Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Critique of ‘Primordial Soup’ Vindicates Creation Research
ANS ^ | February 11, 2010 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 02/16/2010 2:33:16 AM PST by bogusname

Where, when, and how did life arise on earth? These questions have intrigued mankind for centuries. Evolutionary theorists have tried to answer them, but without definitive success. And now even their prized “primordial soup” recipe has failed them. Where can they turn next? In the 19th century, French chemist Louis Pasteur conducted repeatable experiments that demonstrated the impossibility of life arising spontaneously from non-life. (1) Although he is widely credited with disproving “spontaneous generation,” some theorists simply added imaginary long spans of time to that general idea and re-branded it “chemical evolution.” This holds that life on earth started in a “primordial soup” of chemicals and then evolved over millions of years into the life forms observed today.

Evolutionary biologists A. I. Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane popularized the chemical evolution theory in the 1920s. By 1993, however, it had been plagued by “decades of persistent failure to create life by the ‘spark in the soup’ method.” (2) And a new report has finally faced the fact that chemicals do not evolve in soup.

(Excerpt) Read more at assistnews.net ...


TOPICS: Current Events; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: creationism; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Mr Potato Head and Carrot Top are exceptions of course.
1 posted on 02/16/2010 2:33:17 AM PST by bogusname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bogusname

This is old news.


2 posted on 02/16/2010 2:38:27 AM PST by Poe White Trash (Wake up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poe White Trash

Then go down to the next thread. :-)


3 posted on 02/16/2010 2:44:55 AM PST by bogusname (Banish All Liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bogusname
Facts won't impact curricula...the texts are already printed, they'll stay in classrooms for years to come spouting a shoddy theory.
4 posted on 02/16/2010 2:45:55 AM PST by highlander_UW (Obama has lost or not saved over 4 million jobs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW

That’s right. There are too many people making their living selling the lies to stop now.


5 posted on 02/16/2010 2:51:08 AM PST by bogusname (Banish All Liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bogusname
Well, I could be VERY snarky and ask why an article concerned with the origin of life is listed under "current events." ;-)
6 posted on 02/16/2010 2:52:05 AM PST by Poe White Trash (Wake up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Poe White Trash

LOL- yeah I guess you could.


7 posted on 02/16/2010 2:54:57 AM PST by bogusname (Banish All Liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: metmom

The arena is open once again, I see.

I personally think that since mutations are not truly random, then “random selection” is outdated. There is a power beyond the physical that guides mutations. Therefore, it is time for science to admit that it can’t disprove the supernatural.

While I’m not a creationist [days in Genesis were not solar since the sun was not created on the first day], I do think it that an intelligent will can affect mutations — intelligent design is thus more credible than random selection.

“In my experience, there is no such thing as luck.” Obi Wan Kenobi.


8 posted on 02/16/2010 3:13:08 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (2010 HOUSE RACES! Help everyone get the goods on their House Rats. See my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

Mutations are random.

Each strand of your DNA (you have 23 sequences, but you are diploid meaning you have two copies of each strand, you know, redundancy), each strand is attacked 100,000 times per day by oxidants and various other agents.

But you are lucky! 99.99999999% of these won’t kill you or get passed on to your kids.


9 posted on 02/16/2010 3:21:25 AM PST by djf (I was raised never having to or wanting to kill anyone. Still don't want to. Will if I need to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Poe White Trash; dan1123; tpanther; OneVike; GodGunsGuts

I used to be an evolutionist until I read Coulter’s Godless. After reading about Behe, the Cambrian Explosion, Wickramasinghe and Holye, and Francis Crick — who am I to say? I now know enough to know I don’t know. And those who think they know? I’m skeptical.

Here’s my file on evolution [some might have been quotes — sorry if I don’t attribute properly]

1. There’s the Cambrian Explosion. Some evolutionists admit that evolution really ‘took off’ during that time. [Sorce Godless, page 221]

2. The beginning of life itself. Wickramasinghe and Holye mathematically concluded that even billions of years can’t justify the extreme odds of enzymes randomly forming into life. [Source Godless, page 211]

Perhaps evolution must evolve a little more?

Another who had trouble understanding how life randomly formed was Francis Crick. “The possibility of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd.” [Nobel prize winner for codiscovery of DNA.]
He might be ‘just one’. But he’s also one smart fellow, like other geniuses with few who can comprehend them. [Source: Godless, page 211]
— Might want to add that Crick still believes in evolution, though. And Coulter was not being deceitful about the abbreviated quote since she did not slice out the word, ‘almost’.

