[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>> Why would such a "philosophical prejudice" develop, in your view?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Because some place a greater value on their biases than on the truth.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Where would that bias come from in the first place?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> it would identify them to be fools   
   >>>>>>>>>for ignoring what empirical, real world science has   
   >>>>>>>>>>> *ALREADY* << established to be true!!   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Science has shown that mice don't spontaneously emerge   
   >>>>>>>> from bales of hay.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>We now know that biologic life comes -->only<-- from previously   
   >>>>>>>existing biologic life. There is no more debate; except today there   
   >>>>>>>are some fools who like to argue against what science has already   
   >>>>>>>determined.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I take it that to make your rule of thumb work you have to assume   
   >>>>>> that your god is alive.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>That was not the issue in this thread, but it hints as to the origin of   
   >>>>>your biases.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It's simple logic, Andrew.  If life *only* comes from life,   
   >>>   
   >>>That happens to be a "scientific fact" with no exceptions noted ever.   
   >>   
   >> God has not been observed creating life-- no exceptions ever.   
   >   
   >Many things humans have made that you never observed them making.   
   >   
   >But they exist.   
      
   First, why hasn't God been observed creating life?  What's he hiding   
   from us for?  Second, we have observed other humans and their   
   artifacts, while the same can't be said about God.  Third,  exceptions   
   to the rule (with no exceptions ever -- until exceptions are found)   
   are what drive scientific revolutions.  The same could be the   
   situation with abiogenesis.   
      
   >>>> (and life according to you) came from God, then God must be life.   See   
   it now?   
   >>>   
   >>>Oh, so that's your problem! That exposes the underling   
   >>>reason of_why_you are foolishly trying to fight against   
   >>>the truth.   
   >>   
   >> So God is not alive, then?   
   >>   
   >>>>>> So if he is, tell us whether or not this matches   
   >>>>>> up to what you claim to know about him:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> "Life, also known as biota, refers to matter that has biological   
   >>>>>> processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes. It is   
   >>>>>> defined descriptively by the capacity for homeostasis, organisation,   
   >>>>>> metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>ALL the above must be present for life to be. So where did   
   >>>>>it originate?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You're assuming half-alive creatures can't exist.  But those kind of   
   >>>> replicators almost certainly existed.   
   >>>   
   >>>They did and do exist --> in the fantasy world of fools.   
   >>   
   >> Are viruses part of a fantasy world?   
   >>   
   >>>>> When considering that question, this is the key   
   >>>>>point to remember.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>      "The key point to remember in abiogenesis research is:   
   >>>>>        There is no way in hell that proteins could have formed   
   >>>>>        by non-biological chemical processes...in terms of their   
   >>>>>        process of origin, they are churned out only by machines   
   >>>>>        in living cells that use the genetic code as part of their   
   >>>>>        production apparatus."   
   >>>>>                                                ~Vincent Maycock   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Sure, I'm an RNA-first kind of guy.   
   >>>   
   >>>In the real world, RNA comes only from   
   >>>DNA, which itself comes only from pre-   
   >>>existing DNA. You should have known   
   >>>that!   
   >>   
   >> You mean in the *present world,*  not   
   >> in the "real world."   
   >   
   >What happens in present world biology   
   >-IS- the "real world".   
      
   So environments can't change?  What's now is what always must have   
   been?   
      
   >>>A lone RNA molecule would have no   
   >>>function or purpose apart from  the code   
   >>>that it receives from DNA.   
   >>   
   >> No, its "purpose" would be to replicate.   
   >   
   >To replicate it must first have code. Which   
   >comes from DNA. So 'RNA world' without   
   >DNA doesn't work.   
      
   No, RNA looks like it might have been able to form without DNA in the   
   past, as well as serving as something much like a protein in its   
   behaviors.   
      
   >>>The RNA world hypothesis is in effect a   
   >>>*fantasy world* for fools who reject real   
   >>>world *science*.   
   >>   
   >> Why don't you share with us the "science"   
   >> found in saying "God did it"?   
   >   
   >"All of us who study the origin of life find   
   >  that the more we look into it, the more we   
   >  feel it is too complex to have evolved any   
   >  where."   
   >                      ~ Harold Urey   
      
   If you had read the rest of the quote, you would've found he just said   
   it's hard to imagine, not that it couldn't have actually occurred.   
      
   But let's say you have this hypothesis that God created life on earth.   
   How can we check, verify, or disprove that claim?  That, of course, is   
   how science works, after all.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)