Which is why evos try so hard to distance themselves from it.
I've asked several times now where the first cell came from, what it evolved from and all I get are .......
Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
The picture of the man is not the man. One cannot know the man by observation alone. Indeed, knowing the man in himself is beyond the reach of any observer "in" space/time (including the man himself.)
I find it particularly amusing when some of them launch into a hateful tirade against God all the while declaring He doesn't exist. That doesn't exactly ring of sanity...
[[Perhaps one day you’ll learn the difference between “explain” and “assert.”]]
I EXPLAINED to you that Amino acids do not form protiens- I explained to you that the forces needed to create amino acids would destroy the very thing it ‘created’, I also explained to you that dna can not survive on it’s own- IF you woudl like further clarification, just ask, and I’ll promptly ignore your request because the info is readily available to you online, and I’ve presented evidence in these forums for quite some time now explainign it further, which I know you’ve read before because I’ve been in ‘discussions with you’ before where you ALSO ignored the evidences, and resorted to petty insults as your defense- these aren’t assertions, they are explanations as to why Macroevolution is biologically impossible right fro mthe start
For anyone else wanting further clarification however,
“The Emergence Of The First Living Cell
It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only
by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.
Not only could the cell, the smallest unit of life, never have come about by chance in the primitive and uncontrolled conditions in the early days of the Earth, as evolutionists would have us believe, it cannot even be synthesized in the most advanced laboratories of the twentieth
century.
Amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins that make up the living cell, cannot of themselves build such organelles in the cell as mitochondria, ribosomes, cell membranes, or the endoplasmic reticulum, let alone a whole cell. For this reason, the claim that evolution brought about the first cell by chance remains the product of
a fantasy based entirely on imagination. The living cell, which still harbours many secrets that have not been explained, is one of the major
difficulties facing the theory of evolution.”
http://groups.google.com/group/unitarian_jihad/browse_thread/thread/1beb2315960beb4c
you can also find more indepth clarification of htese explanations at sites like:
“Initial StudiesEarly studies on possible prebiotic membranes began in the late 1950’s using aggregated colloidal particles1 and lipid-like surfactants.2 Subsequent studies by Oparin examined the possible role of coacervates as membranes.3 Even though these complexes are unsuitable as possible membrane material because they are inherently unstable, lack the ability to provide a permeability barrier, and lack the ability to encapsulate metabolism, these materials are still prominently featured in modern high school biology textbooks.4
PhospholipidsThe spontaneous formation of bilayer vesicles from phospholipids was first studied in 1965.5 Although this theory comprises the dominant explanation for the appearance of membranes, it is not without challenging problems. It has been shown that fatty acids will spontaneously form phospholipids in the presence of glycerol and phosphates when heated to dryness.6 However, Monnard and Deamer point out that it would be extremely unlikely that nature would produce all three chemicals in the same location and then heat them to dryness.7
Sources of membrane building blocksLong-chain hydrocarbons can be formed from carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the presence of certain metals at high temperatures. Deep sea hydrothermal vents have been cited as a potential source of the energy required to synthesize prebiotic molecules, including the building blocks of membranes. Fatty acids and fatty alcohols have been synthesized under these conditions.8 These fatty acids will combine with ethylene glycol to form ethylene glycolyl alkanoates and bis-alkanoates, or will combine with glycerol to form monoacylglycerols and diacylglycerols.9 Others have suggested that the first membranes consisted of highly branched polyprenyl chains, instead of alkyl chains.10 However, it is unlikely that the starting material would be at sufficient concentrations10 and it also unlikely that the required phosphorylating agents would have been available on early Earth.11”
http://godandscience.org/evolution/origin_membranes.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_02.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_16.html
[[What sort of a person trashes scientists, while knowing nearly nothing about the subject?]]
The sort that left here and created their own site (Which incidently monitors this site looking for anythign and everything they can glom onto in order to continually bash those of us here who happen to not buy into their nonsense) That’s what sort of persons trashes science while knowing nearly nothing about hte subjects
but thanks for playing!
Scientific Facts/Solution
—Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur (1) and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy).
Solution? (2) reject the second law of thermodynamics
—In the absence of enzymes, there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose (1), the “backbone” of RNA and DNA. “science of the gaps”
Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication (1).
Solution? “science of the gaps” discard chemistry data
—Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication (1).
Solution? discard chemistry data
“science of the gaps”
—Pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) do not form under prebiotic conditions and only purine (adenine and guanine) nucleosides are found in carbonaceous meteorites (1) (i.e., pyrimidine nucleosides don’t form in outer space either).
Solution? discard chemistry data
“science of the gaps”
—Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication (1).
