Right. That's why I said "The point is to find a plausible route that may have taken place to gradually become what we currently define as life."
So I hope that is taken care of.
That is OK to try to find it, I understand that. But to do it in an experiment, by scientists, only shows ( if they ever do it) that it could be done with intelligence. It does not show that it could happen by itself. They would have to have some place that it happened , that they had nothing to do with, to show that it came on it's own. .
They don't know exactly, but with evidence that has been found I am confident they are on the right track. Once again however they are not trying to "mix some material around", that's just a strawman at this point. I would suggest you do some more reading before making such a conclusion.
There are many chemicals on this earth, are they using the toxic ones, as well as the ones that help to support life, in their experiments?
Dunsapy wrote
They have only shown that it takes intelligence to make life. Assuming they were successful .
Thats quite the leap now that you have several analogies to work with. You are saying that modeling a river, or a hurricane, or migrating birds, or the movement of tectonic plates means that all these things are intelligent? If something can be modeled the subject of the model is intelligent?
If you are saying that modeling a river or a hurricane, or migrating birds etc. in a computer model, does take intelligence. I agree with that. other wise I did not get what you are saying here.
It appears that you, as with armylngst in message 76, are simply stacking the deck to trump up your preconceived notions. You are insisting that if something happens and someone tries to see how it happened then that something by definition must have been intelligently created. Therefore as long as there is intelligence to be curious there must have been intelligence to create the focus of all curiousity. Lets face it, with a stance like that your awful close to the "because I said so" defense.
You totally missed the point here. I said if science does it with experiment, that shows that science could do it with experiment. That has nothing to do with what happened in the past.
™ Version 4.2