Some say that God is not required... (quote, Biblical, Abraham)

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Originally Posted by Vizio

No...they synthesized a basic part of life. Not life. And they used ingredients already existing. I want to see them create those ingredients from nothing and then create life. Check back with us when you have that.

And in so doing, they demonstrated far more than the "God did it!" crowd has ever demonstrated.

We've never seen an asteroid hit the moon -- by your logic, all those craters on the moon are just as likely to have been created by God as by impact events. But what we have are documented impact events elsewhere, asteroids, and a basic understanding of gravitational physics, by which the process of the of lunar crater creation -- even though we have never witnessed one being created -- is well understood and not controversial.

So it is with life. Life is here, we know it exists, and we know that somehow it came into existence. We can demonstrate the synthesis of its building blocks, providing a perfectly reasonable hypothesis of how it did come into existence. Your creating deity remains nothing more than the ancient scribblings of ignorant bronze-age tribesmen.

Cling to that if you will (and you certainly will) but don't expect anyone with even a cursory familiarity with the concept of logic to take you seriously.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

...for the Universe to have come to be.

For a number of reasons that idea makes me chuckle.

One of those reasons is: It can also be said that it is not required that a man and a woman have sexual relations to produce a child. Nope. Artifical insemination is a wonderful thing. However...

**********

Just sayin'

N'kay now: try "just thinkin" for a change.

Others here have lampooned all of your short-thought logic. It's fallacious on it's face, and you should have done a lot better. But then, we who think for a living know full well of the black hole of scientific illiteracy from whence the Fundamentalistó monstéros arise. Back in you go!

Hmmm: "It's never been observed." Zhat so? Riddle me this one, Viz: why do you guys always move the goalposts as we close in on you? Why is it that you want ever-more detailed results and findings as we inevitably uncover the proofs of all this you so feverishly fight??

There was a time, just a few short years ago, that your basic hyper-intransigent, closed-minded and stubborn fundies would have been fully comfy claiming that such findings as Drs. Venter & Lenski, et al (see below) have now provided, en-route to a simple demonstration of abiogenesis, self-replication, genome mutation and the consequential natural, logical Evolution, were untestable, could never be demonstrated, scientists were "the spawn of the Devil!" (thanks for the insult, btw...), and so on? So now we've incontrovertibly done all those things, and you want more, or even funnier, you insist that "why yes, that IS indeed how it works, but it was always the Hand of God at the Helm! That it's all the result of Intelligent Design, or of God's Hand, as Chief Evolutionary Manager, you understand, that is justifiably responsible for it all?[/b]

Wow!! Talk about Selective Beliefs of Convenience!

Lemme ask you a simple basic question Vizio. I'll presage it by saying I really don't expect an honest and logical answer from you, because we never do get them from dedicated fundies. But here goes anyhow (after all, you may be the one adult, mature and reasonable person to debate us here ...):

A lot of knowledge and factual, observed, documented and confirmed information has happened in the biochemical/genetics/research/DNA mapping & tracking and Evolutionary science world in the last 5 years, hasn't it? (No need to answer this part: the facts are there!)

One of those events was the fully documented case by Dr. Craig Venter from San Diego in 2009, who took some very basic biochemical molecular building blocks of life, non-living by any standards, dropped them into an essentially lifeless cellular package that was totally inactive, and durned if it didn't (1) close up, and then, (*** 2 *** ) take to reproducing itself.

That, my friend, defines life not as something that God invented or that required a special breath from Him to initiate, or any other such sanctimonious event. Life is also not defined as something capable of independent thought, soul-searching, praying or communicating. Nope. Not necessary. This...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ACaDF0kiT5...slime-mold.jpg

(slime mold)

.. is life as well! It's fully en-route to this...

http://www.leopard-pictures.com/russiansnowleopard.jpg

but that will, of course, take a while!

