Search This Blog

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Life Cannot Arise Naturally!!! A Creator Is Required!!!

One or two commenters have made some unsubstantiated charges that I am using logical fallacies to assert that there is no way life comes from non-life (Law of Biogenesis, anyone) and he even pretends that Darwinists do not incorporate claims that life arose from non-life in their curriculum and the drumbeat of propaganda.   It is ridiculous to claim that Darwinists do NOT teach this and it is also ridiculous to assert that it could possibly happen!

The Darwinist dilemma is great, for the truth that life cannot come from non-life has been proven as thoroughly as science can possibly prove a positive.   Science is very good at ruling things out and then the answer that is left is the one everyone rolls with unless and until a better solution comes along.   Darwinism was proposed at first in disguise in that Darwin first pretended that he was only proposing that simple life apparently created by God developed into more complex life. However, the real point of Darwinism is to do away with the idea of God.  The unscrupulous men who worked to promote the idea of long ages and no God include Thomas Huxley and Charles Lyell and Ernst Haeckel, liars all, who were willing to promote things they knew to be untrue in order to popularize the fable of evolution.

One by one the pillars of Darwinism fell.  Eventually, with no eternal Universe to provide unlimited time for a still-impossible chemical evolution the Darwinists looked for other explanations for life without resorting to the Creator.  Panspermia is one such nonsensical idea.  As Spike Psarris would say, if Darwinists found life anywhere else in the Universe, it would just be one more place that they could not explain where life came from!   Hubble's discovery of the redshift of starlight made the possibility that the Earth might be in a special place after all was another piece of bad news for Darwinists.  Then came the discovery of DNA.   This was terribly disturbing news for them!  But it keeps getting worse.  Junk DNA was not junk.  Vestigial organs were useful.  The continuum of transitional forms in the fossil rocks just didn't show up.  Just lots of fully-formed organisms, remarkably well preserved and inexplicable without the Noahic Flood.  The rock formations are world-wide, there are far too many fossils for Darwinism, because fossils are hard to form and yet we have MILLIONS of them.  The standard geological column is a myth.  Darwinists had miscalibrated radiocarbon dating.  There are all sorts megabreccias and polystrates and unconformities and cross-beds and interbedding and the sheer mass of the rock layers put the lie to a local flood.

I could keep going and going.  But for now, let's settle this idiotic idea that life can come from non-life.  It can't happen.  Ever.  Life had to be designed and I know Who designed it all!!!  God.

An animation of the basics of a cell’s protein synthesis system. Origin-of-life scenarios need to explain how this came into existence without (supernatural) intelligent design (see points 14 and 15).

15 loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life: Summary

Dr Sarfati, a Ph.D. chemist, explores some of the most-cited ‘explanations’ of biochemical evolution, and shows how they point to a Creator, not ‘time and chance’.

  1. There is almost universal agreement among specialists that earth’s primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen — ‘reducing’ gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases. See The Primitive Atmosphere.
  2. The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photodissociation of water vapour. Oxidized minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million older than the earliest life. There is also evidence for organisms complex enough to photosynthesize at 3.7 billion of years ago (Rosing, M.T. and Frei, R., U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland—indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesisEarth and Planetary Science Letters 217:237–244, 2004). Also, red jasper or hematite-rich chert cored from layers allegedly 3.46 billion years old showed that ‘there had to be as much oxygen in the atmosphere 3.46 billion years ago as there is in today’s atmosphere. To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earth’s history than previously thought.’ (Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth, 24 March 2009) NB:these ‘dates’ are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject on both biblical and scientific grounds — see How long were the days mentioned in the Biblical creation account? and Evidence for a Young World).
  3. Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen (see Eastman et al.Exploring the Structure of a Hydrogen Cyanide Polymer by Electron Spin Resonance and Scanning Force MicroscopyScanning 2:19–24, p. 20).
  4. All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller–Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.
  5. Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.
    Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons — HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins.
    Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.
  6. No geological evidence has been found anywhere on earth for the alleged primordial soup. See Primeval soup — failed paradigm
  7. Depolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem.
  8. Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctionalmolecules (can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments produce five times moreunifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem.
  9. Sugars are destroyed quickly after the reaction (‘formose’) which is supposed to have formed them. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents. See The RNA World: A Critique.
  10. Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, & 9).
  11. Not all of the necessary ‘building blocks’ are formed; e.g. ribose and cytosine are hard to form and are very unstable. See Origin of life: Instability of building blocks.
  12. Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’) — proteins have only ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’ sugars. Miller experiments produce racemates — equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A small fraction of wrong handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes. See Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem and Homochirality an unsolved problem (quote).
  13. Life requires catalysts which are specific for a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probabilities (~10–650 for all the enzymes required). Prebiotic polymerisation simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins or enzymes. See Proteins and Casket DrawsCould monkeys type the 23rd Psalm? and Cheating with Chance.
  14. The origin of coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery are themselves encoded — a vicious circle. A code cannot self-organize. See Self-Replicating Enzymes?
  15. The origin of machines requires design, not random energy. E.g: the Nobel prize-winner Merrifield designed an automatic protein synthesiser. Each amino acid added to the polymer requires 90 steps. The amino acid sequence is determined by a program. A living cell is like a self-replicating Merrifield machine.

