mnottertail
Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail Actually, yeah yeah. can life be created from chemicals. yes. has it been done. yes You don't get to make up your own questions. should be easy to reproduce that very first "chemical reaction" (the one where "life" came from "non life") in a laboratory then right? That hasn't been done. Life has not been created de novo in the lab. Ventner started with a living cell and replaced its DNA. quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail I have met the necessary and sufficient condtions of the statement that claims its a real piss cutter. No, you haven't. And you won't be doing so anytime soon. Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth ~NASA Have a nice day. K. Sorry, now you are have solicited Fs across the board. We were not arguing your strawman, I never said anyone understands how it got started. http://www.collarchat.com/m_4995834/mpage_3/key_chemical/tm.htm#4997175 There is the post, which of course you are trying to clip out of context and project some nothing to do with the post into some sort of incorrect god particle. Has a human (not god) produced such a chemical reaction. Yes. nothing else. De novo? not a requirement, and cannot be because when you are typing sentient or not, we will call you life, there is no shot at de novo, fixed point in time, that ship has sailed. Now I will admit that there was some eliding of a pure and wonderous sponteneity but the thing was put out as in the 'lab' intelligence is a necessary condition of the term 'lab'. He started with a computer model of the cell, and created not from an original cell, but from chemicals, now why did he do that? He didnt have millions of years, nor did he have the patience to sit there with a pipette and make millions of chemical reactions for the next millenia to do the necessary stuff. People want to see that shit, NOW! given the permutations of the universe, and the variables inherent in that miasma, we are understandably a little light on the reactions. But random reactions of that magnitude do not require a god or intelligence. Since you are using anecdotes to portray the synecdoche, and attempting to prove that there is 'intelligent design' you will tell me how Jaques Cousteau could have helped Noah get these guys shimmying up in the ark, and throw a live volcano in there and that rather unremarkable vignette never made it to the bible, but sending out a dove for an olive branch did. http://www.seasky.org/deep-sea/giant-tube-worm.html And nope, atheists have no issue with it, and it is not in anyway an essential problem. so, its simply a matter (at this time) of there not being tools that will allow the precise manipulation of atoms to build a cell. I can say with the same certainty that there do not exist the tools for you to build a sun in the comfort of your own home. http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-made-the-best-artificial-sperm-yet-and-they-re-breeding-mice-with-it So, until we have the tools or the time, we use the start of stuff that we can work with. Simply because we own a penis, does not require we have the intelligence to operate one, and the world is rife with those situations. So, the nirvana fallacy is answered with fallacy. Still, the gravamen is clear, there isnt any proof it requires God or intelligence.
_____________________________
Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30
|