Nope! Life is very simply a collection of stable molecules that can reproduce and retain some sort of biochemical "memory" system. Now if that memory system is also prone to or capable of sustaining & retaining informational changes to itself via mutations or other mechanisms, and then successfully reproduces reliable artifacts of that revised form to then subject to natural trial and error testing in available niches, it's indeed LIFE per se.

If it can then benefit from such positive changes, however infrequent, then it is also by definition, capable of ongoing Evolution of it's accumulated abilities, including it's functionality, appearance, adaptability, specialization, etc. It's also alive. Life. Self-sustaining. Sorta like every bacterium, sponge, moss, tree, fish, lizard-bird, dinosaur or mammal who crawled out of, and then, in some cases, back into, the oceans.

In some cases, btw, those acquired abilites can also be lost if they are not needed (hence our tail stub, and other well-documented "vestigial" [meaning no longer necessary, a shadow of their former existence] expressions in other species, like this example...):

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.46844...74555&pid=15.1

The halteres pointed out here are "vestigal" in the entire Dipteran family (the true flies). We can trace them back now in the species' lineage and show that earler species had larger halteres, until they show up as most other less modern insectids, as their obvious second pair of wings.

http://www.bugs.ufl.edu/bug_club/ima...er_odonata.jpg

This counters the specious and silly argument of many fundamentalist anti-evolutionists that "if Evolution occurs as ongoing improvements, why do some species seem to go retrograde?" Well... why not? Why carry around unnecessary baggage that costs energy or makes a species unwieldy? And so we have seals that have vestigial forearms, fingers and toes. All retained from their land-based pre-seal cat versions, but en-route to an obvious functional extinction.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/elephants...keleton_lg.jpg

(Or was God just showing us His very odd sense of humor? If so, personally, I don't get it. He must be bored as h$ll "up there"!)

Well anyhow: here's my question to you: Given what we've now seen in the last 2 -3 years of ever-faster biological, biochemical and evolutionary research, including Dr. Venter's impressive little experimental results, are you still willing to make the ABSOLUTE CLAIM that life as I've simply defined it, or even as more advanced versions that will come along, WILL NEVER HAPPEN as your post says you assume? We'll NEVER get to where you'll have to absolutely admit that it's happened?

Here: Let me remind you of exactly what you said, OK?

"You don't get life from non-life. It's never been observed."

and...

"I want to see them create those ingredients from nothing and then create life."

Oh? You're saying that non-living essential molecular building blocks are totally incapable of organizing themselves into functioning, reproducing, and (Whoo-Hooo.. even Evolving!!!) life forms? NEVER? You want to climb out on that already pre-cracked and overstressed limb and take to bouncing up and down, doing the Fundamentalist Dance?

Dancing with the Illiterate Stars? Lifetime Membership in "DIDN'T"?*

Well OK then! Let's hear it, right here in print, so we can easily remember and look it up in a year or two! Huzzah!

_________________________________________________

PS: I'd also suggest you might want to read up on Dr. Richard Lenski's outstanding 2006 - 2007 experiments, published in 2008 and still ongoing, that absolutely prove, beyond a shadow of a logical person's curious doubt, that simple and chance-invoked DNA mutations can and do result in a series of phenotypical alterations that can create (and... hold onto your tinfoil hat!) an entirely new species. Just as we all know happens in everyday life.

But this time, with Dr. Lenski's skilled team, it was fully observed, re-tested, documented, and then peer-reviewed by very knowledgeable specialists whose job it is to find flaws, holes or over-assumptive conclusions. in such research before it's allowed to be published. (I know; I've published over 15 papers in biological research. And you?)

Only then, after that very rigorous and critical review, was it published. We call that sort of process and it's checkable, reproducible results: incontrovertible.

Wow! Another of the hallowed and "incontestable benchmarks" and Absolute Pillars of Undeniable Truth Via God crumbles in the harsh light of inscrutable undt unambiguous truth, huh?

"It WON'T EVER happen! It CAN'T! It requires God's official nod-wink!"

(Cue: the unmistakable sounds of noisy, crumbly earthquakes and structural demolition...)

