Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 21 2011,16:39)|
|Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 21 2011,16:02)|
|Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.|
Whatever little we know has to be compared against what they are claiming to know.
For example. This website: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai........program
is full of information, actual work people have done.
Ask the people who are claiming to have the answers if they have anything comparable to that single site? If not, it's not on the basis of evidence that they hold their position as some evidence is better then no evidence at all. And no support is exactly what they've got, apart from their claimed insufficiency of their straw-man of evolution.
Stop engaging with their attempts to pick holes and ask them to provide their explanation that, by definition, must have better explanatory power otherwise why are they not just accepting your viewpoint? :)
But there will probably be no "this is how life started" moment, so if they want that they can have it. But to win they need to prove it could not have happened, and that's not possible. All that's needed is a plausible pathway.
And what do they care anyway, they already know what happened! Make them say it!
I will say there is tons of research on the subject and nothing, so far, says that anything is impossible.
On the other hand, it does not have anything to do with evolution and is a completely different matter.
I have to agree. Make them say what caused it.
You can always play this game with them too.
"OK, you win, evolution is total bunk. What replaces it? What research can be done in the area? What tools, products, and processes might come from it?"
And don't get sucked into the "anthropology, forensic science and SETI are based on ID" discussion. They aren't.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.