Search This Blog

Sunday, January 08, 2012

A quick expose of the Darwinist propaganda machine aka the man behind the curtain

The Great and Powerful Smoke and Mirrors






Darwinism - a very good story, just very bad science!

Just as there is no Great and Powerful Oz, there is no proof for evolution as hypothesized by Neo-Darwinists.  On this blog I have posted numerous articles explaining why the main talking points of Darwinism are simply hot air, but I will thank an unamed commenter for listing them nicely.  What he copied from me will be bolded black.  What he says will be normal black.  My comments in between in the normal color which is some shade of purple.  I use that to differentiate from posted articles and also the quotes that I often blue when copying them.

"Where did irreducibly complex systems come from?"

From systems that weren't irreducibly complex. You can turn the one into the other if you take away the bits that are redundant.





This is nonsense, of course.  The system of valves and chambers in a giraffe neck, for instance, must all work together just right to keep a giraffe from passing out when raising his head or exploding his brain when reaching down to get a drink.   The bombadier beetle has a sophisticated method of shooting out quick burst from two different places mixing ingredients in mid-air to cause explosions to chase away predators.  The e. coli flagellum has never been explained away to the satisfaction of anyone who actually understands the subject.  Michael Behe's "Darwins's Black Box" began a debate that has hastened the growth of Intelligent Design organizations and has begun making Darwinism look foolish.   There are in fact inumerable irreducibly complex systems and interelationships between organisms that cannot work until every part or partner is in place.
 

"Where did existence come from?"

Where did your god come from?

God with a capital G created existence.  There was no "from" for Him to come from until he invented it.   Any freshman philosophy student knows that a Transcendent God is not part of existence but in fact created existence and time (not that they may believe it to be true, but they understand the concept) so you cannot be so dumb as to not comprehend this.   As God said to Moses, "I AM."  A refresher in the basics is here.



"Where did information come from?"

Information arises spontaneously, given the right preconditions.




It is for such ridiculous claims that I made the Ultimate Information Post available at the top of my links list.  Information only arises from intelligence and it is not material in form or substance.  Darwinists hate this fact because they now understand that organisms are packed full of so much information they make Cray Supercomputers look lame.  You can access Dr. Werner Gitt's online information if you do not wish to purchase his book - In The Beginning Was Information.

By the way, a review of the book is helpful as it quickly summarizes Dr. Gitt's main points, by S. Aramov:


"The German professor Werner Gitt, in his landmark book In The Beginning Was Information provides a rigorously formal presentation and his book is well worth reading.

Gitt's argument is summarized in the following 8 theorems: 

(1) No information can exist without a code.
(2) No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
(3) No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [note: apobetics is Gitt's term, referring to the fact that there can be shown to be
a will and a larger objective behind all instances of intent].
(4) No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
(5) No information can exist without a transmitter.
(6) No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
(7) No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
(8) No information can exist without a will.

These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found. Gitt has presented this proof to university audiences of many thousands of people across Europe, and no one has ever been able to point out an exception. Numerous rebuttals to Gitt's theorems have been made, but in each instance, every one ignores or dismisses semantics and intent, properties that are essential to all forms of communication.

Unless / until a contradictory example can be found, these theorems are taken to be universally true.

For any reviewer to question Dr. Prof. Gitt's knowledge of the topic, only shows ignorance on his/her part."

 

"Where did life come from?"

Life is a spontaneous result of sufficiently-complex, self-sustaining chemical interactions.
 

Absolutely preposterous!  The Law of Biogenesis says otherwise.  There are hard chemical barriers to the formation of the so-called building blocks of life, as I have posted about before.  In addition, cells only work with the information-packed DNA code and the pre-existing meta-information within the cell plus operating STP Synthase mechanisms going in addition to thousands of other operations going on within cells at one time.  Mud does not become man.  I do take some time and expose the mythology in several posts such as this one.

"Why do Darwinists pretend evolution is fact when it is in violation of scientific laws and has never successfully overthrown said laws?"