. . .

One of the criticisms leveled against creation/ID for it not being a valid scientific theory is that nobody provides a test or avenue for falsifiability for those theories. They contend that it’s the responsibility of the person purporting the theory to determine the criteria or test that would falsify their theory.

“Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise spontaneously from non-living molecules. One of the most widely cited studies used to support this conclusion is the famous Miller–Urey experiment. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller–Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible. This paper reviews some of the many problems with this research, which attempted to demonstrate a feasible method of abiogenesis on the early earth.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2108004/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2103111/posts?page=153#153

I’m out of my league with dan1123

3. We discovered that 93% of the human genome is transcribed (made into RNA) changing the long-held belief that DNA consists of large stretches of random or cast-aside junk separated tiny bits that actually did anything.

4. Even just accounting for a blistering expansion of information, the phylogenetic tree is being reduced to a bush. Essentially admitting that an evolutionary tree is impossible to construct, and common descent is on shaky ground.

An evolutionary “bush” removes almost all evidence that evolution occurred at all. It only leaves weak and confusing links between disparate species (elephants and moles are a good example) without any sense of time, sequence, or even clear relationships. The journal article I referenced even called postulating them as “heresy” or a failure in research in evolutionary literature.

. . . . . . . . .

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

It’s fine for people to believe in evolution. I just don’t think that evolutionists should be able to muzzle the rest of the commune. That’s what a public school is — a commune.

Since the parents obviously can’t afford better than the cesspool, and since most evolutionists are happy to keep down school choice, then the parents should have some say in how the communal commode is run.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2103111/posts?page=285#285

How about this? School choice. Simple, huh? Let parents be the boss. I don’t want Neil Boortz forcing every kid in America to follow his education regimen, even though it would be fiscally brilliant.

I think that religious parents who believe in creation can do a darn good job of raising their kids, and when evolution undermines a kid’s respect for religion, then the parent should be allowed to sue the government for any damages the child suffers from lack of religion. [Or better yet, let the parent be the boss.] There are much more basic and important factors to consider in a child’s well being than evolution. Children would be better off with a stable authority system in harmony with their parents. Children who question their parents’ religion are more prone to rebel and get themselves in serious trouble. School choice!

Personally, I don’t think the First Six days were solar. But that doesn’t mean I want to force your kids to be taught that. I am confident that my view will triumph through free speech— not to mention, we have more important things to worry about than what our neighbors’ kids are being taught.

I’m just DEVO myself. [I don’t think the days of Creation were solar— I was one of the first to point that out on the web.] I just want to stand up for my fellow Christians because of the way creeps like Boortz bash them for their religious beliefs.


10 posted on 02/16/2010 3:26:33 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (2010 HOUSE RACES! Help everyone get the goods on their House Rats. See my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bogusname

I think it was primordial soup they served me in a Shanghai cafe today.


11 posted on 02/16/2010 3:27:07 AM PST by John Leland 1789 (But then, I'm accused of just being a troll, so . . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

OK, I am here. Out of my league, but ... hi.


12 posted on 02/16/2010 3:28:49 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (2010 HOUSE RACES! Help everyone get the goods on their House Rats. See my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

God works in mysterious ways.

And I have never heard a Christian who is violently anti-evolution explain the following:

Gen 1:20 And God said let the waters move and BRING FORTH the moving creature that hath life

Now your arguments are very real and very visceral. Because I am a scientist (math and com sci) by education and comp sci by trade, but my bookshelf is filled with Physics, Math, Indian Philosophy, Paradoxes, etc.

So how is the universe made? A good friend of mine from years ago has a PHD in Mathematical Analysis. We disagree over and over because analysis presupposes that things are arranged from the top down. That if you can start where you are, you can break the relationships down into smaller and smaller categories until you find the one that’s not working.

But reality is different, imho. And pretty impersonal. We might as well be made of Legos.

The universe is made of a real lot of things, fundamental things, atoms and photons and whatever. Keep linking them together, and eventually, if the sample space is big enough, you get a traffic light.

That on the surface sounds facetious. But it is only an example. If the tree of being is designed from the top down, then that’s all well and good. But if the tree is a random (or call it somewhat random, until the nodes of the tree start directing the outcome), then that’s a different story entirely and would mean the Universe itself, the laws of physics themselves, everything we know about being and knowing might be changing before our very eyes.


