Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[createdtoworship]

Why would anybody use the reasoning they had at the Dover trial? A dolphin looks more like a shark than a human, yet the human and the dolphin are much more closely related. It's elementary.

the only thing bad about dover was how the board handled the case and also how the Judge overstepped.

https://www.discovery.org/a/2341

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

the only thing bad about dover was how the board handled the case and also how the Judge overstepped.

https://www.discovery.org/a/2341

It is true the Board goofed, but the Judge did not overstep. He merely allowed constitutional law to prevail. If you want to establish religion, do it outside of the public schools.

 

[1Cor22]

The holy grail of evolution is to simulate life in the laboratory and claim this proves the idea of the origin of life. It is impossible to prove life is a result of a random process in the laboratory.

I say this for the simple fact that the experiment must be orchestrated. Any interaction from an external being removes the truly random component from the experiment. Simply by observing the experiment, touching, or measuring any part of it excludes it from being purely random. Hence the experiment becomes immeasurable and proves nothing.

I didn't realize there was a evolution sub-forum. Moderator move this if needed please.

the experiment, if successful, would only further prove that life must be created

science proves that life could only have been originally created as follows:

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

 

[Loudmouth]

the only thing bad about dover was how the board handled the case and also how the Judge overstepped.

https://www.discovery.org/a/2341

The judge directly applied precedent, namely Lemon v. Kurtzman and Edward v. Aguillard. That's not overstepping. That is directly applying the laws that are already on the books.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The holy grail of evolution is to simulate life in the laboratory and claim this proves the idea of the origin of life. It is impossible to prove life is a result of a random process in the laboratory.

I say this for the simple fact that the experiment must be orchestrated. Any interaction from an external being removes the truly random component from the experiment. Simply by observing the experiment, touching, or measuring any part of it excludes it from being purely random. Hence the experiment becomes immeasurable and proves nothing.

I didn't realize there was a evolution sub-forum. Moderator move this if needed please.

Once upon a time a space ship from a highly advanced species came along and noticed there was a lot of life on earth. Hmm, said the captain of the ship, "I wonder if life originated there spontaneously"

"Could not have", said the first mate.

So they went to another sector of the galaxy and prepared a duplicate of the way earth was in its most primitive state. Then they waited a half billion years and went back to it. They noticed life was starting out there.

"Well", said the captain, "That proves life could have started spontaneously on the original earth".

"No it doesn't", said the first mate, "because this was an artificial body instead of a natural body and therefore it proves nothing about how life could have started back on the original earth".

"Don't be ridiculous", said the captain, and they all sailed away.

 

[RealityCheck]

the experiment, if successful, would only further prove that life must be created

science proves that life could only have been originally created as follows:

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

Citation from science please.

 

[createdtoworship]

The judge directly applied precedent, namely Lemon v. Kurtzman and Edward v. Aguillard. That's not overstepping. That is directly applying the laws that are already on the books.

Actually McClean had similiar Rulings as dover but not Aguillard. Of the two main rulings against creationist : 1- not science, 2- it's religious, aguillard ruled only #2 while dover used both 1, and 2. So your premise is faulty, the judge did not directly apply precedents from Kurtzman (which was an ambiguous case at best) or Aguillard directly. I believe concepts were used but rulings themselves were scattered and faulty.

more info:

Creation and the Courts (book)© 2007 by Norman L. Geisler

 

[Loudmouth]

So your premise is faulty, the judge did not directly apply precedents from Kurtzman (which was an ambiguous case at best) or Aguillard directly.

What are you talking about? There is a massive section in the Judge Jones' decision that directly applies the Lemon test to the case.

"Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test."
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

the only thing bad about dover was how the board handled the case and also how the Judge overstepped.

https://www.discovery.org/a/2341

Interestingly, it would appear that one person on the board was given a warning by God.

The mysterious dream of Jeff Brown

The dream of Jeff Brown has received scant attention in the trial of Dover vs Kitzmiller et al; the attention of the media and the rest of us all was on the trial and a whole. As everyone knows by now, the court decided that the school district was inappropriately mixing religion and state when it required a statement in support of intelligent design be read in science classrooms. That is old news. But I call our attention to a fragment of testimony concerning the board's decision, testifying (giving answers) is Dr. William Buckingham, school board member at the time of the trial;

Questions are coming from Attorny Witold J. Walczak, an ACLU lawyer assigned to this case.

The material is from Trial Day 16, afternoon session, page 115 and 116 of the official transcript.
A link to that transcript would be http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/?path=trans/

Here's what I wanted to bring up for discussion:

-------------------------------

Q. And as of October the 7th of 2004 all of
the board members were in favor of this proposal
to include a reference in intelligent design in
the biology curriculum except for Casey and Jeff
Brown, right?

