Religions > Atheism > What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"neo" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2006 01:16:52 PM |
| Object: |
What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
.
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 02:06:42 PM |
|
|
"On 4 Oct 2006 06:16:52 -0700, in article
<1159967812.061309.38350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, neo stated..."
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
There was not "only one target". There were *zero* targets.
But, let's play the game that you want.
Only one target out of billions of chemical reactions. Not very
likely that it would be hit.
But compare that with the "intelligent design alternative".
Intelligent design is not limited to just billions of chemical
reactions. With intelligent design there are far, far more
things than mere chemical reactions that can "hit the one
target". Intelligent design can do trillions, quadrillions,
googols, of different things. Maybe infinities.
How does intelligent design manage to hit that "one
target" out of the unlimited possibilities open to it?
Maybe somebody knows something about what
intelligent design can do, or would do, to bring that
down to just a few billion?
Without some information about what intelligent design
is not willing or not able to do, intelligent design is far,
far less likely.
Even less likely than the imaginary scenario of your
straw man version of science.
Interesting. A straw man is even more likely than
intelligent design.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"...works of Nature are not like the works of art which are made only by
progressing from one part to another ... unlike an artisan, Nature ... can
act on all of the parts at once just as well as on a single one ..."
Pierre Gassendi, De Generatione Animalium, Chapter III (1651)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 04:02:19 PM |
|
|
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> writes:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
Target competes with WallMart and KMart, and the fittest
survives, though there is some debate if they are actually
benign-seeming parasites.
If hit with a sudden large minimum wage law, raising the
cost per hour per employee by (say) $2, these dinosaurs
may be unable to adapt as quickly as numerous mom & pop
stores, and future generations might only marvel at the
massive empty shells that remind them of what survival
shopping was like in the early 21st century.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 07:32:30 PM |
|
|
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159967812.061309.38350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
That planet at the end of the universe on the left.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 02:08:48 PM |
|
|
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in news:1159967812.061309.38350
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
If there were other unrelated early forms of life, the most successful out
competed the others.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian.
-- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 05:15:49 PM |
|
|
Have look at http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Listermann" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 04:51:51 PM |
|
|
I heard an article about the SETI project that is starting to limit its
searches to solar systems that are capable of supporting life. They are
looking at systems with a single star that are old enough to have evolved
life and can support liquid water.
We don't know that "targets" are not being hit or that only one has ever
been either. We seem to have evidence that at least one hit. There may be
more. At this point any new "hits" would have to compete with a lot of life
to survive as opposed to any earlier hits. If this "target" thing is your
key to ID, you have a long row to *****.
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159967812.061309.38350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
05 Oct 2006 05:06:17 AM |
|
|
In article <1159967812.061309.38350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Why not?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 01:34:09 PM |
|
|
In article <1159967812.061309.38350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, neo
<MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
Rust.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 01:45:38 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 06:16:52 -0700, "neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Because this is your made-up story and that's the way you want to tell
it.
Are there any unicorns in this one? I like unicorns.
CT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 02:55:43 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 06:16:52 -0700, "neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Nobody ever says there was. It only took one "target" to survive.
David Raup's book "Extinctions" goes into this. I only takes one
"target" to reproduce to the point of viability. Nobody knows how many
others failed to reach that point.
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
There is no reason even to postulate design. It is an attempt to
rationalise a religious belief.
And of course, there is no such thing as a "Darwinist" - that is a
creationist canard.
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
This is a multiple straw man.
