Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life

Cell Biol. Int / Pubmed ^ | 01/06/05 | Trevors JT, Abel DL.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

DESIGN IN NATURE POINTS TO A PERSONAL CREATOR

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Ping

[Physicist]

Intelligent Design Inference Of Teleology: "I can't imagine how this might have happened, therefore it must have been magic."

[Blake#1]

Could there have been an inventor?

[woodb01]

Evolution is nothing but a Religion. And when you TRULY understand its religious faith requirements fully, it takes more faith than Christianity...

You have to believe that the Universe just "spontaneously erupted" from nothing to a vast expanse so large that the human mind can not even comprehend its size, let alone its complexity and construction (the Big Bang). Then you have to believe that life spontaneously erupted through some mystical, magical power from rocks, water, and chemicals (the primordial ooze), and then you have to believe that the SCIENTIFIC Second Law of Thermodynamics (order tends toward disorder) doesn't apply and that through magical miracles, LIFE ITSELF decided to make itself more and more refined and complex...

And the boundless faith goes on, and on, and on...

I believe in God because I have a weak faith. My faith is not as amazingly fanatical as evolutionists who at its core must believe in various miralces, mysticism, magic, and sheer blind faith.

Re-Designed ANTI-DNC Web Portal at --->
http://www.noDNC.com

[Rudder]

Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination.

Actually the comunnication system was not predetermined but, rather, evolved.

[Rudder]

Evolution is nothing but a Religion

This makes no sense. If you mean the theory of evolution then you are dead wrong.

[almcbean]

Amen. I was once a believer in evolution without giving it any critical thought. When I became a Christian my desire for knowledge increased greatly, and I began to think more critically. I too have come to the conclusion that evolution requires more faith than Christianity.

I do not pretend to know with scientific certainty exactly how this world was formed. I don't think that it can be proven. This is where I depart from some members of my faith, referred to as creation scientists. They can be at times as dogmatic as evolutionists, pointing at something that might be consistent with their belief as unassailable proof.

I now await the pillory.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I'll take my chances on ID.

"I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection,"

~Prof. Richard Dawkins, 2005

The article made no mention as to whether or not Dawkins was deeply saddened by this conclusion. Perhaps he's about to "pull a Flew?"

[yavapai]

A physicist is ill-prepared to understand biochemistry, or cell biology.

[escapefromboston]

Wait, they are getting rid of the Big Bang theory?

[Physicist]

Max Delbrück.

[NJ_gent]

"You have to believe that the Universe just "spontaneously erupted" from nothing"

Wrong. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the birth of the universe. The ToE seeks to explain how the Earth's biological organisms have changed over time.

"to a vast expanse so large that the human mind can not even comprehend its size"

We've only just begun to understand how big it is. That's because we've only gotten good at this stuff in the past hundred years. Give it another 50 and we'll be a whole lot better at comprehending not only the diameter of the universe, but its volume as well.

"let alone its complexity and construction"

We're just a few steps away from the Grand Unified Theory that we've only understood was necessary for the past 50 years or so and you're ready to give up?

"Then you have to believe that life spontaneously erupted through some mystical, magical power from rocks, water, and chemicals"

Wrong. This is yet another thing not addressed by the ToE. This is where creationists fall into the fallacy of believing that if your theory doesn't explain everything in the universe (including all the things you weren't looking to explain), then your theory is garbage. For what it's worth, 'life' didn't erupt magically from rocks, water, and chemicals. That's rather ridiculous. In fact, it's been shown in lab experiments that the precursors for living organisms self-organize under the conditions present in Earth's early history. The coalescence may be fascinating, but it's merely a product of the laws of physics and chemistry being brought into play under the right conditions.

"then you have to believe that the SCIENTIFIC Second Law of Thermodynamics (order tends toward disorder) doesn't apply"

Wrong. Considering the fact that entropy doesn't apply in cases of chemical kinetics (chemical bonding) and doesn't apply in the quantum world, it's hardly surprising that the complex compounds that form the precursors for life could form spontaneously under the proper circumstances. A tendency is not an absolute. Back to chemistry class.

"that through magical miracles, LIFE ITSELF decided to make itself more and more refined and complex..."

Wrong - you're anthropomorphizing life. The laws of chemistry and physics determined this. 'Life' had no 'say' in the matter.

"And the boundless faith misconceptions and strawman arguments used against the Theory of Evolution goes on, and on, and on..."

There ya go, fixed it right up for ya. The case against the ToE by creationists is generally built on strawman arguments. The case against it by real scientists, fairly weak as though it may be, is still far more convincing than a house of strawman cards.

[Physicist]

Besides, the Big Bang explanation was created by a Biblical Creationist and most scientists now disagree with it.

I can't speak for "most scientists", but its acceptance among physicists is effectively universal.

Who was the "Biblical creationist" you mentioned?

[NJ_gent]

His failure to prove that which he believes to be true does not make it any less true, and does not preclude others from succeeding where he has failed.

[PatrickHenry]

A creationist thread. Want the list pinged?

[gobucks]

No Pillory here:

"I too have come to the conclusion that evolution requires more faith than Christianity. "

Ahem .... yep. and Amen.

[gobucks]

We're just a few steps away from the Grand Unified Theory that we've only understood was necessary for the past 50 years or so and you're ready to give up?

My mother has a PhD in genetics. Really, she does. She teaches evolution at a major university. She's a prietess of the the secular/scientist atheistic movement. I followed in her footsteps for a long while.

I have not given up. While I was not 'giving up', God intersected my life. My mother has been none too pleased by the development.

Now, as for the GUT, lets do a gut check. Superstring theory, the ONLY theory even close to resolving the conflict between macro and nano physics, has one basic requirement for the math to work: the necessity of 11 different dimensions. Not three, not 4, but 11.

There is a word for believing in the possibility of 11 dimensions: 'faith'. From the perspective of this Christian, a better word is this: foolishness.

But hey!, maybe it is I who am the fool. Try me. What are these 'just a few steps away' you are referring to?