It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 14
26
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
plube, I think you’re confusing the meaning of “evolution” with “development” – as in improvement. And sometimes people get confused with these words.

Just to be clear, here’s my understanding of the meaning of “evolution” as defined by evolutionist (unless it evolved again - I mean the meaning changed).

Evolution: refers to organic evolution—the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.


Could you please cite which evolutionist you got this from? Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life so if anyone is confused, I would have to say it is you.




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Any idea how large the probability number is?

You should know this.

ty,
edmc2


Higher than 0.

That is all that matters.

We know it happened so whether or not it is probable is no longer relevant but to answer your question...

HIGHER THAN 0.

That is all that is necessary to make something probable, correct?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Evolution: refers to organic evolution—the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.


Sorry Ed; you just described abiogenesis, not evolution.

Evolution is about the changes in life over time. It has nothing what-so-ever to say about non-life. Non-life does not 'evolve'.

You do make a good point about the difference between evolution and development. An organism can possess traits that are highly developed or extremely primitive. But all living organisms are fully evolved, that is, they have all changed over time to whatever developmental stage they are at.

Terms like 'highly developed' or 'extremely primitive' or 'complex' or 'simple' are not value judgments and do not imply anything about distance from some ultimate goal. They are language constructs used as short-cut differentiators, nothing more, nothing less.

There is no goal in evolution except survival of the population.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Here's your illustration: Drop pile beans in a bucket containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. Now thoroughly mixed it. Remember there are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get?...


Except this doesn't even begin to describe how organic chemistry works. For a start, molecules have places where bonds can be broken and where bonds can be made with other molecules. Where in your bean scenario is this vital point about Chemistry/Physics modeled? There are other flaws as well.

This video explains how the simple and well understood chemical processes could have taken place.



[edit on 21/7/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by edmc^2
plube, I think you’re confusing the meaning of “evolution” with “development” – as in improvement. And sometimes people get confused with these words.

Just to be clear, here’s my understanding of the meaning of “evolution” as defined by evolutionist (unless it evolved again - I mean the meaning changed).

Evolution: refers to organic evolution—the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.


Could you please cite which evolutionist you got this from? Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life so if anyone is confused, I would have to say it is you.


Thanks for pointing that out, it's understandable you know, because many evolutionist are confused too as to the real meaning of “organic evolution”. Kindly please update me, because last time I did my research on this subject I was using one of your most famous evolutionist Prof. Richard Dawkins. I was gonna go with Charles Darwin, but there's a growing class of scientist and evolutionists who are changing their minds about the father of evolution theory.

Anyway, here's your favorite evolutionist (summary of what he said).

He speculated that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Continuing, he described that, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident” —a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself. – The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 16.

I can go on and on but I think this should do. Now if you disagree with Prof. Dawkins, on his statements, please let me know and offer a new more evolve definition of evolution- i.e. organic evolution.

Summary:

The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory, are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life. (3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves. Are these steps in accord with the available facts?.

BTW,

Do you know that in 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. What did this accomplished. Well, it produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. Sad huh.

Then amazingly Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions. – The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.

They were really hard at work in trying to produce life from nothing.

Q: so if you think that life didn't come from nothing - then where did it come from?

I hope you're not going the 'Alien' route.

Ty,
edmc2
later....



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Do you know that in 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. What did this accomplished. Well, it produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. Sad huh.



I wouldn't call this sad...more like IMPRESSIVE!!

He managed to get 4 out of 20 after trying only one year in 1953...it took nature BILLIONS of years to get those 20. So getting 4 in just a single year is VERY impressive


If you can get 4 in a year...it's not inconceivable that over billions of years 20 of them formed.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


and further to that - not all life requires all 20 amino acids - some primitive unicellular organisms function with less



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I already explained to you how the whole propability thing works.

Now you were unable (or unwilling) to explain why, despite the very slim chance of plutonium decaying (10^-8 for any given minute) plutonium is radioactive. It's simple: lots of time and lots of atoms.

I just imagined: A creationist falls of a 3 foot ladder, lands very unfortunately and dies. Goes to heaven, meets god, and starts jammering: "Now wait a second! Do you kow how slim the chance is of me dying because of such a small fall? Send me back!"

Ok, one more time: you flip a coin 5 times . First throw you get tails.
What is your propability of getting 5 heads in a row now, if you only flip it 4 more times?


[edit on 21-7-2010 by debunky]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Thanks for pointing that out, it's understandable you know, because many evolutionist are confused too as to the real meaning of “organic evolution”.

Not really. Abiogenesis is totally different matter, and I've never heard on an educated "evolutionist" that says anything different. Mind you, there's a big difference between an educated biologist, and some random dude on a random webpage, in case that is where you get your information.


