• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution and God

kbc_1963

Active Member
Science doesn't say that we arrived here by spontaneous generation.

well here is my definition of "spontaneous generation"

Spontaneous Generation:
The idea that living creatures can be produced naturally from non-living substances.It is important to note that science has never observed such an occurrence.

There are two forms of spontaneous generation theories:
(a) Heterogenesis – life coming from dead organic matter.
(b) Abiogenesis – life coming from inorganic matter.

So When science only has theories that include "spontaneous generation","abiogenisis" or any of the others that say that life started by itself then it does say that life started spontaneously "ya know like it happened with no intelligent help" so let me reword that for you so there is no misunderstanding:

"science has stated that most evidence shows that we did not get here by other than intelligent design, but despite this evidence, it states, "Yet here we are as a result of other than intelligent design."

Despite the tremendous complexity and complete scientific evidence against the spontaneous generation of life, scientists continue to insist that somehow life did come out of the randomness of dead matter. They don’t know how, but they have faith that given time they will find the answer. All experiments, however, through electrical sparks and all other added factors have only produced "a tarry sludge.".The reason why evolutionary scientists hold onto the theory of spontaneous generation so tenaciously is because of their undying belief that all that exists is matter and its motion. It is based on their philosophy of life, not due to the scientific evidence at hand.
So science has taken it upon itself to limit the possibilities of our begining, which is not the way true science is supposed to work. The only things that are ruled out by a true science are those that have been proven wrong, futhermore the inability of science to recognize "intelligent design" because it is biblically oriented also keeps it from looking at the possibility that another lifeform may have seeded this planet with life of thier own design which should also be considered as our history has many instances that make it look like we have been visited by extraterestrials.
The science you follow and promote is biased from the start so your conclusions can only be according to the ruleset allowed, which is why there are so many wild and crazy theories that can't be backed up by real scientific evidence.

The calculations which I have seen which supposedly support that evolution didn't happen forgets too many important variables.

Then why don't we layout our own study and its probabilities with what we do know and see what the numbers look like?

The relationship between DNA and protein is very complicated.... There is nothing existing in matter to bring about these relationships.

I noticed you didn't give a reply to the above statement but I will expand what was meant by it anyway;
There is a relationship between DNA and protein which until now has been described as a "Chicken and Egg" problem. In reality, this problem is a problem of "Irreducible Complexity". i.e. protein depends on DNA for its formation, and , you guessed it, DNA depends on protein for its formation. This leaves us with two independently complex objects, which are interdependent, and if you remove either object the purpose and mechanism of the other's existence is thwarted. This is an "Irreducibly Complex" system.
Go back in time with me for a moment to the alleged origin of the first strand of DNA, or the origin of the first protein. If these two are truly interdependent and they are, how is it they could have arose independently of each other? It surely must stretch your imagination to construct a workable scenario.
Here are a couple of brief descriptions of this problem from the Scientific world:

"All known life revolves around the cozy accommodation between DNA and proteins: the software and the hardware. Each needs the other. So which came first? We have already encountered this sort of chicken-and-egg paradox in chapter 2, concerning the so-called error catastrophe that limits the number of copy mistakes in genetic replication, but the problem is much more general. There seems to be an enigmatic circularity to life, a type of irreducible complexity that some people regard as utterly mysterious." Paul Davies, "The Fifth Miracle," Simon & Schuster, 1999, pg. 124

"The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in the nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for this machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced! This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile." John C. Walton (Lecturer in Chemistry, University of St. Andrews Fife, Scotland), "Organization and the Origin of Life," Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30-31

if not one of these(Proteins,NucleicAcidDNA,RNA),Polysaccharide,Carbohydrates,Lipids)have ever been produced by man in a laboratory because their construction is very complex, (and we do know the exact formulation of each one) then how did nature do it on accident?
your theory that mother nature could kick our butts is not a plausible excuse from a scientific standpoint since the theory is that random chemicals converged to formulate the beginning chemicals of life, If these chemicals could be produced naturally on accident then scientist should be able to do the same thing on purpose seeing as how they can control every aspect of it.