13 posted on 02/16/2010 3:43:31 AM PST by djf (I was raised never having to or wanting to kill anyone. Still don't want to. Will if I need to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: djf

Well, it seems to me that a large portion of what has been accepted as true and abslolute and tangiable has been shaken or at least qu estioned down to it’s foundations.

I’ve chatted with a biochemist who crows everytime a single particle of the compounds that make up RNA are created artificially in a experiment.

I tell him he is a chemist of immense faith.


14 posted on 02/16/2010 3:51:02 AM PST by padre35 (You shall not ignore the laws of God, the Market, the Jungle, and Reciprocity Rm10.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: padre35

In a sense, then, we are back to “God works in mysterious ways”.

It’s one thing if a biochemist with all his equipment and chemicals and glassware can produce something.

But what if?

What if?

What if matter and atoms and light and gravity have some kind of force in them from God that makes life happen?

Part of what I study is language and communications because I work with computers.

I can tell you, there is no reason - NO SCIENTIFIC REASON - that if I were to say “Throw the banana at the microwave” that you would know what I mean.

You are a bunch of atoms. Made up of atoms.

So why exactly do a bunch of random atoms (sorry, no offense), combine themselves in a way that they can give a crap about bananas or microwave ovens?

It is hughly interesting. It is something beyond the realm of physics and science as we know it.


15 posted on 02/16/2010 4:03:35 AM PST by djf (I was raised never having to or wanting to kill anyone. Still don't want to. Will if I need to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl

Thoughts?


16 posted on 02/16/2010 4:06:10 AM PST by djf (I was raised never having to or wanting to kill anyone. Still don't want to. Will if I need to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

Amen


17 posted on 02/16/2010 4:23:00 AM PST by rae4palin (islam is of the devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

“Therefore, it is time for science to admit that it can’t disprove the supernatural.”

If the scientitific method was being followed correctly, the folks involved should have even tried to disprove the supernatural.


18 posted on 02/16/2010 4:33:47 AM PST by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bogusname

Vindicates Creation Research...? Must be “Primordial Soup for the Soul”....


19 posted on 02/16/2010 4:47:01 AM PST by freebilly (No wonder the left has a boner for Obama. There's CIALIS in soCIALISt....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

The absence of the sun does not preclude a light/dark cycle.


20 posted on 02/16/2010 4:49:32 AM PST by Phantom4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: djf

“God works in mysterious ways”

“The resurrection is to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks(the scientists and logisticians of the day) foolishness.”

God’s reality has it’s own rules and all existence conforms to heaven. No system of worship by itself can tap into it and no body of scientific knowledge can ever breach God’s wisdom. Yet as Christ spoke of children, “let the chidren come to me for such is the kingdom of heaven” To understand God’s reality one must approach it as though one were a child in terms offaith, perspective, and trust.

As science is now discovering, all the old assumptions have begun dissolving away...even logic doesn’t seem to bring clarity to what is being discovered and observed any-more. And forget about the mere trappings of religion bringing about answers, clarity must come from cleansed hearts, regenerated spirits, and tranformed minds.


21 posted on 02/16/2010 4:53:53 AM PST by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6; Arthur Wildfire! March

Sorry....meant to say “should not have tried to prove”


22 posted on 02/16/2010 4:55:16 AM PST by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Poe White Trash; bogusname; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; ...
This is old news.

So what? I hadn't seen this before.

Tell me.... Is it wrong?

And if so, How? Why? Please present your facts.

Or is best scientific contribution you can make to criticize the age of the article?

23 posted on 02/16/2010 6:28:52 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bogusname; All
Primordial soup?


24 posted on 02/16/2010 6:58:23 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf; Alamo-Girl; bogusname
The belief that life arose solely through natural processes is not based on scientific observation, but on the atheistic logic of naturalism. It stands to reason that since humans are here, then “those who deny the Creator’s existence must believe [spontaneous generation] happened once upon a time.” (4) Science clearly points to a supernatural cause for life, but the atheistic worldview denies the supernatural. So, no matter how unscientific the primordial soup hypothesis was proved to be, it remained a prominent fixture in public school biology textbooks because it fit a particular preconception—and because evolutionary theory didn’t have anything better to offer.

That just about says it all, djf, in a nutshell!

