Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[rjh4 is back]

So Minimalist provides this article stating that scientists have found a sugar molecule and methyl isocyanate in a distant star system and that this is a clue as to how life formed and nobody here thought to push back at this at all??? Amazing!!

Welcome back, rjh4. You think those molecules weren't discovered or you think those molecules are irrelevant to the origin of life?

Maybe the following question would be appropriate:

Given that sugars and methyl isocyanate already exist here on earth and still no scientist that I know of has come up with a natrualistic mechanism for forming life from non-life, how does finding these materials in a distant star system provide any more clues to how life formed than anything that we already know?

Really? There doesn't seem to be a shortage of naturalistic mechanisms for forming life from non-life, just of evidence that conclusively points to a particular one being correct. Maybe knowing something about the prevalence of simple sugars and methyl isocyanate elsewhere in the galaxy will help point us in the right direction.

Or maybe simply:

Scientists have found a sugar molecule and methyl isocyanate in a distant star system...so what?

Figuring out 'so what' is kind of the job description of science and scientists.

Perhaps no atheists wanted to push back as doing so might highlight the lack of any known naturalistic mechanism for forming life from non-life????

Can't speak for atheists in general, but perhaps the atheists on this thread weren't so ignorant as to think there are no plausible naturalistic mechanisms for forming life from non-life, given that it only takes a little keeping up with current science to be aware of what's being done in the field of abiogenesis. It's still hypothetical, but it's very inaccurate to say there's no known naturalists mechanism for the origin of life.

C'mon, Minimalist, explain the significance of the finding such that any story whatsoever would be needed from a creationist or anyone else.

Have at it guys!!

You've done an outstanding job of confirming Min's point, like he pressed your 'on button' or something.

Thanks for your response Mister Agenda. I appreciate your response. I kind of came to most of your same conclusions last night.  See my post just a few up from this one.

Could you provide more explanation as to what you mean by:

"Can't speak for atheists in general, but perhaps the atheists on this thread weren't so ignorant as to think there are no plausible naturalistic mechanisms for forming life from non-life, given that it only takes a little keeping up with current science to be aware of what's being done in the field of abiogenesis. It's still hypothetical, but it's very inaccurate to say there's no known naturalists mechanism for the origin of life."

It seems to me the "It's still hypothetical" is inconsistent with "but it's very inaccurate to say there's no known naturalists mechanism for the origin of life."

As far as I know, scientists still cannot begin with non-living matter so as to produce life. If they cannot do it in a controlled lab, why is it plausible that it would happen in nature?