Kindly please update me, because last time I did my research on this subject I was using one of your most famous evolutionist Prof. Richard Dawkins. I was gonna go with Charles Darwin, but there's a growing class of scientist and evolutionists who are changing their minds about the father of evolution theory.

Having read several of his works, I can definitely say that Dawkins know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.



*Snip*

I can go on and on but I think this should do. Now if you disagree with Prof. Dawkins, on his statements, please let me know and offer a new more evolve definition of evolution- i.e. organic evolution.

What he is talking about here is not evolution. Please go back and read the entire chapter of the book, because you are definitely missing something.


Do you know that in 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. What did this accomplished. Well, it produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. Sad huh.

Yes I did know, and I don't get how it is sad? You expect a small experiment to simulate the entire prehistoric world? What he showed was that you can in fact get some of lifes building blocks under abiotic conditions.



They were really hard at work in trying to produce life from nothing.

No, then you don't get the experiment.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


not at all i am not confusing for development...

i say we have been evolving just al all things evolve...

homsapien has evolve into a taller being from the time of 125000 years ago

also in the last 100 yrs there has been a increase in our out ward shape do to the abundance of cheap high sugar foods availible and as we start to work more in zero g enviroments the human alone will gain 4-6 inches in hieght...our muscles will weaken ....and our cartilage will soften

these are just the las t bits in human evolution that we know has and will take place on the human body alone.

the creator is not dictating this change...

it is a natural evolutionary change due to enviroment

now as pollution grows our lungs will shrink...

and our eyes might start(might) start to develop an inner eye lid.

our skin may hard and become scaley

and if that happens that is down to evolution and natural selection

survival of the fittest

now does that still leave the door open for creationist also...yes it does

it is not one or the other....there is room for both no matter how you look at it

so once again ....another circular pointless aguement of people wanting one or the other without the (WOW) possibility of accepting both.

lose the my way or the highway....

we will all be better off and better for it

intelligence only works with an open mind and wisdom is only worthwhile with understanding



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Thanks for pointing that out, it's understandable you know, because many evolutionist are confused too as to the real meaning of “organic evolution”.


It would seem the confusion is all yours. Funny a Christian trying to redefine a word so as to label the people of that word wrong somehow. Does your god look kindly on this kind of obfuscation in his name?


Kindly please update me, because last time I did my research on this subject I was using one of your most famous evolutionist Prof. Richard Dawkins.


First of all "organic evolution" is not a term. It is two words put together but even the free"irregardless included"dictionary online has a definition.


organic evolution - (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms


Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooothing about bio-genesis in there. Maybe you want to give me your definition and where you found it instead of just claiming evolutionists have the meaning of evolution wrong?

Last time I did my research, Dawkins was not a linguist so if you get your definitions of English words from him, you are in the wrong place.


I was gonna go with Charles Darwin, but there's a growing class of scientist and evolutionists who are changing their minds about the father of evolution theory.

Anyway, here's your favorite evolutionist (summary of what he said).


My favorite? How do you expect to even be taken seriously when you open with so many fallacies? I never even knew there was a competition. The fact that I never even mentioned Dawkins until you now because you did kind of makes that seem silly.


He speculated that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Continuing, he described that, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident” —a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself. – The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 16.

I can go on and on but I think this should do. Now if you disagree with Prof. Dawkins, on his statements, please let me know and offer a new more evolve definition of evolution- i.e. organic evolution.


Where is your definition of "organic evolution?" You keep bringing it up. You are picking an excerpt about bio-genesis written by...



... A BIOLOGIST!

Do you not know the difference? Maybe you need a dictionary? Dawkins is actually a biologist. Anyone can call themselves an evolutionist but you actually have to earn being a biologist. As such, he writes from the perspective of a biologist who -surprise- believes in evolution. You seem to have either gone a long way to confuse the two, or you were confused when you read it quoted out of context on some Christian website.


Summary:

The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory, are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life. (3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves. Are these steps in accord with the available facts?.


Nothing you said is correct in any way. The theory of evolution does NOT cover how life began. You are just picking a part something written by a biologist and trying to push it as evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, looking up evolution is a lot easier than taking Dawkins out of context is and you are only proving you are unwilling to accept reality.


BTW,

Do you know that in 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. What did this accomplished. Well, it produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. Sad huh.


Sad? What have you done lately that equates to 1/5 of what you call a miracle?


Then amazingly Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions. – The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.


Super! You certainly know how to confuse issues. This has nothing to do with evolution, sorry.


They were really hard at work in trying to produce life from nothing.


