Actually I have done this on my computer. This is only a simulation. You can set up many parameters to simulate a river, science is pretty good at things like this.
Science
is pretty good at things like that, glad we agree.
But this is not making life.
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.
Science does not know exactly what the atmosphere was like before life. It does not know, the soil conditions before life. It does not know what materials were around before life. Now if science wants to say the atmosphere was like the the soil was like this, and try to mix some material around to see if it will become life.
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.
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?
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.
Edited by Vacate, : Formatting
™ Version 4.2