Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When they do so, they do so honestly. What they don't do is pull the quotes out of context to make it appear that they are saying something different than what they really believe. However, creationists don't mind using quotes dishonestly. That's the problem.
And as you say, deal with the facts. Why don't you start presenting some facts?
Show me a single physics textbook or peer reviewed physics paper that defines the 2nd law in that fashion.
You forgot the part about it being a closed system. You can go from high probability arrangements to low probability arrangements by adding energy to the system. That is why refrigerators work. That is why single cells are able to develop into full human beings over the span of 9 months.
If you haven't noticed, there is a massive fireball about 90 million miles away dumping energy into Earth's system, including life.
Last I checked, the Earth and life are not at equilibrium. Biology is an open system where tons of energy are being dumped in which allows for negative entropy.
Please present data.
Still no data.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with whether or not life evolved. The first life could have been created by a deity, and then evolved into the species we see today. If this happened, the theory of evolution would be unchanged.
Show me a single DNA difference between humans and chimps that could not have been produced by evolution. Just one.
DEBUNKED! Here: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)Again, what I wrote above from Robert Sauers M.I.T. Team and Information expert Hubert Yockey whose theoretical calculations to determine the information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity. Mr. Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons. His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65, even after assuming the most ideal conditions all amino acids are left handed, all necessary amino acids are present, that only alpha bonds occurred, and all chemicals and/or energy that could neutralize or destroy the amino acids are not present.
And, again from my above post, Yockey's theoretical work is confirmed with the Hard Science of Robert T. Sauer and his M.I.T. team of biologists undertook the scientific research of substituting the 20 different types amino acids in two different proteins. Upon each substitution, the protein sequence was reinserted into bacteria to be tested for function. They discovered that in some locations of the protein's amino acid chains, up to 15 different amino acids may be substituted while at other locations their was a tolerance of only a few, and yet other locations could not tolerate even one substitution of any other amino acid. One of the proteins they chose was the 92 residue lambda repressor.
Sauer et. al. calculated that:
"... there should be about 10^57 different allowed sequences for the entire 92 residue domain. ... the calculation does indicate in a qualitative way the tremendous degeneracy in the information that does specifies a particular protein fold. Nevertheless, the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the lambda repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 10^63, of the total possible 92 residue sequences."
They achieved similar results with another short protein.
Sauer et. al. go on to highlight that Yockey (1978) had obtained a similar result for cytochrome C.
Biologists R.T. Sauer, James U Bowie, John F.R. Olson, and Wendall A. Lim, 1989, 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science's USA 86, 2152-2156. and 1990, March 16, Science, 247; and, Olson and R.T. Sauer, 'Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics', 7:306 - 316, 1990.
This hard science is a striking confirmation of Professor Yockey's theoretical work that tell us that the probability of a mixture of solely proteinous right handed amino acids being arranged in a sequence (by non-directed means, i.e. materialistic evolution) that provides a function (i.e. message) necessary to produce living organisms is a minimum of 1 in 10^63, and decreases exponentially for much larger proteins (e.g. Hemoglobin).
Thus this is another insurmountable stubbling block to a materialistic evolutionary pathway from racemized amino acids of proteinous and non-proteinous proteins amino ever evolving into an assembly of purely proteinous amino acids, that connect with just the right bonds, into the correct sequences of needed for a variety of functional proteins necessary for life. And even if natural causes could bring it to this point (which they can't), you still need the machinery to cause these extremely rare proteinous sequences to FOLD. And why would such folding machines ever exist, waiting for the right proteins to arrive over very long periods of time.
Beyond the above, there are other scientific facts that drive more nails into the coffin of the concept abiogenesis.
To make life, we need amino acids, sugars, bases, and phosphates. This gives us several catch 22's. You need formaldehyde to make sugars, but formaldehyde fixes amino acids so that they do not react. Methane polymerizes formaldehyde, but must be present to make amino acids. Amino acids plus bases destroys formaldehyde. Calcium and magnesium in our oceans destroy phosphates; you can't get phosphates in oceans. Energy needed to make amino acids also destroys the amino acids.
R. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, "The Improbability of Pre-biotic Nucleic Acid Synthesis" 14 Origin of Life 565, 1984, relates how experiments like Miller-Urey have very limited significance because of the implausible conditions under which they are conducted:
"Many accounts of the origin of life assume the spontaneous synthesis of a self replicating nucleic acid could take place readily. However, these procedures use pure starting materials, afford poor yields, and are run under conditions that are not compatible with one another. Any nucleic acid components that were formed in the primitive earth would tend to hydrolyze by a number of pathways. Their polarization would be inhibited by the presence of vast numbers of related substances which would react preferentially with them."
