If it doesn't require infinite time, then the math says that your process isn't random. My point was in regards to a *random* process. 5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Posted on 08/02/2004 7:42:46 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary. As a Ph.D. organic chemist, I am trained to understand the principles of chemistry, but this is not how chemicals react. Chemicals reacting with chemicals is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions do not produce life. Life must create life. In the chemical literature, there is not a single example of life resulting from a chemical reaction. If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation, an idea that scientists once thought happened in nature. Centuries ago, scientists used to believe that bread crumbs turned into mice because if you left bread crumbs on a table and returned later, the crumbs were gone and only mice were present. When true science got involved, they learned the truth that bread crumbs only attracted the mice that ate the crumbs. These scientists were quick to propose a theory that sounded reasonable until, that is, they studied the process and learned otherwise.
Proteins and DNA are complicated chemical molecules that are present within our body. Cells which make up the living body contain DNA, the blueprint for all life, and proteins regulating biochemical processes, leading scientists to conclude these components are the cause of life. While it is true that all living bodies have proteins and DNA, so do dead bodies. These chemicals are necessary for life to exist, but they do not "create" life by their presence; they only "maintain" the life that is already present. However, this is not the only problem with the "life from chemicals" theory.
Why do evolutionists vehemently proclaim the "life from chemicals" theory? Because if proteins and DNA only maintain life without creating it, then something else must have accomplished its origins. Evidence such as this points to an Omnipotent Creator, but they are not willing to make that concession.
Scientists can only look at life as it exists today, and try to determine how life originated in the past. They look at the end result and try to determine the process by which it was formed. Imagine looking at a photograph and trying to determine the brand of camera that was used to take the picture. Could you do it? Evolutionists have the same problem when they claim that life comes from chemicals. They look at the end result and propose a theory without ever observing the process. Scientists cannot study the past. Scientists can only look at the present and make theories about what happened in the past that would make the present the way it is today. When evolutionary scientists study the origins of life, they propose that all life resulted from chemical reactions by natural processes, overlooking the fact that chemical processes do not "naturally" behave in this manner. If you accepted chemical reactions as they occur, you would not believe that life came solely from chemicals. Is it legitimate to propose that evolution started in some primordial soup, when the long chain polymers that are present in proteins and DNA are so complicated that the level of chemical control needed during the chain building process is beyond the realm of natural chemistry?
Let's take a closer look at proteins and DNA, and the problems of their synthesis by evolutionary processes. Proteins are long polymers of amino acids linked in a chain. There are thousands of proteins within the human body, and they all differ by the sequence of the amino acids on the polymer chain. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid,) is a polymer of nucleotides. Nucleotides themselves are complicated chemical molecules consisting of a deoxyribose molecule and a phosphate chemically bonded to one of the following heterocycles: guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine. Although there are only four different heterocycles, the DNA chain contains billions of nucleotides connected together in a long precisely ordered chain. The sequence of the human DNA chain is so complicated, that even with the sophisticated scientific equipment available today, we still do not know the complete sequence. Proteins and DNA contain a unique order of the individual components. The order of the individual components is not a repeating pattern such as ABABAB or AABBAABB, but it is not a random order either. The order in these natural polymers is very precise, and it is this highly ordered sequence that allows these polymers to perform their intended purpose in the human body. If the sequence is changed even slightly, the altered polymer is no longer capable of performing the same function as the natural protein or DNA. If these polymers were formed by evolution in some primordial soup, then we should be able to explain how natural chemical processes were responsible for forming the sequence of amino acids. Evolutionists would say that amino acids eventually combined to form proteins and the nucleotide molecules combined to form DNA, and from them, life. To someone not trained in chemistry, this might sound like a reasonable process, but this is not how chemical reactions work.
Chemists are trained to understand the mechanisms of how molecules react and how to activate molecules so they will react predictably and in a controlled fashion. If a chemist wanted to synthesize the polymer chain of proteins or DNA in the laboratory, the starting compounds must be first activated so that they will begin to react. The chemist must then control the reactivity and the selectivity of the reactants so that the desired product is formed.
The problem with life arising from chemicals is a three-fold problem: chemical stability, chemical reactivity, and chemical selectivity during the chain building process. But evolutionists propose that these complex polymer chains built themselves in a precise, unlikely pattern, without an intelligent chemist controlling the reactions.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Wolfram's experiments show it does not take infinite time. For $65 you can download the programs from his site: http://www.wolframscience.com/
If it doesn't require infinite time, then the math says that your process isn't random. My point was in regards to a *random* process. 5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
First, I must point out chaos theory is used for the study of dynamic deterministic systems that exhibit non-linear behavior. That implies that they are basically orderly, by some measure. This is true for both math and physics. Second, I am not talking about quantum chaos. That is a whole nother ball of wax.
Thus, the example that you used has limits to it's application, as I pointed out. Note the lack of true randomness, in the correct use of your example.
This article is so full of holes in both logic and science that it hardly merits comments. This guy should pick up a Biochemistry text that was written in the 20th century.
BINGO! We have a winner!
Howdy! I realize you think this article doesn't merit comments, but I would appreciate it if you could point out a few of the holes. Thanks.
Uh.... tell that to the "E" folks.........
HMmmm.
Is THIS how you "E" believers do your science as well?
Nice one-liners. No, I don't tell everyone who doesn't believe as I do that they're going to hell, because then I'd be a creationist.
Is this like 20/20 hindsight?
Caca, poopoo.
I have tended to stay away from these discussions because people are rarely able to recognize and admit their pre-concieved notions so discussion is impossible.
However, this is a pretty clear cut case.
In the universe which we can study we have a pretty clearly established cause-effect model. Since things "wind down" they must first have been "wound up" (absent quantum implications which are interesting mathematically but have not been successful in moving systems from a state of winding down to wound up without a cause).
The key to your statement being false is that G-d, if He exists at all, does not exist in the universe. There is no way to understand the physics of His existence because we can not experiment on His reality. We don't know if entropy applies, so we don't know if things "wind down" and require somthing that once "wound them up."
So your clear statement that evolutionary belief is as much a statement of faith as Creationism is not quite correct.
Shalom.
It's hard to have circular logic with just one line.
That's it. It was so simple after all.
LOL!
I came back to the thread instead of looking at my comments page, and now I know why you got upset at my post. Your tagline confirms my assertion. Guess I struck a nerve.
Do you have any more cute little sentence fragments for me, besides the washed-up one that I'm going to Hell? There, I said the name of the place! That's definitely double damnation for me, I guess.
Why couldn't God have created the process of natural selection? Couldn't the idea of "free will" be abstracted to represent the randomness in nature? Why does it have to involve someone's rib bone? Because the bible spelled it out that way?
Here's my religion: the universe exists, I know not why, I hope to God I never die.
bttt for my own archive
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.