Hi mikechell, the problem is the nature of the current source code of life (DNA). Its just too damn complicated to create itself, even under the assumption that the first life-forms were simpler than today's simplest life-forms.
Just the fact that scientist's are currently battling just to copy the process even though the blueprint and the ingredients are already known, is testimony to the impossibility of nature not just copying DNA, but DESIGNING it spontaneously. The concept requires intelligent life.
Whereas life complex enough to conceive, design and create DNA apparently doesn't require anything ... it "created itself", I suppose?
Either the original creator was always there, or was made from a less complicated substance than DNA, allowing for the possibility of self-generation from non-living matter. The possibility of DNA self generating is too far -fetched to be a plausible scientific argument for the appearance of matter. Could it be termed a hypothesis? On what scientific basis?
ringo, I beg to differ. If mankind finds it difficult to copy something using intelligent minds its a little far fetched that nature can design the original spontaneously. Anyway if that's your proposed hypothesis for the origin of life, that's your call.
I wasn't suggesting we slam on any brakes regarding trying to replicate DNA. I was merely pointing out the unlikelihood of the original design occurring spontaneously if intelligent minds battle to replicate it.
I disagree. I believe my point is easy to understand on its own, its a subjective argument. Conceptual. As is any argument for abiogenesis mere hopeful conjecture at best without any objective evidence in support.
How is your design hypothesis not pure conjecture? Where is your objective evidence? How is your hypothesis nothing more than an argument from ignorance? How is the design hypothesis not abiogenesis anyway?
Fair questions. I would say that my beliefs on the origins of life were originally faith-based. Since then observations of genetic diversity have strengthened my beliefs, but they were originally faith based.
I believe the same applies to anyone who chooses to prefer abiogenesis despite a lack of evidence, this is a faith based decision, in many instances coming from a cynical place of emotional hurt rather than a pure scientific decision. The science supporting abiogenesis is lacking.
Why do creationists always put human intelligence over nature? Why be so self centered? Of course, we are intelligent, the universe can't live without intelligence. Well, breaking news, it did for billions of years and will do so once we're gone
I believe God is the intelligent one. I don't put much value in our finite and biased minds to come to truth. The process of reaching some truths is a far higher process than one of intelligence, its a spiritual process.
So, you're intelligent designers ... did they design every living thing on this planet? Or are we just talking about humans? Did they just design the Human's DNA ... giving us intelligence as a "gift"? Did they design Avian Flu ... and then hide it for eons in a (time release gel cap) time capsule? Then comes the next question in the series ... why design such a world of life as this, and then disappear, never to check on your "masterpiece" again. Don't claim UFOs, either. I am pretty sure that the best of our progress is not found in some corn field in BFE, Kansas.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear until now, I have been using more general terms. I believe in God, not just any alien intelligent designer. Yes I believed He designed all biological life as per the bible in Genesis chapter 1.
Most life has retained its original DNA , but some have undergone some minor changes of reduced complexity (disabled genes). Other life forms have undergone dramatic changes atrributable to changes to allele frequencies, ie no major genetic changes, merely changes of the expresssion of certain allelle combinations in a given population.
Since the fall of man (the sin of Adam and Eve) disease and mortality has become part of earth, it was not originally intended. God gave this earth to mankind, and instead of ruling this earth properly, mankind sinned, and evil now rules this earth through mankind. God will come soon to put this right again. In this sense planet earth is a "rogue planet", this situation will soon be corrected.
So ... if Earth is a "rogue planet" ... do you believe there are other planets out there that were also designed with life? Perhaps James and Sarah did NOT eat the fruit of knowledge and thus kept their planet pure and Eden like? No need for progress on that planet ... all of the people born there are worthy to be god's friends. If these other planets birth enough friends for god, perhaps he won't need ANY of the ones from here ... and when ...
There could be other planets out there designed with life. I believe there are, the bible is pretty silent on that.
He'll just flood the place again ... without giving anyone the chance to build an ark. ooooooo Intelligent supreme being design sure is scary!!!!
Whatever the motivation for your off topic rant, I hope it helps you. He sent his own son Jesus to reconcile us to Him. He allowed his own son to be mutilated and killed. Whoever relies on Jesus gets restored to that original condition, in a relationship with God.