END PART 1
 

kbc_1963

Active Member
PART 2

How could nature have caused DNA to occur? DNA is the map for building things other than itself, right?
for the most part very few realize that not only is DNA a map for building other things but also gives the things it builds the instruction to build DNA, so somehow without intelligent design we just randomly come up with a piece of DNA that not only has the instructions for building each of the items neccessary for constructing all the enzymes needed for life but the instructions for replicating itself with a builtin randomizer so that the thing made doesn't have the same genetic makeup each time its made, and it must also have something ingrained that ensures that the new random thing which occurs all works together flawlessly. absolutely amazing that something with no intelligence of its own was randomly arrived at and yet has only highly intelligent workings with no fluff.One thing I must point out is that until the first DNA came to be there was no way for any of the enzymes or other building blocks of life to be reproduced by anything other than random chance so just saying that everything before DNA just kept building in complexity until it reached the point of DNA would be inconcieveable. abiogenesis believes there are many many steps as the precursors got complex enough to form that first DNA, so until the DNA was acomplished the precursors had to be randomly created, with that in mind I would ask how long even 1 enzyme can exist before it breaks apart and goes back to chemical components? how many times did nature overcome the immense odds of just creating 1 complex enzyme to creating all the enzymes needed to actually create DNA? and how did these enzymes not only know how to construct dna but to construct dna that can cause those exact enzymes to be reconstructed. Your argument that there were so many trials going on that it was an eventuality that life came about can't be, nature would have to accomplish alot to go along with your reasoning and I will list some of the acomplishments that must occur to back up your statements.
Random chance would have had to;
1) start making all the components that would have to come together in order to become an enzyme capable of being part of those which made the first DNA.

(The problem of assembling the amino acid building blocks into a functional protein/enzyme can also be illustrated using probability and statistics. To simplify the problem, one may assume the probability of getting an L-amino acid (versus a D-amino acid) to be 50 percent and the probability of joining two such amino acids with a peptide bond to also be 50 percent. The probability of getting the right amino acid in a particular position may be assumed to be 5 percent, assuming equal concentration of all twenty amino acids in the pre biotic soup. The first two assumptions are realistic, while the third would be too low for some amino acids and to high for others.
Neglecting the problem of reactions with non-amino acid chemical species, the probability of getting everything right in placing one amino acid would be 0.5 x 0.5 x .05 = .0125. The probability of properly assembling N such amino acids would be .0125 x .0125 x ...continued for N terms of .0125. If a functional protein had one hundred active sights, the probability of getting a proper assembly would be .0125 multiplied times itself one hundred times, or 4.9 x 10191.)

2) create over and over many millions of times all the various high odds enzyme chains to be able to have the immense amount of trials that would have to be necessary to overcome the odds to create that first dna

3) get just those impossible odds enzymes all in the same place at the same time so that they may on their own come together and make a DNA.

Can you comprehend just how many chains other than the right ones would come about before one of those impossibly high odds enzymes could form and then if it did form it would be alone in a sea of chains all less than itself in complexity and that one enzyme would then have to somehow come within working distance of other enzymes each of which is equal or greater than the complexity of the first one, all at the same time before they began to break down. now how many of these enzymes were needed for the first dna construction is debateable to an extent but I would say there would have to be much more than 2.
Now lets assume for just a second that the encoding of the first dna occured now how did that dna by itself cause the enzymes to be created since it would not have had the structure of a cell around it and it would have to be awash in a virtual sea of nothing but bits and pieces of enzymes? (don't forget the kajillion trials that would have had to occur)
Hmmm can DNA survive intact for any length of time before it breaks down without the protection of the cell?
I guess this is where you would have to alter the explanation to have the enzymes build the first cell around their baby DNA.

impossible odds stacked on top of impossible odds stacked on top of impossible odds etc......

Biodiversity appears to have reached a ceiling level almost immediately after complex animal life first appeared on the scene.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you look at the cells (number, etc), life has been become steadily much more complex since that explosion.

Biodiversity = the different types of life or phyla


I would say that because we can't replicate the number of simultaneous trials in one single period of time as nature can. It would be impossible. Also, the experiment might have to run for thousands of years. Etc. I'm sure a biology major could give you more reasons why.

Your statement makes no sense, why would scientist try to make it happen by trial and error when we can just put everything that is required to begin the process together in the correct environment and watch as nature does its thing (the only reason that nature would need multiple trials is because it can't do it by intelligence but rather by chance).since the chemicals supposedly just came together on thier own to form the base chemistry needed for the building blocks of life then all we should have to do is provide the same situation and basic enzyme precursors and it should all form by itself by natural chemical reaction.

It would seem to me if it could overcome fantastic odds in the natural case then we should be able to do it in our sleep, but It appears that random chance is smarter than all the worlds scientist.

Now, now, don't be egotistical. ; ) You seem to think that if nature can do it, we can. This isn't so. Nature is much more powerful than we could ever be, and she can kick humanities *** any day.

once again you make no sense. If nature can form a gorge in a million years by accidental happenings then why is it impossible for man by design to make the same gorge? we can and do many things that it would take nature millions of years to do by accident in our everyday lives. Your rationalization is without merit to believe that what can happen by accident can't happen by design.

