Please stop!!!

[Caphi]

What wrong with magic? I sure if someone from the past see we have done today they would have called it magic. For all we know gravity is nothing but magic, the stuff holding atoms together is magic.

God of the Gaps is not a terribly impressive argument, my friend.

The problem here we made and build rules to help us understand the universe around us. Then we try to put God in this box of rules.

As I see it, either God somehow transcends these rules or else he doesn't exist. There's no "putting in" involved.

Yet almost all our rules and laws usually have exceptions where they don't work or are flat contradictive.

Err... what? Can you cite some examples, please?

In order to make the Big Bang theory to fix into our rules we had to figure 90% of our universe is made of invisible stuff that not matter nor has been proven to even exist. (that's about as close to magic as you can get.)

Actually, it's been detected, albeit indirectly. Kindly do not confuse "possible hypotheses" with "magical fancies". The difference is that the one fits the data far more parsimoniously than the other.

The origins of life is even worst shape especially since the law of thermodynamics works againest building something as fragile as a cell

Do you know how many threads and posts have been made to combat this one argument?

 

[neverforsaken]

i have no doubt that God could have created the world in the way described in the OT. but i believe God created the universe to create life to show man his power. when you were a little child and went to a magic show and saw the magician pull a rabbit out of the hat, you were pretty amazed, yet at some point you found that it was just a magic trick. it is no longer that amazing. what God is is reality. and all things real a result of a truth. and truth requires proof and proof is science. By connection, God is science because God is truth. I do not isult my God by comparing him to some magician or zeus like being. God is far more than that.

 

[Smidlee]

Do you know how many threads and posts have been made to combat this one argument?

Which makes me wonder why they have claim their $1,000,000 prize yet. Here's easy money for all those brains who thinks they can explain away the origin of life problem.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Which makes me wonder why they have claim their $1,000,000 prize yet. Here's easy money for all those brains who thinks they can explain away the origin of life problem.

Er, do you have any idea how many times that has been explained as well?

 

[Smidlee]

Er, do you have any idea how many times that has been explained as well?

hmmmmm .. I give up ...what's the answer?

 

[Loudmouth]

hmmmmm .. I give up ...what's the answer?

From the first page of your link

""The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. To win, the explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s)."

It is left to the lifeorigins.org site to determine what is "highly plausible" and what is not. Kent Hovind played the same game. His "acceptable evidence" for the accuracy of the Big Bang is someone creating another Big Bang in front of him. I am guessing that the lifeorigins.org requirements are on the same level. From further reading, it becomes apparent that it is rigged. From the "criteria" page:

The mechanism must address four topics:

• The simplest known genome's apparent anticipation and directing of future events toward biological ends, both metabolic and structural;

The simplest known genomes are the products of 3.5 billion years of evolution. They in no way represent the simplest possible replicator.

• The ability of the genome to convey instructions, deliver orders, and actually produce the needed biological end-products;

Why require a "genome"? Everyone involved in abiogenesis research conceives of something much simpler than a genome.

• The indirectness of recipe-like biological "linguistic" message code - the gap between genotypic prescriptive information (instruction) and phenotypic expression. How did the first genetic instruction arise in its coded format prior to phenotypic realization of progeny from which the environment could select? If a protobiont's genetic code and phenotype were one and the same, how did such a simple system self-organize to meet the nine minimum conditions of "life" enumerated below under "Definitions"? How did stellar energy, the four known forces of physics (strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, and gravity), and natural processes produce initial prescriptive information (instruction/recipe) using direct or indirect code?

It has never been shown that a "linguistic message code" is even required for life to arise.

• The bizarre concentration of singlehanded optical isomers (homochirality of enantiomers) in living things - how did a relatively pure population of left-handed amino acids or right-handed sugars arise out of a chemical environment wherein reactions ordinarily give rise to roughly equal numbers of both right- and left-handed optical isomers?

This has already been adressed by current research. UV radiation and preferential binding to mineral matrices can both produce homochirality.

 

[Smidlee]

From the first page of your link

""The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. To win, the explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s)."

It is left to the lifeorigins.org site to determine what is "highly plausible" and what is not. Kent Hovind played the same game.

So you believe evolutionist is now playing the same game as Kent Hovind is? wow what a statement.Either this is a hoax with a list of scientists or actually real reward from those who wants to move origins of life (without intelligent design) from Sci-Fi to something real. All we got so far is a lot of imagination and a few looking for life on Mars to avoid the problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you believe evolutionist is now playing the same game as Kent Hovind is? wow what a statement.Either this is a hoax with a list of scientists or actually real reward from those who wants to move origins of life (without intelligent design) from Sci-Fi to something real. All we got so far is a lot of imagination and a few looking for life on Mars to avoid the problem.