Great article. Thanks for the ping!

25 posted on 02/16/2010 9:45:33 AM PST by betty boop (Moral law is not rooted in factual laws of nature; they only tell us what happens, not what ought to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: padre35
I’ve chatted with a biochemist who crows everytime a single particle of the compounds that make up RNA are created artificially in a experiment.

Artificially creating in the lab a particle of the compounds that make up RNA in no way supports any of their contention that it happened that way in nature, nor does it demonstrate in any way that they are right about how it happened.

It doesn't demonstrate that creationists are wrong, or that the Bible is inaccurate about how God did it, because other than saying that He spoke and it happened, it doesn't give the mechanism.

All it shows is that they are able to create a particle in the lab.

26 posted on 02/16/2010 10:20:32 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; metmom; djf
Thank you all for the pings and for sharing your views!
27 posted on 02/16/2010 10:39:47 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

That appears to be a fungus on the plate and therefore conclude that is probably Saborauds Agar.


28 posted on 02/16/2010 10:55:51 AM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: metmom; padre35

In a discussion with a peer recently it dawned on me, even if they come to a full understanding of the intracacies of DNA and RNA where they could have their own custom-designed life form - how are they going to breathe life into it?


29 posted on 02/16/2010 10:57:53 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

I thought it was the eyeball soup from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom....


30 posted on 02/16/2010 11:03:37 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: metmom

People always like to point out how MORAL humans can be without God, and in fairness, there are some who are. But it’s interesting that scientists, most of whom profess to be agnostic or atheistic, lie through their teeth at every turn while defending junk “science” such as evolution and global warming. It’s not coincidence that some have been willing to abandon the absurd “primordial soup” theory ONLY AFTER another secular creation story has been advanced. SO..... we weren’t so goofy, dense and insecure after all; we were RIGHT! Blessings, Bob

P.S. Where is GodGunsGuts? I hope he is well.


31 posted on 02/16/2010 1:35:02 PM PST by alstewartfan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: metmom

People always like to point out how MORAL humans can be without God, and in fairness, there are some who are. But it’s interesting that scientists, most of whom profess to be agnostic or atheistic, lie through their teeth at every turn while defending junk “science” such as evolution and global warming. It’s not coincidence that some have been willing to abandon the absurd “primordial soup” theory ONLY AFTER another secular creation story has been advanced. SO..... we weren’t so goofy, dense and insecure after all; we were RIGHT! Blessings, Bob

P.S. Where is GodGunsGuts? I hope he is well.


32 posted on 02/16/2010 1:35:56 PM PST by alstewartfan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bogusname

What “creation research?”


33 posted on 02/16/2010 1:38:03 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bogusname

One things for sure. We don’t see life appear instantaneously.


34 posted on 02/16/2010 1:52:00 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

When? Now?

Of course not. Why would we expect to?


35 posted on 02/16/2010 2:38:43 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan; GodGunsGuts

He’s around. I pinged him to this thread.


36 posted on 02/16/2010 2:39:28 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

In the days of the steady state theory of the universe, Bible believers were the only ones who believed that the universe had a beginning. Scientific consensus had it that it didn’t.

Matter of fact, it was so pervasive that Einstein added a *cosmological constant* to his relativity equations for that reason. They showed that the universe had a beginning but he didn’t like that so adding the constant removed that little complication. In essence, he adjusted the formulas to fit the theory instead of adjusting the theory to fit the formulas.

It was only after Hubble’s red shift observations demonstrated beyond any doubt the same thing that Einstein removed the constant and called it a *mistake*.

So the Bible believers were proved right on that one, all based on the unscientific support of simply believing God and taking Him at His word.

I found an interesting event concerning peer review, called the Bogdanov Affair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

And in googling up scientific peer review hoaxes, came up with some other ones.

Sokal affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affai

There are others listed at the bottom of the article....


37 posted on 02/16/2010 2:48:52 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: metmom
When? Now? Of course not. Why would we expect to?

We shouldn't expect anything. There's simply no evidence for it at anytime.

38 posted on 02/16/2010 3:39:38 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Since not every thing gets fossilized, it certainly could have when God spoke it into existence.

Any dating method we have is simply not accurate enough to give more than a general idea of when. It by no means disproves that life appeared instantaneously.


39 posted on 02/16/2010 4:00:12 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Tell me.... Is it wrong?

