Monday, October 22, 2007

Scientists haven’t worked out abiogenesis

Well, he’s right about evolution being intrinsically atheistic. It is also anti-Christian.
The chance encounters of various chemicals in a long ago warm pool could never have created even the simplest of life forms. Those who might think it possible, know nothing about how living things are assembled. Or, they love the evolution lie. The complexity of living things are beyond comprehension. Scientists all over the world are still studying desperately to understand it all.
But: If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. ‘Surely they have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.
And after all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemical collisions, without an instruction manual, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists estimation. Without any intelligence at all available to help them these ’simple ‘ cells miraculously created themselves into a living entity. Surely then today’s evolutionists scientists should be able to make us a ’simple’ cell.
If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of the flood of evidence CONTRARY to evolution which is readily available: Try The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and EUREKA, LIFE!
Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!Please don’t swallow the lies they tell about the ‘first life’ problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And, is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it, how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident????? By: Jim on October 8th, 2007 at 9:02 pm

Hi, Jim. There are many evolutionists who believe in God. There are some examples at wiki. So evolution cannot be intrinsically atheistic.
As far as creating life is concerned, that is abiogenesis. Evolution is a phenomenon observed in populations. I recognise the importance of your argument (what evolves if there is no life?) but I just want to get the terminology right. By the way, I made an earlier post: explaining evolution.
You might also be interested in: First synthetic virus (2002)
The team from the University of New York at Stony Brook constructed the virus from scratch using the genetic blueprint of the polio agent. They followed a “recipe” they downloaded from the internet and used gene sequences from a mail-order supplier.
And Craig Venter may be close to a larger breakthrough — making the DNA of a bacterium, though not the cell itself.
These are milestones on the road to making artificial life. I see no reason why it should be easy. Just the sheer bulk of infomation makes it a daunting task.
And A Genetic Alogorithms Demo — evolution in action in a simulated world. Mathematically, the theory is sound. By: misterlister on October 9th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Sir, it is not from scratch unless the builder starts with the Amino Acids and go on from there. Also, they needed to assemble the DNA too.
Yes they are making strides, but just knowing how long and hard these scientists have been exploring cell life and yet there is much more to learn.
I’m flabbergasted that anyone that could get a doctorate in biology can believe that life came about by chance. It’s impossible, why can’t they see that?
Here’s my guess: They have been mesmerized by THEIR professor, who ‘certainly’ wouldn’t teach them anything false. Who himself was taught, and was mesmerized by the same mythology.
Yes there are evolutionists who believe in God, but mostly because the have taken the words of the scientists. And have not studied it themselves.
I graduated from NC State Univ. nearly 50 years ago. I know something of science. My professors had me convinced that evolution was a scientific fact. I stuck to the idea for another decade, plus. I then decided to learn more biology and what I found convinced that I had believed a lie for a very long time, too long.
And, no-one has ever observed macro-evolution. We ARE observing micro-evolution. But it (micro) can never change one kind into another kind. God provided micro-evolution so that you and I and ever other living male doesn’t look EXACTLY alike. Imagine the confusion if God hadn’t taken this important step. By: Jim on October 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Hi Jim, Scientists haven’t worked out abiogenesis. I admit that. But they are making progress.
The reason biologists believe in evolution is because very little makes sense without it. How do you explain the route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve? Why does it take such a round-about route? — even in Giraffes. And here’s an article on the retina in human eyes being wired backwards. Such things are difficult to explain in terms of design. But such results are to be expected from evolution, which modifies what is available.
I’m willing to consider, in principle, that our current theory of evolution is incorrect. But what is the alternative theory? I can see none that comes close. Evolution itself is an observed phenomenon — as beyond doubt as gravity.
Can you please explain to me why you think the theory of evolution rules out any kind of God?
And as for speciation: Two new species of goatsbeard, observed about 50 years after 3 species of the plant were introduced into North America. By: misterlister on October 10th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Hi Misterlister:
About the goatsbeard, a goatsbeaard is a goatsbeard and will remain a goatsbeard forever. These are minor changes within the various kinds of all life forms, including humans. Without this ability, all humans would be carbon copies. Chaos would reign. So, in all actuality evolution is NOT an observed phenomenon.
There are many good reasons to reject evolution as the means of creating life. One of them is that it requires extremely long time periods. Much longer than the 6000 years of earth.
Also, evolution relies on life and death, over and over trillions upon trillions of times. God is a God of love and the Bible says that DEATH is the last enemy He will expunge from His universe.
Also, I have studied the prophecies and they definitely prove that a supreme being inspired them.
The last great prophecy is rushing toward us and increasing in speed. Many elements that set the stage for the end times are already in place.
And there is a very good scientific reason to reject the theory of evolution. It is totally illogical. Life is nearly infinitely complex, even in the ’simplest’ cells.
IF you would study the intricacies of biology, apart from the influence of prejudiced professors you will find that the complexity is beyond, far beyond what is ‘apparent’ to most people.
For example: To make a protein the 20 amino acids must be linked together into a long chain, a very long chain of the various acids. The ‘easiest’ one for a cell to make has about 1000 amino acids linked together exactly according to the instructions of the DNA. Just one mistake will usually kill the cell. A so called simple cell has hundreds of proteins made this way. But we are not finished the complexity part, just barely started.The protein is useless if it is not folded into a precise complex pattern. This act too is orchestrated by another machine within the cell.
I should be able to stop right here and you would be convinced that evolution is a farce. But because it is believed by people with doctorates in science and presented to the public as a known fact. You will most likely still believe in evolution.
People have presented the following scenario: How likely is it for a tornado in a junk yard to construct a jumbo jet? In very fact it would be thousands of times (perhaps millions) more likely to produce the airplane than for nature to produce life by chance.
Study carefully the whys and wherefores of cellular life and their complexity, then call in Mr. Common logic. By: Jim on October 18th, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Hi, Jim. Why do you move the goalposts? I gave you an example of speciation. It was what you asked for. Helen Curtis: “Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”
As goatsbeard spread in the USA, change occured generation after generation. Some traits became more common, some less common. That is evolution. Mutations brought about new traits — some of them beneficial, some of them not.
Some populations got seperated. The changes in one could not spread to another. Enough change occured to make one group of descendents unable to breed with another group of descendents.
And all that in about 50 years. Imagine the changes that could now build up over the next million years. Then 100 million years.
There are many good reasons to reject evolution as the means of creating life.
I agree. Evolution requires a population. By definition.
The creation of life is abiogenesis — a different phenomenon.
Much longer than the 6000 years of earth.
Now I know you’re joking. The evidence for the age of the Earth is over-whelming. If you believe that God created the Earth 6000 years ago, then you believe that God is a liar. By: misterlister on October 20th, 2007 at 10:21 am

No comments:

Post a Comment