Because it doesn't violate any scientific laws.

Other than the Law of Biogenesis, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Statistics and the Laws of Information for just a start?   The only way to assert that Darwinism does not violate scientific laws is to admit that Darwinism is not.  Here is a post that shows that Darwinism is in direct opposition to the long-established Laws of Thermodynamics.


"How is it that Big Bang theorists present formulas with 96% of the energy and matter missing and expect us to call it "science?""

All scientific theories are works in progress. Cosmological theory is somewhat more 'in progress' than most.

That answers nothing!   If 96% of the matter and energy are not there when you use your big bang model, your model is wrong.   That is not a work in progress, it is a desperate attempt to save a hypothesis that does not come close to working.  Big bang hypotheses are all flawed badly.   They cannot account for either the so-called singularity or how it "made" the Universe.  Declaring that all scientific laws are tossed aside for 1 X 10^-43 seconds is truly ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as the assertion that the singularity just made itself!   At some point the term "mad scientist" should occur to the average student who can see that God making the Universe ex nihilo actually works with no fudge factors.   Planck Time and Dark Energy and Dark Matter are nonsensical illusory references to nothing that can be detected, inspected, tested or logically conceived with any intellectual integrity.  Occam would cut you with his own Razor!


There are at least 30 major problems with Big Bang Scenarios and at the end of this post I will give you some observations by Jason Lisle after the Shakespeare quote.    You might peruse a list from this source as an overview?  The proprietor of the blog below may not have a better answer than a Big Bang but he does list most of the primary BB flaws.



The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

'Cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt.' -- Lev Landau /// 'I am certain that it is time to retire Landau’s quote.' -- cosmologist Michael Turner [Physics Today 2001/12, 10-11]

The mind boggles at your ability to completely ignore science, logic and common sense just to avoid the obvious, which is that God did created a finite Universe which is running downhill, finite organisms which are piling up mutations, stars and planets and moons which are by observation not going to stay where they need to be for too long and cannot have been there very long.   I mean, if you do real science of course.   You'll find the Darwinists down the hall from science, just turn left at the Fairy Tale division and walk right in.  I think the sign above their hall says something like *POOF*?

There. Your Unanswerable Questions have been answered yet again.


...and there you have it, my friends!   The best Darwinism can come up with to answer these basic questions is a lot of verbiage that amounts to nothing at all.   William Shakespeare summarizes Darwinist philosophy and the total of respect their just-so stories merit thus:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. Macbeth (Act V, Scene V).



frame top left frame top frame top right
frame left
Creation Magazine Volume 25 Issue 4 CoverFirst published:
Creation 25(4):48–49
September 2003
frame right
frame bottom left frame bottom frame bottom right

Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang

The ‘distant starlight problem’ is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel–time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel–time problem.

The background

In 1964/5, Penzias and Wilson discovered that the earth was bathed in a faint microwave radiation, apparently coming from the most distant observable regions of the universe, and this earned them the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978.1 This Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) comes from all directions in space and has a characteristic temperature.2,3 While the discovery of the CMB has been called a successful prediction of the big bang model,4 it is actually a problem for the big bang. This is because the precisely uniform temperature of the CMB creates a light-travel–time problem for big bang models of the origin of the universe.

The problem

The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere5—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).6 However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB7 would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light8). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.

Figure 1 & 2
(1) Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.
(2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light.

The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?9 This is a light-travel–time problem.10
 
The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At the time the light was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, space already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than the distance that light could have travelled (called the ‘horizon’)11 So, how can these regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe ‘know’ about the other side if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged? This is called the ‘horizon problem’.12 Secular astronomers have proposed many possible solutions to it, but no satisfactory one has emerged to date (see Attempts to overcome the big bang’s ‘light-travel–time problem’ below).

Summing up

The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-travel–time difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem.