Not wrong, just "old news." I've been reading about matters like the failed Miller-Urey experiments since I was a kid in the 70s. What holds my interest is the fact the OOL literature makes plain to me that the Darwinians are lost in a maze of their own making when it comes to the origin of life. I find their self-imposed blindness to be both tragic and comic.

As for my making a contribution to this thread, I'd suggest reading (if you haven't already) Hubert Yockey's _Information theory and molecular biology_ and his _Information theory, evolution, and the origin of life_. I also have found Dean Overman's _A case against Accident and Self-Organization_ to be worthwhile.

40 posted on 02/16/2010 5:10:35 PM PST by Poe White Trash (Wake up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
I used to be an evolutionist until I read Lucretius' _De rerum natura_ and "got the joke."

Perhaps a fruitful avenue of inquiry would be to examine the vast neo-Darwinian literature as interconnected fragments of an Epicurean creation myth. Which is to say that critics of the neo-Darwinian creation story should be reading works by Vladimir Propp and Claude Levi-Strauss if they want to create an approach that would reach a deeper understanding of evolutionary myth (or, better, "myth cycle").

41 posted on 02/16/2010 5:22:08 PM PST by Poe White Trash (Wake up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Any dating method we have is simply not accurate enough to give more than a general idea of when. It by no means disproves that life appeared instantaneously.

Or that aliens placed life here using that reasoning.

42 posted on 02/16/2010 5:22:58 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: djf

“Gen 1:20 And God said let the waters move and BRING FORTH the moving creature that hath life”

Intruiging.


43 posted on 02/16/2010 5:53:50 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (2010 HOUSE RACES! Help everyone get the goods on their House Rats. See my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

Disprove the supernatural? Hahaha! Good one. — FRegards ....


44 posted on 02/16/2010 5:55:04 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (2010 HOUSE RACES! Help everyone get the goods on their House Rats. See my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Phantom4

“The absence of the sun does not preclude a light/dark cycle.”

The way I see it, ancient people looked up and saw the sun — that was the definition of day. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the days of Genisis, lacking the sun, were not actually the kind of days that ancient people could comprehend. They are a mystery.


45 posted on 02/16/2010 5:57:38 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (2010 HOUSE RACES! Help everyone get the goods on their House Rats. See my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

Oh, OK. But they did prove that not all mutations are random. We are now left with non-random selection rather than random. Mutations are not always accidents. Thus, with even a slight devience to guide them over the centuries, new life forms are not accidents and not random. It’s a game changer, IMO.


46 posted on 02/16/2010 6:01:21 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (2010 HOUSE RACES! Help everyone get the goods on their House Rats. See my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

Here you go Ender - to do the site justice will send you on a long bender...

Of course that’s only if you take the time to read and understand it all.

Be sure to come back when you understand how all of the evidence may truly fit together - with the God of the Bible squarely in the framework.

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html


47 posted on 02/16/2010 6:02:34 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

BTW the author in the previous post, Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D., started out trying to prove the truth of the evolutionary science. He found that the lies were simply to big for him to keep up the facade. I highly recommend you reading about the author on the CSC homepage too.


48 posted on 02/16/2010 6:09:33 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Poe White Trash

You might be beyond me too then. =] It’s funny. I thought that critics of evolution were supposed to be knuckle-draggers, lower than Deadfish’s “F”ing [Don’t-Say]s. Hmmm ... I think some critics on this thread could hold their own against the smartest evolutionists on the planet.


49 posted on 02/16/2010 6:31:35 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (2010 HOUSE RACES! Help everyone get the goods on their House Rats. See my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

Hi right back at you.

I’m glad some of my posts actually get read. It seems like the evolution threads go around in circles most of the time.

As for this article, it just reiterates the theory that life comes from hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean. There is still a lot of hand-waving. The main difference between it and the soup theory is that the soup is in small pores of rocks instead of floating freely. This would mainly serve to constrict the opportunities of chemicals to react, and doesn’t address any of the criticisms that ID has brought up.

The main point going for it is that the chemicals that coat the rocks’ pores are mildly similar to cell walls. Which of course skips over the question of how you go from having a preexisting cell wall to producing your own through DNA/RNA. It’s like saying because a rock looks like a car, the car evolved from the rock.


50 posted on 02/16/2010 8:29:17 PM PST by dan1123 (Free condoms for teens to have safe sex is like giving them bullet-proof vests for safe gun play)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson