Posted on 11/26/2017 6:49:57 AM PST by Kaslin
In his August 1954, Scientific American article, "The Origin of Life," Nobel Prize winning Harvard Biologist George Wald stated,
"One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
What is "the magnitude of this task" that reasonably renders a natural origin of life "impossible?" Dr. Wald states,
"In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis."
The processes of interest include building proteins, DNA, RNA, and lipids. Nature does not engage in the "processes" of building these life-essential molecules (synthesis); Nature, rather, dismantles them (dissolution), if they exist at all.
Why? Nature inexorably proceeds towards "equilibrium" (Chemical Equilibrium), the most stable state. For example, the most stable state for amino acids in Nature is individual amino acids, not proteins.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Of course there's no "worship" or even "belief" in science, strictly defined.
Instead, the scientific question might be put this way: can we find a natural explanation for how God created life on Earth?
As of today, the answer is a strong: maybe.
But they are far from "freaks" when, for example, a creature perfectly adapted to a hot wet climate finds itself living in the cold & dry.
Soon "freaks" with thicker hair and better water storage survive more than the old models.
As for prom night, the cool kids with short hair will be shivering to much for romance, right?
So which is the "freak" now?
Science stipulates that organic molecules are unstable, long term.
The question is how can life sustain & reproduce itself before natural decay kills it?
And so the Sun is not also subject to entropy....?
The whole universe is subject to entropy not just a supposed debatable “closed/not closed system”.
You didn’t answer my question.
Does gravity repulse?
Everything is subject to entropy. But before it disappears, gravity can cause some of the everything to clump together and squeeze down so tightly that fusion results. Energy from the fusion bathes the earth as an outside source of energy. The earth is then no longer in a closed system as long as the sun shines.
How is that negative gravity?
if you spend 4 years at a good university in astronomy and physics, followed by another 3-5 years in graduate school, again in astronomy, physics, and possibly engineering, you may come to have some understanding...
I’m sure I would. Then maybe I could
better explain to you what you need.
Regardless of the sun, which is subject to entropy, ergo, waning effect upon earth as time proceeds, everything is a closed system, from earth to the farthest star.
All are subject to entropy in varying states of decay.
Also, is gravity a mass thing, as Einstein theorized, or is it an electrical bond between atoms?
It’s a mass thing.
And entropy can be staved off for a time by energy input.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
“Instead, the scientific question might be put this way: can we find a natural explanation for how God created life on Earth?”
I recall reading where lots of the early scientists were Christians, and viewed their work in science as being possible because they were given reason by an intelligent Creator. I found the following excerpt, which comes after a discussion about how Newton forbade the use verses in the Bible to cross over into the realm of science. Not that he “hated” the Bible - just thought that it should not influence the science. (Newton studied Theology his entire life)
Excerpt:
“Yet for Newton this distinction was not a divorce, much less a conflict. Although the books of God’s Word and his Works were not to provide the content of each other’s teachings, they were bound together.
Newton did not consider one to be sacred and the other secular, nor did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, or Pascal—all practicing Christians. Only later Enlightenment philosophy produced a model of “warfare” between science and theology.
Newton’s theology profoundly influenced his scientific method, which rejected pure speculation in favor of observations and experiments. His God was not merely a philosopher’s impersonal First Cause; he was the God in the Bible who freely creates and rules the world, who speaks and acts in history.
The biblical doctrine of creation undergirded Newton’s science. Newton believed in a God of “actions [in nature and history], creating, preserving, and governing … all things according to his good will and pleasure.”
.
Bro Joe, we’re all aware of your fascination with the magnificent foolish lies of accidental life, but we also laugh ourselves into fatugue with your every post.
Cognition obviously passed you by.
.
“And entropy can be staved off for a time by energy input.”
Exactly.....the energy being electric in nature. Your getting close.
http://www.paradigmresearchgroup.org/X-Conference2004/Van_Flandern_supplement.htm
Electrical attraction creates mass...ergo, gravity.
Without electrical attraction, there is no gravity....all subject to entropy.
Nope. The energy is solar.
If you’re pushing the electric
universe nonsense, we’re done.
You have a very small concept of cause an effect if you are limiting it to a planet and a star......how vast is the universe and how limiting it is for you not choose to accept the whole.
Bye bye....
When the believe becomes knowledge; is it still known as 'science'?
Well; I've seen some quite massive objects that do...
Thanks for a great post.
I'm certain many scientists, past & present, shared Newton's views, demonstrating that it's not necessary to be an atheist to work in science.
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.