Related Articles


Origin of life: not so hard after all?

Published: 14 July 2013 (GMT+10)
We have reported that the chances of life arising from non-life naturalistically are so low that ‘0’ is for all practical purposes the actual probability. Are such numbers too low? K.T. from Australia writes:
I hope you can respond to the attack that the number (and many other numbers) you used in one of the articles about the probability of a cell coming to being by chance (1058000) is (are) rejected on the grounds of error, according to R.C. Carrier’s 2004 journal article “The argument from biogenesis: Probabilities against a natural origin of life”

CMI’s Dr Don Batten responds:
Dear K.,
Thanks for making contact. It would help if you cited the article of ours that you are referring to. I know of no article on our website or in our publications that calculates the probability for the naturalistic origin of life as 1 in 1058000; it actually is far worse than that for the materialists. I have read Mr Carrier’s propaganda piece (what a waste of time that was!). It was hard not to get angry when reading it; it is so full of misinformation and smokescreens clearly designed to convince uninformed readers and to shore up the naturalistic ‘faith’ (atheism). It should be noted that the author, Richard Carrier, is a key player in the website, which has a ‘take-no-prisoners’ approach to promoting ‘metaphysical naturalism’ (i.e. atheism). He was editor-in-chief for some years. Furthermore, his training is in history, not science.
We have made calculations that ignore all the special conditions required (such as homochirality) and it still shows that not even one average functional protein would ever form, let alone the hundreds required for a minimal self-reproducing cell.
Carrier does not address the calculations we have made and the errors he claims do not apply to our calculations (he also misrepresents the arguments of Dembski, and Bradley and Thaxton so I can only assume that he does the same for those with whom I am not familiar).
Much of his ‘analysis’ applies to very old publications (none by us), presumably because if he addressed the arguments current in 2004 he would have much less to rabbit on about and much less to be able to confuse the unsuspecting reader with. I realize that Carrier’s article was published in 2004, but he does not address any of the material we published prior to that date (e.g. The Origin of Life: A Critique of Current Scientific Models was published in 1996 and clearly shows that the origin of life is not just a matter of getting a self-reproducing protein, which Carrier very deceptively (or possibly ignorantly, since he is an historian, not a scientist) claims and furthermore gives the impression that such a thing has been demonstrated to exist outside the cell environment).
Carrier makes many false claims: e.g. that homochiral amino acids occur naturally (i.e. from chemistry/physics) and that they are produced by supernovas (did someone sample a supernova?!). Both false claims; see the articles on homochirality on (use the search window). The problem has not been solved at all.
Nevertheless, we have made calculations that ignore all the special conditions required (such as homochirality) and it still shows that not even one average functional protein would ever form, let alone the hundreds required for a minimal self-reproducing cell (Carrier continually wildly understates the problem, trying to minimize the requirements to make it believable; this is not science but special pleading for the purpose of proselytizing for atheism.)
Carrier also continually confuses operational science and origins science in his introduction, which is rather odd, considering he is writing in a journal of philosophy and science. See ‘It’s not science (section: A valid distinction).
Carrier also claims that we cannot know how many experiments are possible. This is rubbish. We can put an upper limit on the number of experiments possible and make it really ridiculously large and still abiogenesis comes up way short. We can make all the assumptions in favour of abiogenesis and it still comes up so far short that only a died-in-the-wool atheist (“metaphysical naturalist” is the term) could possibly continue to believe it happened. There is such a calculation in Who created God?
Carrier uses bluff (smokescreens) and bluster to hoodwink readers into thinking he has addressed the issues and he has not addressed them, he has sidestepped them.
Carrier confuses entropy and configurational entropy and falsely claims that the entropy problem for evolution has been solved. Wrong! See:Some thermodynamics criticisms—and answers (#2).
Here is another article that briefly lists the problems for the naturalistic origin of life (it is not just a probability problem; quite of few of the issues are insurmountable): 15 loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life: Summary.
I hope I have covered enough for you to see that Mr Carrier has not been very accurate in this treatment of this subject. His article is without merit.
With kindest regards,
Don Batten