What if science were to try and prove that life began by design?

There would be none, because in order for scientists to start doing this, they would first need to prove that such a deity exists. This is impossible.

What if life began by another lifeform from another galaxy by intentional seeding? do you not think it possible that another lifeform might have the ability to form the beginnings of life by design?See by denying a deity you also deny that there could be life anywhere but here so the nose gets cut off to spite the face.

END PART 2
 

kbc_1963

Active Member
PART 3

When you consider how these probabilities encompass not only the earth, but many other planets, it isn't so improbable.

hmmm just how many other planets contain the same type of makeup as the earth that can be seen by us? (to give some back up yo your statement)

Molecular formation:
A hydrogen-rich reducing atmosphere was only reproduced in these experiments because amino acids and nitrogenous bases simply will not spontaneously form in an oxidizing environment.

Life could begin in areas where the oxygen wasn't so thick.

Love the reasoning, my children might say such a thing but as anyone in the business of science can tell you oxygen does not segregate itself naturally nor would any natural process segregate it which is why even the rocks from millions of years before life began show oxidation because oxygen permeates everything equally in a natural environment. To top off my side of the argument I will reprint those few paragraphs dealing with the subject and another paragraph dealing with the problem that having no oxygen entails.

Molecular formation: Theories concerning molecular evolution generally assume molecules naturally coalescence into macromolecules during times when their concentration and atmospheric conditions favored such contact. In 1924, Alexander I. Oparin determined which chemicals must be in the earth's atmosphere for amino acids to form (e.g. methane, hydrogen,ammonia) and which chemicals would prohibit the formation of amino acids (e.g. Oxygen).
In the 1950s, Stanley L. Miller, performed the first experiment attempting to reproduce these conditions. Methane,ammonia, hydrogen and water were placed in a flask that was subject to an electrical discharge. After several days, the experiment yielded several organic compounds including amino acids. Other researchers repeated these experiments using different energy sources such as UV, and other presumed primitive atmospheres. When hydrogen cyanide was used, even nitrogenous bases were obtained, which are a components of the building blocks for DNA. However, in all of these experiments that attempted to produce life's building blocks, molecular oxygen was absent. The earth possesses an oxygen rich atmosphere, and even the oldest rocks contain oxides which is evidence they were formed in the presence of oxygen. In fact, oxides have been found in rocks supposedly 300 million years older than the first living cells.A hydrogen-rich reducing atmosphere was only reproduced in these experiments because amino acids and nitrogenous bases simply will not spontaneously form in an oxidizing environment.
Now if as you say that there was a possibility that oxygen just decided on its own to be less or absent in some areas which would then enable the construction of the enzymes needed to initiate the process then you run into this problem;

"There is an enzyme (class I reductase) in E. coli that poses a conundrum: the survival and continual evolution of an oxygen-sensitive enzyme.The class I reductase cannot form in an oxidizing environment but E. coli requires oxygen for free radical generation Surely they could not have evolved and operated in the anaerobic first cell in an oxygen-free environment." [Science, Vol. 260, p:1773-1777 1993]

Where Did the Information in Cells Come from? And your rant about RNA and DNA

You mistakenly think that RNA and DNA were created to have the information. This isn't so. The information is there because of them, but they are not their because life needed information.

Is that what I think? not likely. it is more likely that I question how the information came to be when the thing that forms the DNA depends on DNA for its formation. Now just out of curiosity what other function does DNA have if not to house information? also how did DNA make its own information if as you say "The information is there because of them" this would involve intelligent design initiated by the DNA. finally you say "they are not their because life needed information" so tell me what life is reproduced without information? Remember protein depends on DNA for its formation, and DNA depends on protein for its formation. This leaves us with two independently complex objects, which are interdependent, and if you remove either object the purpose and mechanism of the other's existence is thwarted. This is an "Irreducibly Complex" system with no theoretical precursors.

The main problem with your arguements (in general) is that you believe that life on earth was created because it had a purpose - the human race. This is a religious belief, so not one you will probably alter. This is why the probability factors bother you so. The way I look at it is that life on earth wasn't created because of humans, humans were created because of the life forming. Probability doesn't matter if you look at it like that. As long as it is possible, it works.

