Quite so! Natural processes have inevitable outcomes depending on environment. No question of random chance. Self organizing natural processes have no necessity for 'something else'.
you are being very misleading, to the point of lying. Nobody knows that self organizing processes came about by random chance... that is speculation without any substance. show us one bit of proof that says theses self organizing processes which directed our evolution to life were created by random chance. You should have actually written that self organizing processes include the concept that the drive to evolve to life was coded in by someone or something.... but almost definitely not random chance.
By definition, anything self organizing is not being organized by something else. Otherwise it is not self organizing. Nothing speculative about it. Chemical processes are self directing, self organizing. It is observed how and why they do what they do. No random chance. Why do you keep repeating the phrase 'random chance' like a broken record when 'random chance' has nothing to do with it? No, I should not have written what you say. I see no reason to purposely write something that's incorrect. There is no evidence whatsoever that self organizing chemical processes start with any inclusion of a so called, drive to life concept, as you suggest. The outcome of self organizing chemical processes that result in life are observed as an inevitable process, not random chance. There's no need or necessity for anything else but natural self organizing chemical processes.
almost 100% pure bullshit, invented by Stu. 1. your definition is ridiculous and a complete lie... I just read a very recent paper on this... no one has any idea why or how the right amount of energy is paired with the right tools and the area is held stable.... you are fraudulent as ever.
Going by what you post, the papers you like to read are more often than not highly dubious and full of nonsense. 'Why or how' does not have already self organizing processes requiring "something else". It is obvious simply by definition, that self organizing processes organize themselves.
are you actually trying to argue these things learned to self organize by random chance... yet you have no proof, no science and no scientist supporting you.
Obviously I'm not trying to argue any such thing. Are you trying to suggest I am? I don't need any proof to support something I'm not saying. Non life chemical reaction, makes amino acids, makes proteins, makes life.. is what I said. Makes life inevitable where suitable environmental conditions prevail. No wonder you're confused if you can only think chemicals learned to self organize using that hoary old chestnut random chance. Self-organizing (chemistry). May I suggest you look the basics up to better educate yourself first? It may help you stop jumping to so many phoney conclusions.
you have no proof life came for non life... you then made up a bunch of shit about self organization and when I called out your bullshit, you backed your ass down to writing a bunch of meaningless sentences with buzz words.
this is the bottom line and none of your b.s. wiill change the facts. Arguing for self organization does not change the fact that the probability life came about by chance is too low to be plausible.
There is no PROOF life came from non-life, but there are plenty of facts, theories and observations that support it. A logical mind, educated in the basics of protobiology and biology must conclude it does. Someone who places God somewhere between a sterile earth and 2.5 billion years of single-celled life is desperately grasping at insubstantial straws.