Related Articles

Further Reading


When we say organisms are designed, we are not arguing from ignorance or incredulity.  We recognize the hallmarks of design - machines, systems, redundancy, contingency planning, error-checking and many other features of the cell that remind us of a very well-run factory.   But one of your cells is far more complex and requires far more information than any factory in the world.  We also recognize the coding mechanism, it reminds us of our computers, but again the cell is far more advanced than anything mankind has devised.   A wise man nods and wonders at the marvel of a Creator capable of making such an amazing world and yet using enough common design features that our finite minds could begin to comprehend and use it all.  A foolish man denies God and denies the findings of real science and holds desperately to his outdated and clumsy mythology.


Anonymos said...

"One or two commenters have made some unsubstantiated charges that I am using logical fallacies to assert that there is no way life comes from non-life"

Half a sentence in and we have an outright lie. My charge that you used a strawman argument was clearly substantiated in the first comment on the previous post, and you have so far failed to refute it.

I will read the remaining post at my leisure, though I will note that Dr. Sarfati's observations do not take into account or purposely avoid current abiogenesis models, which already deal with the atmosphere problem (and thus most or all of the objections that Dr. Sarfati still cites almost two decades later) via alkaline hydrothermal vents.

Anonymos said...

"he even pretends that Darwinists do not incorporate claims that life arose from non-life in their curriculum"

??? Say what?

Have you been drinking? Where on Earth do you think I (or any other commenter on your blog for that matter) said any such thing?

You're being completely delusional now. Any reader, Christian or otherwise, can see that you're making claims that can easily be checked and are clearly untrue. You are clearly not a man to be trusted.

WomanHonorThyself said...

hold your ground my friend. God bless you:-)

Anonymous said...

"Life Cannot Arise Naturally!!! A Creator Is Required!!!"
- Says people who's worldview depends on the notion that a creator to exists.


This place just gets dumber and dumber by the day.

Anonymos, in Radar's mind you are in league with the devil himself, which is why he still feels like a good christian even while calling you names and lying his freaking face off. I have also come to believe that when points are made that clearly contradict his statements or generally make Radar look foolish (a very regular occurrence on this blog) he just chocks it up to the work of the devil and doesn't give them another thought. otherwise the cognitive dissonance going on in his head would be crushing. I'm also of the opinion that Radar is way too prideful (and dumb) to understand just how stupid he comes across in all of this.

As I've said before, I feel bad for his children and future grandchildren and great-grandchildren should they discover this blog in the down the line. I mean the anti evolution YEC crap is certainly embarrassing but the anti-homosexuality stuff is absolutely disgraceful.


radar said...

There is no way life arose via "alkaline hydrothermal vents" and that is a ridiculous and foolish assertion! Dr. Sarfati follows the latest claptrap that Darwinists try to foist on people and therefore makes posts specifically designed to help laymen understand and cast aside the BS that Darwinists come up with...such as yourselves.

