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 ...
This is old news.
Then go down to the next thread. :-)
That’s right. There are too many people making their living selling the lies to stop now.
LOL- yeah I guess you could.
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I personally think that since mutations are not truly random, then “random selection” is outdated.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.
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.
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.
I think it was primordial soup they served me in a Shanghai cafe today.
OK, I am here. Out of my league, but ... hi.
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.
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.
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.
Thoughts?
Amen
“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.
Vindicates Creation Research...? Must be “Primordial Soup for the Soul”....
The absence of the sun does not preclude a light/dark cycle.
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.