My belief in GOD came from the realization that life could not possibly happen by chance, You actually hold to a belief that random chance is the basis for all organized life and the odds go beyond possibility according to all that would be
necessary to make it happen that way. I will also point out that my figuring of the possibilities of life did not in any way depend on it becoming human, my figures deal only with life forming according to scientific theory and If you look at things in a scientific way the only things that should happen in nature are naturally occuring principals governed by the chemistry of each thing in that natural environment so when I look at the possibility of life occuring on accident then I must assume that it can only be governed by the laws of nature which in most atomic and chemical instances is to equalize just as hydrogen and oxygen in their attempt to equalize combine to form water, and so are the processes in nature. However you imply that somewhere along the evolutionary chain that these chemicals gained the ability to improve themselves and reform on their own to adapt to the environment, why? what would give these chemicals the idea that once they form into a complex molecule or anything greater than themselves that they will suddenly develop into a team with a "will" to preserve the whole, doesn't this idea go beyond the laws of the natural and enter into the supernatural? how can a complex molecule gain a sense of self? There can only be action and reaction in nature and no matter how many complex things you make the whole is only driven by the basic laws of nature which is why evolution and abiogenisis make no sense, take a look at the laws;

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Matter / energy cannot by itself be created or destroyed. Matter / energy may be changed from one form into another, but the total amount remains unchanged.

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

All systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized.

More than almost any other single subject, the Second Law of Thermodynamics totally annihilates evolutionary theory. Evolution is based on the idea of continual, accidental upward development. The Second Law inflexibly says, NO! Everything, left to itself, goes downward.

END PART 3
 

kbc_1963

Active Member
PART 4

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from Darwin's The Origin of the Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species.

"Henry Bent, a chemist, calculated on the basis of the second law that the chance for a reversal of entropy, such that one calorie could be converted completely into work, is comparable to the odds for a group of monkeys randomly punching at the typewriters to `produce Shakespeare's works 15 quadrillion times in succession without an error."—*S.W. Angrist, "Perpetual Motion Machines," in Scientific American (1968), pp. 218, 120-121.

"There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances."—*A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.

"The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate `heat death' or, as it is technically defined, a condition of `maximum entropy' . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves only one way."—*Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.

One of the other totally unnatural things about abiogenesis is that the developing item would have to think ahead or design ahead of itself in order for it to make it to the next evolutionary step, because there are noted cases of irreducible complexity that can't be just whisked away with theory;

Here is one of those cracks in the abiogenesis chain

A Cells Membrane
Each cell is contained inside a two layer membrane made of lipids (fats).Lipids are only formed by living cells. "Though a few organic substances,for instance,simple amino acids-can form relatively easily under prebiotic conditions, other biochemical building blocks, such as nucleotides and lipids, require for their synthesis a 'real factory.' … The synthesis of these substances involves a series of reactions, each reaction following the previous one in utmost accuracy." Cells can't live without lipids, and lipids are only produced by already living cells and all research into precursors to lipids have comeup with zero possibilities.
A living cell is a self-reproducing system of molecules held inside a container. The container is the plasma membrane - a fatty film so thin and transparent that it cannot be seen directly in the light microscope. It is simple in construction, being based on a sheet of lipid molecules…. Although it serves as a barrier to prevent the contents of the cell from escaping and mixing with the surrounding medium…the plasma membrane does much more than that. Nutrients have to pass inward across it if the cell is to survive and grow, and waste products have to pass outward. Thus the membrane is penetrated by highly selective channels and pumps, formed from protein molecules, that allow specific substances to be imported while others are exported."
A lipid membrane without its protein pumps and channels would let water enter the cell, but would keep nutrients out, starving the cell, so proteins had to work together with the lipids from the first. This is evidence of irreducible complexity.

If cells had really formed by themselves, we would expect their important parts to be made of substances that are easily formed under natural conditions which would follow the way nature truely works but Amazingly Not one of the four: lipids, proteins, RNA, or DNA, can be formed in nature except by a living cell, yet for a cell to live, all four must be up and running, each one doing its job.

So for you or abiogenesis to say that there were precursors before each item, we see now does not hold true because in this case it would have required the developing cell to say hey I need these four items in order do continue on in the evolutionary chain and then change its own dna to cause a new cell to create them together and of course that would mean it was intelligent design.

Here is another major problem for abiogenesis/evolution

"Aside from the fact that There isn't a shred of geological evidence left in the rocks that a primordial soup ever existed [If there was ever a soup, the earliest precambrian rocks should contain high levels of non-biological carbon, for biologically produced carbon contains an excess of "isotopically light" carbon. Ancient sedimentary rocks, however, do not reveal this signature, and thus there is no positive evidence for this soup] scientists have now determined that the logical processes required to begin life from a prebiotic soup is not possible."

