reply to post by bias12
The the ability to form organic compounds from inorganic materials is a fundamental stage of the physical process of spontaneous generation of
Except it has little bearing on the probability of those organic compounds developing into living systems.
That in and of its self is not the whole story, there is more to be learned. Yet, it is whole load more scientific evidence than anyone will
ever be able to show you for a designing hand or intelligent creator.
Then let's see it. I want to see the evidence supporting spontaneous formation of Ribonucleic Acid. The ability of such compounds to reproduce is
If you take biology seriously - you should not treat the biochemical processes involved in life with so much out-dated mysticism .
You're obviously confused.
The issue is that of plausibility, not that of mysticism.
You have a system composed of inter-dependent processes - without which, the system cannot continue to function and reproduce.
You either acknowledge this fact or you live in ignorance of it (perhaps even deliberate ignorance).
There are two possible processes by which this could have come to be. The first, and most intuitive, is that of design. The second is that it
The problem is that multiple factors would have had to been randomly generated and existed under the correct conditions at the same time. In the case
of RNA - both the proteins responsible for its replication and the code for constructing those proteins would have to have been in existence at the
same time to lead to a functioning system of reproduction.
The statistical odds of that happening are well within the accepted rejection zone for chance description.
Reason to the Best Explanation leaves us with the design hypothesis, as chance is greatly insufficient to reasonably suspect it as the cause.
For this to change, it must be demonstrated through further research that the factors have changed - that larger proteins can self-assemble or that
extinct organic systems could have existed prior to the ones we recognize as life (and given rise to these).
The notion of irreducible complexity, and of intelligent design, is not falsifiable and therefore nor scientific.
This is incorrect.
Historical science does not function in the same way as predictive science. Historical Science revolves around a concept known as Reason to the Best
Explanation. Given what is known, one can reason what the most probable explanation is.
Example - you look outside and notice the driveway is wet. There are many possible causes for this. Other factors - such as the presence of clouds
in the sky, the status of other surroundings (is the street wet?), and other points of interest (such as hoses or buckets of water) will also give you
clues as to what is the most probable explanation for the observed.
In reality - you can't test what made the driveway wet.
However, you can demonstrate some theories to be false - or so far outside of probability that they cannot be reasonably accepted as plausible.
For example - your son suggests that the driveway is wet because it rained. Looking at the street and other yards, you notice they are dry. The
probability of it raining on just your driveway is so remote that you would likely reject the notion.
Similarly - the concept of both design and chance can be evaluated for causal probability. You cannot demonstrate either to be correct - you can only
demonstrate one or the other to be outside the realm of reasonable consideration. Just as you can never prove that a gambler isn't cheating - you
can only reasonably eliminate the suspicion or chance (someone who wins five times in a row at roulette, for example, is going to draw considerable
suspicion as the odds of that happening are 1:5^32nd).
There is no system, process or molecule which can be demonstrated to be irreducibly complex. There has never been a single peer reviewed
article that can show any evidence of irreducible complexity.
The problem has been recognized since the 60s. You get to a point where you are left with a system that has several key components that simply have
to be in existence together to function, and there's no clear possibilities for that system to have evolved from or spontaneously generated.
You can bury your head in the sand all you want to.
The problem is real.
The faith basis behind your views is no less present.
The difference between you and I is that I'm perfectly fine living in a world of the yet-to-be-known (or the impossible-to-know), and see no threat
in the challenge posed.