Their criteria do not match the hypotheses of those working the actual field of abiogenesis, a field filled with chemists, not evolutionists. The lifeorigins.org group is looking for the creation of a whole cell from scratch, a proposition that no scientist in the current era of science has ever proposed as being the first life. They are not looking for mechanisms for creating life but how that first life evolved into what we have today. They miss the fact that there could be many ways that life could arise, some much different to what we have today.

For instance, many hypothesize that the first life was catalytic RNA.
http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

They have shown that very short sequences of RNA can carry out the functions of both genetic material and proteins. They have even shown that RNA can produce new RNA, the first steps towards the first life. If this isn't "highly plausible" I don't know what is.

 

[Tomk80]

So you believe evolutionist is now playing the same game as Kent Hovind is? wow what a statement.Either this is a hoax with a list of scientists or actually real reward from those who wants to move origins of life (without intelligent design) from Sci-Fi to something real. All we got so far is a lot of imagination and a few looking for life on Mars to avoid the problem.

I have no idea whether the persons maintaining this site are evolutionists or not. I do find their prize suspicious, but mainly because of some of the wordings. For example:

"The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life.

But who says that genetic instructions are necessary for life. How do they define life in the first place?

Or take this statement from the submission forms:

G. mechanism provides Selection Pressure in a prebiotic, chemical- evolutionary environment to overcome the statistical prohibitiveness of mere chance

A strange statement since none of the models for abiogenesis are pure chance models.

I find the whole challenge highly suspicious. I really don't care who's behind it and what kind of group it is, the challenge is fishy.

 

[Loudmouth]

I find the whole challenge highly suspicious. I really don't care who's behind it and what kind of group it is, the challenge is fishy.

Yeah, it doesn't pass the smell test. "The Prize" is being administered by the Gene Emergence Project, themselves headed by the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. Here is their board of directors. Anytime you see teachers, computer scientists, and financial analysts on this type of list you should take it with a grain of salt.


Morris W. Hedge, Chairman; Mathematician/Computer Scientist, Department of Defense, Fort Meade, MD

Reginald C. Orem, Vice Chairman, Retired Educator, College Park, MD

Paul L. Abel, Secretary; Owner, "We Train Computers," Columbia, MD

George Stephens, Ph.D., Teller of Elections, retired Maryland University professor, Adelphi Md.

David L. Abel, Treasurer; Theoretical Biology; Biosemiotics; Life-origin research specifically into the emergence of initial genes; Greenbelt, MD

Chris Esh, University of Maryland, College Park, Md Ph.D. program Sue E. Meeks, CEO, Integrated Financial Analysts, LTD., Potomac, Va.

 

[seymoromnis]

Please stop insulting your God and comparing him to human designers. If you believe that God created the universe in order to create life please stop. If God created all the rules why would he create a universe where he would have to break it's rules to create life? God makes rules he is not subservient to them. If he is truely an intelligent designer and a perfect being he wouldn't have made it the way you claim.

This is just my IMO btw. Any comments?

God never breaks his rules b/c he writes the rules. He is also omniscient, all knowing, so he knows what we will think at all times, now, the future, anytime.

I agree that comparing God to human designers is insulting to him b/c that is putting God on our level, and that is putting him on the level of sinners.

 

[On the Narrow Road]

I think people tend to think of many things in terms they understand. We look at Mars and we see some landscape features and we try to define and understand them in terms of the processes we see here on earth when there are quite possibly other forces at work. The only thing that is certain is that the more we learn the more we should realize we don't know everything...we (the human race) have likely barely scratched the surface of the amount of knowledge that is possible. Everytime with think we have found the smallest building block of the physical world, we dig a little deeper and find something smaller...

The OP states we are insulting God by comparing him to human designers... This may or may not be insulting to God, I don't claim to speak for him. More likely we are pale imitators of him in designing...for we have to start with raw materials. So to continue the thought process began in the OP, if God made all the rules, he is not subservient to them... To claim that he would not have created the universe a certain way is to claim to know the mind of God. If the OP knows that, he is far ahead of the game. To use another example of our poor imitation of God in creation: We make up games with rules all the time, yet only the players in the game are held to the rules. Is it then such a stretch to believe that a God who created the universe can operate outside the rules he set for it?

I don't claim to have the answers, just a lot of questions.