Polymerization;
The main problem with "polymerization" is that it requires dehydration synthesis. Most origins of life researchers have postulated that life arose in a pre-biotic soup, which was an aqueous solution of pre-biotic monomers. However, the chemical reactions which create polymers also create a water molecule. According to Le Chateliers Principle, one of the basic laws of chemistry, the presence of a product (in this case, water) will slow the reaction. If one tries to polymerize monomers into polymers in an aqueous solution (one where water is the solvent),its not possible to obtain any appreciable amount. The bottom line, the polymerization step in the chemical origins of life could never take place in water.
Some scientist have proposed alternatives to get around this stumbling block.Since polymerization reactions also require an input of energy, heating and drying has been theorized to input energy, and remove the water. However,this heating and drying has to take place in such a way so as to not wipeout the created polymers. Some theorized locations for this reaction have been intertidal pools where repeated cycles of heating and drying can takeplace. The only problem? Well, you don't just have to remove some of the water, you have to remove all of it! Even under ideal laboratory conditions using pure monomers and carefully measured heating and drying cycles, only small polymers have been created. But of course, wouldn't they? These experiments are designed to produce the product, and often in no way simulate possible natural conditions.
The ocean is composed of water. Water prevents polymerization because polymerization cannot take place in the presence of water. According to Le Chateliers principle, reactions do not take place when large quantities of the product are already present. Thus, polymerization necessary to build the large organic molecules involved in life's processes cannot take place naturally in the ocean, as the presence of water inhibits such reactions. Furthermore, any pre-biotic soup would be highly diluted in any ocean environment. The reactions producing pre-biotic chemicals would have to occur at an almost unthinkably high rate in order to overcome the high natural degradation rate and build up in an oceanic aqueous solution to the point where they would have the many random chemical interactions necessary to reduce the odds against the origins of life.

END
 

Ronald

Well-Known Member
Please show me the Macro-Alligator that evolved into a Micro-Hummingbird.
You have my permission to use as much of your time as you wish to evolve any species into another. Good Luck and happy experimenting.
 
KBC1963 said:
the definition of a new species is not satisfied by the occurance you have shown, it is equally argueable that it has become a subspecies, and using conjecture to say that it could fit into the meaning of evolution would be just that conjecture.
O. gigas fits into the definition of a new species in every way. Not only does it look physically different from O. lamarckiana, but they cannot interbreed. Face it, KCB, speciation has been observed. :rolleyes:
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Linus said:
Exactly, KBC1963. Your point was right on. But I only use the term evolution because that is what it is commoly called.

Anyway, what you said is one of the gaps the the evolutionary theory. How can we (or any organism for that matter) evolve into a new species unless new genes are introduced into the gene pool? It's impossible.

Adaptation is another term that doesn't violate the evolutionist's ideas.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Ronald said:
Please show me the Macro-Alligator that evolved into a Micro-Hummingbird.
You have my permission to use as much of your time as you wish to evolve any species into another. Good Luck and happy experimenting.

Please show me the intelligent design of virus and bacterior. Please show me the creation of the observable universe and our galaxy from the "domed" earth with waters above and below it. Please tell me where Christ rose in relation to the universe. Please tell me which of the stars (or suns) could possibly be Hell.

Take all the time you need but please, no cheating by using science, just the biblical account.
 

dolly

Member
kbc_1963 said:
The idea that living creatures can be produced naturally from non-living substances.It is important to note that science has never observed such an occurrence.

Of course science can't observe it - we can't replicate nature's abilities when it takes so long and and is so large. The simplest forms of life which would have been made would merely been combinations of chemical reactions (much less than the ones in our body). Life is just a combination of chemical reactions.

Also, spontaneous implies a quick, sudden, impulsive appearance. This didn't happen.

"science has stated that most evidence shows that we did not get here by other than intelligent design..."

I would like to see where the majorit of the scientific community has stated that.

The reason why evolutionary scientists hold onto the theory of spontaneous generation so tenaciously is because of their undying belief that all that exists is matter and its motion.

No. They hold on to it because it makes more sense than the alternative, because It's more likely than the alternative, and because it makes more sense than the alternative.

Then why don't we layout our own study and its probabilities with what we do know and see what the numbers look like?

You can try all you like. You won't be able to account all the simultaneous trials, which is highly important. Nevertheless, you forget, it doesn't matter how improbable this is. If you consider how many galaxies/solar systems/planets etc and that we are here because of the earth, not that the earth is this way because of us, then even the smallest probability is still highly possible.

There is a relationship between DNA and protein which until now has been described as a "Chicken and Egg" problem. In reality, this problem is a problem of "Irreducible Complexity". i.e. protein depends on DNA for its formation, and , you guessed it, DNA depends on protein for its formation.