Attempts to overcome the big bang’s ‘light-travel–time problem’

Currently, the most popular idea is called ‘inflation’—a conjecture invented by Alan Guth in 1981. In this scenario, the expansion rate of the universe (i.e. space itself) was vastly accelerated in an ‘inflation phase’ early in the big bang. The different regions of the universe were in very close contact before this inflation took place. Thus, they were able to come to the same temperature by exchanging radiation before they were rapidly (faster than the speed of light1) pushed apart. According to inflation, even though distant regions of the universe are not in contact today, they were in contact before the inflation phase when the universe was small.

However, the inflation scenario is far from certain. There are many different inflation models, each with its set of difficulties. Moreover, there is no consensus on which (if any) inflation model is correct. A physical mechanism that could cause the inflation is not known, though there are many speculations. There are also difficulties on how to turn off the inflation once it starts—the ‘graceful exit’ problem.2 Many inflation models are known to be wrong—making predictions that are not consistent with observations,3 such as Guth’s original model.4 Also, many aspects of inflation models are currently unable to be tested.

Some astronomers do not accept inflationary models and have proposed other possible solutions to the horizon problem. These include: scenarios in which the gravitational constant varies with time,5 the ‘ekpyrotic model’ which involves a cyclic universe,6 scenarios in which light takes ‘shortcuts’ through extra (hypothetical) dimensions,7 ‘null-singularity’ models,8 and models in which the speed of light was much greater in the past.9,10 (Creationists have also pointed out that a changing speed of light may solve light-travel–time difficulties for biblical creation.11)

In light of this disagreement, it is safe to say that the horizon problem has not been decisively solved.

References and notes

  1. This notion does not violate relativity, which merely prevents objects travelling faster than c through space, whereas in the inflation proposal it is space itself that expands and carries the objects with it. Return to text.
  2. Kraniotis, G.V., String cosmology, International Journal of Modern Physics A 15(12):1707–1756, 2000. Return to text.
  3. Wang, Y., Spergel, D. and Strauss, M., Cosmology in the next millennium: Combining microwave anisotropy probe and Sloan digital sky survey data to constrain inflationary models, The Astrophysical Journal 510:20–31, 1999. Return to text.
  4. Coles, P. and Lucchin, F., Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, p. 151, 1996. Return to text.
  5. Levin, J. and Freese, K., Possible solution to the horizon problem: Modified aging in massless scalar theories of gravity, Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology) 47(10):4282–4291, 1993. Return to text.
  6. Steinhardt, P. and Turok, N., A cyclic model of the universe, Science296(5572):1436–1439, 2002. Return to text.
  7. Chung, D. and Freese, K., Can geodesics in extra dimensions solve the cosmological horizon problem? Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology) 62(6):063513-1–063513-7, 2000. Return to text.
  8. Célérier, M. and Szekeres, P., Timelike and null focusing singularities in spherical symmetry: A solution to the cosmological horizon problem and a challenge to the cosmic censorship hypothesis, Physical Review D65:123516-1–123516-9, 2002. Return to text.
  9. Albrecht, A. and Magueijo, J., Time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles, Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology) 59(4):043516-1–043516-13, 1999. Return to text.
  10. Clayton, M. and Moffat, J., Dynamical mechanism for varying light velocity as a solution to cosmological problems, Physics Letters B460(3–4):263–270, 1999. Return to text.
  11. For a summary of the c-decay implications, see: Wieland, C., Speed of light slowing down after all? Famous physicist makes headlines, TJ 16(3):7–10, 2002. Return to text.

