I didn’t move anything. The designer I have in mind didn’t create himself.
Then your designer did not originate life, unless the designer is non-living. The origin of life is simultaneous with the origin of the (living) designer.
Now you are claiming I am moving the goalposts?
You are. You started out talking about the origin of life. You switched to the origin of a species. Those are different things.
No I didn’t and irrelevant.
It is irrelevant to your original question about the origin of life. It is not irrelevant to your shifted question about the origin of a species.
If I remember correctly from online sources, the book starting point was that life already existed and it then tries to demonstrate how differentiation of species may have happened. The book doesn’t show how life originates.
Correct. which is why I said you were moving the goalposts when you switched from the origin of life to the origin of a species. They are different questions, with different answers. That is why scientists call one “abiogenesis” and the other “evolution”.
Furthermore, it can not explain the Cambrian Explosion which more or less destroyed this hypothesis.
Some creationist websites lie about the significance of the Cambrian Explosion. Life existed before the Cambrian Explosion, which took about ten milllion years, and life existed in more variations after the explosion. That is not a problam for evolution.
The Many Worlds Hypothesis(MWH) is just another desperate attempt to increase the probability pool when the Single World odds for fine tuning for intelligent life became so terribly remote.
The MWH has some supporting evidence. Fine tuning is a silly argument since we have so little data to go on, 99.99999% of the universe is unsuitable for life and we know that life adapts to its environment or goes extinct. Hence any surviving life will be adapted to its environment.
I don’t need to. You were trying to explain how lifeless elements became life and how things came into existence. Not me. It is futile to get me off track!
Vitalism was shown to be spurious in the 19th century. Salt is “lifeless elements”, yet salt is incorporated into living organisms. There is no difference between the salt in our bodies and the salt in mines or in the sea.
1)No laws of nature can produce life out of inanimate matter.
You are assuming that science will never be able to fill that particular gap in its knowledge. Be very careful about doing that. There used to be a gap called “What causes thunder?” Gods like Thor and Zeus lived in that gap. Science closed the gap and those gods have nowhere to live any more. Forcing your designer to be a god-of-the-gaps is a recipe for a homeless designer.
Your response: chemistry (no details provided)
I provided many details in the form of references to scientific papers. Your inability to understand the significance of those papers is down to your admitted lack of relevant knowledge. The details are there for those who wish to look. Google scholar gives me 3,800 hits for scientific papers about abiogenesis and 2,900,000 hits for “RNA”.
2)No laws of nature can explain where these “matter” i.e. dust, gases, energy came from. How did it come into existence?
Your response: no further update on the ultimate source of ingredients for stellar nucleosynthesis. The preliminary answer was hydrogen which bought a bit of time for you but unfortunately, when we get to the finer details, nothing concrete results.
Are we discussing cosmology or abiogenesis? How much cosmology do you know? How good is your understanding of M-theory? Here is just one paper (of 54,000 on Google scholar) Blau et al, (2002)
A new maximally supersymmetric background of IIB superstring theory
The abstract reads:
We present a maximally supersymmetric IIB string background. The geometry is that of a conformally flat lorentzian symmetric space G/K with solvable G, with a homogeneous five-form flux. We give the explicit supergravity solution, compute the isometries, the 32 Killing spinors, and the symmetry superalgebra, and then discuss T-duality and the relation to M-theory.
Mathematical physics, including cosmology, is far far worse than chemistry for very highly specialised terminology. If you don’t like learning chemistry, then mathematical physics is definitely not for you. For instance, how good is your tensor algebra? Spinors are a specialised form of tensors. Killing spinors are a particular form of spinor, just as Killing vectors are a particular form of vector.
Cosmology is a lot more difficult than rocket science. If you don’t want to read “a ton of books” then don’t go there.
rossum
