After my last reply to David, he replied with:
My friend, I am not asking for a high definition security camera. I’m asking for any security camera or even a finger print or a bit of hair.
Then I invite you to use google to find scientific literature about the subject of abiogenesis.
High definition would be 250,000,000 kinds of life.
Really? You still insist that 250 is a reasonable demand? Let’s see what you have to support this claim:
There are probably more than 250 kinds of life in the room with you right now. So when it comes to microscopic kinds of life, asking for 250 examples worldwide is a very small request.
Ok, so you don’t have anything to support this claim. Instead you just laid out the following attempt at an argument:
- There are probably more than 250 kinds of life in the room with you right now.
- So when it comes to microscopic kinds of life, asking for 250 examples of life less complex than a virus (that live today) worldwide is a very small request.
I say “attempt” at an argument because it isn’t actually an argument. The premise (1) isn’t even connected to the conclusion (2). It’s a total non-sequitur.
So you have failed to show that your demand is reasonable.
In addition, you have just provided me with more evidence that you don’t know how to think logically. And that talking to you is probably a waste of time.
Think. If a creature did not need to perform respiration or take in food, it would quite possibly be the most successful form of life on the planet.
Another non-sequitur. You haven’t shown there to be this relationship between not needing food or air and “success as a life form”.
Nature selection is all about what survives.
This is a bit of an odd statement. Usually when scientists speak about natural selection, it is about reproduction, not mere survival.
So a creature that does not compete for recourses [sic] should thrive;
“Survive” does not equal “thrive”. So, that’s another non-sequitur.
Also,nowhere in the premise (“Nature selection is all about what survives”) does it say anything at all about what effect competing for resources should have on thriving or surviving. So I guess this sentence contains two non-sequiturs!
why evolve any further?
Well, according to your own premise (“Nature selection is all about what survives”), the reason would be because a mutated form will still survive. So I can’t see any reason at all for you to ask this question.
They should be living in the air, in the water, even on the surface of your keyboard, but where are they?
For this to be a hypothesis you need examples of life to make a scientific argument.
I think I’ve already dealt with this.
However, you say that this is” red herrings” and that I should present an alternate hypothesis. Correct, so let me do so.
Good, let’s take a look.
As evidence against abiogenesis I give the complexity of the simplest forms of life that we have any evidence have ever existed. Every evolution website I have found makes no qualms about the evidence that such creatures could not have spontaneously formed without a simpler form of life (which I have asserted has not existed in any form we can see).
That wasn’t an alternate hypothesis.
The alternate hypothesis I give is that a being created life; a being who can exert an infinite amount of physical energy and has a creative ability far beyond what we can comprehend.
Why an infinite amount of physical energy? Why a creative ability far beyond what we can comprehend? Those features make your hypothesis a more extraordinary claim (thus requiring more extraordinary evidence than a finite amount of energy and a decent amount of creative ability). You’re shooting yourself in the foot here.
As evidence I give the perfect position of our solar system in our galaxy to support life, the perfect set up of every orbit in our solar system to support life, the prefect age of our sun to support life, the prefect tilt of the earth to support life, the perfect position of the moon to support life, the perfect composition for the magnetic field to support life, the perfect amount of salt in the sea to support life, the perfect composition of our atmosphere to support life and many, many other such perfectly created systems of our planet.
Well, if those things are perfect like you say, then those pieces of evidence support abiogenesis better than an intelligent designer. An intelligent creator could have made creatures which are capable of living in hostile worlds. Meanwhile, non intelligently created life could only ever live in conditions that are already suitable for such life.
All of these kinds of “fine tuning” arguments favor natural unintelligent causes. See Richard Carrier’s contributions to The End Of Christianity.
I give the complexity of life and the many systems within creatures which are reliant on other systems to work. Take out even one of the billions of complexities in the simplest creatures and everything else stops working. Such a complexity suggests that it was created in its entirety at once and not piece by piece.
Um, you haven’t presented any argument for this conclusion (“suggests that it was created in its entirety at once and not piece by piece”). Another non-sequitur. Are you even trying?
Also, taking out one “complexity” at random would be a fallacious test. You’d have to remove them in a very particular order (the reverse order of their evolution). But that’s not all. Evolution doesn’t just add things. It also removes things. So in this reverse evolution test you would also have to add lost pieces at the right time too.
Otherwise you aren’t testing the abiogenesis evolution hypothesis. So go do that, and get back to me (and get published in a mainstream science journal) when you find the step that is impossible to get past. Until then this particular argument of yours is garbage.
I give the very short amount of time that life can have existed on this plant because of the decay of the moon’s orbit, the changes in the salt levels of the sea and the breakdown of the magnetic field. Turn back the clock a couple millions years and this planet becomes a mars.
Oh dear. This is strange. It looks like you are claiming that life on earth is younger than a few million years old. If someone could show that your claims here are true, they could win huge recognition in the world. They’d get science awards and all sorts of things.
But, you are just a crank who posts your claims on youtube, safely hidden away from peer review.
“Evolution is exactly how such complexity can indeed occur” is a good statement, but where is the science to back this up?
Um, what information are you asking for? Evolution is: variation of offspring and selection. Some variations will be more complex. It’s that simple. I doubt you’ll find any science paper that bothers to demonstrate this simple and obvious truth.
[I just noticed a double standard here. I’m expected to provide science to back up things that are obviously true, and yet the very possibility of some your crank claims (A being that can wield infinite energy!) and the plausibility of others (A being of non-terrestrial origin made the first life! Life on earth is younger than a few million years old!) have no cite-able scientific support whatsoever.]
The evidence is in favor of a creative mind that built this planet for life and life for this planet.
No, you haven’t even supported this conclusion. You apparently don’t even know how to form an argument for this conclusion. You are a confused person.
Since you seem so incapable of rational thought, I don’t think I’ll waste my time reading or responding to any more of your writings.