References and notes

  1. Coles, P. and Lucchin, F., Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, p. 91, 1996. Return to text.
  2. 2.728 K (-270.422°C). Return to text.
  3. Peacock, J.A., Cosmological Physics, Cambridge University Press, p. 288, 1999. Return to text.
  4. However, the existence of CMB was actually deduced before big bang cosmology from the spectra of certain molecules in outer space. Return to text.
  5. Excluding sources in our galaxy. Return to text.
  6. Peebles, P.J.E., Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press, p. 404, 1993. Return to text.
  7. For convenience, the commonly understood term CMB will be used without implying that the radiation peaked at the same wavelength in all epochs of the model. Return to text.
  8. Infrared radiation is part of the spectrum of light. Return to text.
  9. This is an internal inconsistency for the big bang model. It is not a problem for a creation model; God may have created the distant regions of the universe with the same temperature from the beginning. Return to text.
  10. Misner, C., Mixmaster Universe, Physical Review Letters 22(20):1071–1074, 1969. Return to text.
  11. Ref. 1, p. 136. Return to text.
  12. Lightman, A., Ancient Light, Harvard University Press, London, p. 58, 1991. Return to text.

15 comments:

Anonymous whatsit said...

""Where did life come from?"

Life is a spontaneous result of sufficiently-complex, self-sustaining chemical interactions.

Absolutely preposterous! The Law of Biogenesis says otherwise."


No, it doesn't. The Law of Biogenesis only says that complex life forms don't arise spontaneously. That's it. It doesn't contradict evolution or even abiogenesis by natural means (which is about the generation of extremely simple forms of life, not complex ones).

""Why do Darwinists pretend evolution is fact when it is in violation of scientific laws and has never successfully overthrown said laws?"

Because it doesn't violate any scientific laws.

Other than the Law of Biogenesis, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Statistics and the Laws of Information for just a start?"


1. Evolution doesn't violate the Law of Biogenesis, since the Law of Biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

2. Evolution doesn't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. Does reproduction with variation violate the LOT? Yes or no?

3. Evolution doesn't violate any laws of statistics. There are some poor statistical exercises presented by YECs, but they don't amount to much. Generally, these attempts pull figures out of thin air to show how unlikely YECs think evolution is by creating really large numbers.

4. There are no scientific "Laws of Information". One of your creationist buddies went to the effort to write something he called "Laws of Information", but they are not scientifically tested or even coherent.

AmericanVet said...

Whatsit,

Thank you for reply! You do not seem to comprehend the laws I mentioned and probably because you do not want to go to the effort of actually finding out what they assert and why Darwinism violates them.

You have made the difference between what I assert and what you think quite clear. Simply saying "nyuh-uh!" will not accomplish anything for your side. But if it allows you to adhere to your cherished worldview then you can be satisfied. You have successfully presented your arguments.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Your reply is actually the "nyuh-uh" in the room, since you choose to present no cogent responses at all.

1. You've ascribed all kinds of things to the LOB lately, none of which are correct. What does the Law of Biogenesis actually say?

2. What do you think the LOB has to do with evolution?

3. Does reproduction with variation violate the laws of thermodynamics? Yes or no?

4. Which laws of statistics do you think evolution violates? Can you name any aspect of evolution that is statistically impossible and that is based on sound numbers instead of freely invented ones?

5. Are there any scientific "Laws of Information"? You do know how something becomes a scientific law, right? One doesn't just write something down and declare it a scientific law. You do know that, don't you?

Anonymous said...

Just love how Radar consistently accuses others of exhibiting behaviors he displays all the time. And even attempts to mock them for it. LOL. So, that said, here's another one from the "Nuh-uh!!" category.

When asked "Where did your god come from" watch how he goes all "la-la-la-I can't-hear-you", with fingers in the ears and everything. Radar says,

"God with a capital G created existence. There was no "from" for Him to come from until he invented it. Any freshman philosophy student knows that a Transcendent God is not part of existence but in fact created existence and time (not that they may believe it to be true, but they understand the concept) so you cannot be so dumb as to not comprehend this. As God said to Moses, "I AM."

I just love it when christian extremists use the bible to prove the bible.

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

"God with a capital G created existence"

Are you suggesting the void didn't exist?

Seriously, where in the Bible does it say God created existence?

Jon Woolf said...

It's nice to see you take my little comments so seriously, Radar.

It would be even nicer if you could offer some effective responses. Sadly, as long as you rely on creationist sources, you can't. Case in point:

"The bombadier beetle has a sophisticated method of shooting out quick burst from two different places mixing ingredients in mid-air to cause explosions to chase away predators."

