« No Webcast Tuesday | Main | Who Would God Discriminate Against? »

November 06, 2013

Comments

Of course Mind can create.

I read a good article on Venter's work a few years ago arguing a similar point: http://a-short-saying.blogspot.com/2010/07/synthetic-life-and-delicacy-of-life.html

The likelihood of keeping the error rate low enough without intelligent manipulation is extremely low. A purely material evolutionary process would be more likely to produce an error rate that made life impossible.

1) What is the 'likelihood of keeping the error rate low enough without intelligent manipulation'?

2) How likely 'would a purely material evolutionary process be to produce an error rate that would make life possible'?

In both cases, I am asking for a probability - a number.

If you don't have both such a number and calculations* to back it up, then what should you do?

RonH

*(based on valid assumptions)

Michael Medved asks Dr. Paul Nelson: Do rocks evolve?

A Mind fashioning either a cell or some cell-like something gives the naturalist no reason to believe in his magical and spooky spontaneous biogenesis.

Contingent.

Every bit of it.


scblhrm,

Suppose we proved that we COULDN'T fashion a cell.

Would that be evidence against abiogenesis?


RonH

"Suppose we proved that we COULDN'T fashion a cell..."

How would you prove that?

TC,

I have no idea but it doesn't matter.

It's hypothetical.

There was a time when most would have said we could never create life in a lab.

Why did the think that?

Now we expect it to happen.

Why the change?

RonH

Of course Mind can create life.

That's always been known.

Atheists use to think otherwise.....

Venter hasn't "created" anything. He took existing DNA, edited it, and inserted it into a previously existing organism. To say he "created" life is giving way too much credit.

Yes but atheism assumes that "contingency" is non-entity in this arena. Amino acids + a highly complex set of Mentations via Hand = a string of amino acids. Or, what John P eluded to, and so on.

You have to account for the fact that they consider "that" as evidence, somehow, for a kind of mindless spontaneous biogenesis.


Of course, a string of DNA is not self-replicating. It too is contingent.

It takes a village, there inside those lipid bilayer city walls.

Short of a Mind and its village, we'll never see it on the bench top.

But we will see Mind & Citizens of that Village in an array of permutations presented as it is here by atheists.

That's okay. It's proof of Genesis 1:1 ~~


RonH

"I have no idea but it doesn't matter.

It's hypothetical."

That's called building castles in the air.

The comments to this entry are closed.