Or at least one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 03:04:45 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 06:16:52 -0700, in alt.atheism , "neo"
<MATREEX@gmail.com> in
<1159967812.061309.38350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
We have only the one present.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical |
04 Oct 2006 07:17:55 PM |
|
|
Rd ;!y9H-vRIqqOT'7+AXQ$qkK)F6as;G%5^c>Hl&5{: g?9%Xh]]z|_y]1PJ>K{|(&d[
X-EAC: Doesn't exist
X-Face: %,psls,yQk<=A5LT0<57$h_rLyv.=vI&~^Cz^{'y+;iN:nr(3GE7Rt[?muC:*w^AW>z<9
User-Agent: pan 0.115 (Mrs. Kerr Says Remember the Tip Jar)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <DNTUg.1621$NE6.1090@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.230.135.221
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com 1159989475 ST000 4.230.135.221 (Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:17:55 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:17:55 EDT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: [[PAPDCA[S@IRV@[ERKVOP\@ZJT@QDDMEPWXODMMHXMTWA]EPUUEAE[YETZPIWWI[FCIZA^NBFXZ_D[BFNTCNVPDTNTKHWXKB@X^B_OCJLPZ@ET_O[G\XSG@E\G[ZKVLBL^CJINM@I_KVIOR\T_M_AW_M[_BWU_HFA_]@A_A^SGFAUDE_DFTMQPFWVW[QPJN
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:17:55 GMT
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:16:52 -0700, neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
What the hell are you babbling about?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 02:24:00 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-10-04, neo <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
It's not hard to hit a target if you fire the arrow, see where
it hits, and then draw the bullseye around it.
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
Mark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: AQOTM Nomination |
04 Oct 2006 03:18:31 PM |
|
|
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
It's not hard to hit a target if you fire the arrow, see where
it hits, and then draw the bullseye around it.
(Mark VandeWettering in response to neo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Nomination |
04 Oct 2006 03:27:18 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 08:18:31 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
It's not hard to hit a target if you fire the arrow, see where
it hits, and then draw the bullseye around it.
(Mark VandeWettering in response to neo)
Seconded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Nomination |
06 Oct 2006 09:47:13 AM |
|
|
In article <9mk7i29r0s105jjhscdqlvcgf68tgdmuup@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 08:18:31 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
It's not hard to hit a target if you fire the arrow, see where
it hits, and then draw the bullseye around it.
(Mark VandeWettering in response to neo)
Seconded.
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dkomo" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 03:28:34 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
Who says life *was* a target for anything? Are you a teleologist?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 06:13:04 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
How about the entire universe. That's just one thing, but it contains
everything. And there was never any defined target, whatever you mean
by that. What you see around you is a result. You can bring in the
Anthropic Principle if you wish to, but you're making some big
assumptions to begin with.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scooter the Mighty" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 01:59:05 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
I don't get what you're saying. Chemical reactions occur when the
components are there and the conditions are right. Surely you're not
saying that life is the only chemical reaction we observe, that would
be stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TCE" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 01:45:32 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
Ice-cream cake?
No, no, wait... ESPN.
---
Strange
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 03:41:30 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
If you pour water in a hole, and then define the target as the shape
the water assumes when it is in the hole, is it any wonder that when
water is poure din the whole, it assumes the target shape?
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
| User: "neo" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 04:49:21 PM |
|
|
Lucifer wrote:
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
If you pour water in a hole, and then define the target as the shape
the water assumes when it is in the hole, is it any wonder that when
water is poure din the whole, it assumes the target shape?
..
You mean to say property or nature of water is to assume shape of body
in which it is held. Likewise property of matter(atoms, molecules) is
to form life. Hence there is no wonder.
But that is like saying that property or nature of arrow is to hit the
target.
Your example is wrong. Water is like life. Life can take any shape. But
I am asking why only life(water) was target? It could have produced
anything which can not be called life.
What it can be, this is the question.
We human beings do not think outside box of matter, life, god,
evolution, consciousness.
There might be something which makes all unanswered questions, like who
created god, irrelevent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 05:51:50 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 09:49:21 -0700, "neo" <MATREEX@gmail.com> wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
If you pour water in a hole, and then define the target as the shape
the water assumes when it is in the hole, is it any wonder that when
water is poure din the whole, it assumes the target shape?
.
You mean to say property or nature of water is to assume shape of body
in which it is held. Likewise property of matter(atoms, molecules) is
to form life. Hence there is no wonder.
But that is like saying that property or nature of arrow is to hit the
target.
No, doofus, that's like saying if you shoot billions of arrows in all
directions for billions of years you're bound to hit something.
Calling that something "the target" after the fact is just nonsense.
CT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 06:25:11 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
If you pour water in a hole, and then define the target as the shape
the water assumes when it is in the hole, is it any wonder that when
water is poure din the whole, it assumes the target shape?
.
