DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Spurious has been peddling that atheism harms society drivel ever since he convinced himself it would piss people off. This is from a clown who goes down to the local every night to suck down pints until he's so pissed he can hardly stagger back home. He has about as much religious devotion in him as does my left buttock.

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Even a supernatural theory may be true or false. Either God did create life on Earth or he did not. You cannot chide us for not showing rigorously that our account is reasonable, and simultaneously claim that it's reasonable for a person to accept your belief with no evidence that it's true.

Yes even a supernatural theory may be true or false. So any theory should be examined on the ground it claims, not on what it doesn't claim.

I agree absolutely.

Your God theory claims that God created life on Earth. Please provide some evidence to support that belief. Since you are so highly critical of our arguments supporting the theory of evolution, you are obligated to meet the same high standard when demonstrating that there is enough grounds to accept your position. Please proceed.

real life wrote:

Shapiro postulates that it developed within an already living organism, that's the whole point of his 'metabolism first' view of first life.

No, he does not. Your reading comprehension skills are abominable. He is listing the different theories and hypotheses in his article.

However, if you are so adamant that Shapiro postulates that the first replicator was created in an already living organism, cite the exact part of the article where he states this.

Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution.

Systems of the type I have described usually have been classified under the heading "metabolism first," which implies that they do not contain a mechanism for heredity. In other words, they contain no obvious molecule or structure that allows the information stored in them (their heredity) to be duplicated and passed on to their descendants.....

.....An understanding of the initial steps leading to life would not reveal the specific events that led to the familiar DNA-RNA-protein-based organisms of today. However, because we know that evolution does not anticipate future events, we can presume that nucleotides first appeared in metabolism to serve some other purpose, perhaps as catalysts or as containers for the storage of chemical energy (the nucleotide ATP still serves this function today). Some chance event or circumstance may have led to the connection of nucleotides to form RNA.

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Even a supernatural theory may be true or false. Either God did create life on Earth or he did not. You cannot chide us for not showing rigorously that our account is reasonable, and simultaneously claim that it's reasonable for a person to accept your belief with no evidence that it's true.

Yes even a supernatural theory may be true or false. So any theory should be examined on the ground it claims, not on what it doesn't claim.

I agree absolutely.

Your God theory claims that God created life on Earth. Please provide some evidence to support that belief. Since you are so highly critical of our arguments supporting the theory of evolution, you are obligated to meet the same high standard when demonstrating that there is enough grounds to accept your position. Please proceed.

The 'high standard' that I've asked of you is to produce evidence consistent with your claim of being 'scientific'.

Since science requires evidence ( or at least last time I checked it did) , I've asked what evidence is there that a 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe EVER actually existed.

I've asked what evidence is there that a self replicating molecule other than dna/rna had EVER been the basis for a living organism.

Sorry if you thought asking for evidence was too high of a standard for scientific types to reach.

I'm told constantly by the scientific types on A2K that they have all the evidence and that I have none. So I saw no harm in asking.

'high standard' , wow. who'da thunk?........

The 'high standard' that I've asked of you is to produce evidence consistent with your claim of being 'scientific'.

I've asked what evidence is there that a self replicating molecule other than dna/rna had EVER been the basis for a living organism.

Finally, Not only are Biblical accounts wrong, but we have very strong evidence to prove just how wrong they are and where, whereas Mr Lifes "critiques" of science are based solidly on ignorance and a childlike naivete'

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:

Shapiro postulates that it developed within an already living organism, that's the whole point of his 'metabolism first' view of first life.

No, he does not. Your reading comprehension skills are abominable. He is listing the different theories and hypotheses in his article.

However, if you are so adamant that Shapiro postulates that the first replicator was created in an already living organism, cite the exact part of the article where he states this.

Yup, just as I thought... You have provided no proof whatsoever. If you think the below paragraph demonstrates that what you've said is true, then you're more delusional than I thought... or more stupid... or possibly so condescendingly arrogant you don't think I wouldn't be able to see the trees from the forest.

Quote:

Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution.

How does this demonstrate that Shapiro thinks small molecules "developed within an already living organism", RL? Note he makes no mention of living organism at all. In fact, on the previous page he states:

Shapiro wrote:

Fortunately, an alternative group of theories that can employ these materials has existed for decades. The theories employ a thermodynamic rather than a genetic definition of life, under a scheme put forth by Carl Sagan in the Encyclopedia Britannica: A localized region which increases in order (decreases in entropy) through cycles driven by an energy flow would be considered alive.

I'm sure somebody else has already quoted this to you before.

Now this definition of thermodynamic life does not even match the definition of a living organism, partially because organims almost certainly do "contain a mechanism for heredity" unlike the systems of the type Shapiro described.

None of this, I must add provides any proof that DNA was designed by a mind or proves that he believed in poofism, which is something you once claimed.

The numerous dog breeds shows that (at least to a degree) "DNA was designed by a mind".

However, if you are so adamant that Shapiro postulates that the first replicator was created in an already living organism, cite the exact part of the article where he states this.

How does this demonstrate that Shapiro thinks small molecules "developed within an already living organism", RL?

real life wrote:

The 'high standard' that I've asked of you is to produce evidence consistent with your claim of being 'scientific'.

I've asked what evidence is there that a self replicating molecule other than dna/rna had EVER been the basis for a living organism.

Just because you reject the evidence presented, doesn't mean the evidence hasn't been presented.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

The 'high standard' that I've asked of you is to produce evidence consistent with your claim of being 'scientific'.

I've asked what evidence is there that a self replicating molecule other than dna/rna had EVER been the basis for a living organism.

Just because you reject the evidence presented, doesn't mean the evidence hasn't been presented.

You've presented ZERO evidence that ANY self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis for ANY living organism.

(Hint: saying 'well it COULDA happened, you can't prove a negative so it MIGHTA been' is not scientific evidence)

Chumly wrote:

The numerous dog breeds shows that (at least to a degree) "DNA was designed by a mind".

Oh good, that should help clear things up.

You've presented ZERO evidence that ANY self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis for ANY living organism.

Wether you like it or not, the scientific fact of evolution is evidence of a first replicator, just as physics and cosmology are evidence for the Big Bang.