There's no point in discussing the nature of a designer (of life) if we don't have the slightest reason to believe that life was 'designed' in the first place.
This is the usual tactic of the Creationist, to present intentional design as a fact, a preset conclusion & then reason from there. But first you need to demonstrate why life could not have emerged from entirely natural processes!
I believe there are more reasons to believe in a designer than having informational direction found in life, then life got here without a plan, purpose, or design.
There's no point in discussing the nature of a designer (of life) if we don't have the slightest reason to believe that life was 'designed' in the first place.
This is the usual tactic of the Creationist, to present intentional design as a fact, a preset conclusion & then reason from there. But first you need to demonstrate why life could not have emerged from entirely natural processes!
I posted this earlier elsewhere, its long but loaded with Chemistry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xj4UH0RwcM
An explanation of how any natural system works needs to make sense at some level. Given the enormous lengths of time in which simpler molecules were able to join to make ever more complex ones, until eventually something that was capable of self-replication was formed, this isn't beyond the bounds of credibility.
Remember too that there're believed to be many other worlds in our Universe having liquid water & this same process would very likely have been taking place on many of those. So this isn't simply a question of calculating the odds of life emerging from a primal soup of complex molecules on just this planet, it's a question of it emerging on any one of possibly billions of similar ones!
Contrast that with idea that some deity created the first simple life but then apparently lost interest in this project for 1000,000,000 years before returning to complete the next stage of creating multi-celled life. Which is the more credible explanation?
An explanation of how any natural system works needs to make sense at some level. Given the enormous lengths of time in which simpler molecules were able to join to make ever more complex ones, until eventually something that was capable of self-replication was formed, this isn't beyond the bounds of credibility.
Remember too that there're believed to be many other worlds in our Universe having liquid water & this same process would very likely have been taking place on many of those. So this isn't simply a question of calculating the odds of life emerging from a primal soup of complex molecules on just this planet, it's a question of it emerging on any one of possibly billions of similar ones!
Contrast that with idea that some deity created the first simple life but then apparently lost interest in this project for 1000,000,000 years before returning to complete the next stage of creating multi-celled life. Which is the more credible explanation?
You still have not given me a reason, you talk about possibilities of events due to great lengths of time. You talk about possibilities for planets other than this one. How would you know what is more credible?
An explanation of how any natural system works needs to make sense at some level. Given the enormous lengths of time in which simpler molecules were able to join to make ever more complex ones, until eventually something that was capable of self-replication was formed, this isn't beyond the bounds of credibility.
Remember too that there're believed to be many other worlds in our Universe having liquid water & this same process would very likely have been taking place on many of those. So this isn't simply a question of calculating the odds of life emerging from a primal soup of complex molecules on just this planet, it's a question of it emerging on any one of possibly billions of similar ones!
Contrast that with idea that some deity created the first simple life but then apparently lost interest in this project for 1000,000,000 years before returning to complete the next stage of creating multi-celled life. Which is the more credible explanation?
You still have not given me a reason, you talk about possibilities of events due to great lengths of time. You talk about possibilities for planets other than this one. How would you know what is more credible?
I have repeatedly been asking for your reasons to believe that all the information and instructions in could be in DNA, and not have gotten there by the one thing we know produces that, a mind!
Billions of years ago statement sound very much like pointing to scripture and saying trust me, talking about possible other planets was no different.
We can look at what statistics say is probable when it comes a chance’s probably. At the moment, I am not even sure anyone even knows what supposedly would have had to transpire for abiogenesis to occur. Therefore how does anyone suggest one hypothesis is more credible than another?
"I have repeatedly been asking for your reasons to believe that all the information and instructions in could be in DNA, and not have gotten there by the one thing we know produces that, a mind!"
But that's what I've been attempting to do!
DNA is comprised of amino acids, arranged in certain configurations. But I haven't heard any biologist suggest that DNA came into existence spontaneously, rather that a considerably simpler form of life mutated & began to produce DNA like strands. This would have occurred over many millions of years & is a perfectly reasonable scenario. At least biologists don't seem to see any problem.
Do you have any grounds for asserting that such a process was & is impossible?
* My point about similar processes taking place on billions of other planets is an attempt to put the improbabilty of abiogenesis into some kind of context. Winning your country's national lottery three weeks running seems vanishingly improbable but if such lotteries are being repeated constantly, every day, for hundreds of millions of years & on billions of different planets?
"I have repeatedly been asking for your reasons to believe that all the information and instructions in could be in DNA, and not have gotten there by the one thing we know produces that, a mind!"
But that's what I've been attempting to do!
