by hamilcarr 33 Replies latest social current
It has been falsified. There are many non-supranatural explanations for the origin of life, such as the metabolism-first and the genetics-first theories. I like, for instance, Wächtershauser's iron-sulfur world theory with its brief recipe for life:
From an experiment that produced a few dipeptides and even fewer tripeptides you claim that the origin of life from non-life has been explained?
From an experiment that produced a few dipeptides and even fewer tripeptides you claim that the origin of life from non-life has been explained?
Unless you give an alternative definition of life and non-life, I do.
From an experiment that produced a few dipeptides and even fewer tripeptides you claim that the origin of life from non-life has been explained?Unless you give an alternative definition of life and non-life, I do.
Very well then, you have shown the problem to be solved. Simply define a few dipeptides as life, and then document the formation of a few of them. Then pronounce the issue of the "origin of life from non-life" in the context of creation-evolution issue to thus be "explained". Thank you for wasting my time.
The problem is who created the creator? If life is so complex to not have a creator then how more complex the creator must be. Evolution and natural selection gives the illusion of design, it is not random chance( what many creationist believe evolution to be) but natural selection that creates this complexity.
We can observe and find a possible explanation for life with out a creator there is tons of evidence, evolution does not need a creator that's the problem (well for creationist it's a problem).
The problem is who created the creator? If life is so complex to not have a creator then how more complex the creator must be.
Perhaps you mean: The problem is who created the creator? If life is so complex to need a creator as the creationists reason, then how more complex the creator must be, and hense how much more they themself would need a creator according to the same reasoning.
Is this your claim?
and hense how much more they themself would need a creator according to the same reasoning.Is this your claim?
Evolution and natural selection explains the complexity, no need for a creator. We did not suddenly appear the way we are today, this is not evolution, it took billions of years combined with natural selection to achieve such complexity.
Evolution and natural selection explains the complexity, no need for a creator. We did not suddenly appear the way we are today, this is not evolution, it took billions of years combined with natural selection to achieve such complexity.
Who is claiming that the idea that we suddenly appeared "the way we are today" is evolution?
Who is claiming this is evolution?
Don't know but it seemed like you are referring to our complexity as an spontaneous event, it seems like it but I am probably mistaken
Perhaps you mean: The problem is who created the creator? If life is so complex to need a creator as the creationists reason, then how more complex the creator must be, and hense how much more they themself would need a creator according to the same reasoning.
Is this your claim?
You see why I might understand this? If you are referring to they as being the creationists who are complex life forms. Did I understand correctly or not, your question is not clear to me. Because the problem of complexity of humankind is answered by natural selection but the question of the complexity of god has not been answered by creationism.
I'll try to add some clarification on some common misunderstandings.
The creationist/ ID design argument is not that: "any type of complexity or intelligence in existence needed a designer". Which would of course logically require any complex or intelligent creator to themself have needed a creator.
But instead the argument is (for example): "The origin of complexity [complex systems composed of specified componet parts] from non-complexity requires, or is best explained as the result of intelligent design." Or "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" etc. There is no logical requirement in these arguments for the designer to themself also have an origin, (or even be composed of componet parts), hense no need according to the same argument for the designer to also have had a designer.
(The argument is then also supported by design theorists with specific scientific and observational evidence.)
Evolution and natural selection explains the complexity, no need for a creator.
For an in debth response to this claim see the books: "The Biotic Message" and "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome"
