real life wrote:He says 'a' molecule , and then uses RNA as an example. He could've mentioned DNA as well, but didn't . What other large self-replicative molecules did you have in mind, ros?
This, of course, ignores the fact that Shapiro then goes on to say that small replicative molecules would afford better chances of life. Not to mention the fact that you used this article to back up your number-based assertions, despite the fact that the article contains none of the numbers you used.
Furthermore, improbabilities do not make things impossible. It is highly improbable that someone will win the lottery, but someone manages to do it anyway.
Thirdly, Shapiro provides alternatives that would still have no requirement for a God. The amino acid is one possible alternative. Not to mention that he, as has been pointed out before, stated that an RNA-first world would only make things so improbable that we are likely to be alone in this Universe. Not so unlikely that we wouldn't exist, but only unlikely enough, Shapiro says, so that we (referring to all life on Earth) would be the only life in the Universe.
All of which suggests that, yes, your number-based assertion further back was baseless. Trying to change the subject will not change the fact that you were arguing using baseless assumptions. And trying to change the subject further to suggest we are making baseless assumptions will not change that either or justify your actions.
Quote:If you have evidence for any, I would love to hear it. If not, is your speculation about the possible existence of another really qualified as science, since you don't have any evidence for it?
You forget that science isn't just about evidence, but also the potential to provide evidence. It is something we've stressed time and time again, but you choose to ignore it, because if you don't, you would be pressed into the situation where you'd have to admit that our speculation is scientific whereas yours is not. And really there is no justification to ignore it, because what we've said is correct.
Something is scientific if it has evidence for it or if the theory can be tested and falsified, especially if work is being done to do so as with string theory in the other Creationism thread and as with Evolution.
That is why black holes are scientific concepts, because General Relativity predicts their existence and we can find out whether they do exist. Your decision to redefine what is scientific merely speaks to the fact that you've lost the argument and are hence trying to bring the counter-arguments into dispute, where there is no dispute.
Furthermore, it's a rather stupid idea, because even if black holes aren't scientific, that doesn't mean your position is anymore scientific, hence you aren't arguing for your position. Moreover, if the fact that black holes being a non-scientific idea is a bad thing, then that must mean that your supposedly equally non-scientific idea is also a bad idea. Therefore, you convince no one of the reality of your idea, merely that black holes should be lumped along with the nonsense of Creationism.
This is clear Creationist
modus operandi, as can be evidenced with Ben Stein's
Expelled movie. The entire movie is nothing more than a dishonest attempt to stir up controversy where there was none.
Quote:And without replicative ability, isn't any first step in the 'circle of life' also going to be the last?
Let's pretend , for the sake of argument, that a living organism WAS able to assemble itself from 'small molecules' .
Where is generation #2 going to come from?
Wow, did anybody else see this loaded question coming or what?
Generation #2? What's your definition of second generation, RL? I ask, because your definitions tend to differ from those used by actual scientists, specifically, in a way that makes it easier for you to argue against something that would otherwise be impossible to do. Hm, now what's the word for that again? Oh yes, strawman.
