidence for one. My father has a BA in theology and BA, Masters degree, and PhD in chemistry and physics. The concepts don't conflict for him and I have to think he's not the only Christian scientist out there.

 

[magnifier661]

That's not mutation. That's differentiation. And a cell doesn't change from a red blood cell to some other kind of cell. The DNA is the same for all cells in an organism. Differentiation occurs when certain bits of the DNA are stressed by the cell.

Programming. Thank you for clarifying. You can change a bit of code and the cell changes. You can say it's the same, but a cancer cell is not the same as a normal cell.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't want to get in the middle of this argument but I do need to clarify something. You say scientists don't believe in a creator because there is no evidence for one. My father has a BA in theology and BA, Masters degree, and PhD in chemistry and physics. The concepts don't conflict for him and I have to think he's not the only Christian scientist out there.

He isn't. In fact there are many prominent Christian scientists in the field today.

 

[Denny Crane]

Programming. Thank you for clarifying. You can change a bit of code and the cell changes. You can say it's the same, but a cancer cell is not the same as a normal cell.

Not programming.

Cancer is a mutation of a cell. It's abnormal, hence a serious disease.

Mutations occur when particles from radiation from the sun or space literally collide with atoms that make up DNA of a cell and damage it.

 

[magnifier661]

Not programming.

Cancer is a mutation of a cell. It's abnormal, hence a serious disease.

Mutations occur when particles from radiation from the sun or space literally collide with atoms that make up DNA of a cell and damage it.

You can try and explain it any way you want; but when a program "DNA" changes; it gets reprogrammed. Any program that changes is reprogrammed; either it be by mutation, association or any other name you want to call it.

A computer virus can be very serious too; but it's still a program.

 

[Denny Crane]

You can try and explain it any way you want; but when a program "DNA" changes; it gets reprogrammed. Any program that changes is reprogrammed; either it be by mutation, association or any other name you want to call it.

That program really being a blueprint of sorts and one that has EVOLVED over billions of years. Right.

Mutation occurs when there's a cell that replicates and has a tiny copy error in the DNA.

 

[Further]

There are other ways in which mutations occur, but you are basically right. Although, there are also different types of mutations including substitutions, frameshift, insertion and deletion mutations. That link should give you an idea of what they are if you are interested.

 

[magnifier661]

That program really being a blueprint of sorts and one that has EVOLVED over billions of years. Right.

Mutation occurs when there's a cell that replicates and has a tiny copy error in the DNA.

Yep and that tiny copy error mutates and reprograms the new cell into something else

 

[Denny Crane]

There are other ways in which mutations occur, but you are basically right. Although, there are also different types of mutations including substitutions, frameshift, insertion and deletion mutations. That link should give you an idea of what they are if you are interested.

Those are types, not causes

 

[Denny Crane]

Yep and that tiny copy error mutates and reprograms the new cell into something else

And there was no designer involved. What do you know!!!

 

[magnifier661]

And there was no designer involved. What do you know!!!

All of those instances all changed living cells. None made cells from nothing! Haha what you know?!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

So if in some lab somewhere a scientist combines electricity and amino acids and POOF there is single cell life does that instantly disprove the existence of god?

 

[Further]

Those are types, not causes

yes, just trying to introduce something that should be common knowledge but most people don't know. Yes, causes, there are basically two, first is as you were mentioning, DNA damage from environmental agents such as UV, nuclear radiation or certain chemicals. The second type is basically mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

 

[MarAzul]

So if in some lab somewhere a scientist combines electricity and amino acids and POOF there is single cell life does that instantly disprove the existence of god?

No, but you probably have found a qualified stand in.

 

[magnifier661]

So if in some lab somewhere a scientist combines electricity and amino acids and POOF there is single cell life does that instantly disprove the existence of god?

Disproves god? I would think it would just give more credibility that life can exist without life creating it (by random chance). It would definitely be a blow for theist that use my argument. Yes

 

[MarAzul]

There is no evidence life requires a creator, so no reason to presume one "until proven otherwise". That's overtly god of the gaps.

Neither one of us knows how life started. You are the one pretending to do so, not me. I don't know. There may have been intelligence involved. There may just as easily be some natural god-free mechanism for abiogenesis we have yet to discover.

Score one for you in one short sentence "I don't know" . Have a good day.

 

[Denny Crane]

All of those instances all changed living cells. None made cells from nothing! Haha what you know?!

And there was no designer involved.

As if you set fire to a piece of paper. The result isn't paper anymore. There was no designer of what was left behind, the ashes. You couldn't assure the paper took exactly 13.4 seconds to burn entirely. Or the shape of the fire.

No designer.

 

[Denny Crane]

So if in some lab somewhere a scientist combines electricity and amino acids and POOF there is single cell life does that instantly disprove the existence of god?

No.

You can't disprove much - that's something of a logic trap.

If a scientist did make life from inert material, it's prove with certainty that it could be done as we expect.

 

[magnifier661]

And there was no designer involved.

As if you set fire to a piece of paper. The result isn't paper anymore. There was no designer of what was left behind, the ashes. You couldn't assure the paper took exactly 13.4 seconds to burn entirely. Or the shape of the fire.

No designer.

Actually there was. You designed the fire to set fire to the paper. You were the cause and the paper burning was the effect. Try again.