As far as abiogenesis, are you as a commenter claiming that life arose from non-life and do you have any evidence for it?

I don't expect to get a credible response back from that one.

My children and grandchildren were told the truth by me and I carefully have shown them the EVIDENCE. They will not fall for the Darwinist idiocy and eventually will be unsurprised as the scientific world eventually admits their error and must face the scorn they deserve for promoting a fairy tale for 150 years.

Anonymous said...

Radar, my many years of stopping by this site have proven to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you do not understand evolutionary science to even the slightest degree (among many other scientific fields) and you have no inclination to educate yourself because you rely on your ignorance of these topics in order to continue to promote the same YEC lies over, and over, and over. And a search for Polystrate Fossils within this site proves just this point. Man, those comments sections can be entertaining. Although I've definitely grown a bit tired of your blatant dishonesty when regurgitating arguments that have already been dissected and refuted many many times in the comments sections of this very blog.

Radar, your self awareness is very lacking. You believe in a vast nefarious global conspiracy, spanning all continents, languages and cultures involving scientists from every conceivable field, and yet you call others gullible.

You make black-and-white statements like "There is no way life arose via "alkaline hydrothermal vents"" having no way to back this kind of statement up. Other than to constantly defer to the same proven set of professional creationist liars.

And in an answer to your question, personally, considering the complete lack of evidence FOR the existence of your christian god and your particular creation myth, I'd say there is some pretty good evidence for life arising from non-life staring back at you when you look in the mirror. The big mystery yet to be solved, of course, being "just how did it happen?". Although there are new ideas on this topic arising all the time.

You are hurting your children by showing them handpicked creationist lies, not "EVIDENCE" as you put it. And if you can't recognize this fact, that's on you, bud. There is no evidence for "creation" just your faith. Which are totally not the same thing. Opposites, almost.

And what will be the excuse for all the hateful homophobic rhetoric that you spew here?


radar said...

Canucklehead, your years of commenting have shown us beyond a shadow of a doubt that you really know little about science and less about history.

We already know the Anthropic Global Warming "crisis" was, indeed, a global conspiracy involving the deliberate altering of weather reporting stations and producing fake graphs and deliberately faked data. Fortune smiled on truth by the revelation of all the CRU and IPCC emails discussing the faked and hidden data.

In the last few years, the climate has actually shown a slight tendency toward COOLING by 0.2 degrees Celsius, I believe it is. I'll make a post on it.

There was a vast conspiracy hatched by Hitler and perpetrated on the German people. He knew the value of telling the Big Lie. So do Darwinists.

The argument that nobody would have concocted a global conspiracy to promote a fake science? You don't know your history. It only takes a groundswell of elitists who hate God to promote Darwinism and, before the scientific findings that make it look idiotic were found, the Darwinist creed had been taught and a generation of brainwashed academics and scientists and students were convinced that it was proven science, no need to question it.

So now that the Big Lie has been successfully told and inserted into the foundation of society, it takes a lot of hard work by scientists and academics who know better to dispel the lie. One person at a time, one teacher at a time, one scientist at a time.

The global warming nuts have now termed it "climate change" because the planet is cooling and all the satellite and deep-diving drones have affirmed this. But they still keep trying to limit CO2 when it is actually plant food! So stupid!

Darwinists are also either ignorant or evil. When you realize that life cannot arise from non-life and one kind of organism cannot change into another, you have a dilemma. Will you be willing to go against the flow for the sake of truth, or will you go along with the crowd because of peer pressure or fear of losing your position?

Great scientists and good scientists have lost tenure and position for daring to deny Darwin. What happened to freedom of inquiry? Well, when the sacred cow is endangered the Darwinists will murder your career.

Then they have also created an army of brainwashed people who have little knowledge but lots of propaganda. Such are the trolls...

Anonymous said...

"There is no way life arose via "alkaline hydrothermal vents" and that is a ridiculous and foolish assertion!"

Saying there is no way life arose via alkaline hydrothermal vents does sound like a ridiculous and foolish assertion indeed.

Because there's no way you can back that up.

Anonymous said...

