Post by Arlon10 on May 11, 2020 6:31:15 GMT
I'm showing how the origin of life did not happen. If I can prove the thief did not enter by the back door (for example there isn't one), then he did not. I do not have to show which door or window he did enter.
Your burden is somewhat different. If you claim life began without an intelligent designer you need to have at least some clue how. Show one. Those short RNA chains are not doing it.
You're showing no such thing. What you've shown is that we currently can't recreate in a lab the conditions and number of trials on an ancient Earth from which life arose, to which most everyone (including scientists) would say: "duh!" Your analogy is also flawed because it assumes you know all the possible ways the thief could've entered. This is not the case for life. There are dozens of ways life could've gotten started, and all of them but one are natural. To say we don't know which one it is, and don't know how to test them, is in no way tantamount to you showing it couldn't have happened any of those ways.
My claim is that, just like with all mysteries humans have faced and eventually answered, it's almost certainly some natural explanation. Humans are batting a perfect 0.00 when it comes to explaining natural phenomena with supernatural hypotheses. You'd think by now all the smart money would be on natural explanations, even if those natural explanations aren't known or understood; but, nope, theists seem to be a glutton for punishment and have the attitude that "well, it's never worked before, so it has to work this time!"
You are not understanding this issue of scope. My negative proof is easy enough because nature has limited scope. Your negative proof has unlimited scope. There are only so many elements and so many agencies in nature. However many we find that's how are found. Otherwise the agency and materials are not found in nature. That's obviously very disturbing to you. Why?