Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[Brian37]

I have to say, this response tempts me to lower my estimation of you. You can't possibly be so dim as to think that's a scientific hypothesis and still spell as well as you do. That means you're disingenuously presenting a strawman version of my position, which I don't think is too hard for someone with a high school education to grasp correctly.

The extant hypotheses on abiogenesis are thoroughly grounded in what is known of organic chemistry,  biochemistry and conditions present during the era in which the earliest signs of life are detected. WTF is your 'dirt particles collide' based on besides a combined strawman and appeal to ridicule?


When you claim there is no natural mechanism, it's a claim of knowledge or certainty that such a mechanism does not exist. All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism, and then it becomes clear that you have no way to know that there is no such mechanism, or your certainty is unjustified, and you're speaking ex rectum.

If I say there's no way you could have driven to Columbia, SC this morning; you don't have to prove that you actually drove to Columbia, SC this morning to refute me; all you have to do is show that there IS a way you could have done it, because my claim was that there isn't such a way.

If you're being forthright, I don't see why this concept would be so hard for you.

I was trying to show you how the logic didn't seem to flow for me and maybe I was focusing on the wrong part of your position. Of course I was just making something up as the hypothesis. But my point was that some, if not all, proposed hypotheses on this subject, may be wrong. (I was just picking a ridiculous one that all would agree was wrong.) How can a claim that there is no natural mechanism be unsupported based on hypotheses that are wrong or even potentially wrong?

Let me explain it this way:

You say: "When you claim there is no natural mechanism...All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism". Given any of those "possible" natural mechanisms, would it not be fair of me to then say: "Prove that the natural mechanism can produce life from non-life, and until you do my claim stands"?

As I said above, if somebody actually produced life from non-life in the lab, I would agree that my claim would then be unsupported.

Close proximity of individual atoms that by themselves are not a living thing, but because they bond like magnets exchanging electrons, that makes it very easy to go from non life to life. There is no magic factory boss needed as a cause anymore than Thor is needed to explain the cause of lightening.

What you are mentally stuck on is pace, evolution didn't start in a blink of an eye. And you are still ignoring that there is very deadly life also made up of DNA such as bacteria and viruses.

But here is the stupid part of your argument in this post, even when we link to the man made lab amino acids, you will stupidly shout, "SEE SEE SEE EVERYTHING DOES HAVE A CREATOR".

Then go on to ignore it when we say, "That is bullshit, but even if we pretend, you are still stick with WHICH ONE"

Again, we are sorry someone in your past convinced you an old book of mythology explains why we are here. We are also sorry that someone successfully sold you that crap with junk science. But again, that is your baggage, not ours.

We promise if you figure out you got it wrong, nobody will smite or smote you or burn you in a fictional hell.