 

[DailyBlessings]

If you made up the game, why would you violate the rules? Why not just change the rules? Unless you were trying to cheat?

 

[blookey]

I am just saying this not to debate as i like my opinion right wrong or indifferent. I am a Christain. I also see things in out world that have been found. i was kicked out of 5-7 grade SundaySchool for asking "where did dinosaurs come from and why are they in the Bible" We have plenty of proof in Dinosours. So now people say to me since they didn't play a role in the Bible that is why they aren't there. If you read the Bible you can trace Jesus's genology a long way back. God didn't talk about John Smith who lived around the corner from Noah. So I believe (remember this makes since to me i'm not trying to debate anyone)
That maybe "lucy" didn't play any part in anything regarding the Bible. I remember Christian people fighting against dinosaurs being real since they were not in the Bible. Well maybe just maybe it doesn't have anything to do with our beliefs and faith. Scientists in Africa have found bones of other prehistoric people that are humanoids. at the same time they have found bone same time frame and more neadrithol sp. sorry like. i don't question what is in the Bible.
I do believe that Adam was the first male that stood up right and that is enough for me. Folks there are alot of unexplained things in the world and i am open to alot of it. Evolution is a touchy subject i think (remember "I" think no claim to knowing anything for sure but God, Jesus, Bible and dinasours) that maybe God doesn't tell us everything because He doesn't have to and it isn't relavent to our faith. one more thing I am a true Christain, I pray, read the bible. I'm so not question God, Jesus or the Bible.
s

 

[On the Narrow Road]

If you made up the game, why would you violate the rules? Why not just change the rules? Unless you were trying to cheat?

Like I said, we make up games all the time. If you are not actually playing the game...ie. a participant, do you follow the rules of the game itself? No, you live your life. If you come back and play the game, you are subject to the rules of the game. As the Creator and not a participant, God is outside the game and not subject to any rules. (Please note this is just an anology...)

 

[Brennin]

Please stop insulting your God and comparing him to human designers. If you believe that God created the universe in order to create life please stop. If God created all the rules why would he create a universe where he would have to break it's rules to create life? God makes rules he is not subservient to them. If he is truely an intelligent designer and a perfect being he wouldn't have made it the way you claim.

This is just my IMO btw. Any comments?

I think your objection to "biological ID" (so as to differentiate it from cosmological ID) has merit.

 

[Niels]

Please stop insulting your God and comparing him to human designers. If you believe that God created the universe in order to create life please stop. If God created all the rules why would he create a universe where he would have to break it's rules to create life? God makes rules he is not subservient to them. If he is truely an intelligent designer and a perfect being he wouldn't have made it the way you claim.

This is just my IMO btw. Any comments?

I'll offer that when a rule appears to be broken, that simply means we're ignorant of other rules. Through dilligent study we may be able to uncover more of them. God made it the way he made it regardless of what we claim.

 

[Protos]

The origins of life is even worst shape especially since the law of thermodynamics works againest building something as fragile as a cell.

Would you care to back that up? I'm sure on this very forum I've seen quite a few threads where this very misunderstanding is addressed. To continue to use it smacks of willful ignorance.

Certainly. The chances of a primitive cell arising from the primordial soup of the earth's primitive conditions are the same as a tornado passing through a scrap of metal and making a Boeing-747 even for as long as time as is speculated for the first cell to arise via chemical evolution (1.5 billion years). It's the same chance as a dust storm passing through scraps of paper and making the encyclopedia Britannica. Of course I am quoting former evolutionists who now believe in God on this. It could just as well be their personal opinions.

But it is a fact that the chances of life arising from the primordial soup are 1 to 10^320million while there are only 10^78 supposed electrons in the entire universe.

If you wish to elaborate on either of those two values, the first one about 1 to 10^320million is possibly measured by the Miller experiment where earth's primitive conditions were created in a laboratory. They did not produce life but they produced proteinoid microspheres which had some properties of life, but then so do many things. I suppose the value comes due to chaos theory which is of course unmeasurable, but they figured the percentage of each element and compounds of them in the atmosphere and primordial soup autocolliding with each other and the examining of when out of how many times and how many such compounds collide would produce each individual part of the early primitive cell. Of course it's not entirely accurate, but it's a good suggestion.