LOL. Right I forgot, you believe in, not one, but 2 vast nefarious global conspiracies, spanning all continents, languages and cultures involving scientists from every conceivable field. Thanks for pointing that out. There is no precedent for this type of conspiracy, BTW. I mean, having a single homogeneous country like Germany believe a lie is much different than the type of global coordination needed for the 2 (maybe more) conspiracies you avidly support.

Consensus has been reached on the topic of global climate change, Radar. And, shockingly, you're on the wrong side.

Don't worry though, apparently there are quite a few confused individuals out there.

Oh and you better add Insurance Companies to the list of conspirators.

Can you explain why these guys would get behind the climate change conspiracy? Do these publicly traded companies deliberately cook their books to look bad in order to support climate change? Why would they do that?

Face it Radar, you live in a right-wing eco chamber. You have your selected sources and you don't let anything else in. You don't actually investigate anything that doesn't fit your worldview. While I have actually researched most, if not all, of your YEC claims and, as Jon used to point out regularly, each and every time I've done that it turns out that there is no evidence to support your claims. It simply doesn't exist.

Oh and, just to reiterate a point I've made many times on this blog, not believing in god does not equate to a hate for him/her. And is just a weird thing to assert. You tooth-fairy-hater, you.

Science requires evidence and as long as Darwin-denying YECs try to apply their religion-based evidence-free opinions they will be sanctioned. As they should be.

And as I've said before, why would young scientists trying to advance their careers, hold back evidence that debunks one of the most important scientific theories ever conceived? If they have the evidence, why would they suppress it? Science is all about new discovery and one could get very rich and famous if they held irrefutable proof of YEC. Yet there is nothing. The only ones that make claims like yours are CLEARLY religiously motivated. You've even caught DR. Dino in a a whopper as a direct example of this type of lying.


radar said...

Hey, Canucklehead?

I am calling your bluff. Suppose I told you I could PROVE that the climate is cooling rather than warming and use secular scientific sources to prove it? Will you retract your BS statement then?

As the movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, revealed to the world, there is indeed a conspiracy in the Western world to stamp out Creationism and Intelligent Design, using the kind of tactics that George Orwell and Aldous Huxley and Ayn Rand warned of and Solzhenitsyn wrote about. The Big Lie is alive and well in science, the lockstep of censorship and brainwashing and blackballing all over the USA and Europe.

Fortunately and ironically, the formerly repressed areas of the world that were under the Iron Curtain, the Chinese and Japanese and some other areas of the world believe in science and do not care about the propaganda. They are opening the eyes of the world to all the actual flesh and blood remains found in fossils in their parts of the world.

Shame on you Darwinists! You lie and censor and ruin careers all to avoid being responsible to the Creator God and it will do you no good at all. God will judge all men and women at the end of this world and you will be up the creek unless Jesus Christ is your attorney.

Anonymous said...

Ruh Roh, Radar is calling my bluff. LOL. You could tell me anything you like, Radar, what you can't do is actually prove it. Remember the 97% consensus? For your edification,

And you're referencing Ben Stein's anti-science propaganda piece as "proof" now? Really? I've got a website for you on this one as well.

Feel free to check it out and refute any of the info posted on that site. There's a ton of pretty damning stuff on that website regarding Ben Stein's little opinion peice.

And more references to "flesh and blood" fossils. It seems as though you are addicted to lying. No this hasn't occurred and, again, it's only the religiously motivated nutjobs , like yourself that are making these claims. And before you meisrepresent Sweitzer's T-Rex for what would seem to be the millionth time, no that's not what she found.

For a better understanding of what she did find, you can check out these links (the first being a Ted Talk by Jack Horner and the second being an article summarizing and expanding on Sweitzer's findings) although I'm sure you wont.

Interesting side note, did you know that Sweitzer is a christian? I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

Anything else?


P.S. - Nice of you to finish off with a threat of eternal damnation because of my worldview, it's always fun to see you resort to that type of nonsense.

radar said...

Evidence, Canucklehead, evidence. I wonder if you have the guts to admit your error?

