> Good grief. I don't know what uninformed ID site
> you get this crap from.
> First, consider that replicating organic matter
> didn't start with a cell.
> 1. Consider that nucleic acids were replicating
> before cells and at some point probably produced a
> protein that segregated some of the replication.
Want to start at that level? Let's consider it. Here's the opening paragraph from a recent Harvard study on this:
"A prerequisite for constructing a protocell is supplying a mechanism for replicating the nucleic acids that fill structural, functional or informational roles. Two approaches under active investigation in our laboratory are the in vitro selection of ribozyme polymerases (replicases) and the non-enzymatic replication of nucleic acids using chemically-activated nucleotides. In both cases, the goal is a high-fidelity system for replicating essentially any nucleotide sequence."https://ccib.mgh.harvard.edu/szostak/self_replicating_na
I encourage you to read the entire abstract. Their goal is to create a framework to further their work that will ultimately be the product of intelligent intervention. They express no hope whatsoever that the end product of their research will locate a naturally-occurring method to achieve the results they seek. If they succeed, they may win some prize for their work. But it will be the work of a team of scientists manipulating elements and creating unique environments. Do you see the problem here?
Also, "probably produced" is not a level certainty that we would likely afford "evidence" status.
> There are plausible explanations for development
> of various pre-cell organelles that that would
> become more sophisticated if a polarized protein
> or the stereochemistry favors building the
> structure. This is no different than how one
> polarized cell can become an eye (we still see the
> primitive eye cells in some species). We have
> proteins like prions that are not alive and
> viruses that are only DNA. The line defining what
> is alive is blurry.
I understand well the way this information is packaged and promoted. Sadly, it is frequently offered in a very misleading way. If I can locate a reserve of steel ore in Pennsylvania, would you accept that as sufficient evidence that I can explain a natural process by which a Toyota Camry is assembled? Of course you wouldn't. But that's essentially what you're offering. You can locate various possible sources for elements that go into the creation of the first living cell, but that is as relevant as my discovery of iron ore.
There are a number of problems that have never even been approached in science. Information is at the center of many. We simply have no examples in any information we encounter where that information was not created, stored, transmitted or duplicated in the absence of some intelligent intervention.
> We don't have all the dots in the painting. We
> don't have all the answers but there is a hell of
> a lot more evidence than "God did it" and
> scientists are NOT going on faith.
I'm not forcing anyone into an either/or regarding God with this. What does need to occur is a stop to the dishonesty that isolates various minute elements of living matter then claims that a complex series of "maybe's, possibly's, perhaps, and if's" is an adequate explanation for something that no actual science has ever even come close to observing or duplicating. It's become an ideology, because there's no science to support it.
Every scientist that does as you have done here and suggest there is some reasonable, connect-the-dots path from where we are to actual living matter is either living in a fantasy world or exercising blind faith. There is simply no evidence that these dots can come together.
> You do not hold your religious views to nearly the
> standard you demand from scientists. At least
> scientists are forming their hypothesis based on
> evidence and not cherry picking evidence to fit a
> preconceived conclusion (god).
Perhaps you can tell me your understanding of my religious views so I can address your concerns? Lacking that, my main point is information. Show me how information is assembled, stored, transmitted, and duplicated in an entirely random manner, by some natural process, with no ultimate goal or direction, relying solely upon chance. May I please see some examples of this?
> 2. There is no reason to postulate supernatural
> claims just because people won't bother ruling out
> the most plausible explanations. There has never
> once been reproducible plausible proof of the
> supernatural, but there has been plenty of
> evidence of science eventually filling the gap.
"Plausible explanations" are going to be different for different people, and impacted by your personal biases.
By definition, the emergence of self-replicating life is supernatural. It's never been observed occurring naturally, and science is completely unable (even by intelligent intervention) to duplicate this phenomenon. There has never once been observed, modeled, or reasonably suggested based upon available evidence how this came to happen. At this point, it's not reasonable to suggest it happened naturally because there's no evidence to support that assertion.
> 3. Why be critical? Because they lack critical
> thinking skills and their views have not earned
I'm all for being critical. I'm deeply disappointed in the "positive atheists" who refuse to critically examine their own beliefs. Many atheists declare, "I don't believe in a god." and I have no specific argument with them. Positive Atheists make the assertion, "there is no god, and there is no supernatural" and that creates a new set of problems. They must embrace a purely natural source for everything, and deny all things supernatural. These are positions based upon faith, not science. This is why it's hypocritical for positive atheists to criticize the faith of a theist while refusing to address the faith they also embrace.
> There are introductory evolutionary biology
> textbooks that lay out the facts. I'm convinced
> you only read things that support your need for a
> god to be added. This does not solve anything.
> Where did God's power start from? Answer with the
> same standards you demand from science.
These books lay out a few facts and claim (as you have here) that "all is well" regarding the rest. Honestly, once you start looking at the missing information that they're encouraging you to assume, it all starts sounding uncomfortably like a presentation on the validity of Mormonism.
I urge you to do some more reading on this. You'll quickly discover there is a strong vein of ideology running through many scientific disciplines. They embrace things without any evidence whatsoever and encourage others to forgo typical scientific skepticism to embrace things that are entirely unproven.
If you come to believe in God, you can grapple with the source of his power. If you find some reasonable alternative for this amazing wealth of information that surrounds us, I'd like to hear it. I'd start by trying to find a single naturally occurring example of some batch of meaningful information that was able to spring into existence, be retained in a form of resident memory, be transmitted accurately, then be used as a blueprint to duplicate its source. Lacking that, I'm just asking for a bit more honestly and less propaganda in our science.