_____________________________

*"DIDN'T": the Denialist-Intransigent Dogmo-Nutball Theist club. Complete with the secret handshake, decoder ring and "nod-wink" connectivity! "Wow Dad! I sure wish I could join! Oh well...."

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by rifleman

N'kay now: try "just thinkin" for a change.

Others here have lampooned all of your short-thought logic. It's fallacious on it's face, and you should have done a lot better. But then, we who think for a living know full well of the black hole of scientific illiteracy from whence the Fundamentalistó monstéros arise. Back in you go!







Hmmm: "It's never been observed." Zhat so? Lemme ask you a simple basic question Vizio. I'll presage it by saying I really don't expect an honest and logical answer from you, because we never do get them from dedicated fundies. But here goes anyhow (after all, you may be the one adult, mature and reasonable person to debate us here ...):

A lot of knowledge and factual, observed, documented and confirmed information has happened in the biochemical/genetics/research/DNA mapping & tracking and Evolutionary science world in the last 5 years, hasn't it? (No need to answer this part: the facts are there!)

One of those events was the fully documented case by Dr. Craig Venter from San Diego in 2009, who took some basic biochemical molecular building blocks of life, non-living by any standards, dropped them into an essentially lifeless cellular package that was totally inactive, and durned if it didn't (1) close up, and then, (*** 2 *** ) take to reproducing itself.

It defines life not as something that God invented or that required a special breath from Him to initiate, or any other such sanctimonious event. Life is not defined as something capable of independent thought, soul-searching, praying or communicating. Not necessary.

Nope! It's simply a collection of stable molecules that can reproduce and retain some sort of biochemical "memory" system. Now if that memory system is also prone to or capable of sustaining changes to itself via mutations or other mechanisms, and then successfully reproduce artifacts of that revised form to subject to natural trial and error testing in available niches, and then benefit from such positive changes, however infrequent, then it is also by definition, capable of ongoing Evolution of it's accumulated abilities, including it's functionality, appearance, adaptability, specialization, etc. It's also alive. Life. Self-sustaining. Sorta like every bacterium, sponge, moss, tree, fish, lizard-bird, dinosaur or mammal who crawled out of, and then, in some cases, back into, the oceans.

In some cases, btw, those acquired abilites can also be lost if they are not needed (hence our tail stub, and other well-documented "vestigial" [meaning no longer necessary, a shadow of their former existence] expressions in other species, like this example...):

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.46844...74555&pid=15.1

The halteres pointed out here are "vesitigal". We can trace them back now in the species' lineage and show that earler species had larger halteres, until they show up as most other less modern insectids, as their obvious second pair of wings.

http://www.bugs.ufl.edu/bug_club/ima...er_odonata.jpg

This counters the specious and silly argument of many fundamentalist anti-evolutionists that if Evolution occurs as ongoing improvements, why do some species seem to go retrograde? Well... why not? Why carry around unnecessary baggage?

Well anyhow: here's my question to you: Given what we've now seen in the last 2 -3 years of ever-faster research, including Dr. Venter's impressive little experimental results, are you willing to make the ABSOLUTE CLAIM that life as I've simply defined it, or even as more advanced versions that will come along, WILL NEVER HAPPEN as your post says you assume?

Let me remind you of exactly what you said, OK?

"You don't get life from non-life. It's never been observed."

Oh? You'r saying that non-living essential molecular building blocks are totally incapable of organizing themselves into functioning, reproducing, and (Whoo-Hooo.. even Evolving!!!) life forms? NEVER? You want to climb out on that already pre-cracked limb and take to boucing up and down, doing the fundamentalist Dance?

Dancing with the Illiterate Stars? Membrship in DIDN't?*

Well OK then! Let's hear it, right here in print, so we can look it up easily in a year or two.