The above is much more than enough to convince all reasonable people that abiogenesis is scientifically unfeasible. Louis Pasteur is correct when he gave us the biogenetic law that states that life only comes from life. It takes intelligence and 'know how' to create life. Non-thoughtful processes can not create life because those processes are controlled by the Laws of Physics and Chemistry and they can not place the necessary boundary conditions on the laws of physics and Chemistry to form a living being. Only intelligent causes can do that and only living intelligent beings can provide intelligent causes.
What the laws of chemistry and physics tell us is that the most profound scientific statement ever written on the origin of life is: "In the beginning, G-d Created...".
Only intelligence, know how, fore-knowledge, and ability can place molecules in the correct order for life, as we know it, to exist.
The Theory of Evolution is a fantasy for Secular Humanists, whom seek a reasonable worldview, but it is not true!!!
The End!
I provided evidence for my point of view that theory of Evolution can not account for life as we noted.
Please provide your own evidence for your own belief in evolution.
I provided evidence for my point of view that theory of Evolution can not account for life as we noted.
Please provide your own evidence for your own belief in evolution.
Loudmouth etc. Why are guys you so intent to coming to every Christian Internet discussion group that I find, and trying to push and sell Evolution to Christians?
Don't you have any other things, like the pursuit of Happiness, or helping people in need, or play your favorite music or games, etc. etc., Is your life so dull that you must push evolution upon us, whom believe in God, who is the author of all life, in our views. We believe in God, we look forward to eternal life, the good life. The only thing evolution it accomplish is to informs those who believe in it, that they will die, and nobody will care, you just critter that dies. Make the most of your time on Earth, enjoy what time you may have, spend your time well. You might die tomorrow, you wasted telling other people they die and live no more. Stop trying to make people miserable, telling them death is all there is, and then we are no more. I'm sure you can do better things with your life than being a harbinger of death.
Farewell to ye, my best wishes for you and your friends for a good life.
Loudmouth etc. Why are guys you like you are so intent to coming to every Christian Internet discussion group that I find, and trying to push and sell Evolution to Christians? Don't you have any other things, like the pursuit of Happiness, or helping people in need, or play your favorite music or games, etc. etc., Is your life so dull that you must push evolution upon us, whom believe in God, who is the author of all life, in our views. We believe in God, we look forward to eternal life, the good life. The only thing evolution it accomplish is to informs those who believe in it, that they will die, and nobody will care, you just critter that dies. Make the most of your time on Earth, enjoy what time you may have, spend your time well. You might die tomorrow, you wasted telling other people they die and live no more. Stop trying to make people miserable, telling them death is all there is, and then we are no more. I'm sure you can do better things with your life than being a harbinger of death.
Farewell to ye, my best wishes for you and your friends for a good life.
It is the creationist faction within christianity that is trying to sabotage science education in this country.
Play the persecution card, then ignore the evidence. Predictable.
No No- I do not feel a bit of persecution at all. I just don't believe your posts as being true.
I know God, I Love God, My true Father, and He loves me, and I long for Him. All of God's people will come to Him, and He will receive them.
No No- I do not feel a bit of persecution at all. I just don't believe your posts as being true.
I know God, I Love God, My true Father, and He loves me, and I long for Him. All of God's people will come to Him, and He will receive them.
No No- I do not feel a bit of persecution at all. I just don't believe your posts as being true.
I know God, I Love God, My true Father, and He loves me, and I long for Him. All of God's people will come to Him, and He will receive them.
We do this because Christians have tried to get their nonsense taught in public schools.
Public education is a place where only demonstrably scientific based ideas, such as evolution, can be taught. Religious beliefs not based upon fact cannot be taught there. Your people crossed the line first. Do you complain about that?
So you intent is to censor Christian and others who believe in an eternal living being who created all that we see.
But the truth is you embraced the mind set of secular humanism and you are a priest of that religion.
So you intent is to censor Christian and others who believe in an eternal living being who created all that we see. But the truth is you embraced the mind set of secular humanism and you are a priest of that religion.
There is always a good reason, and there is a real reason.
My best wishes for a more meaning and happiness for your life.
Art,
What is stopping christians from not learning about the creation story?
So you intent is to censor Christian and others who believe in an eternal living being who created all that we see. But the truth is you embraced the mind set of secular humanism and you are a priest of that religion.
There is always a good reason, and there is a real reason.
My best wishes for a more meaning and happiness for your life.
Sometimes I think creationists forget that there are these places where children are free to attend. In fact, these places don't even charge a fee for attending, and are even open on the weekends. They are called churches.
Why creationists don't know about these places is beyond me, but apparently they think that they only place that a child can learn anything is in a public school science class.
My education was in Public schools.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?