I do not send anyone to Hell. I just wanted to remind you that, if you defy God you will have to pay the price. The primary reason I do this blog is to help people avoid that very fate. By presenting science to debunk the myth of evolution, I help them realize that God did create and Jesus is the Messiah and salvation is possible. I want people to be in relationship with God.

I was a very good sinner. But God was patient with me and kept waiting for me to be ready to consider Jesus Christ as being possibly an answer. Then suddenly I realized all those years of wondering and getting frustrated and then partying like mad never really satisfied me deep down inside. Girls, money, music, drugs, sports, things...nothing was enough.

When the very brave and kind Dr. Charles R. Wood came to my place and shared the gospel with me, I was smoking and drinking a beer and was hoping the old boy would finish preaching to me and go away. But he didn't preach TO me, he talked with me. He discovered I had been a seeker of truth but had quit in frustration. He then laid out the evidence for Christ and suddenly it all made sense.

I don't want you to go to Hell, Canucklehead, I want to snap you out of it. You are like drugged and the drug of choice is Darwinism. It will kill you in the end.

Anonymous said...

Well if you say so Radar... LOL

To repeat, you don't "present science" Radar you present religiously motivated propaganda that supports your dieing worldview.

Nice story, Bro. Not that anyone cares of course. You see I was raised a christian, youth groups speaking at christmas services, the whole 9 yards. And I was never a degenerate in the way that you describe yourself. Yet religion holds no sway with me. You clearly bottomed out and it happened to be evangelical christians that you encountered while in that spot. Had it been Hari Krishna's or Mormons, I suspect this might be a very different blog.

I'm glad you got yourself cleaned up Radar, for the sake of your kids, that said, you still display many of the ugly traits from your former life on this blog, it's just that you think you are excused because you are now a "good christian".

And remember, I don't believe that god exists, and certainly not the petty vengeful god of your bible. So while it's neat that you feel that you're trying to help me, it's just weird that you think that any of that means anything to an atheist.


Ted S. said...

"There is no way life arose via "alkaline hydrothermal vents" and that is a ridiculous and foolish assertion!"

I'll tell you what's a ridiculous and foolish assertion. Claiming there is "no way" something happened when you don't even understand it. You think life is some magical essence, so you're way off the reservation on this

"As far as abiogenesis, are you as a commenter claiming that life arose from non-life and do you have any evidence for it?"

Of course life arose from non-life. We all agree on that. Once there was no life. Then there was life. Even says so in the Bible.

Now we discuss the how. You say it was magic and that's where your curiosity ends. Others say it was a physical process and find that interesting to try to figure out.

radar said...

Ted S. said...
"There is no way life arose via "alkaline hydrothermal vents" and that is a ridiculous and foolish assertion!"

I'll tell you what's a ridiculous and foolish assertion. Claiming there is "no way" something happened when you don't even understand it. You think life is some magical essence, so you're way off the reservation on this

I suspect I know a lot more about life than you do. As a matter of fact, life is indeed a supernatural miracle. But I have presented in great detail what the PHYSICAL aspects of a living organism consist of, why they cannot be formed in the wild, why they cannot exist in nature and why they certainly could not design themselves, create their own information and instructions. Observational science has proved that the amino acids required for life cannot exist in the wild, they would be racemic anyway and the problems involved with finding a source of information then kick in. Have you read up on this subject or are you just throwing stones?

"As far as abiogenesis, are you as a commenter claiming that life arose from non-life and do you have any evidence for it?"

Of course life arose from non-life. We all agree on that. Once there was no life. Then there was life. Even says so in the Bible.

Nope. The Bible does not say that life arose from non-life. It says that God made living things and therefore HE made life. Since all life has all the hallmarks of design, that is the only logical conclusion. God made living things after their kind, including man.

Now we discuss the how. You say it was magic and that's where your curiosity ends. Others say it was a physical process and find that interesting to try to figure out.

No, scientists decided to find out if life could come from non-life and determined it could not. We call it the Law of Biogenesis. Louis Pasteur was the man who completely convinced the entire scientific community of this after many scientists over the course of centuries tested the idea of spontaneous generation of life. The scientific community ran the same tests that Pasteur did and came up with the same results every time, therefore the idea of life coming from non-life was proved to be impossible.

