160d
@sonhouse saidChemical reactions are still chemical reactions nothing about that changes even with more volts you are still working with the same material, moreover not only are the issues he highlighted still standing, but you still don't have anything new that can explain the information processing required for life to form then replicate.
@KellyJay
The latest result is a rerun of the miller experiment but in the real world.
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/lightning-had-difficulty-forming-in-early-earths-atmosphere
These kind of experiments don't run a few thousand volts like Miller, MILLIONS of votes in the real world.
Data not available 30 years ago.
Those answers must be limited to chemical reactions only before life, which limits all answers to chemistry, not biology. So everything we see in life would have to be able to show up in something that could occur without scientist interference if you are going to suggest it is possible to happen without a mind.
159d
@KellyJay
So basically you won't believe ANY data suggesting there was a natural cause for first cells on Earth.
Not much more to say about that.
You don't even acknowledge he is 30 years behind present research.
I guess you also just don't believe in any scientific evidence for anything other than GODDIDIT.
159d
1 edit
@sonhouse saidWhat data do you look to that refutes what he said, please be specific. Show me what I am getting wrong here. You are basing this on data and not your opposition to God only right?
@KellyJay
So basically you won't believe ANY data suggesting there was a natural cause for first cells on Earth.
Not much more to say about that.
You don't even acknowledge he is 30 years behind present research.
I guess you also just don't believe in any scientific evidence for anything other than GODDIDIT.
159d
@KellyJay
He said all the data given by the miller experiment was false, would never lead to more complex molecules than was shown no matter how many times he ran that experiment but the latest work shows that was totally wrong, much more complex molecules found just from the energy of lightning.
Of COURSE you will never believe anything from THIS century because it doesn't support your GODDIDIT motif.
158d
@sonhouse saidIt is the information, molecular arrangements, not the molecules themselves that is important. We have lighting all over the world, but no lightening strike every built a infrastructure for information processing.
@KellyJay
It also sounds like you never listened to the new experiments analyzing the molecules produced by lightning, far more than ever was done in the Miller experiment.
158d
1 edit
@sonhouse saidI am not denying anything but merely pointing out to you that finding bits and pieces out what we know is necessary is nothing if they are not assembled properly in a timely fashion.
@KellyJay
So you deny the results of that experiment?
You have utterly failed in addressing the problem of chemical reactions going forward until the product ends with only trace amounts of required chemicals in the wrong form and quantities.
The point of the lecture you did not mention, as you only mentioned his belief in God while that was not the focus at all.
158d
1 edit
@sonhouse saidIt discussed chemistry and how it works which is the natural means that runs its course. With investigator intervention we still can not create life, so show how this is overcome. Show how chemical reactions can stop start naturally so life can be formed.
@KellyJay
The whole point of the talk was to convince people there could be no natural way for life to have gotten started even though the work done was 30 years behind present work on the subject. That is very clear.
158d
@sonhouse saidIn my responses I give my reasoning that I base my thinking on, I don’t start out with any point by saying God did it. Your rebuttal starts off with suggesting the only reason why anyone would think that is God did it.
@KellyJay
And in your mind, that ALWAYS means GODDITIT no matter what is learned in the future.
You avoid actually defending your position or giving any evidence to support your point of view outside of vague claims without presenting anything specific to the talk, which makes me doubt you actually watched it!
His talk was about chemistry you ignored the whole thing just by claiming movation bias without offering any reasons at all except for your worldview opposition to the possible ramifications.
So no specific scientific explanation or reason just opposition to God.