Nope. That's not how it works. Different species of bombardier beetle (there are many) produce different defensive sprays in slightly different ways, but the basic process works like this: Hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide are combined with catalyst enzymes in a special 'reaction chamber' inside the beetle's abdomen. This combination of chemicals produces a great deal of heat, which is expelled as a spray of hot liquid and vapor. The reactants do not explode, and claims to the contrary are simply wrong.

"Information only arises from intelligence "

Prove it. You can't, of course, because that claim is false, Gitt's maunderings notwithstanding. Information of non-intelligent origin is all around us, from the tracks of animals to the chemical traces that tell bacteria where to find food.

The rest of your twitterings have already been adequately answered by others. More than adequately, actually.

Why do you insist on believing only creationist sources, when those sources are so often and so easily proven wrong?

Anonymous whatsit said...

And again Radar is stumped.

And runs off to cut-n-paste another endless post to draw attention away from what comes before it.

On and on, round and round it goes...

AmericanVet said...

Since not one of you can answer the post with any credible evidence, it is you not I that is stumped. Whatsit doesn't even know what Biogenesis proved. His "answers" are empty negations that do not give us any answers at all.

The post I made concerning the basic philosophical views of God remains there for those who, like Jon Woolf, have yet to grasp the basics.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Whatsit doesn't even know what Biogenesis proved."

Of course I do. It says that complex life forms do not arise spontaneously.

And as predicted you run away from uncomfortable questions and dash off to the next post.

What does the LOB have to do with evolution? Nothing.

Does reproduction with variation violate the laws of thermodynamics? No. So evolution doesn't violate the LOT.

Evolution doesn't violate any laws of statistics, and the examples used by YECs are based on slapdash assumptions (including no evolution taking place, ironically) and numbers plucked out of thin air.

There are no scientific "Laws of Information". Werner Gitt made something up that he calls the "Laws of Information", but on what basis is that a scientific law?

Run, Radar, run. The dearth of your position is on full display. You got nothin.

AmericanVet said...

I stand on science, whatsit and obviously you do not even know what Biogensis proved, but I will give you a hint - since Pasteur proved even microorganisms of the simplest form will not spontaneously generate, we can food and keep it for years.

I stand, not run, on posts made that cover every nyuh-uh you and Jon make. Readers can do a search by topic and find my very thorough evidence presented. Whatsit should change his name for zero as he has has zero evidence. Jon never admits to all the statements he's made that I falsified. You guys enjoy your self-deception?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I stand on science, whatsit and obviously you do not even know what Biogensis proved, but I will give you a hint - since Pasteur proved even microorganisms of the simplest form will not spontaneously generate, we can food and keep it for years."

Your fatal error in this argument lies in this phrase, right here: "of the simplest form"

They're not "of the simplest form" at all, are they? They're pretty complex already. That's why the Law of Biogenesis is simply a completely different observation that has nothing to do with what abiogenesis by natural means is about, which is the origin of reproduction with variation at the molecular level.

The Law of Biogenesis is a trivial observation, disputed by no one. And it doesn't contradict either evolution (to which it's about as relevant as it is to gravity) or abiogenesis by natural means.

Your inability to answer the other questions is duly noted, of course.

AmericanVet said...

Whatsit, are you serious? Surely you cannot think Biogenesis is not relevant? The simplest organisms we know only come from reproduction of their own kind. For hundreds of years experiments have supported Biogenesis. Then when Miller and Urey went to great lengths to obtain some raw materials using methods not found in nature and being of no use in building a living organism, the Darwinists had hope. Maybe we can show how live happened!!!

But this has proved to be futile. The so-called building blocks of life do not form and lay around waiting for random assembly into living organisms, they cannot survive in nature nor is there any way to cobble them together in labs with all the modern methodology we can muster. Not only is it not possible for life to occur naturally, it cannot be built from scratch in a lab, either.