DNA is comprised of amino acids, arranged in certain configurations. But I haven't heard any biologist suggest that DNA came into existence spontaneously, rather that a considerably simpler form of life mutated & began to produce DNA like strands. This would have occurred over many millions of years & is a perfectly reasonable scenario. At least biologists don't seem to see any problem.
Do you have any grounds for asserting that such a process was & is impossible?
* My point about similar processes taking place on billions of other planets is an attempt to put the improbabilty of abiogenesis into some kind of context. Winning your country's national lottery three weeks running seems vanishingly improbable but if such lotteries are being repeated constantly, every day, for hundreds of millions of years & on billions of different planets?
Why would you be waiting for a biologist's opinion, they study life, you'd be better off with a Chemist as I have heard a Chemist say. If you were to accept abiogenesis is true, it would only be chemistry and physics; chemical reactions would have to cause life. Working backward from life to get what we think maybe accurate, could lead to circular reasoning.
Am I to assume you only have evidence that requires what could have, may have, possibly might of, occurred over millions or billions of years ago? You have anything in the here and now to present something other than a mind could put information in DNA? Trusting you or anyone knows what happen, millions or billions of years ago is not much to go on, in my opinion. Suggesting something could over come the statistical numbers against it, only because you assume some length of time isn't provable. For all you know, it ranks right up there with a bedtime story.
You are also assuming abiogenesis is possible! That is the debate, you are treating it as if it were a lock, all we have to do is keep inputting a variety of combinations, and at some time, the lock will open, life can happen. That line of reasoning presupposes quite a bit, none of which you know is factual. Your world view demands it, but the evidence, if it was millions or billions of years ago, is nowhere to be found now.
You seem to be big on what could be happening on other planets, or millions of years ago. Neither of those help you here and now.
As far as I know, neither biologists nor organic chemists see any great problem with life having begun in a primal soup, rich in complex organic molecules. The precise conditions under which this happened are not understood yet but no one is suggesting the process was impossible by chance alone.
And I only refer to processes probably taking place on a multitude of other planets to put the objection of improbability into better context. Some process that's a one in a billion chance event on one planet, if repeated on billions of other planets soon becomes quite credible.
But it needs to be stressed that the first living entity wasn't necessarily based on DNA, so this obsession you have with DNA being due to some mind in some way is neither here nor there.
We see the current result of the evolution of the first living form on earth, so it's entirely reasonable to conclude that life did emerge from a soup of organic molecules more than 3 billion years ago.
As an explanation of the myriad forms of life we actually see today & discover in the fossil record & what our study of DNA reveals, evolutionary theory is the most complete one. Nothing else comes close.
As far as I know, neither biologists nor organic chemists see any great problem with life having begun in a primal soup, rich in complex organic molecules. The precise conditions under which this happened are not understood yet but no one is suggesting the process was impossible by chance alone.
And I only refer to processes probably taking place on a multitude of other planets to put the objection of improbability into better context. Some process that's a one in a billion chance event on one planet, if repeated on billions of other planets soon becomes quite credible.
But it needs to be stressed that the first living entity wasn't necessarily based on DNA, so this obsession you have with DNA being due to some mind in some way is neither here nor there.
We see the current result of the evolution of the first living form on earth, so it's entirely reasonable to conclude that life did emerge from a soup of organic molecules more than 3 billion years ago.
As an explanation of the myriad forms of life we actually see today & discover in the fossil record & what our study of DNA reveals, evolutionary theory is the most complete one. Nothing else comes close.
What do you read that would make you think this is true? Can you give me something other than stories about the distant past? I've posted a link twice here now on a chemist talking about chemical reactions and how this is a real problem for abiogenesis. If you don't see the things he highlighted as a problem you are ignoring the issues.
One chemist? Out of how many in the world? I'm not aware that those working in the field of organic chemistry have a particular problem with the concept of abiogenesis.
It can't be repeated too often that we don't know the precise conditions under which the first organic non-self-replicating structure acquired the ability to reproduce itself. Just because it hasn't yet been achieved in a laboratory doesn't mean it's therefore impossible.
Like it or not, everything we know about life leads us to the conclusion that all life on earth has & had a common ancestor.
Just because we don't yet (if we ever will) understand some parts of the process involved in the emergence & diversification of life on earth, it doesn't mean that we're under an obligation to reach for a fantastic, made up, explanation.
One chemist? Out of how many in the world? I'm not aware that those working in the field of organic chemistry have a particular problem with the concept of abiogenesis.
It can't be repeated too often that we don't know the precise conditions under which the first organic non-self-replicating structure acquired the ability to reproduce itself. Just because it hasn't yet been achieved in a laboratory doesn't mean it's therefore impossible.
Like it or not, everything we know about life leads us to the conclusion that all life on earth has & had a common ancestor.