_________________________________________________

PS: I'd also suggest you might want to read up on Dr. Richard Lenski's outstanding 2006 - 2007 experiments, published in 2008 and still ongoing, that absolutely prove, beyond a shadow of a logical person's curious mind, that simple and chance-invoked DNA mutations resulted in a series of phenotypical alterations that created (and... hold onto your tinfoil hat!) an entirely new species. Just as we all know happens in real life.

But this time, it was fully observed, re-tested, documented, peer-reviewed by very knowledgeable specialists whose job it is to find flaws, holes or over-assumptive conclusions. in such research before it's allowed to be published. (I know; I've published over 15 papers in biological research. And you?)

Only then, after that very rigorous and critical review, was it published. We call that sort of process and it's checkable, reproducible results: incontrovertible.

Wow! Another of the hallowed and "incontestable benchmarks" and Absolute Pillars of Undeniable Truth Via God crumbles in the harsh light of inscrutable undt unambiguous truth, huh?

"It WON'T EVER happen! It CAN'T! It requires God's official nod-wink!"

(Cue: the unmistakable sounds of noisy, crumbly earthquakes and structural demolition...)
_____________________________

*"DIDN'T": the Denialist-Intransigent Dogmo-Nutball Theist club. Complete with the secret handshake, decoder ring and "nod-wink" connectivity! "Wow Dad! I sure wish I could join! Oh well...."

Again...check back with me when we see actual life produced from non-living things.

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Life is still required though. You don't get life from non-life. It's never been observed.

And yet, clearly, it happened.

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

And yet, clearly, it happened.

No doubt by spontaneous generation.

Originally Posted by rifleman

N'kay ..."

Not relevant and a waste of electrons.


Moderator cut: edit

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Not to worry about deconverting me. I have no reason or desire to return to belief system of my childhood days. Raised by atheistic/agnostic parents. Step-dad was a card carrying member of the American Atheist organization. I discovered God in my late teens and became a Christian in my mid 20s. Both my wife and I hold four-year college degrees. I minored in Astrophysics and took a course in human evolution during my studies.

How I see it in 25 words or less: God created the universe-meaning matter, energy and the laws that govern everything. eg. the why and how DNA and evolution work.

Yes I agree that the creationst-evolution battle is misconceived....except for one thing. Well, actually two things. The creationists who believe that if Genesis 1&2 are not literally true then the whole Bible is not true (not even remotely theologically correct). The other thing is the evolutionists who think evolution somehow proves that God does not exist.

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Lemme ask you a simple basic question Vizio. I'll presage it by saying I really don't expect an honest and logical answer from you, because we never do get them from dedicated fundies. But here goes anyhow (after all, you may be the one adult, mature and reasonable person to debate us here ...):

Originally Posted by Vizio

Again...check back with me when we see actual life produced from non-living things.

Surprise Vizio ain't the one adult, mature and reasonable person to debate us here

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Asheville Native

Surprise Vizio ain't the one adult, mature and reasonable person to debate us here

I will freely admit to not knowing as much about science as many of you probably do. Then again, you know nothing about theology, apparently. But that doesn't stop you from spouting off or forming an opinion, does it?

I'm not concerned if a scientist combines a few ingredients and creates a "building block" of life. Yippee Skippy. Did said scientist create those ingredients from nothing? Or is he working with ingredients that were already existing? Is the product of what he created life? or an ingredient of life? Color me unimpressed.

[Heathen Hammer]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Again...check back with me when we see actual life produced from non-living things.

When that does happen, how will your stance change? Or will you just keep your eyes closed and pretend it didn't occur?

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

When that does happen, how will your stance change? Or will you just keep your eyes closed and pretend it didn't occur?

If that happens, I'll consider it then. I don't think it will. But if God allows for life to be created by the combination of different chemicals, that's the way it is. But that doesn't even begin to answer the question of how the chemicals got here.

[Heathen Hammer]

How the chemicals got where, Earth?

We already know.

If God lets it happen, huh?

OK, right. You'll 'consider it'? lol, facts don't care if you consider them or not. You accept it as it is, or continue in fantasy-land.