Discontinuing research about ID

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.

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?Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

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.

Interesting thoughts there MrHambre. I see DNA as highly integrated and functional, with far too many interrelationships between the genes to be a natural created process.But if you are correct, i look forward to mankind's improvements on DNA... interesting proposal of yours indeed!

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.

Firstly, I never said it cant be done by intelligent minds.Secondly, natural biochemical processes do not "replicate DNA". Please show me your evidence for your statement.

Dr Adequate, my point is that its difficult for humans to copy DNAI see what you mean by replication, I misunderstood you, i thought you meant natural processes are creating replicas from scratch, which of course isn't happening.

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.

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. 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.

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.

"Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms."Both abiogenesis and creation are in the realm of the supernatural. Life had to start somewhere. Sure attempts can be made to rationalise abiogenesis, but the science behind it does not exist.

There could be other planets out there designed with life. I believe there are, the bible is pretty silent on that. 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.

Many of my points of view are based on evidence. What is your evidence for the origin of life?