"Molecules don't care about life." First part deals with Abiogenesis and the state of current research. Second part Stephen Meyer proposes Intelligent Design as an explanation of some of the problems.
Critique of Chemical Evolution
by Vidqun 53 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Uggg. So much word salad.
-
Vidqun
Yes, it might sound like word salad to some. One needs some background in the subject to really appreciate what they are saying.
-
MeanMrMustard
What I mean is:
1) I read your paragraph first, assuming it was a brief teaser of the main point of the video. I found myself asking immediately if the statement "molecules don't care about life" is really meaningful at all in this context. It begs the question of an intelligent design argument. How? Well, the only thing that can "care" about anything is intelligence, and if that's "the problem", then you assume before you start that life needs an intelligent designer. Word salad.
2) I watched the first part of the video where the speaker definitely the "minimum characteristics of life" as needing cells, and then immediately shuts down objection to the argument he knows is coming by claiming anyone that might question that is simply "redefining official terms". And right at the beginning he puts a hurdle in front of the other sides argument. What a horrible strawman. Again - word salad.
It was at this point that I just stopped and posted my previous statement.
-
Vidqun
word salad: "an incoherent jumble of words and non-verbal sounds, often a symptom of mental illness."
Molecules don't care for [doesn't encourage] life processes because of endless molecular combinations, whereas only one combination is necessary to sustain life. Even if the right molecular combinations are achieved, these have a half life, which deteriorates quickly. E.g. RNA is very unstable and cannot be sustained outside the cell (as we found out with the MRNA "vaccines" which need to be protected by man-made nanolipids).
-
MeanMrMustard
*sigh*
Molecules don't care for [doesn't encourage] life processes because of endless molecular combinations...
So limited configurations would encourage life?
Even if the right molecular combinations are achieved, these have a half life, which deteriorates quickly. E.g. RNA is very unstable and cannot be sustained outside the cell (as we found out with the MRNA "vaccines" which need to be protected by man-made nanolipids).
So the "right" molecules have to come together instantly, without any intermediates, no time span with those intermediates, to form complete cells (because chemicals don't "care"), and that's the only possible process by which life can arise?
-
Phizzy
I really can't be arsed to watch a Vid. from a charlatan pushing intelligent design and misrepresenting where we are with Abiogenesis at present.
Vidqun, you need to actually research for yourself where we are with our knowledge now. The process of how life began has been observed and replicated, in other words, in a Lab. it was observed happening.
There is plenty of accurate Info. out there, easily accessible, one book which is good on this is "Life Ascending" , I forget the Authors name, it is from over a decade ago, so research has moved on since then, but the process described is still the current hypothesis.
"Intelligent Design"is utter bollocks, this comment from Ken Miller, a Scientist, but a believer in a kind of god, a practicing Catholic, is revealing :
He had this to say about the ideas of I.D. that they are “ rejected by Science because they do not fit the facts, and for having failed religion because they think too little of God”.
Ken Miller wrote “ The Falgellum Unspun” about how bacteria developed the flagellum, a sort of corkscrew propeller ??, so as to be able to move.
-
SydBarrett
"I really can't be arsed to watch a Vid. from a charlatan pushing intelligent design and misrepresenting where we are with Abiogenesis at present.
Vidqun, you need to actually research for yourself where we are with our knowledge now."
If the subject matter is vaccines, politics, or creation / evolution and the poster says "here, watch this hour long youtube video I found" instead of telling you in their own words, you can be 99% certain they are a kook.
Pre-Internet, you'd be avoiding their eyes as you crossed the street while they mumbled nonsense and tried to sell you used pencils from a cup. -
MeanMrMustard
I kinda like long-format videos.
And I tried to watch. But here, I could see the poisoning of the well within the first 10 minutes or so. And I've seen essentially the same arguments that follow.
-
TonusOH
James Tour is a legit chemist who apparently puts at least some of his learning aside when he talks about origins of life. He admits that he has become something of a pariah in scientific circles, primarily because of his pushback on research into abiogenesis. I think part of what irritates his colleagues is his clear support of intelligent design combined with his insistence that he is not pushing creationism or any sort of religious viewpoint. Since he's an avowed Christian who is aligned with creationist groups and organizations, it's clear what he is promoting.
Similarly, Stephen Meyer has degrees in sciences other than biology, and his attacks on evolutionary biology are of such quality that most biologists seem content to ignore it, leaving the job of refuting him to countless YouTubers.
I suppose it's possible that the global scientific community treats them as outsiders because they have found evidence that turns the field of life sciences on its head. I think it's much more likely that they are ignored because they're snake oil salesmen.