Originally posted by drakus
Originally posted by Wifibrains
I'm in no way saying this is truth. Just a perseptions from an angle. Life, DNA, is a signal. If the cell/molecule has the right qualities to receive the signal. If fires into life. Single cell organism to start. To see how it progressed watch a video of how the egg of a human embryo splits from one cell to two. It just pops and suddenly there are two, then four and so on. Magic! It just copy's itself.
My friend, it ain't magic, it's called meiosis/mitosis. We have a pretty good idea how that works, what's more, we have actually recorded the process
Which doesn't mean it's not awesome.
Originally posted by drakus
1 - This is the SCIENCE forum, speculations outside the scientific method have THEIR OWN forum.
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.
Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by Sparky63
But if you deem scientific evidence important, then you cannot support intelligent design at all, as there is absolutely no scientific evidence on it.
On the matter of plausibility, I question how one can find the notion of a supreme designer of all life more plausible than the origins of life being a physical process.
We know the building blocks of life form naturally, we don't know for certain how they become living cells.
And where is this designer?! I want anyone to tell me where they think the great designer is right now. Is he in a spaceship or is he floating in another dimension?
What I don't understand is where people get the idea of a creator from.
I think that life is a physical process because I know all the bits that go in a cell, and what makes up those bits. I also know that the stuff that makes up all the bits can be made naturally, as a result of a physical process.
I think that life was designed by someone because...how would this sentence finish??? Please finish this sentence without saying "because you cant prove it wasn't" or "i cant explain how it happened therefore it must have been"
Irreducible complexity is an argument of ignorance. It asserts that a proposition (life being designed) is true because it has not yet been proven false.
Simply because we can't explain why something happens, is in no way evidence that it happens supernaturally.
Rather than using the argument of the lowest common denominator, use a positive argument. List the evidence in favor or your argument, don't simply say I can't prove mine.
Originally posted by amongus
Originally posted by jiggerj
First, I feel a need to point out that I do not consider myself religious OR atheist. I am a seeker of logical truth.
My question is, in order for the very first living cell to to have evolved, how could it have been at some early stage 99% non-living, and 1% living? Then evolve into 98% non-living and 2% living? And so on and so on. This doesn't make sense to me. Actually, it sounds impossible. Either a living cell is 100% alive, or it's just a dab of inert material.
Any thoughts on this?edit on 7/11/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)
Simple if you think about it.
We were planted here.
It's the only logical explaination.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by bias12
Likewise - just because you can't identify the intelligent agent does not mean that there is no evidence that an intelligent process was most plausibly behind the origin of life.
"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible"