Science debunks Abiogenesis.

[WinterBorn]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

 

[RWNJ]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it. Also, did you know that the information to create proteins is encoded in our DNA? Why is that important? Because DNA cannot exist without those same proteins that are necessary to ensure that DNA copies itself correctly, and corrects any errors. It is a complex system that could not have evolved on it's own. One of those catch 22's that atheists like to ignore.

 

[WinterBorn]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it. Also, did you know that the information to create proteins is encoded in our DNA? Why is that important? Because DNA cannot exist without those same proteins that are necessary to ensure that DNA copies itself correctly, and corrects any errors. It is a complex system that could not have evolved on it's own. One of those catch 22's that atheists like to ignore.

It certainly could have evolved. From simpler systems to the more complex. I am quite well versed in genetics, as well as biology. Your theory only works if you assume that every single cell life form that ever existed is in the fossil record. There is no way to make that claim honestly.

Complexity, without knowing what life forms preceded it, does not automatically mean intelligent design. Which is why my first post on this thread made the point that your OP and thread title are wrong. Science did not debunk anything.

 

[Syriusly]

The problem is that something like the origins of life and the universe cannot be experimented on, since they happened in the past. Science cannot answer these questions, and they never will. That's why they make stuff up.

Science cannot prove with empirical certitude how life rose, but it can make informed guesses.

And that is different than just making things up.

That's what an informed guess is. It means they don't know. They have no way of knowing. So they make stuff up.

They take what they do know, and form intelligent, informed guesses.

The entire premise of "It is too complex" is not debunking anything. Its like that nonsense about the human eye being too complicated to have evolved. You actually have to ignore science for that idea to work.

Do you know anything about information theory, and how it applies to living systems? DNA contains something called complex specified information. This is something that observation shows comes only from intelligent minds. Since DNA contains such information, it requires intelligence in order to exist. Nature is not capable of creating it.

So science hasn't debunked abiogenesis.

 

[Syriusly]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. .

Still waiting to see that science debunking abiogenesis.

 

[WinterBorn]

One thing to remember is the extreme lengths of time we are talking about. The earth was formed around 4.5 billion years ago. The earliest life forms we have reliably dated showed up around 3.5 billion years ago. So roughly 1 billion years elapsed between the earth's formation and the fossil record containing life. The dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago until 63 million years ago. With that kind of scale of time, and planetary conditions we have never experienced, to completely dismiss abiogenesis as impossible is most unscientific.

 

[RWNJ]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. .

Still waiting to see that science debunking abiogenesis.

Then read the article. I bet you didn't even glance at it. Read it, then get back to me. Until you do, your opinion means nothing. How about trying to refute something from the article? I bet you can't do it.

 

[RWNJ]

One thing to remember is the extreme lengths of time we are talking about. The earth was formed around 4.5 billion years ago. The earliest life forms we have reliably dated showed up around 3.5 billion years ago. So roughly 1 billion years elapsed between the earth's formation and the fossil record containing life. The dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago until 63 million years ago. With that kind of scale of time, and planetary conditions we have never experienced, to completely dismiss abiogenesis as impossible is most unscientific.

Science doesn't even have a plausible explanation, let alone a valid theory, for how it might have happened. No matter how hard they try, they haven't got a clue. Real science says it's highly improbable, if not impossible. Remember what I said about information theory? Nature is not capable of creating the information content of DNA. DNA is a high level language. It works just like a computer. It accepts input and produces output based on it's programming. It controls every one of the thousands and thousands of processes of the cell. Now, do you have an explanation for how this could happened without intelligent design? Didn't think so.

 

[WinterBorn]

One thing to remember is the extreme lengths of time we are talking about. The earth was formed around 4.5 billion years ago. The earliest life forms we have reliably dated showed up around 3.5 billion years ago. So roughly 1 billion years elapsed between the earth's formation and the fossil record containing life. The dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago until 63 million years ago. With that kind of scale of time, and planetary conditions we have never experienced, to completely dismiss abiogenesis as impossible is most unscientific.

Science doesn't even have a plausible explanation, let alone a valid theory, for how it might have happened. No matter how hard they try, they haven't got a clue. Real science says it's highly improbable, if not impossible. Remember what I said about information theory? Nature is not capable of creating the information content of DNA. DNA is a high level language. It works just like a computer. It accepts input and produces output based on it's programming. It controls every one of the thousands and thousands of processes of the cell. Now, do you have an explanation for how this could happened without intelligent design? Didn't think so.

Complex DNA does all of that. Simpler DNA does less. And since there is no fossil record of examinable DNA, you have absolutely no way of knowing what the structure of the earliest life forms would be.

 

[WinterBorn]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. .

Still waiting to see that science debunking abiogenesis.

Then read the article. I bet you didn't even glance at it. Read it, then get back to me. Until you do, your opinion means nothing. How about trying to refute something from the article? I bet you can't do it.

The article centers on how unlikely it would be for all the right ingredients and circumstances to be present to form the original life forms. That is NOT scientific debunking of anything.

 

[Syriusly]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. .

Still waiting to see that science debunking abiogenesis.

Then read the article. I bet you didn't even glance at it. Read it, then get back to me. Until you do, your opinion means nothing. How about trying to refute something from the article? I bet you can't do it.

Here is what you said- referring to 'science'
If they cannot do repeatable experiments on something, it's nothing but a WAG.

The article you cite is an opinion- and does not list any repeatable experiments to disprove abiogenesis.

That is your fundamental hypocrisy- you don't apply the same standard you claim is being applied to science.

Abiogenesis is a theory- it isn't proven by science- nor is it disproven by science.

Your thread is a lie.

