Converting raw energy into biological energy

jar:Haven't we been here before? Sounds like incredulity to me!Why don't you let the evidence speak for how it got here? How can you presuppose that there is no intelligent design?

How would the intelligent designer make anything different?If he was creating life, he'd have to make it out of things that aren't alive.Or are you suggesting that life has existed from the very beginning?

As pointed out to you in Message 157, Message 164, Message 171 and several other times in this thread alone.If there are natural methods that will work, they are considered as possible. If no natural methods are found then it goes into the "Unknown folder" until we do find them. Your "designer did it" carries no more informational content than saying "pink faeries did it".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I like it!But I'm afraid not...Main Entry: abio·gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: "A-"bI-O-'je-n&-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matterIt assumes a material cause before the evidence has spoken...

Oh! Soooooo close! But no cigar!Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter.Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's QuestionsEdited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

kuresu: He would create them whole. No evolution needed.

I confess I like it!Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Your dictionary? (I see it's the merriam webster)And what is the scientific definition? YOu know, the one that would actually be valid, as this is discussing the science of abiogenesis?Also, I fail to see how this generic definition writes out God or the ID. That would be because . . .wait for it . . .it doesn't!Look, how do you tell if God did it, or if an ID did it, or if none of the above did it?This is blindingly simple logic, rob.
Once no life.
Now life.
Life came from no life. Why?
What else could it be?Mind actually answering the question without dodging?

How would you determine he created them "whole"? What is "whole"?
How do you determine that he stepped in? What are his marks? How are they identifiable from the chemical and physical laws we know?You're offering very poor arguments. No substance, no logic, and all assertion.And how did evolution enter the argument? This is supposed to be about creating life, right? Not about life evolving, right? Can't you stay on topic in your own thread?

Kuresu: Actually, if life was created by God, then it came from God not non-life.

Kuresu: Abiogenesis is also the evolution of life from mere chemicals in the material stance. That is why it is also known as chemical evolution.His marks would be the digital code that is analogous to other systems that are emperically shown to arise from intelligence. The high information content that is specified, non repeating, and extremely complex. We don't see that in the physical laws. They only repeat simple patterns.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Is god alive?
How do you determine god's existence?
If you don't know, isn't it all metaphysical bullshit?Why would life come from god? Why couldn't he make it with the materials around him (see: genesis, the creation of adam)?
If you don't know, isn't it all metaphysical bullshit?After all, all you're doing is suggesting possibilities for how it happened, right? So you don't absolutely know, do you?
Why are your possibilies valid and our possibilities not? After all, they are both possibilities for how it happened, right? So how come your's is better? Because it's in a millennia old book that your religion is based on? Or do you actually have evidence (aside from an unconfirmed source) for god zap-poofing life into existence?Since you don't know, it's hopelessly metaphysical, right?
And since you used that argument to say that our possibilities are invalid, it makes your possibilities invalid.Of course, that's not what you meant to have happen, eh?

evolution is shorthand for biological evolution, you know? You have got to say beforehand that you mean a specific type of evolution (cause you know, there's also cosmological evolution, but that's not what you meant, right?). Then use chemical evolution, or use abiogenesis.If you use both, it suggests that evolution is not abiogenesis, because evolution generally means biological evolution.The rest of your post is an assertion. Mind giving us any links for research that shows how DNA is analogous to other systems shown to arise from intelligence?
How about for the high information content?
How about for the extreme complexity?
And why must all physical laws only repeat simple patterns? Since when was DNA a physical law (which is the implication in your writing).And if you can determine that DNA can come about through natural means, how do you tell those natural means apart from how god (or ID) did it? I'd like to see some research cited.You know, only what you've demanded, and we've given, on the whole thread.

Kuresu: It's just what the evidence shows. Irreducibly complex organisms that self assemble based upon a quaternary digital code which contains all of the instructions to build an organism.20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...Kuresu: You have to understand that he is energy (which is matter). And I have the Biblical passages to prove it, but it'd have to be in another thread.

I think it's well-established at this point that Behe's ideas of "specification" are essentially meaningless, but I wonder why you think the genetic code is non-repeating.It seems to me to be repeating on many levels. For instance, one form of repetition is that most of the amino acids are encoded by multiple codons, usually two or three. It's a form of repetition that often, each chromosome can have multiple copies of the same gene. Another form of repetition is that nearly all complex organisms are polyploid and have two or more copies of each individual chromosome.Another form is the various microsatellite sequences that consist of short sequences (like "AT" repeated hundreds or even thousands of times. Another form of repetition is the fact that the organism's entire genome is represented in every single one of the organism's cells.I don't understand what leads you to say that the code is "non-repeating", when repetition is the order of the day in genetics. Nonsense. Simple rules can easily create complex results; that's the entire idea behind fractals.