You and other Darwinists who pretend that this is just a small matter that "science" will overcome are whistling past a graveyard. There are hard chemical barriers to the formation of components of cells in the wild. Chemical bonds, formaldehyde reactions, chirality...the list of problems that are insurmountable is long. But also the DNA strand is not an accident, it is a sophisticated coding mechanism that works in conjunction with the cell and we are still finding more complexity to it as time goes on.

It is ludicrous to call the concept of spontaneous generation "science" because science proved it cannot happen and we can see now why. Renaming it "chemical evolution" doesn't help. I have posted several articles about the impossibility of natural formation of life, so when you claim to disagree you are simply offering ignorance to the reader. You don't even appear to understand the problem, let alone have an answer.

Get back to me when you actually have for the first time in history discovered a form of life that made itself? You will have entire University libraries and halls named after you. You will be a slam dunk for a Nobel (albeit recent winners have dulled the finish on said award). You'll be rich and famous! Go for it!

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Whatsit, are you serious? Surely you cannot think Biogenesis is not relevant?"

Yep, quite serious.

It's not relevant to evolution, because evolution is independent of the origin of life. The theory of evolution can be entirely true even if God originated life. That's why it's not relevant to dismiss evolution on account of the origin of life.

It's not relevant to abiogenesis by natural means for the reasons explained above. The Law of Biogenesis is limited to complex life (which includes bacteria, btw). It does not preclude the possibility of molecular processes generating reproduction with variation, which is the focus of current research. If you think otherwise, please point me to the scientific text where you think this claim was tested. Otherwise, a rethink and retraction on your part is in order.

(For that matter, show us where the work of Dr. Szostak has been "proven" to be impossible.)

Modern scientists don't discount any scientific laws - they just haven't fallen for the same distortions you have. If you were correct in your claims, you would've been able to answer the questions above. And you can't.

Anonymous said...

"Whatsit, are you serious? Surely you cannot think Biogenesis is not relevant?"

Where did you ever show it to be relevant, Radar? It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and it's not an argument against abiogenesis.

How exactly do you imagine it to be relevant? How is it of interest to anyone?

Those "Darwinists" that you hate so much - they agree that the Law of Biogenesis is valid, and that it precludes the possibility of complex life forms appearing spontaneously. But the thought of "complex life forms appearing spontaneously" is not what you would find in the theory of evolution. You WILL find it in religious texts, including the Bible, so maybe that's why you're so confused.

And that's why, if you don't like scientific explanations, you have to stick with this hypothetical notion of a supernatural being that fills in all those gaps.

radar said...

I looked back at the comments thread and again saw no answers there.

The laws of Biogenesis and Thermodynamics are never seen to be broken in the natural world. Thus, life could not come from non-life and the Universe could not create itself. We do actually need a supernatural source to create the Universe and also design and create life.

We KNOW from studying the chemistry involved that the so-called building blocks of life cannot survive in the wild. Furthermore, if they did survive they would be racemic. Only left-handed amino acids can be assembled into DNA.

But DNA does no good unless it is coded to transmit information and information is not produced by any natural source. DNA is a four-letter code, more sophisticate and robust than the binary code we use for programming computers. So we need an outside source to write the code for DNA. Each kind of organism has a different set of coding instructions in their DNA.

It gets worse for Darwinists. DNA can only exist within the cell, and it and the cell are powered by the ATP Synthase machine, which is coded by DNA and needs a cell to exist. Furthermore, DNA itself is not sufficient to reproduce another organism, the cell has meta-information and oversees the reproductive process. So cell and DNA and ATP Synthase are totally dependent upon each other and cannot exist alone.

Worse yet for Darwinists, the cell is not viable unless it is alive. The makeup of a dead cell and a living cell is exactly the same, but the living cell has something else within it besides information which is not material in form or substance - life. Yet another concept we cannot possibly observe separate from living creatures. Scientists do not actually know what life is or where it came from...unless they are aware of God and realize that God provided the information, the coding, the life and the construction of all living things.