|“||La génération spontanée est une chimère.||”|
Suppose we illustrate how anti-science some of our commenters are by quoting them...The following is comments made by me or a sympathetic soul in italics, the Darwinist commenter in green and my observations in purple.
The first and big point is that you cannot possibly have life *poof* into existence by natural causes,
An assumption on your part. You can't prove it.
DUH! I suppose you say the same about Gravity?
"The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from already established life. This very important and fundamental scientific law can be credited to the work of Louis Pasteur and others. The findings rooted in repeated scientific experimentation and observation can be summarized as follows, Omne vivum ex ovo, which is Latin for, "all life is from life." " (From Creation Wiki).
Darwinism is anti-science because the true believers ignore the Law of Biogenesis...
There is no Law of Biogenesis.
...and the 2LOT...
Evolution doesn't violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Take it away, All About Science:
"Second Law of Thermodynamics - The Laws of Heat Power
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of three Laws of Thermodynamics. The term "thermodynamics" comes from two root words: "thermo," meaning heat, and "dynamic," meaning power. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics are the Laws of "Heat Power." As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.
Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.
"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?
The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)
Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken...
and try to prop up the abject failure of Miller-Urey and all subsequent attempts but they have all failed.
That depends on how you define success. If you define "success" as "created life," then yes, they've failed. But if you define "success" as "help us understand under what conditions life could or could not have originated by natural processes," why then all of them have succeeded.
Anyway, we all know that if Miller and Urey, or any of their successors, had succeeded in creating life, you would right this minute be bellowing about how "see, see, this proves that you need an intelligent creator to create life!" The fact that such experiments are deliberately designed to minimize the human influence would be far beyond your understanding, just as it is with the analogous issue of genetic algorithms.
I believe the article I last posted on Miller-Urey and other such experiments demonstrates conclusively that there is absolutely NO HOPE that Darwinists can create life or come up with a scenario that life will spontaneously evolve.
Hey Philip, maybe you can answer the question that Radar runs from at warp nine: how do you measure information content? How can you tell if a given mutation increases or decreases the amount of information present?
Now that is a good one! In fact, Jon Woolf and others have run away from the information question. I asked them to give me a natural source for information and they failed miserably. Why? Because information is generated by intelligence and there is no intelligence in random occurrences. So they realized too late their dilemma and tried to change the nature of the question. So when they challenged me to quantify information I reminded them that since information is NOT material in form (thus unable to be generated naturally) then it cannot be quantified but rather we can only quantify the material that contains the information. We are able to identify places on the DNA string where information for specific features and actions exist and see when these places are mutated or missing, etc. In viewing changes to the genome we can see that information is being lost but we do so by the watching the physical containers of information. Information itself cannot be quantified because it comes from intelligence and therefore information within organisms demands a supernatural source....and Intelligent Designer. I call him God.
That article on the fruit fly also made me curious if there were any experiments, phenomena, obervations, etc. that a Darwinist would accept as having falsified Darwinism.
False premise. All organisms have a common designer and have the signature in the cell known as DNA, like an artist's signature on a painting. We do have organisms that do not depend on the Sun for energy, at least two complete ecosystems that depend on different substances being emitted from within the Earth. We see domains of organisms that appear to be uncrossable by evolution. But this all supports design.