Didn't we already address this? DNA does not need the protein in order to be evolved because it would be from RNA.

if not one of these(Proteins,NucleicAcidDNA,RNA),Polysaccharide,Carbohydrates,Lipids)have ever been produced by man in a laboratory because their construction is very complex, (and we do know the exact formulation of each one) then how did nature do it on accident?

Because we as humans can not run an experiment for thousands of years in a tub as wide and deep as that of the primordial soup. Nor can we simulate the possible interaction between this world and comets/etc. Nor can we replicate the exact conditions that existed at that time. etc. Common sense?

your theory that mother nature could kick our butts is not a plausible excuse from a scientific standpoint

Yes it is, though I worded it strangely. Mother nature can do a hell of a lot that we can't. She has more time, more energy, more space, etc. We can not accomplish all that she can simply because we do not have her resources and abilities. You seem to think that if humans can't accomplish it, it's wrong/doesn't exist/etc and this is not true.
 

dolly

Member
kbc_1963 said:
How could nature have caused DNA to occur?

Again, via RNA.

so somehow without intelligent design we just randomly come up with a piece of DNA that not only has the instructions for building each of the items neccessary for constructing all the enzymes needed for life but the instructions for replicating itself with a builtin randomizer so that the thing made doesn't have the same genetic makeup each time its made, and it must also have something ingrained that ensures that the new random thing which occurs all works together flawlessly.

You are looking at it wrong. DNA didn't evolve to fit the purpose of hosting that information. It evolved and then took the job, changing to fit it perfectly. And the first DNA wouldn't be able to do all those things simply because it wasn't necessary for those "life forms." The replication method would be an adaption to the way RNA catalyzes it's replication.

the first DNA came to be there was no way for any of the enzymes or other building blocks of life to be reproduced by anything other than random chance

No. We already addressed this. RNA can catalyze it's own replication. There have been experiments where DNA can catalyze replication and function to cleave RNA without proteins.


I'm not even addressing (specifically) your probability rant because I've said repeatedly that for evolution it doesn't matter, and also that DNA did not just randomly show up. You don't seem to understand that the things created directly from the soup were 99+% the simplest of chemical combinations.

Your statement makes no sense, why would scientist try to make it happen by trial and error when we can just put everything that is required to begin the process together in the correct environment and watch as nature does its thing (the only reason that nature would need multiple trials is because it can't do it by intelligence but rather by chance).

Go ahead. I'd really like to see you try to find an environment exactly like that of early Earth, be able to create the exact same soup, with the same quantity of it, and all those other variables and sit there with a microscope for at least 5 thousand years and see what happens.

once again you make no sense. If nature can form a gorge in a million years by accidental happenings then why is it impossible for man by design to make the same gorge?

We could make the same gorge, just not the way nature did it - just like we make life today, just not the way nature did it. Theoretically, we could create the gorge in a very similar way (have a river flow through for several thousand years), but note that it would still take as long as nature did.

What if life began by another lifeform from another galaxy by intentional seeding?

It is actually a belief among scientists that meteorites/etc influenced abiogenesis. Intentionial? I doubt, but it's possible.

See by denying a deity you also deny that there could be life anywhere but here so the nose gets cut off to spite the face.

No. First of all, I'm Agnostic. I don't "deny a deity" existing. Second of all, it's common sense that if I believe in evolution than I clearly believe it's possible for other life to exist. Alien life is practically a guarantee. A giant all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, magical deity who is perfect and all loving despite certain evidences saying otherwise existing is completely different.

hmmm just how many other planets contain the same type of makeup as the earth that can be seen by us? (to give some back up yo your statement)

Oh because if we can't see it then it doesn't exist right? :rollseyes: There are how many galaxies? How many stars per galaxy?How many of these stars have planets? How many planets? And the environment of the planet is one of the variables which affects the probabilty, so it's included, no?

...anyone in the business of science can tell you oxygen does not segregate itself naturally nor would any natural process segregate...

Except there is evidence that oxygen either didn't get everywhere, or wasn't bountiful, during very early earth. Banded iron formations, rocks older than previously said foundations, red beds, etc. Also common sense that most of the oxygen comes from photosynthesis. Obviously without plants about yet, there was no photosynthesis.

"There is an enzyme (class I reductase) in E. coli that poses a conundrum: the survival and continual evolution of an oxygen-sensitive enzyme.The class I reductase cannot form in an oxidizing environment but E. coli requires oxygen for free radical generation Surely they could not have evolved and operated in the anaerobic first cell in an oxygen-free environment." [Science, Vol. 260, p:1773-1777 1993]

Well, no ****. They weren't the first things alive.