Solution? discard chemistry data
“science of the gaps”
—Purine and pyrimidine nucleotides (nucleosides combined with phosphate groups) do not form under prebiotic conditions (3).
Solution? discard chemistry data
“science of the gaps”
—Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes. In theory, an RNA replicase could exist and code for its own replication. The first synthesized RNA replicase was four times longer than any RNA that could form spontaneously (4). In addition, it was able to replicate only 16 based pairs at most, so it couldn’t even replicate itself (5).
Solution? “science of the gaps”
—Enzymes cannot be synthesized in the absence of RNA and ribosomes.
Solution? “science of the gaps”
—Nucleosides and amino acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to have been present on the earth for at least four billion years (6), although life arose at least ~3.5 billion years ago (7).
Solution? discard geological data
discard chemistry data
—Adenine synthesis requires unreasonable HCN concentrations. Adenine deaminates with a half-life of 80 years (at 37°C, pH 7). Therefore, adenine would never accumulate in any kind of “prebiotic soup.” The adenine-uracil interaction is weak and nonspecific, and, therefore, would never be expected to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a “prebiotic soup.” (8)
Solution? discard chemistry data
—Cytosine has never been found in any meteorites nor is it produced in electric spark discharge experiments using simulated “early earth atmosphere.” All possible intermediates suffer severe problems (9). Cytosine deaminates with an estimated half-life of 340 years, so would not be expected to accumulate over time. Ultraviolet light on the early earth would quickly convert cytosine to its photohydrate and cyclobutane photodimers (which rapidly deaminate) (10).
Solution? discard geological data
discard chemistry data
—Mixture of amino acids the Murchison meteorite show that there are many classes of prebiotic substances that would disrupt the necessary structural regularity of any RNA-like replicator (11). Metabolic replicators suffer from a lack of an ability to evolve, since they do not mutate (12).
Solution? discard chemistry data
—The most common abiogenesis theories claim that life arose at hydrothermal vents in the ocean. However, recent studies show that polymerization of the molecules necessary for cell membrane assembly cannot occur in salt water (13). Other studies show that the early oceans were at least twice as salty as they are now (14)
Solution? Life arose in freshwater ponds (even though the earth had very little land mass), using some unknown mechanism.
—Comparison of the dates of meteor impacts on the moon, Mercury, and Mars indicate that at least 30 catastrophic meteor impacts must have occurred on the earth from 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago (15). These impacts were of such large size that the energy released would have vaporized the entirety of the earth’s oceans (16), destroying all life.
Solution? Life spontaneously arose by chance at least 30 separate times, each within a period of ~10 million years
—Complex bacterial life (oxygenic photosynthesis) had appeared by 3.7 billion years ago (17), leaving virtually no time for prebiotics to have evolved into the first life forms.
Solution? discard evidence
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html
Dr Baugh, op cit. p. 15:
“We find an immediate conflict between the concepts of creation and evolution... ...We find information that shows all of life to be extremely complicated.....Scientists have been able to give an assimilative number to the amount of exponential bits of information contained in that total inorganic, non-living universe. It comes to two hundred thirty-five exponential bits of information. These bits are not to be confused with computer bits, but are a compound bit assimilation. Yet, the human cell has over twenty billion exponential bits of information. It is absolutely impossible for this inorganic universe to have produced one living cell of any structure in any biological observation. What this really means is that life had to be designed, and it appeared fully functional and fully operational.”
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k81.htm
If Baugh wrote that the sun rose in the east, I would check several references -- and look eastward in the morning -- before I would believe his statement.
The McCann site is a genuine aboriginal human occupation site in Texas where (back in the 70's) I excavated (along with 500 or so other members of the Texas Archeological Society)...
Does it serve God to declare everything we don't have an immediate explanation for a miracle?
Not the best analogy, IMHO. Mathematics is an artificial construct. It is used to quantify, but it is not quantifiable.
All of us.
John 3:16 & 17 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Acts 17:26 & 27 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
The designs were corrupted from the outside.
Perfect doesn’t mean incapable of being corrupted.
If sin hadn’t entered the world and corruption through sin, then the system would still be working perfectly.
Actually, the list you presented would more likely be classified under the term *magic* than miracles. But magic is more considered manipulating unknown forces to achieve an end.
Miracles are, and have been, recognized as good or beneficial events that violate the laws of nature, originating from God, and thus providing evidence of His existence.
Which is why evos try so hard to distance themselves from it.
I've asked several times now where the first cell came from, what it evolved from and all I get are .......
I never said or implied that.
As is the scientific method.
Do you agree that an event having the appearance of being a miracle may later be found to have a natural explanation?
How many different scientific methods are there?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.