...and they actually got part way there.


Q: so if you think that life didn't come from nothing - then where did it come from?


Why should I pretend to know where life came from? I believe in evolution and evolution does not pretend to know that either.


I hope you're not going the 'Alien' route.

Ty,
edmc2
later....


So you have to change the definition of words, make up things about me, and end with presupposition in order to make your case?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I like evolution and I'm sticking to it. Fossils FOSSILS FOSSILS!!! As Louis Black would say.

If you want to bring god into this why can't god have created evolution. Yes it would prove he is not perfect, but I say to you Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it? If he can then he is not all mighty if he can't he is again not all mighty.

As for the whole there needs to be a grand designer. Yes but can't the designer evolve. I don't think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we just designed the perfect robot. If I remember correctly is changed slowly over time... Kinda like... hmm whats a good term EVOLUTION. In response to the OP, every picture you show yes needed a designer however I HIGHLY doubt and know for sure on some that the "designer" didn't get it right on the first try. The whole watch maker theory is just in my opinion BS.

Xiamara
Firm believer that Darwin was right, HAIL the Darwin fish!!! It has feet.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


in your article you claim that 100 million bits/second pour into the human mind. I don't know where you got your data, but my studies have shown a way different number, more like 2.7 Trillion bits/second, and this is a non-stop stream/bandwitch channel that always streams the same whether it loses an eyeball, goes under the gas for surgery, is dreaming, sleeping, running or swimming. Also many tests have shown that the brain records things it does not share with you, such as the things said by surgeons whilst under said gas! Not only that but with eyes closed under said gas, some were tested only to find they also could see what was on the tv monitors even though eyes were closed.

Your article is supposed to highlight the creator YaHWeH so make sure you get that most amazing fact of facts more toward the correct numbers. 2.7 Trillion bits/second is a most amazing speed, much faster than anything man can/will create any time soon, in fact you can parallel network thousands of supercooled computers and never achieve the throughput and storage capacity, not to mention if you factor in the great rates of compression man has reached thus far, then figure out a ratio in how much longer it would take us to make a chip as fast and bottleneck free as our own brain and one would surely admit by that time compression rates would have surely reached much greater numbers than mp4 with it's 26:1. Taking in all it's specs is quite an awe-inspiring experience. I suggest you do more research, I mean cmon guy I can read 100 million bits/second in my peripheral vision!

Other than that it's a great page with logic at it's core, who can refuse Logic? If you could only throw in a picture that could show the most awesome perfect timing of all the bodies in the heavens, kinda hard to put that on a web page, much less a pic. But then besides it a picture of say?...the most complex carnival ride with all the things to balance it out or something better. To me the brain is #2 in complexity, while the electric universe and all it's magic wires(twisted pairs) take first place! (yes that was a reference to "Thunderbolts of the Gods")



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   


He speculated that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.
reply to post by edmc^2
 


By this speculative it would take evolution an infinite amount of time just to get started. Slim chhance after slim chance after slim chance X 50 =
Does not equate to scientific law.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





By this speculative it would take evolution an infinite amount of time just to get started. Slim chhance after slim chance after slim chance X 50 = Does not equate to scientific law.


We dont know how big the chance is, why are you so sure? The chance could be very high, there is nothing in organic chemistry forbidding it.
Abiogenesis is not scientific law, but scientific hypothesis.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
By this speculative it would take evolution an infinite amount of time just to get started. Slim chhance after slim chance after slim chance X 50 =
Does not equate to scientific law.


So, where exactly is this "slim chance" between 0 and 1? and it wouldnt be x50 it would be ^50 (of course, if each slim chance is different, it would be SC1*SC2*SC3*...SC50)
If the slim chance was .00001 x50 it would have been 0.0005

quite a few planets have been discovered in the past 2 decades. Of course they are rather big ones, because they are easier to find, but the data points towards the conclusion that planets aren't rare.
So, yes. It took forever. On trillions of worlds (propably per galaxy). On one (as far as we know) it happened.
If earth was one where it didn't happen, we wouldnt be having this discussion.
The real point, however, is that nature cheated when it comes to propabilities. Amino acids like to form chains, aka proteins. What happens if 2 amino acids meet that dont form a chain? Nothing.
Nature tried to roll 100 6s in a row. Whenever the dice came up 1-5 nature said "doesn't count" and rolled again.
This will on average take 600 rolls.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 

There are actually more than 20 amino acids but talk about amino acids is irrelevant to talk about abiogenesis, because first life didn't almost certainly make use of proteins (and thus amino acids). RNA, ribozymes, riboswitches, etc. more than likely dominated early on and "DNA -> RNA -> proteins" dogma arose much later maybe because of fvA, fvB & fvE viruses (RNA World + Forterre model).

reading (probably too challenging for most here, but very interesting paper none the less):

www.pnas.org...