A. I think that's a fair statement.

Q. And the matter actually came up for a vote
at the next meeting of the board, which was
October the 18th of 2004?

A. I misspoke. Jeff Brown at this point was
in favor of intelligent design being added to
the curriculum, and that he said he had a dream
and God told him to vote against it. So he
changed his mind.

--------------------------

So by the testimony in court from board member William Buckingham, one board member - Jeff Brown - was initially in favor of supporting the statement about intelligent design. However, he actually changed his mind and at a time when the majority were favoring the insertion of intelligent design into the Dover school science curriculum, he voted against it. Not based on any evidence, but based on instruction, as he understood it, from God.

I submit this for everyone to ponder. How does one understand such an event? What would be the cause of such an event? No doubt each of us will interpret this bald testimony in accordance with our own opinions about evolution and intelligent design. I for one take it as evidence that accepting evolution and spirituality are not incompatible.

Why did William Buckingham not heed the word from God as relayed to him by Jeff Brown? As it turns out, heeding that word from God would have saved the school board and the taxpayers of Dover much expense and embarrassment. I accept that both Jeff and Bill were trying to do God's will as best they knew how. I also accept that God was only able to use one of them to do His will. A fact that should give us all pause.

 

[RealityCheck]

So by the testimony in court from board member William Buckingham, one board member - Jeff Brown - was initially in favor of supporting the statement about intelligent design. However, he actually changed his mind and at a time when the majority were favoring the insertion of intelligent design into the Dover school science curriculum, he voted against it. Not based on any evidence, but based on instruction, as he understood it, from God.

There's a lot in that bolded statement, wouldn't you agree? Especially coupled with what follows it.

I submit this for everyone to ponder. How does one understand such an event? What would be the cause of such an event? No doubt each of us will interpret this bald testimony in accordance with our own opinions about evolution and intelligent design. I for one take it as evidence that accepting evolution and spirituality are not incompatible.

If you *actually* want an answer to the question of what would cause such an event, you're going about it the wrong way. It's entirely insufficient to say "why? well here's one possibility, and heck, that's good enough for me." That's not a pathway to truth.

Why did William Buckingham not heed the word from God as relayed to him by Jeff Brown? As it turns out, heeding that word from God would have saved the school board and the taxpayers of Dover much expense and embarrassment. I accept that both Jeff and Bill were trying to do God's will as best they knew how. I also accept that God was only able to use one of them to do His will. A fact that should give us all pause.

Do you not believe in an all-powerful god? Is god somehow limited in his abilities?

 

[digitalgoth]

Do you not believe in an all-powerful god? Is god somehow limited in his abilities?

Of course he's non-all-powerful. He lacks skills in basic accounting. Why do you think he always needs money?

 

[createdtoworship]

What are you talking about? There is a massive section in the Judge Jones' decision that directly applies the Lemon test to the case.

"Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test."
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion - Wikisource, the free online library

all I am saying is that they are unrelated because the rulings were different. I repeat:

Of the two main rulings against creationism : 1- it's not science, 2- it's religious, aguillard ruled only #2 while dover used both 1, and 2. So your premise is faulty

 

[createdtoworship]

So by the testimony in court from board member William Buckingham, one board member - Jeff Brown - was initially in favor of supporting the statement about intelligent design. However, he actually changed his mind and at a time when the majority were favoring the insertion of intelligent design into the Dover school science curriculum, he voted against it. Not based on any evidence, but based on instruction, as he understood it, from God.

well, I believe in visions, but not the type where God specifically talks orally to you. I believe satan too can counterfeit these types of visions. Joseph smith and a host of false religions provide similar false testimony. Don't get me wrong, we can have dreams of God and angels, the miraculous. But the ones that typically have God using a vein of communication other than the Bible is typically something to be weary of. As God's word is the main vein of communication now days. I believe cult experts hank hanagaaf, roger oakland, and ron rhodes agree but I would have to check again. It's been years since I have researched the cults.

 

[Loudmouth]

all I am saying is that they are unrelated because the rulings were different.

I know what you are saying. What you are saying is wrong. Judge Jones in his decision spent pages and pages applying the Lemon test to the court case.

 

[createdtoworship]

I know what you are saying. What you are saying is wrong. Judge Jones in his decision spent pages and pages applying the Lemon test to the court case.

that may be true, but in the transcripts the evidence for the rulings were different. Evidence for the lemon test may have been a similarity but that does not make the trials identical by any means.

I found some more info here:

"There are too many differences between the McLean case and the Kitzmiller case to analyze here. The McLean decision pronounced that creation science, as defined in the Arkansas law, "is simply not science.""

above quote from:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/but_is_id_science001890.html