Fast-forward to the 20th Century, as Darwinists had realized that Darwinism did not kill off God unless they could also assert that life arose naturally from non-life. Evolution turning simple life forms created by God was not going to do the job. People would ask why would God make simple forms and then untold millions of years of death and struggle to build life when He could just make the organisms as it says in Genesis. So Darwinists had to work to try to prove that life came from non-life. But operational science has PROVEN that it cannot.

Maybe you would think it is interesting to try to find the Philosophers Stone or seek to learn to utilize telekinesis or study up on witch doctor spells? Who cares what you find interesting? But science has absolutely proved that life cannot come from non-life and anyone with a brain who reads this entire post would realize that...unless they hate the idea of God so much they would rather believe in fairy tales than science? Bibbity Bobbity Boo?

radar said...

Canucklehead, being an Atheist, after once going to church, I suspect Darwinism had a lot to do with your rejection of God?

But why? Sure, Christians are not perfect, but it is darned sure you aren't either. You've accused me of lying when I haven't, for one thing. You seem to be very focused on trying to refute what I write, but you don't bring evidence along with you. Mostly you just kind of rant.

Look, people who do go to church are not perfect just because they are Christians. Everybody can screw up and there are some who suddenly think they are perfect because they go to church. A lot of times those are the ones who crash and burn.

Did you actually give the real God a chance, or did you just look at people where you went to church, saw some flaws and then rejected God? I am actually interested in what caused you to reject God. Was it people, or was it something about the God presented to you that annoyed you?

I've explained how God changed my life. No, I investigate Hare Krishnas and Mormons and pretty much every religion you can imagine and rejected them all. Nobody had a satisfactory philosophy that could present a God to me who fit the facts and explain the presence of evil in the world. So I became pretty frustrated with all philosophies. They all failed. There was no philosophy that could create utopia on Earth, that could really make a difference...

I'd not given Christianity much thought because I thought people just prayed a magic prayer that was some kind of fire insurance and then met in buildings and told stories and sang songs and collected money. That didn't impress me at all.

But Charles Wood spent time answering my questions and kept showing me things from the Bible he brought with him. I had thought that perhaps long hours of meditation or introspection could bring me to a great inner knowledge. I had investigated various forms of chanting and studied the major religions one by one.

Pastor Wood showed me a Jesus Christ that I didn't grok when I was a kid going to a Sunday School class with a friend now and then. He showed me a perfect world created by God and ruined by the sin of mankind. He showed me a Son of God willing to leave paradise to live as a human for 33 years and suffer and incredibly take on Himself all the sins of mankind for all time as he was crucified. I then understood why He had to die and what He accomplished by coming back to life.

Jesus came to Earth to live a perfect life that I could not live. He died while taking a punishment I could not bear. He rose again to offer me an eternal life with God that I could never earn. He opened His arms and called me to believe and repent and come to Him. I realized that the story of Christ not only made sense intellectually, it touched my heart and it filled my heart and soul. I was changed.

I didn't even think about evolution at that time, but later on while reading the Bible I realized that the Book of Genesis and On The Origin Of Species clashed. I began to wonder how they could both be true and then heard the words of Dr. Henry Morris and began to study the subject to see whether Darwinism was actually true. It is scandalous that Darwinism is just utterly ridiculous and yet millions of people are devoted to brainwash the world with it. So I decided to take up the sword to fight against them.

radar said...

Just a reminder that we know the Earth is actually COOLING? Funny how the commenters like to boast until presented with facts.

Like macroevolution, the idea of man-made global warming is preposterous and honest science would agree. Furthermore, we know from the Medieval Warming Period that if the climate does warm, it is better for mankind.

Carbon Dioxide? There is not enough of it in the atmosphere to change the temperature but it is plant food. We could pump all the CO2 we want into the atmosphere and plants will ingest it.

Again, their are politicians and ideologues who ignore the evidence and proclaim lies at the top of their lungs. In the case of the climate, there are all these Chicken Littles crying aloud and everything they say is a lie.

I invite those of you who disagree to go read that post.