Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[rjh4 is back]

You love science only when it doesn't conflict with your religious beliefs. You scream bloody murder or chalk it off to metaphor when science doesn't agree with you.

I challenge you to provide evidence of any of that. You certainly won't find it in this thread. Just one more of your attempts at labeling me.

Fail!

---

Um...science that deals with things that happened in the past.

Examples? (please be specific as possible)

If you have something in mind...ask. Otherwise it is a BS question.

[Brian37]

Sure, you can ask other atheists here all sorts of questions, but when you are dealing with me, I don't like wading down the convoluted Yellow Brick Road, not yours, not any.

Its your road, Brian. You are the one making the nonsense claims regarding non-life to life without supporting it with anything more than statements that beg the question. I am just calling you on it and you don't like it.

Atoms are the result of the death of prior suns. If you cannot accept that, I cannot help you. 

You're right, I don't like it, but not for personal reasons. I think you are taking this personally, not me.

Yes, I do defend facts tooth and nail. No, not one bit sorry or afraid.

Now go spend some time debating science with Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists for a few years like I have then come back to me and claim you are so different and unique.

[rjh4 is back]

Atoms are the result of the death of prior suns. If you cannot accept that, I cannot help you. 

Your right, I don't like it, but not for personal reasons. I think you are taking this personally, not me.

Yes, I do defend facts tooth and nail. No, not one bit sorry or afraid.

Now go spend some time debating science with Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists for a few years like I have then come back to me and claim you are so different and unique.

Brian...I told you to take the atoms from the death of prior suns as a given. Whether I believe it or not, I conceded the point. So, go ahead and explain the life from non-life issue.

I can assure you Brian, I take none of this personally.

So far all I have seen from you is defending scenarios based on fact, not the facts themselves. Didn't you get the difference from my earlier post?

Look, Brian, my question regarding life from non-life is a relevant question even for an atheist (in other words my question would have just as much validity if I was an atheist). If your answer is you don't know, just admit it and we can move on. You can not know something and still be an atheist. Others that are here can, so you can too. But stop trying to make simplistic statements and assume you have covered it...because you haven't...and I think you know that.

[Brian37]

Let me clarify something here, because I think you are too lazy to understand what I am saying.

When I say the atoms in us come from the death of a prior sun to ours, I am speaking locally. Ultimately all the material in the universe came from the big bang. But as far as our sun and our solar system, a prior sun in our local side of our galaxy had to die and explode to create a massive gas cloud and dust to eventually have gravity pull material to lead to our sun, and then the other material leftover eventually revolved around our new sun beginning mainly as dust and tiny rocks and gravity also collected that material like a snowball rolling down a snow covered hill, then when those objects got big enough they started slamming into each other creating planets then other objects became moons. 

But the atoms in our sun, the atoms in every planet in our solar system and every atom on our planet came about because of the death of a prior sun to our sun.

[Mister Agenda]

As I explained before in this thread (that is not a criticism of you as I know you just jumped in) starting with a living organism and modifying it with man-made parts is far from beginning with just the chemicals and getting to life.

Is it so far that you don't feel you need to answer my question about how it would affect your opinion if they did?

Also, a hypothesis does not prove that life can come from non-life. And how do we know whether any natural mechanisms would possibly work if we cannot show that those mechanism actually happen (repeatability)?

It only proves that the statement 'there is no natural mechanism by which life can come from non-life' is unsupported. It's like if I told you that there's no way you could have driven to Columbia, SC this morning. You don't have to prove that you DID drive to Columbia, SC this morning to prove that you could have.

And if you're interested, spontaneous RNA synthesis in the lab based on conditions believed to have prevailed at the time of the earliest detectable signs of life:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/f...9.471.html

[rjh4 is back]

Let me clarify something here, because I think you are too lazy to understand what I am saying.

When I say the atoms in us come from the death of a prior sun to ours, I am speaking locally. Ultimately all the material in the universe came from the big bang. But as far as our sun and our solar system, a prior sun in our local side of our galaxy had to die and explode to create a massive gas cloud and dust to eventually have gravity pull material to lead to our sun, and then the other material leftover eventually revolved around our new sun beginning mainly as dust and tiny rocks and gravity also collected that material like a snowball rolling down a snow covered hill, then when those objects got big enough they started slamming into each other creating planets then other objects became moons. 