You mistakenly think that RNA and DNA were created to have the information. This isn't so. The information is there because of them, but they are not their because life needed information.

it is more likely that I question how the information came to be when the thing that forms the DNA depends on DNA for its formation.

RNA, and the thing which formed DNA didn't depend on DNA.

Now just out of curiosity what other function does DNA have if not to house information?

Off the top of my head I can't think of any. Irrelevant anyway.

also how did DNA make its own information if as you say "The information is there because of them" this would involve intelligent design initiated by the DNA.

DNA didn't make it's own information. You twist my words.

finally you say "they are not their because life needed information" so tell me what life is reproduced without information?

You twist my words. That isn't the point. When I said that, my point was that you were looking at the world, evolution, etc because you believe that humans must exist because God created us. You believe that god created the world as we know it - as a home for his creation. That Earth was for us. When I believe is that the world has little to do with us, and cares little for us. Earth wasn't for us. Earth isn't the way it is simply because we need a home.

Quote:
The main problem with your arguements (in general) is that you believe that life on earth was created because it had a purpose - the human race. This is a religious belief, so not one you will probably alter. This is why the probability factors bother you so. The way I look at it is that life on earth wasn't created because of humans, humans were created because of the life forming. Probability doesn't matter if you look at it like that. As long as it is possible, it works.


My belief in GOD came from the realization that life could not possibly happen by chance, You actually hold to a belief that random chance is the basis for all organized life and the odds go beyond possibility according to all that would be
necessary to make it happen that way.

You say this as if my belief is less logical than your deity. This amuses me.

I will also point out that my figuring of the possibilities of life did not in any way depend on it becoming human, my figures deal only with life forming according to scientific theory

Again, these probabilities are always incorrect because they leave out far too many important variables.

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

All systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized.

More than almost any other single subject, the Second Law of Thermodynamics totally annihilates evolutionary theory. Evolution is based on the idea of continual, accidental upward development. The Second Law inflexibly says, NO! Everything, left to itself, goes downward.

You do realize that this is the one arguement which every single creationist brings up? And every single time it's shot down.

I'm not in the mood for typing overly much today.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html



One of the other totally unnatural things about abiogenesis is that the developing item would have to think ahead or design ahead of itself in order for it to make it to the next evolutionary step, because there are noted cases of irreducible complexity that can't be just whisked away with theory;

It wouldn't have to design ahead of itself because when a creature is evolving, it isn't trying to change into something. Didn't we already discuss the irreducibile complexity before these four responses of yours?

A Cells Membrane

Discuss with a biology major.

polymerization

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9611763&dopt=Abstract
 

dolly

Member
Look, KBC. It's very simple to prove your point. Go talk to a biologist (no cheating, make sure they are evolutionists). Ask them all the questions I either don't know or am too lazy to look up. If you can disprove the evolution theory, then publish it in a scientific journal or something. Creationists have bee argueing against evolution for a while. Even if the scientific community didn't want it out that evidence sided more with creationism, but this time it would have gotten out to the public. But it hasn't, has it? It is all fine and good to debate it here, but you said that your, " belief in GOD came from the realization that life could not possibly happen by chance." You are basing your entire religion on this (BTW, if this is true, why did you choose Christianity?). Shouldn't you at least discuss it with highly intelligent biologist? Especially when you can't even convince a group of people on a forum? At least before you base your religion on it.



You want me to understand the problem with probabilty and evolution? You want me to see how evolution isn't possible? Prove that creationism is more likely - more likely not only of evolution, but of all the other creation stories out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pah

kbc_1963

Active Member
You want me to understand the problem with probabilty and evolution? You want me to see how evolution isn't possible? Prove that creationism is more likely - more likely not only of evolution, but of all the other creation stories out there.

Possibility that life could have been created by intelligent design (GOD - who has always existed) = 100%
[It is always 100% possible that what can be created by chance can be done by design]

Possibility that life could have been created by any random method as close to 0% as any possibilities can be figured