You mean to say property or nature of water is to assume shape of body
in which it is held. Likewise property of matter(atoms, molecules) is
to form life. Hence there is no wonder.
But that is like saying that property or nature of arrow is to hit the
target.
Your example is wrong. Water is like life. Life can take any shape. But
I am asking why only life(water) was target? It could have produced
anything which can not be called life.
What it can be, this is the question.
We human beings do not think outside box of matter, life, god,
evolution, consciousness.
There might be something which makes all unanswered questions, like who
created god, irrelevent.
It's called mental masturbation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 01:47:01 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
If you're defining 'target' as the result of a chemical reaction then I
don't really think that anyone needs to give examples. If you have a
point then your overuse of metaphor isn't making it easy to understand
what that point is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 06:27:40 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
Life was not the target, it was just one of countless results of
chemical reactions. Other chemical reactions are explosions, rust,
amimo acids, hissing, farting, fizzing, frothing, implosions, power,
light...want more? You should go back and read the response from Mark
over and over until you understand what he is telling you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 03:08:09 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
To my knowledge so far only this special target (RNA) was investigated
closely and it was found a surprisingly large fraction of the possible
arrows would hit this target.
On the other hand, we can't tell for sure what other targets are
promising - some other possible targets were described but never more
closely investigated: Starting from other biomolecules (you'll need
carbon or silicon to build arbitrarily complex molecules and you'll
need water or methanol as a universal solvent) up to as abstract
possibilities as intelligend clouds of interstellar matter.
No, it's not at all likely this target we are representing is special -
it's just the one that was randomly selected.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 10:48:07 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
What do you mean? Do you suggest that besides life and non-life, there
could be something else?
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 07:48:47 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
try asking an honest question before expecting an answer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 07:49:58 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
try asking an honest question before expecting an answer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 02:59:03 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
Of course not. First of all, it's not clear that life is really one
target. We don't know whether life can only be formed more or less
exactly the way it was formed or whether there are some huge number of
fundamentally different ways to create life forms. Carbon may be the
only chemical that works or it may be possible to have life forms based
on almost any element. We have no idea.
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
We don't know whether or not there were others in the sense of whether
there were other different ways life could have been formed. Perhaps on
other planets, random chemical processes created other things that
could equally well be called 'targets'.
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
I think this argument is just the result of your strained metaphor. The
chemical reactions were trying to create life, they were just doing
what they did. You are the one calling the end result a "target" and
then wondering how we got there.
How does a rain drop manage to follow an incredibly complex path,
buffetted by thousands of tiny winds, and manage to hit the specific
exact point it manages to hit? It's not a problem unless you think you
knew where it was going to hit *before* it fell. Afterwards, it hit the
target because you called wherever it landed the "target".
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Or at least one.
Life forms based on silicon. Planets with no life at all.
Or perhaps carbon-based life much like appears on this planet is the
only way there can be life. In which case, there is only one 'target'.
Even if that's true, why is that a problem? Since we don't know that
that's true, it makes little sense to ask why it's true. If we ever do
discover that it's true, then we'll probably also know why.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: What else can originate except life by accidental chemical reaction? |
04 Oct 2006 02:12:41 PM |
|
|
neo wrote:
Is it so that there was only one target(life) and billions of
arrows(possible chemical reactions)?
We don't know. At the moment we have a sample size of one - one planet
on which all living things share certain basic characteristics which
strongly suggest a common origin.
It will be very interesting if we find life on other planetary bodies
in the solar system.
Somehow one arrow (chemical reaction) hit the target(life). OK.
There are no "targets".
But why was there only ONE target and not others?
Because the common ancestor of all living organisms was either the only
one to be created (by natural processes, I should add) on earth, or
that there were numerous different forms of living organisms which were
unable to compete with our ancestors.
We may find out in time
..
Or only one target was already designed to confuse Darwinists?
If Darwinists think other targets can exist, please mention few of
them.
Silicon-based life has been suggested, as have other forms of life
based on different combinations of proteins. There is research to
create artificial organisms which use peptide nucleic acid, or PNA
intead of DNA. (Alive! The race to create life from scratch; New
Scientist; 12 February 2005).
Or at least one.
There. I've given you several, and if you can access the New Scientist
article it mentions several more.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