But the atoms in our sun, the atoms in every planet in our solar system and every atom on our planet came about because of the death of a prior sun to our sun.

You are wrong. I assumed that was the kind of thing you were talking about. Again, I will concede all of that.  Now provide your explanation of life from non-life.

[Brian37]

Atoms are the result of the death of prior suns. If you cannot accept that, I cannot help you. 

Your right, I don't like it, but not for personal reasons. I think you are taking this personally, not me.

Yes, I do defend facts tooth and nail. No, not one bit sorry or afraid.

Now go spend some time debating science with Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists for a few years like I have then come back to me and claim you are so different and unique.

Brian...I told you to take the atoms from the death of prior suns as a given. Whether I believe it or not, I conceded the point. So, go ahead and explain the life from non-life issue.

I can assure you Brian, I take none of this personally.

So far all I have seen from you is defending scenarios based on fact, not the facts themselves. Didn't you get the difference from my earlier post?

Look, Brian, my question regarding life from non-life is a relevant question even for an atheist (in other words my question would have just as much validity if I was an atheist). If your answer is you don't know, just admit it and we can move on. You can not know something and still be an atheist. Others that are here can, so you can too. But stop trying to make simplistic statements and assume you have covered it...because you haven't...and I think you know that.

I DID YOU IDIOT.

Carbon that makes up carbon based life as individual atoms also exists in non living objects, what separates non life from life are the arrangement of the atoms in that molecule. 

Now again your stupid dodge question is, "How did it go from non life to life"

ALLAH
YAHWEH
Bhrama 
Apollo
Yoda

Pick one, anyone of those would be a great gap answer on par with your gap answer.

The How isn't the question in the context of religion, not yours not any. The How will only be answered by science.

"Everything has to have a creator" is bullshit, because if that is the case the Thor creates lightening. Poseidon creates hurricanes.

OR 

The better bet as to why humans want a creator, isn't that a magic sky wizard exists, but those things are merely projections of human qualities in super hero form.

[rjh4 is back]

As I explained before in this thread (that is not a criticism of you as I know you just jumped in) starting with a living organism and modifying it with man-made parts is far from beginning with just the chemicals and getting to life.

Is it so far that you don't feel you need to answer my question about how it would affect your opinion if they did?

Also, a hypothesis does not prove that life can come from non-life. And how do we know whether any natural mechanisms would possibly work if we cannot show that those mechanism actually happen (repeatability)?

It only proves that the statement 'there is no natural mechanism by which life can come from non-life' is unsupported. It's like if I told you that there's no way you could have driven to Columbia, SC this morning. You don't have to prove that you DID drive to Columbia, SC this morning to prove that you could have.

And if you're interested, spontaneous RNA synthesis in the lab based on conditions believed to have prevailed at the time of the earliest detectable signs of life:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/f...9.471.html

I actually did include my answer which was: Beginning with something that is living and modifying it with manmade materials is far different from beginning with just chemicals and getting to life. I hope I answered the question you were asking.

Regarding part 2 from above, if I were to follow your reasoning, I could propose the hypothesis:

"Dirt particles colliding with other dirt particles produces life from non-life."

and that is enough to support the claim:

"There is a natural mechanism by which life can come from non-life."

That does not follow. Just because someone proposes a hypothesis regarding a particular mechanism does not mean that it is actually such a mechanism.

[Brian37]

The how does not have to be a magical factory boss.

From what we currently know, it would strongly suggest that the atoms that make up amino acids were in great abundance and in close enough proximity that the atoms as individuals automatically bonded not suddenly but slowly, and not one one DNA but many.

There was no first strand of DNA, just like there is no one cloud that creates a hurricane but several. And just like there is not one first raindrop in a hurricane but billions that drop at the same time.

With evolution, it isn't as quickly developing as a hurricane, but over 10s of thousands of years if enough of those atoms that make up amino acids are as single atoms close enough to each other they automatically bond.

Then when you have countless combos of molecules they start forming life.

You have been so deeply indoctrinated that sudden is the way it works because that is what your bible tells you with the bullshit Genesis story you cannot fathom a natural process not being caused by a magical cognition. Evolution does not need a magical cognition to happen, even though we dont know the exact day or year the process started.

[brewer]

Examples? (please be specific as possible)

If you have something in mind...ask. Otherwise it is a BS question.

Is it this?: https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-sci...s-science/