Posted on 06/15/2009 11:43:12 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Despite “decades of persistent failure to create life by the ‘spark in the soup’ method,”[1] evolutionary biochemists are still trying to find an exclusively naturalistic explanation for how the first cell developed. Many possible chemical precursors to life have been systematically ruled out by rigorous experiments. What they have found is that the molecules necessary for life are found exclusively within cells that are already living.
One explanation proposed by evolutionists...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Brian Thomas *MS......doesn’t know that the “spark in the soup” experiment was not designed to “create” life”? Of course, I presume he’d be referring to the Miller-Urey experiment.
I’m SHOCKED that Brian Thomas *MS doesn’t know what he’s talking about....yet again.
The “spark to soup” experiment of 60+ years ago was designed to synthesize organic material from inorganic material....to create amino acids....the building blocks of life.....nothing more.
“Don’t you see the irony?
The very act of applying intelligence and intelligent design to create life refutes their motivational premise.”
—What do you think their motivational premise is? I think it’s just that life originated from natural causes. Attempting to recreate natural environments in labs and seeing what happens, doesn’t mean that whatever occurs requires intelligence. Of course it required intelligence to create the conditions, but what happens after that is up to nature.
We still don’t have it down quite pat on how snowflakes form. Every couple years I read another story on a “breakthrough” in figuring out how snowflakes form and we get better and better at creating snowflakes that appear like those in nature.
I suppose someone who believes that some intelligent beings are floating on clouds carving out snowflakes might look at the millions of dollars of lab equipment and some of our best minds spending years attempting to find out how such things form “naturally” and say “how ironic”.
And of course any such success in creating snowflakes just proves the fact that it requires intelligence to create snowflakes! :-)
I think that you're deceiving yourself.
You are seeing that biologists are attempting to find something short of life that could more likely result in life than a random selection of substances might, but when you use the term "recreate" you are taking a huge leap in assuming that such a complex reaction could have taken place without intelligent interdiction.
You likely would object to the well known tornado, junkyard, 747 in flight analogy, yet such an occurance would be vastly less improbable than life occuring by random accident. The simplest eye on Earth is more complex than any jet aircraft.
From http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_cell_with_a_well_defined_nucleus_called
We have ...
“Cells with well defined nuclei are called eukaryotic. Eukaryotes include yeast, plants, and animals. Bacteria on the other hand do not have nuclei and are called prokaryotes. Interestingly, there is one very notable exception. Mammals are of course eukaroyotes, however one very specific type of cell, the red blood cell, does not have a nucleus.”
Lots of credulity and faith there, but no science is showing its head.
“no science is showing”
Per Webster ..
” science 1. orig., the state or fact of knowing; knowledge 2. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature of principles of what is being studied. 3. a branch of knowledge or study, esp. one concerned with esablishing and systematizing facts, principles and methods as by experiments and hypotheses. 4. “ ... and etc ...
Exactly, no “science” (by any definition)
My book on evolutions was written by Steve Jones – his credentials can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jones_(biologist) — and his 377 page “Darwin’s Ghost, The Origin of Species Updated” has eight pages dedicated to scientific references.
Call it what you wish, but that’s science to me.
Your standards for “science” are incredibly low.
You’ll have to add the last symbol of the link ... Something in FR software cuts it out
> And of course any such success in creating snowflakes
> just proves the fact that it requires intelligence to
> create snowflakes! :-)
As a matter of fact, it does. Water does what it does by design. Snowflakes, and their glorious beauty and astonishing uniqueness, are not accidental. When I was an evolutionist, I believed these were accidental. I don’t anymore.
Water, when it freezes, crystalizes and expands. In so doing, it becomes lighter than liquid water and displaces its weight in liquid water without sinking. If this were not so, life as we know it on earth would be impossible.
I highly recommend the Moody Science Series.
http://www.amazon.com/Moody-Science-Classics-19-DVD-Set/dp/B000V73BBM
You don’t have to buy the whole set at once, as all 19 DVDs is very expensive. I picked them up for a bargain at $100, but I forget now where I got them.
These are as entertaining as they are informative.
You may not like their point of view, but you won’t be able to fault their science.
Thanks for the ping!
Placemarker to read with my morning coffee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.