@sonhouse saidI don't read Dive period, nothing to do with any topic here.
@KellyJay
So you didn't read Dive's link, sounds like.
If you read the link maybe you can come up with a valid scientific argument why it is not true which will run a lot better than 'no amount of time will make life from non life by random chance' kind of argument, especially since we as humans have had the possibility for looking at such things scientifically, what, a co ...[text shortened]... cause you know good and well there is no scientific argument that could in any way prove God did it.
@kellyjay saidMy condolences.
So sorry for your losses, I frigging hate death with a passion.
She passed 13 days past her first birthday. Before that, we discovered she had holes in the upper and lower chambers of her heart, and she was born without the value for the pulmonary artery so that artery was being fed by lots of other connections her heart had. It was so balanced it wasn't until her 2 weeks ...[text shortened]... was only a few blocks away she passed away. So that was one of the best and worse years of my life.
@sonhouse saidScience, asking for an answer from science, logical reasoning that suggests mindlessness is adequate for all the complex biological systems interactions in life.
@KellyJay
So you are not even trying to do an actual science argument which once again says this op should be in religion no science.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121528
@kellyjay saidDid you read the “answer from science” in the pubmed article which I’ve posted at least three times in reply to you, or are you going to continue to deliberate remain in the dark?
Science, asking for an answer from science, logical reasoning that suggests mindlessness is adequate for all the complex biological systems interactions in life.
@divegeester
I believe he typed this:
"I don't read Dive period, nothing to do with any topic here."
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121528
@sonhouse saidHe’s now pretending he didn’t read it because of some manufactured outrage against me, presumably due to me posting links he doesn’t like which challenge him to get his zealot head out of the dark-ages of his ass and realise that he doesn’t have to believe everything he’s been told in church in order to be loyal to Jesus Christ.
@KellyJay
So you didn't read Dive's link, sounds like.
As Indonesia Phil said on the previous page, it’s amusing watching him pretend is ignorance is all my fault.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121528
@sonhouse saidSee my post above.
@divegeester
I believe he typed this:
"I don't read Dive period, nothing to do with any topic here."
@sonhouse saidAll I'm asking for is a tiny bit of information, why is mindlessness, acceptable when it comes to all the specified functionally complex nature of life? Give me something other than your issues with the metaphysical, because none of them no matter how good they are is a positive reason for accepting mindlessness.
@KellyJay
So you are not even trying to do an actual science argument which once again says this op should be in religion no science.
@KellyJay
James Webb scope just found one of the molecules that act like a catalyst enabling more and more complex molecules and they can lead to what we call life, so that is a key finding.
Those molecules found are as mindless as you can get but it engenders quadrillions and quintillions of natural 'experiments' all by chance but it takes energy and probably water or ammonia to get things going.
@sonhouse saidThat is all good and fine but has nothing to do with mindlessness in putting together all of the material required for life, when and how it should be done. We can find all of the material on earth, but that doesn't put them together, for life. We have all the letters on our keyboards, but that doesn't mean a book written in perfect English can be done by random keystrokes, even if you have a galaxy full of eternal monkey's hitting the keys, each keystroke has to be followed by another then another in such a way meaning is found in the sequence.
@KellyJay
James Webb scope just found one of the molecules that act like a catalyst enabling more and more complex molecules and they can lead to what we call life, so that is a key finding.
Those molecules found are as mindless as you can get but it engenders quadrillions and quintillions of natural 'experiments' all by chance but it takes energy and probably water or ammonia to get things going.
@KellyJay
Getting closer though, here is one example of making life forms in the lab, not from scratch but we will see what happens with this kind of technique:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/03/[WORD TOO LONG].
@sonhouse
Well, don't think so.
They didn’t build that cell completely from scratch. Instead, they started with cells from a very simple type of bacteria called a mycoplasma.
They took what was already there and tweaked it and said, "created a single-celled synthetic organism" I think they overstated what they did.