Dolly your avoidance of the figuring of possibilities only reinforces the truth of my posts. The assumtion that all of the steps necessary to have life begin and evolve to our level would be assumed without thorough consideration of probability and possibility, for science to admit it isnt possible for life to have started by intelligence would end the need for science to explain how our existence came to be and would also disturb all those that don't believe in GOD and since satan has had from the beginning the ability to influence the thoughts of man he has made sure that the very existence of GOD is questioned so even to the end there will always be a majority of non believing people in charge of directing the basic philosophies of thought for most of the so-called high intelligence people. GOD has said that he has given satan the power to blind peoples minds and so it is as this will keep anyone from easily proving that he exists and so that those that would only obey him out of fear would have no fear in doing the evil that they would prefer to do.
So as you have inferred Dolly there is no absolute proving that he is there and that will be true until the end, however the science that is directed by the prince of this world is also kept from being able to prove its theories. This is where those who have been called see the truth because science should be able to prove something by the evidences in nature but alas it hasnt and never shall.
It is difficult to believe that all of the things that have occured to allow life to exist are a series of fortunate coincidences. Yet if we accept the idea that everything is a result of chance, this is exactly what we have to believe. As one examines the universe one finds precision and order everywhere. Our earth has been made in such a way that it is suitable for life to exist, and you believe all of this perfect order came out of random chance? (rolls eyes)


"Ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind." (Job 12:7-10)

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Psalm 19:1-4; cf. Psalm 97:6)

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of humanity who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that humans are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:18-21).
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
Possibility that life could have been created by intelligent design (GOD - who has always existed) = 100%
[It is always 100% possible that what can be created by chance can be done by design]
It's only 100% if you can prove that God exists. If God does not exist, then the probability that life could have been created by intelligent design is 0% (unless you want to suggest that aliens did it... but then you still have to determine how THEY came to be).

Possibility that life could have been created by any random method as close to 0% as any possibilities can be figured


The probablity that any one person will actually be born is supposed to be something like 1 in 130,000,000,000. And yet THAT has occurred, many times, so I don't see why the low probability for life being created randomly means it didn't happen. It just means it is an incredibly unlikely occurance that nevertheless occurred--just like your own birth.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
kbc_1963 said:
Possibility that life could have been created by intelligent design (GOD - who has always existed) = 100%.
There is zero evidence of intelligent design. In fact, the 'design' we see is haphazard to the point of being laughable. Your Intelligent Designer must have been a real Bozo! As for your parenthetical "(GOD - who has always existed)", that too is pure conjecture.

kbc_1963 said:
Possibility that life could have been created by any random method as close to 0% as any possibilities can be figured.
Really? Given that (a) you exist, and (b) you do not appear to reflect Intelligent Design, I would say that the possibility is rather good?

Bye the way, can you suggest a rough date for your imagined creation event?
 

Pah

Uber all member
Curtis said:
Quick quetion!
If the universe just exploded into "being"
What did it explode out of? Non-being?

There is a growing body of scientific thought that the "big bang" was a result of collision in relation to "string theroy" - that there are multiple dimensions (23 is the number that comes to mind) in time and space and that is where the "big bang" ocurred. And that our universe is not unique to the quantum process - there may be other alternate universes

-pah-
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
It makes me roll my eyes a bit when people talk about the 'odds' of the universe coming into being and how high they are. Many people seem to overlook the fact that when paired with infinite space and lack of temporal limits, odds cease to exist. Why? Lets try this analogy (someone used it on me a long time ago): if you take a deck of shuffled cards, and throw them up into the air, the odds that they would all land face up in a pile and in order by suit and number are astronomical. The odds of the universe coming into being are even greater. This is a good analogy, but it has a few problems: First of all, if you only had your lifetime to get the card trick right, the odds would indeed be ridiculous.....but what if you didn't have a deadline? What if you had forever to get it right? After the 100 billionth attempt...you might just get it. Another hole, is that atoms and energy and matter are much more ordered and less random than a deck of flying cards...therefore lowering the odds more.

Ah yes, but how did that energy and atoms get there, you ask? Simply stated, I believe that they have just always been. You believe that god has just always been--that nothing created him. My theory is no different, excepting that it is based on logical reasoning and the god-theory isn't.
 
KBC--

I have a question for you. So far your arguments have mainly been against the very beginning of evolution...that is, matter turning into self-replicating molecules, which then turned into DNA, and then cells. Based on what you have been saying, it sounds like you think a supernatural event is the only way matter could have formed the proteins needed to form DNA.

So do you think God caused matter to form into DNA and then cells, which started the evolutionary process?

Also, I would like to hear your response to my last post....explain to me how the plant O. gigas is not its own species but a subspecies of O. lamarckiana. Otherwise, you must admit that natural speciation occurs.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Ceridwen018 said:
It makes me roll my eyes a bit when people talk about the 'odds' of the universe coming into being and how high they are. Many people seem to overlook the fact that when paired with infinite space and lack of temporal limits, odds cease to exist.
Just out of curiosity, what cosmology presumes "infinite space" paired with a "lack of temporal limits"?
 
Top