Just ended (hopefully) an argument with a couple of brain dead Secular Humanists about the possibility of the "spontaneous generation of life" from inert matter, which of course is the bedrock of Darwinism/Evolution. The average person accepts the "work of experts" who are not "experts" at all in terms of existential science, but merely doctrinaire Darwinist/Evolutionist theologians. They ARE theologian because their beliefs are based on multiple "leaps of faith" each being mathematically proved, IMPOSSIBILITIES. If you are interested the story goes like this:
+++
People often get the impression that scientists, when they talk about genetic data, are reading directly from the "book of life." That's an illusion. Genetic data is just a series of A's, T's, G's, and C's, representing a sequence of molecules called nucleotides (adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine) on a DNA strand. _ _ How am I doing so far - I mean for a theologian.
When scientists try to turn that series of letters into statements about human origins, they use many speculative assumptions and interpretations. - (actually leaps across data impossible to a mathematical certainty - rather called leaps of faith) Correct?
Many have surmised that it is pernicious pseudo-scientific ideology that "independently" genetic data tell a story. The story is filled with sloppy thought and work, and one is left to wonder about the epistemological foundations of any specific conclusions based on the genetic data. - Come on for a theologian not bad? Right? I would say that from my many years of reading on the subject, that the history proves that biological anthropology, from the beginning of the last century has posited grossly naive conclusions, promoting them simply on the basis derived from genetics.
Contrary to Ernst Haeckel and Thomas Huxley's mythology ( which were foundations of Darwin's theory) that primitive cells were mere blobs of protoplasm, which allowed for infantile and silly theories of how life "spontaneously generated" modern SCIENCE proves that cell structure even in the simplest cell (single cell organisms) prove that the FIRST REAL living things were also single cells. Haeckel and Huxley thought that chemicals like carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen would somehow spontaneously crystallize into the slimy substance of life. Seems that even though Sara's slime (Sara- one of the brain dead Secular Humanists) is more complex (or not really) she has not progressed past the fantasies of Haechel and Huxley and is 150 years behind the scientific curve.
What is the complexity of even the most primitive and simplest form of life? Oparin, a Russian bio-chemist, outlined an elaborate set of chemical stages leading to the formation of the first cell. Of course he hid his theory inside eons of time (billions of years). And he relied on the idea of certain chemicals "attracting" when there is no reason to assume it and no EVIDENCE of it. Then there is that pesky FACT that the geo-chemical analysis of the sediments from early earth history failed to find evidence of a nitrogen-rich pre-biotic soup, the kind predicted by Oparin. And other earth sciences have proved that the atmosphere wasn't as Oparin assumed. By this and a thousand other stretches of the imagination evolutionists maintain their faith that the ingredients for the bodies of the first living things could be formed spontaneously during the earth's early history. - Now - we can go into the specific stages of "impossibility" but - I'll have to do some brushing up - since I haven't approached this argument in a couple of years and it is not my field - I have to depend on SCIENCE.
(Alexander Oparin, "The Orgin of Life" and "Genesis and Evolutionary Development of Life")
Deborah your words to Lesley are spot on, "Keep looking for life in your primordial soup." She will have a very long wait. Let us look at the science:
Some evolutionist suggest that Chance on the molecular level can explain the origin of proteins, long chains of amino acid subunits necessary. But there's a pesky obstacle. A very simple protein is composed of at least 100 amino acid subunits. For proteins to function as an "organism" the bonds between the proteins must be peptide bonds. Amino acids can bond with each other in varioius ways, with peptide bonds occurring HALF the time. So the odds of getting 100 amino acids ALL with peptide bonds is One in Ten - to the thirtieth power. (1 in 10 - followed by thirty zeros. For the visual - -
1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Or kindly stated "not good odds")
(Stephen C. Meyer - "Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design)
Then we have another pesky problem. Each amino acid molecule is Laevus or Left handed L or Dexter, or right handed - D - (latin for left and right) The two forms are mirror images - like right and left handed gloves. In living organisms all proteins are made of amino acid subunits of the L form. But L and D forms of amino acids occur equally in nature. To get a chain of 100 L-form amino acids, the odds are then, One in ten to the sixtieth power (1 in 10 followed by 60 zeros. For the visual:
1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. <smile> again to say the least not very good odds.
Then we have another pesky problem. Even if all the bonds are peptide bonds and all the amino acids are L forms (like some of the FAKE experiments in DNA research) that is still not enough to give us a functional protein. You see it is not that any combination of amino acid subunits will give us a protein that CONTRIBUTE to the function of a cell. The right amino acids must be arranged in a very specific order. The odds of the right 100 amino acids arranging themselves in the right order are in themselves quite high - about One in Ten to the Sixty-fifth power or 1 in 10 followed by 65 Zeros. For a visual, - JUST ABOUT THE SAME NUMBER OF ATOMS IN OUR GALAXY.
(Now for another visual. If the earth were the size of an apple or orange and you blew that apple up the size of the earth, the relative size of the atoms in that earth sized apple would be about the size of a cherry. Beginning to get the picture?)
The biochemist Michael Behe says that getting a sequence of 100 amino acids that functions as a protein is comparable to finding one especially marked grain of sand in the Sahara desert - THREE TIMES IN A ROW.
(Michael Behe - quoted in "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy" edited by J. Buell and G. Hearn)
Now when you put all of the requirements (factors) together (peptide binding, L-forms only) then the odds go up to 1 chance in Ten to the One-Hundred-Twenty-Fifth Power, that is a 1 in 10 followed by one hundred twenty five zeros. For the visual"
1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Now, while Lesley and Sara mock you about the amazing coincidences, against the odds, contained in the "Torah" (Haven't investigated the Bible Codes so I'm not offering an opinion) she hangs her hat on a mathematical fantasy, thoroughly dis-proved by SCIENCE.
Let us do a visual of what matter is: If you took that previously mentioned apple that is the size of the earth, wherein the atoms in relative size are the size of cherries. Now further in your mind, take that cherry sized atom and blow it up the size of a modern football stadium, the nucleus of that atom "may" appear the size of a grain of salt and the orbiting particles will not yet be visible. Now picture standing next to that grain of salt sized nucleus, say on the 50 yard line. Look around that atom and tell me what you see. The answer is "many trillions time EMPTY SPACE". Which lead us to the energy present in that atom, which is a whole other story.
The present science says matter spontaneously "erupted into being" called "space/time" but when pressed why it erupted or what was before the big bang, they call that "a singularity" which is code for "we don't have a feak'n idea."
Archpriest Symeon Elias
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.