Turns out Random is Better (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 22, 2010, 23:05 (5386 days ago) @ David Turell


> > > > Only if scientists were able to prove through experiments that the components really could assemble themselves spontaneously (though "experiments" and "spontaneity" sound like a contradiction in terms), would materialists have a positive case. Otherwise, it's one faith versus another. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Even if scientists develop a way to produce life directly from inorganic material, it does not prove that this is the way it originally happened. It may be a parallel method. It only proves that human intelligence can produce life.
> > > 
> > 
> > So in other words, even if they manage to demonstrate that such systems were around some 4 billion years ago, it still couldn't be chance? I would say that at some point we'd have to let intelligence go as a cause. At what point would that be David, at what point would you be willing to set aside a designer?
> 
> I'd have to see a preponderance of proof that chance can accomplish it. 
> > 
> > It took intelligence and great ingenuity for man to be able to create lightning, but does that still mean that lightning requires a mind to happen naturally?
> 
> Lightning is simple stuff. Bad example.
> 
> Again, you misunderstand the point: we weren't there when life began. We can never relive it. Any production of life from inorganic matter by human intelligence is a method invented by human intelligence. It may not match the original method at all, or it might, but we can never know if it does. All that will be proven is intelligence, given the material at hand can create living matter. And remember starting with building blocks from living matter does not count. Currently science is working backward, the only way it can, but there are no guideposts. Did you read the quote I gave from Shapiro? He thinks most scientists in the field are on the worng track.-And his quote underlines the fact that it is a damn shame that it isn't a question that attracts more brilliant minds, whether or not it recreates the process or not.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"