[edit on 22-7-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
wow to the OP. Comparing 11 years of research to build a robot to hundreds of billions of years or evolution, and random creation for life to form. Yep that makes perfect sense


Besides the fact that their is witnessed proof of evolution of species based their surroundings, the argument that some still persist with against evolution just seems like hitting your head against the wall and singing to yourself to block out what is actually happening all around us.

You can't PROVE anything, and in all likely hood we will probably never know what created the original 'creation' of energy that sparked everything off in the universe (or universes dependant on which model of cosmology you sway towards).

It's a pointless ongoing argument that is just stupid, if you need a 'maker' to make something so advanced as life, then by your own reasoning you need a more advanced 'maker' of the 'maker' who made us and round and round we go. Pointless discussion that has been thrashed out thousands of times before.

Why not spend a little of your time actually looking into the make up of life, quantum physics, astronomy, biology etc. rather than wasting your time on an argument that actually contradicts ITSELF!. You might actually learn something that helps you to answer the questions for yourself then. This is a big free world of knowledge out their, why not go get your toes wet


two words here, 'epic' and 'fail' !



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
If there was a god he blew his own ass to hell to make everything you see around you. Time had no beginning and will have no end therefore even if there is a god it's pointless. What is god when time has no end? What is satan when time has no end? All I know is all that junk in space got there somehow and over a ridiculous amount of time that junk formed the right mix for life.

Sometimes I think the world was created around me.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by edmc^2

Thanks for pointing that out, it's understandable you know, because many evolutionist are confused too as to the real meaning of “organic evolution”.


Not really. Abiogenesis is totally different matter, and I've never heard on an educated "evolutionist" that says anything different. Mind you, there's a big difference between an educated biologist, and some random dude on a random webpage, in case that is where you get your information...


As for “abiogenesis,” rnaa said:




Sorry Ed; you just described abiogenesis, not evolution.

Evolution is about the changes in life over time. It has nothing what-so-ever to say about non-life. Non-life does not 'evolve'.


Just to be sure:

Abiogenesis


In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis...”


So Thain, am I correct then to assume that what Prof. Dawkins was referring to is “abiogenesis” when he said “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident” that started life in an “organic soup”. And according rnaa “evolution” on the other hand “is about the changes in life over time. It has nothing what-so-ever to say about non-life. Non-life does not 'evolve'.”

Is it correct to assume then that “abiogenesis” is a modern way of defining/describing “spontaneous generation” (a 17th century theory – a much older theory than Darwin's evolution theory).

Here's a wiki statement – see source citation:

Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon. The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified. The second version is heterogenesis (sometimes called xenogenesis), in which one form of life emerges from a different form.[2]”

[1]^ Miller-Urey Experiment: Amino Acids & The Origins of Life on Earth

[2]^ Philip P. Wiener, ed (1973). "Spontaneous Generation". Dictionary of the History of Ideas. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. xtf.lib.virginia.edu.../uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv4-39. Retrieved 2009-01-22.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Then there's also these competing theories about the origin of life:

> The deep sea vent theory.
> Fox's experiments.
> Eigen's hypothesis.
> Wächtershäuser's hypothesis.
> Radioactive beach hypothesis
and so on...the search continuous.

Bottom line, going back to my original question:

In addition to the of these competing / differing theories, can you offer scientific evidence of “abiogenesis” - where life emerged from non-living matter - by chance?

Also, do you know if the Louis Pasteur's 19th century experiment was ever 'debunky' – that life can't come from non-life?

BTW rnaa, it seems like one needs to take a "leap of faith” watching the video made/based on Dr. Jack Szostak “The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis”. Currious though, are you willing to rest your faith on such an outrageously remote probability?

Now, which one is more logical to believe and which one is truly scientific?

1) That life came from life (Creator). Therefore an always existing source of life (a foundation – a purpose).

2) That life came from non-living matter (abiogenesis/evolution). Therefore a product of chance / accident (no foundation – no ultimate purpose).

Logical reasoning: a building with a weak foundation or w/o any foundation will collapse.

Illogical reasoning: a probability of 1 out 10^50, 1 out of 10^113 or 1 out of 40,000* chance will produce life.

*Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying:

“These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.” pp 30, 31.


No wonder even physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds against a spontaneous origin for life, said:

“evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” – Physics Bulletin, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” by H. S. Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.


Notice also the following comments:

Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists:

“All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.” – The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 68


cont...



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join