[__ Science __ ] Are Scientists “Clueless” About the Origin of Life?

[AIG.com]

Rice University professor Dr. James Tour correctly says life from non-life is “highly improbable” but doesn’t point back to the final arbiter of truth, God’s Word.

Continue reading...

 

[Truthfrees]

Rice University professor Dr. James Tour correctly says life from non-life is “highly improbable” but doesn’t point back to the final arbiter of truth, God’s Word.

Continue reading...

true - they want to focus on one tiny section but have no clue about the creation of time space matter or life

"Dr. Tour says the whole idea of life from non-life is “highly improbable,” and “that current research into the origins of life fails to explain not only the formation of the first cell, but the parts that make up the cell, such as carbohydrates, proteins and nucleic acids such as RNA and DNA.” "

 

[Barbarian]

Tour is a chemist, who is largely unfamiliar with biology or even biochemistry. He is, however a recent convert to "Jews for Jesus", and ignoring the biochemical literature, claims that abiogenesis is highly improbable. But then, so is Dr. Tour, and shuffled decks of cards, and countless other things that happen regularly.

Tour has confused a priori probabilities with those wildly improbable things mentioned above. He's basically found an arrow stuck in a tree, drawn a bulls-eye around it, and is astonished by the accuracy.

 

[Truthfrees]

from the article - evo theory vs observable testable repeatable science

"Now, Dr. Tour is right that life can’t arise from non-life and that it has major scientific flaws. Indeed, the very idea is predicated not on science (testable, observable, and repeatable science) but on an atheistic, naturalistic, evolutionary philosophy."

 

[Barbarian]

from the article - evo theory vs observable testable repeatable science

"Now, Dr. Tour is right that life can’t arise from non-life

God says it did. I think God is right.

Indeed, the very idea is predicated not on science (testable, observable, and repeatable science)

Tour has that wrong, too. Discoveries that (for example) peptides and amino acids form abiotically are strong evidence that God had it right. Life did arise from non-living matter.

an atheistic, naturalistic, evolutionary philosophy."

Since Darwin assumed that God just created the first living things, Tour seems to be confusing his own misconceptions about biology with the real thing. Since he's not a biologist, I suppose it's to be expected that he got it wrong.

 

[Corn Pop]

life from non-life is “highly improbable”

What is more probable and logical?. Life comes from life, and behind every cause is a cause that caused it ?, or, life somehow comes from non life, and a cause can randomly happen without a cause behind it? .

There still has to be something eternal behind it all.

 

[Corn Pop]

What is the big bang theory?, maybe its old news i remember it from years ago i dont know in science if its still a theory or not, but that is a event that happened with no cause behind it. Its not really logical, something happened and nothing caused it to happen.

Something just happened with nothing behind it to cause it to happen. Not really logical or probable.

I have heard of the multiverse theory, but there would still needs to be a beginning from the original universe that cause the multiverse.

 

[Barbarian]

What is more probable and logical?. Life comes from life

God says life was brought forth by non-living matter. I believe Him.

, and behind every cause is a cause that caused it ?, or, life somehow comes from non life, and a cause can randomly happen without a cause behind it? [/quote[

Random things happen all the time, but they have causes. Even radioactive breakdown, which is entirely random, has a cause. This may pose a problem for men, but not for God:

"God wills whatever is required for a thing that He wills, as has been said. But it befits certain things, according to the mode of their nature, that they be contingent and not necessary. Therefore, God wills that some things be contingent. Now, the efficacy of the divine will requires not only that something be that God wills to be, but also that it be as He wills it to be … Therefore, the efficacy of the divine will does not remove contingency."
St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica

There still has to be something eternal behind it all.

And there is.

 

[Barbarian]

What is the big bang theory?,

The observable universe came into being billions of years ago, with a sudden expansion of space and light from a "singularity." It was, as you might expect, proposed by a scientist who happened to be a Catholic priest. It was most prominently opposed by an atheist, Fred Hoyle, who objected to the implication of God that he thought was contained therein.

maybe its old news i remember it from years ago i dont know in science if its still a theory or not, but that is a event that happened with no cause behind it. Its not really logical, something happened and nothing caused it to happen.

The problem is that we have no way to investigate something before the beginning. So science has no way of knowing what caused there to be light. But scientists do.

Something just happened with nothing behind it to cause it to happen. Not really logical or probable.

Nor is that a part of Big Bang theory. We just can't investigate it scientificially.

I have heard of the multiverse theory, but there would still needs to be a beginning from the original universe that cause the multiverse.

Yep.

 

[Truthfrees]

What is more probable and logical?. Life comes from life, and behind every cause is a cause that caused it ?, or, life somehow comes from non life, and a cause can randomly happen without a cause behind it? .

There still has to be something eternal behind it all.

good point - thanks

 

[Truthfrees]

What is the big bang theory?, maybe its old news i remember it from years ago i dont know in science if its still a theory or not, but that is a event that happened with no cause behind it. Its not really logical, something happened and nothing caused it to happen.

Something just happened with nothing behind it to cause it to happen. Not really logical or probable.

I have heard of the multiverse theory, but there would still needs to be a beginning from the original universe that cause the multiverse.

true - thus the big bang theory and aliens and all the other crazy theories needed to support the theory of evolution - it's hard to believe people find it easier to believe in aliens and big bang rather than God

 

[Barbarian]

true - thus the big bang theory and aliens and all the other crazy theories needed to support the theory of evolution - it's hard to believe people find it easier to believe in aliens and big bang rather than God

No, that's wrong. If God had just poofed the first living things into existence as Darwin thought, evolutionary theory would work just the same way. It assumes that life began, and describes how it changes over time. But if you believe God, life arose from non-living matter, as He says in Genesis.

Big bang had nothing to do with it. Atheists like Fred Hoyle opposed the Big Bang (which was first proposed by a Christian clergyman, who happened to also be a physicist) because it denied an eternal universe. And an eternal universe has no need of a Creator. This is the real reason people oppose the Big Bang.

 

[Corn Pop]

But if you believe God, life arose from non-living matter, as He says in Genesis.

All the elements that make up humans are found in the earth, for that to be known and noted thousands of years ago before modern science confirmed it is quite amazing.

Man was created out of the dust of the earth it says.

 

[Vansdad]

God says it did. I think God is right.

Tour has that wrong, too. Discoveries that (for example) peptides and amino acids form abiotically are strong evidence that God had it right. Life did arise from non-living matter.


Since Darwin assumed that God just created the first living things, Tour seems to be confusing his own misconceptions about biology with the real thing. Since he's not a biologist, I suppose it's to be expected that he got it wrong.

I also believe God created life through the laws of nature that He Himself created. Whether from non living matter to living matter we don't know for sure scientifically. However I would guess from non living and over a long process. I don't see God as a magician but a physicist who uses natural means

 

[Barbarian]

I also believe God created life through the laws of nature that He Himself created. Whether from non living matter to living matter we don't know for sure scientifically. However I would guess from non living and over a long process. I don't see God as a magician but a physicist who uses natural means

Nature is, after all, His creation and his tool. Why wouldn't He use it?

 

[Vansdad]

Nature is, after all, His creation and his tool. Why wouldn't He use it?

Exactly

 

[Barbarian]

All the elements that make up humans are found in the earth, for that to be known and noted thousands of years ago before modern science confirmed it is quite amazing.

Yes. Ancient people didn't know much about chemistry, but they realized our sustenance comes from the Earth.