How many links from different people do you think you need to watch? It is the information in the link that is important, as it is in DNA, argue the points if you think he says something untrue, or not real chemistry.
One chemist? Out of how many in the world? I'm not aware that those working in the field of organic chemistry have a particular problem with the concept of abiogenesis.
It can't be repeated too often that we don't know the precise conditions under which the first organic non-self-replicating structure acquired the ability to reproduce itself. Just because it hasn't yet been achieved in a laboratory doesn't mean it's therefore impossible.
Like it or not, everything we know about life leads us to the conclusion that all life on earth has & had a common ancestor.
"It can't be repeated too often that we don't know the precise conditions under which the first organic non-self-replicating structure acquired the ability to reproduce itself. Just because it hasn't yet been achieved in a laboratory doesn't mean it's therefore impossible."
It should be noted that not knowing is no reason to accept it either, evidence for something is required, not we cannot prove it didn't happen, therefore it must have.
When we examine the development of life going back through time we notice that it becomes simpler & simpler, until eventually only single-celled creatures remain. These are usually those that live in large colonies in shallow coastal waters & similar colonies can still be found today.
What's the most reasonable conclusion to draw from this? That the earliest single-celled life itself emerged from some form of 'proto-life' by natural processes that we don't yet understand. At this point in our understanding there's nothing that tells us that this was impossible.
And there isn't the slightest reason to think that anything non-natural was involved in the process.
When we examine the development of life going back through time we notice that it becomes simpler & simpler, until eventually only single-celled creatures remain. These are usually those that live in large colonies in shallow coastal waters & similar colonies can still be found today.
What's the most reasonable conclusion to draw from this? That the earliest single-celled life itself emerged from some form of 'proto-life' by natural processes that we don't yet understand. At this point in our understanding there's nothing that tells us that this was impossible.
And there isn't the slightest reason to think that anything non-natural was involved in the process.
If the truth, according to you, is only found millions or billions of years ago, and it must be true only because of your worldview. If that is your most persuasive argument, it is circular.
We can only claim to know the truth of some matter when we're sure we know what's the fact of the matter. We don't yet know how exactly life emerged but we can make certain assumptions about it.
If I wake up one morning & find my back garden is soaking wet, it's reasonable for me to conclude that it rained during the night.
Perhaps one of my neighbours with an over-active imagination believes this was the result of alien activity, another, the action of angels sprinkling my garden with holy water.
I can't prove that these other explanations are false but that doesn't mean any reasonable person should think they're credible. It's about drawing the most reasonable conclusions about matters, given what we already know.
We can only claim to know the truth of some matter when we're sure we know what's the fact of the matter. We don't yet know how exactly life emerged but we can make certain assumptions about it.
If I wake up one morning & find my back garden is soaking wet, it's reasonable for me to conclude that it rained during the night.
Perhaps one of my neighbours with an over-active imagination believes this was the result of alien activity, another, the action of angels sprinkling my garden with holy water.
I can't prove that these other explanations are false but that doesn't mean any reasonable person should think they're credible. It's about drawing the most reasonable conclusions about matters, given what we already know.
When you are for sure something is a fact, that is actually a bias. What you think is a factual yet isn't can put you in the place of avoiding everything that shows your bias is not as factual. It is odd that when you are confronted with someone who disagrees with your worldview you have no issues pointing out their "beliefs about what they think is factual" yet not when you do it.
If my beliefs cannot stand up to beliefs counter to mine I should change them. Avoiding those disagreements is a sign of weakness, iron sharpens iron, and vigorous debate should take place when disagreements occur. Sticking one's head in the sand and yelling bias, bias isn't that like throwing rocks in glass house?
Would endless time matter in having abiogenesis occur if all of the conditions required were not setup correctly? A small handful would be the conditions the size and distance of a planet from its sun, the planet's axis, and rotation, along with the atmosphere? Some of the other not so minor details, having all the proper chemicals in one place going through the appropriate chemical reactions towards life and not anything else! All of this, of course, only done in a stable environment that could cause life to thrive and survive over time. The only time a chance for life to occur could happen would be if all the variables were appropriately met; if not, more time is meaningless; it would add nothing to the window of opportunities.
The complexity of life is so great the mind that could design it would have to be incredibly powerful. Now we are in time, we have a past, present, and future (hopefully) and all we do is in this little sliver of time we call now. Now is so small it's leading edge, and its trailing edge occupies the same place. If we see things that present to us a chicken or egg issue in life's beginning, wouldn't the designer have to be outside of our time limitations? This designer would also not only have to incredibly intelligent but not be bound to time as we are! Since some requirements have several things being true at once, while we cannot have one without the other, that could only happen with someone outside of our time limitations doing the work?
Just a thought.