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 ...
“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.
Sorry....meant to say “should not have tried to prove”
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?
That just about says it all, djf, in a nutshell!
Great article. Thanks for the ping!
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.
That appears to be a fungus on the plate and therefore conclude that is probably Saborauds Agar.
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?
I thought it was the eyeball soup from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom....
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.
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.
What “creation research?”
One things for sure. We don’t see life appear instantaneously.
When? Now?
Of course not. Why would we expect to?
He’s around. I pinged him to this thread.
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....
We shouldn't expect anything. There's simply no evidence for it at anytime.
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.
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.
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.