HAD to be? That is a pretty bold assumption. Why does HAVE to be guided?
Because reasons and stuff. It's not, of course, evidence for any such thing, but that doesn't stop people from saying it.
Scientists almost created life in a lab?!
by abiather 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Viviane
-
coalize
This is enough evidence for me that the process is guided.
Even if science succeed one day than it's no guiding process, it will still constitue an evidence of guiding process for the guided-process fans.
Yes, It will be an evidence for the believer that the only case possible, is that the guider of the process has guided it to a no-guided way!
-
OneEyedJoe
This is enough evidence for me that the process is guided.
Please explain to me where I'm wrong with my earlier analogy. If this is evidence that life requires a guiding hand, how is a man-made avalanche not evidence that all avalanches require a guiding hand? What about man-made ponds? Is that evidence that all ponds require intelligent design?
I can sorta wrap my brain around why you think it might require some intelligence to kick things off, but I can't fathom why you would consider this as evidence (aside from confirmation bias).
-
KateWild
I can sorta wrap my brain around why you think it might require some intelligence to kick things off, but I can't fathom why you would consider this as evidence (aside from confirmation bias).-one eyed joe
I have explained it. I used terms such as racemic mixture, l-sterio isomer, enantiomer, soai reaction.
If you don't understand what these things are it's easy to look them up and do the research. I will repeat myself for your sake though. In nature most enantiomers are left handed, to form this homochiral mixture is necessary for life.
In a lab the mixture is racemic, there are equal left and right handed molecules. Life cannot form with these molecules.
This has nothing to do with avalanches.
In order for the correct mixture to form a catalyst is required, a catalyst guides the process, in nature there is an autocatalyst. This process is guided.
Kate xx
-
coalize
In a lab the mixture is racemic, there are equal left and right handed molecules. Life cannot form with these molecules.
No, it's just show why the right-handed have disappeared...
-
OneEyedJoe
I have explained it. I used terms such as racemic mixture, l-sterio isomer, enantiomer, soai reaction.
If you don't understand what these things are it's easy to look them up and do the research. I will repeat myself for your sake though. In nature most enantiomers are left handed, to form this homochiral mixture is necessary for life.
In a lab the mixture is racemic, there are equal left and right handed molecules. Life cannot form with these molecules.
This has nothing to do with avalanches.
In order for the correct mixture to form a catalyst is required, a catalyst guides the process, in nature there is an autocatalyst. This process is guided.
That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not humans have created life in a lab or not. Your initial comment (I think I quoted the wrong one, perhaps that's what threw you off when I asked the question) seemed to indicate that this particular achievement - life being created in a lab - was somehow indicative that life had to have been created by some intelligence. The logic behind that conclusion is what I was questioning. To me, this breaks down into:
People did x (i.e. people created life in a lab)
Therefore x never happens without intelligent intervention (i.e. life could not have happened if it weren't triggered by some intelligent creator).
The conclusion does not follow from the initial premise.
-
Viviane
Kate, simply picking random things and saying "this is evidence of a guided process" doesn't make it so. To say something is evidence means to show a connection between the things. You've not done that. You've not shown how to connect the dots. -
nicolaou
If your solution to the problem of complexity is even greater complexity you've answered nothing at all.
'God' isn't the answer to anything, it's just intellectual laziness.
-
coalize
'God' isn't the answer to anything, it's just intellectual laziness.
Totally, and it's true even if God exists!
-
abiather
KateWild You got it rightly—that is the right view, comprehensive view. It’s like seeing a superb dance performance, and also perceiving the painstaking practice-sessions the dancer did before!
Viviane
You say creationists got it “BACKWARD.” Yet you know our whole history is about going “BACKWARD.”
1) We replaced perfect language (eg. Sanskrit, according to NASA, something they found out in their process of developing artificial intelligence) with imperfect languages.
2) We do not like to eat dead-bodies, hence we changed the name into non-vegetarian, and enjoy eating it.
3) We do not like to kill innocent babies, hence we changed the name into abortion and enjoy killing 50 million babies every year (more than any World War killed in one year) while they are still in their mothers’ womb.
4) We replace forest (deforestation as much as the land-size of England every year) with concrete jungle, thus spoiling air and water, and we call it progress!
5) ……………………………………. list goes on and on