Posted on 08/25/2017 7:42:24 AM PDT by Raymond Pamintuan
It has become axiomatic that life naturally evolved out of nonliving materials billions of years ago. Given enough time and the chemical opportunity, living cells self-assemble.
However, the experts on the development of complex molecules from simpler ones, the synthetic chemists, do not know how this process actually occurs. There are no known pathways to create the components that make up a living cell from nonliving matter. They have no idea how amino acids (the building blocks of proteins and enzymes), nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA), saccharides (also called carbohydrates or sugars, the scaffolding for DNA and RNA, energy sources, and much more), and lipids (the main constituents of cell membranes) can be formed naturally on a prebiotic earth, especially before the formation of biological enzymes, to catalyze many of the requisite chemical reactions.
Life arising naturally out of nonliving materials not only cannot be proven, it contradicts synthetic chemistrys practices, which comprise of very strict purity and environmental controls as well as experimental and sequential methodologythe exact opposite of what happens in naturebecause contamination, water, sunlight, oxygen, heat, and impurities all degrade complex molecules or prevent them from forming.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
I used to look down from my control tower, and say, isn’t it amazing how all those parts just threw themselves together, and formed that C-5 Galaxy down there? They would say it couldn’t have. I would say, of course, you are right, but then, why are you so comfortable, thinking that the universe, which is far more complex than a C-5 Galaxy, just suddenly came into existence all by itself. They couldn’t answer that, but just doubled down on it.
And just why is that? Does you really hold that any known organic environment is hostile to life arising by unintelligent naturalistic means so that the odds against it occurring are astronomical? Or that a miracle must be contrary to any laws of nature?
For the early Earth the correct answer is we still dont know how it happened, .
But you do know it cannot be miraculous? Why must this be the case?
although there are more plausible explanations than a miracle
And just what "plausible," reasonable, valid and truthful explanations can your provide which warrant them being preferred over supernatural intervention?
Also, do you claim to be a Christian? When and how were you born again?
You’re way off base, buddy.
Really? Judging by your reply it seems I am right over the target.
Leave me alone.
You make Christianity and Conservatism look bad.
You chose to challenge the premise of the article and the majority position of Christian conservatives on this thread, and it is your rejection of the miraculous and minimalist ("a very small degree") allowance of God and refusal to answer questions regarding this is what makes Christianity and Conservatism look bad.
But if you wish to be left to your own delusions, have it your way.
>>This isnt random self assembling to form patterns or shapes. We are talking self assembly to fulfil a purpose such as to form a circulatory system to pump blood to keep an organism alive. Atoms or molecules lack any such awareness. And its practically impossible that they would come together randomly to form an intelligent system that fulfilled a purpose. Its pure fantasy.
Nature throws huge numbers at such problems. You don’t need monkeys typing Shakespeare, you just need to get an extra atom or two into a protein over a period of a zillion years in a petri dish of an ocean absorbing megajoules of photon energy from the Sun. Google the term “prion”. They are sub virus protein molecules that can’t even be said to be alive, yet they are responsible for Mad Cow disease. They have a mindless impetus to replicate and parasite off a host, killing the host and itself. Seeing intelligence in blind Nature is a form of anthropomorphization- the projection of human qualities onto aspects of existence that are not human. Pagan tree hugger hippies do that to a nauseating degree.
My mistake was acknowledging you in the first place. I suppose that could be considered a delusion.
Really? So now it is not only reducing God to at most being a spectator but ignoring challenges by Christians who believe in the Biblical God that makes Christianity and Conservatism look good.
Your Christianity is thus a perversion and your Conservatism is liberal here.
It wasn't a miracle as it was planned and, yes, we do know how it happened. It's simply that we don't wish to acknowledge the obvious fact and search for others. The existence of life is just one of many proofs of the existence of God if people were objective and rational.
There are, after all, many ways to make an idol and claim it is what created us. Claiming to be wise, we become fools.
Essentially attributing deity to matter. But since it does not reprenet a moral authority and judge then it is preferred to the Creator God of the Bible
With or without spell check?
I have a rule not to trust anybody who use your tactics.
Tactics?" You mean asking pertinent questions that challenge your posted unScriptural views, in which you invoked a Christian philosopher for support, and asking what manner of Christianity (if any) you subscribe to?
It is a good not to trust anybody who uses your tactics.
Three kinds:
o natural/physical life
-------
o Spiritual life
o Eternal (everlasting) life
(each has an opposite in terms of death)
You drive people away from religion and belief with your condescending attitude.
How many times die 'life' come into existence (and DIE!) before it figgered out it needed to REPRODUCE?
I think someone has proven that there has NOT been ‘enough time’ since the BigBang for this to happen.
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.