 

[RWNJ]

One thing to remember is the extreme lengths of time we are talking about. The earth was formed around 4.5 billion years ago. The earliest life forms we have reliably dated showed up around 3.5 billion years ago. So roughly 1 billion years elapsed between the earth's formation and the fossil record containing life. The dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago until 63 million years ago. With that kind of scale of time, and planetary conditions we have never experienced, to completely dismiss abiogenesis as impossible is most unscientific.

Science doesn't even have a plausible explanation, let alone a valid theory, for how it might have happened. No matter how hard they try, they haven't got a clue. Real science says it's highly improbable, if not impossible. Remember what I said about information theory? Nature is not capable of creating the information content of DNA. DNA is a high level language. It works just like a computer. It accepts input and produces output based on it's programming. It controls every one of the thousands and thousands of processes of the cell. Now, do you have an explanation for how this could happened without intelligent design? Didn't think so.

Complex DNA does all of that. Simpler DNA does less. And since there is no fossil record of examinable DNA, you have absolutely no way of knowing what the structure of the earliest life forms would be.

Are you listening to anything I say. I believe that I've mentioned information theory and how it applies to DNA. There is no natural process that can create the information content of DNA. None. And believe me, scientists have looked long and hard. Also, you must not have a firm grasp of just how complex even the simplest life is. I'm also wondering if you, or anyone has actually read the article I posted. It gave valid scientific reasons why life could not possibly have evolved the way some scientists say it did. And not one person has referenced the article, nor have they tried to refute anything it said. That alone tells me no one has read it. So, unless someone wants to actually discuss what was in the article, I'm simply going to ignore you. Have a nice day.

 

[RWNJ]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. .

Still waiting to see that science debunking abiogenesis.

Then read the article. I bet you didn't even glance at it. Read it, then get back to me. Until you do, your opinion means nothing. How about trying to refute something from the article? I bet you can't do it.

The article centers on how unlikely it would be for all the right ingredients and circumstances to be present to form the original life forms. That is NOT scientific debunking of anything.

Read it again. It didn't say unlikely. It said impossible. There is also the problem of Chirality to consider. DNA and proteins must be composed of either left handed or right handed amino acids. No exceptions. In order for life to exist by natural processes, you must believe that tens of thousands of amino acids of the right handedness just happened to self assemble into DNA. A statistical impossibility. You go right on believing that. LOL!

 

[RWNJ]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. .

Still waiting to see that science debunking abiogenesis.

Then read the article. I bet you didn't even glance at it. Read it, then get back to me. Until you do, your opinion means nothing. How about trying to refute something from the article? I bet you can't do it.

Here is what you said- referring to 'science'
If they cannot do repeatable experiments on something, it's nothing but a WAG.

The article you cite is an opinion- and does not list any repeatable experiments to disprove abiogenesis.

That is your fundamental hypocrisy- you don't apply the same standard you claim is being applied to science.

Abiogenesis is a theory- it isn't proven by science- nor is it disproven by science.

Your thread is a lie.

Everything mentioned in that article is based on accepted science. And I ask again. Have you even read it? You haven't referenced it once. Can you refute anything it says?

 

[WinterBorn]

And you continue to ignore my points that there is no way to know how many life forms rose and were lost in the hundreds of millions of years.

 

[RWNJ]

And you continue to ignore my points that there is no way to know how many life forms rose and were lost in the hundreds of millions of years.

I ignored it because it is nothing more than an attempt to deflect the conversation. I might respond to you, if you had the guts to try to refute anything in the article. No one seems to want to do that for some strange reason. Would you like to be the first? Give us a quote from the article, then tell us why it's wrong. Can you do that? Can anyone do that? Sheesh!

 

[Hollie]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it. Also, did you know that the information to create proteins is encoded in our DNA? Why is that important? Because DNA cannot exist without those same proteins that are necessary to ensure that DNA copies itself correctly, and corrects any errors. It is a complex system that could not have evolved on it's own. One of those catch 22's that atheists like to ignore.

"complex specified information"

Oh my. A William Dembski groupie.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for William Dembski

 

[Hollie]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it. Also, did you know that the information to create proteins is encoded in our DNA? Why is that important? Because DNA cannot exist without those same proteins that are necessary to ensure that DNA copies itself correctly, and corrects any errors. It is a complex system that could not have evolved on it's own. One of those catch 22's that atheists like to ignore.

"... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."

... because I say so!

 

[RWNJ]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it. Also, did you know that the information to create proteins is encoded in our DNA? Why is that important? Because DNA cannot exist without those same proteins that are necessary to ensure that DNA copies itself correctly, and corrects any errors. It is a complex system that could not have evolved on it's own. One of those catch 22's that atheists like to ignore.

"... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."

... because I say so!

No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so. Or do you know of an example of such a thing actually being observed to happen? Didn't think so. Care to try again? And I'm still waiting for someone to try refuting anything from the article I posted. My guess is that you can't. Would you care to try?

 

[Hollie]

I did not ask if all life has DNA. I asked if they all contained the complex DNA They do not. Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue. The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it. Also, did you know that the information to create proteins is encoded in our DNA? Why is that important? Because DNA cannot exist without those same proteins that are necessary to ensure that DNA copies itself correctly, and corrects any errors. It is a complex system that could not have evolved on it's own. One of those catch 22's that atheists like to ignore.

"... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."

... because I say so!

No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so. Or do you know of an example of such a thing actually being observed to happen? Didn't think so. Care to try again? And I'm still waiting for someone to try refuting anything from the article I posted. My guess is that you can't. Would you care to try?

"No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."

... because I say so.

It's getting old, Bunky.

I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line

CI110: Complex Specified Information indicates design.