As for the second value, it's based on the gravitation constant G, and the mass of electrons, protons, and neutrons. This way it can be estimated how much matter there is in the universe, and an adequate portion of which would be electrons. Since neutrons are the weight of an electron plus a proton, the assumed mass of all the matter in the universe is divided by half, and then the percent of the mass of the electron with respect to the proton is taken to see how much of the apporximate mass in the universe belong to electrons. Thus, scientist approximate that value to be 10^78. Of course there is definite proof of dark matter, since the sun does not have enough mass to hold all the planets with the inertia the spin of which produces, so that value could be smaller.

 

[raphael_aa]

Certainly. The chances of a primitive cell arising from the primordial soup of the earth's primitive conditions are the same as a tornado passing through a scrap of metal and making a Boeing-747 even for as long as time as is speculated for the first cell to arise via chemical evolution (1.5 billion years). It's the same chance as a dust storm passing through scraps of paper and making the encyclopedia Britannica. Of course I am quoting former evolutionists who now believe in God on this. It could just as well be their personal opinions.

But it is a fact that the chances of life arising from the primordial soup are 1 to 10^320million while there are only 10^78 supposed electrons in the entire universe.

If you wish to elaborate on either of those two values, the first one about 1 to 10^320million is possibly measured by the Miller experiment where earth's primitive conditions were created in a laboratory. They did not produce life but they produced proteinoid microspheres which had some properties of life, but then so do many things. I suppose the value comes due to chaos theory which is of course unmeasurable, but they figured the percentage of each element and compounds of them in the atmosphere and primordial soup autocolliding with each other and the examining of when out of how many times and how many such compounds collide would produce each individual part of the early primitive cell. Of course it's not entirely accurate, but it's a good suggestion.

As for the second value, it's based on the gravitation constant G, and the mass of electrons, protons, and neutrons. This way it can be estimated how much matter there is in the universe, and an adequate portion of which would be electrons. Since neutrons are the weight of an electron plus a proton, the assumed mass of all the matter in the universe is divided by half, and then the percent of the mass of the electron with respect to the proton is taken to see how much of the apporximate mass in the universe belong to electrons. Thus, scientist approximate that value to be 10^78. Of course there is definite proof of dark matter, since the sun does not have enough mass to hold all the planets with the inertia the spin of which produces, so that value could be smaller.

Thank you for replying. Read post 34 here http://www.christianforums.com/t1155768-the-quiet-thread.html&page=4

 

[Smidlee]

Certainly. The chances of a primitive cell arising from the primordial soup of the earth's primitive conditions are the same as a tornado passing through a scrap of metal and making a Boeing-747 even for as long as time as is speculated for the first cell to arise via chemical evolution (1.5 billion years). It's the same chance as a dust storm passing through scraps of paper and making the encyclopedia Britannica. Of course I am quoting former evolutionists who now believe in God on this. It could just as well be their personal opinions.

But it is a fact that the chances of life arising from the primordial soup are 1 to 10^320million while there are only 10^78 supposed electrons in the entire universe.

As someone as posted evolutionist tries to find a way out of these small odds with unlimited planets and unlimited universes with enough time. Yet IMO this isn't the worst blow to evolution/abiogenesis. It's the fact even if a cell is formed by ramdomness they still have to deal with making the cells alive before the law of thermodynamics totally destroy these parts. A dead cell has all the part that a living cells has yet scientists hasn't figure out how to bring life to it. Someone has called this the software problem (putting it in terms of a PC). Evolutionist love to claim time is on their side while the evidence doesn't support this.The idea of giving nature enough time and miracles are possible hasn't been proven true.
Evolutionists tries to take our two worst enemies and made them their allies in their theory; death and time. The laws of thermodynamics help us understand why time isn't a friend. Even time eventually takes it's toll on life also. Yet evolutionist believes given enough time even something with extreme small odds can happen.
Sometimes they will uses a lottery as an example. Yet a lottery itself is also effected by time and will not work if the odds are too big. Lotteries themselves is a product of intelligent design even though it runs on random numbers. Lotteries are design to make a profit so in turn are design to have just the right odds to have a winner ever now and then. Someone winning the lottery is what draws more (suckers I meant) people to continue buying tickets. If the odds of winning a lottery was so high that there's was only one winner in a thousands years for example then the odds are the winning number will never be called is very high. This is because after a while (let say after a 100 years) with no winner people would stop buying tickets since it would be obvious the odd are too great which makes the lottery a scam.
This factor of long periods of time also works againest abiogenesis. Even somehow the odd many parts of a cell is formed, it still has only a small time to become "alive" before nature (TLoT) would destroy what already been produced.
So it's more like a thousand tornados one after enough putting together a Boeing-747 a few parts at a time without somehow destroy that which already been built.