Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9159 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 914,659 Year: 1,916/9,624 Month: 1,349/567 Week: 295/601 Day: 38/32 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could RNA start life?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 65 of 105 (724665)
04-19-2014 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Ed67
04-18-2014 9:51 AM


Re: Progress made in baby steps ...
"Could RNA start life without the assistance of an intelligent designer?
You'd have to show how it couldn't. For that we'd need to know more about the origin of RNA. It seems though, that every time this is done for other questions, it has never been concluded that a designer is needed.
So all your work is ahead of you. Good luck.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Ed67, posted 04-18-2014 9:51 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Ed67, posted 04-19-2014 11:58 AM onifre has replied
 Message 78 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:11 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 69 of 105 (724676)
04-19-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Ed67
04-19-2014 11:58 AM


Re: Progress made in baby steps ...
Science has to show how the DNA code sequences needed to build life COULD have originated by naturalistic means.
The goal is never to disprove god or supernatural means with every discovery.
But you could show without a doubt that it CAN NOT happen naturally by simply showing how it couldn't.
Because, simply saying science hasn't shown us how it happened naturally doesn't prove it HAD TO BE supernatural means.
The question is could RNA start life. Many here have shown how it could. You have presented NOTHING to show how it couldn't.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Ed67, posted 04-19-2014 11:58 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 73 of 105 (724814)
04-21-2014 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Ed67
04-20-2014 9:36 PM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
For the Biological research establishment to admit that, scientifically speaking, there is room in the origin of life for an intelligent designer, would require an admirable example of scientific self-criticism.
Not at all. All there would need to be is independent, objective evidence of a designer that we can then say may have played a role in designing life on Earth, and more than likely on other planets too.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Ed67, posted 04-20-2014 9:36 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 83 of 105 (725063)
04-23-2014 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Ed67
04-23-2014 9:06 AM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
The current research establishment is free to do real research based on Design Theory, it just chooses not to.
Why do you think that is though?
With the full resistance of the current establishment, ID has come a long way scientifically.
Why do you think there is resistance from the "current establishment"...?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:06 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 1:10 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 98 of 105 (725285)
04-25-2014 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Ed67
04-24-2014 1:10 PM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
is its commitment to methodological materialism.
You're just taking a wild guess at this or you know for sure that the entire world's scientist are commited to this methodology?
I would guess, at the very least, out spoken Christian scientist like Francis Collins, for example, aren't so commited to that methodology.
Also, are you proposing a design perspective that is composed of something other than physical materials? If so, you'll have a hard time separating intelligent design from religion and mythology. Which is why it has failed as a science.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 1:10 PM Ed67 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by NosyNed, posted 04-25-2014 12:47 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 101 of 105 (725374)
04-26-2014 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by NosyNed
04-25-2014 12:47 PM


Re: Naturalism
Collins will not be commited to philosophical naturalism but I am pretty sure h is a methodological naturalist for his science work.
Yeah, I meant to distinguish the two. My point was only that he is a man of faith and a scientist who isn't fully commited to naturalism in all aspects. But yes, I'm sure he is a methodological naturalist for his science work because, frankly, there is simply no other way to do science.
Anything else is witchcraft.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by NosyNed, posted 04-25-2014 12:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024