[__ Science __ ] WHO IS DEAD? GOD OR DARWIN?

[Barbarian]

I don't believe Dr. Tour confusess evolution with origin of life.

I can only go with what he wrote there. Not the same things.

 

[Barbarian]

But it does seem impossible that it could have started all on its very own.

Why is it so hard to believe that God created nature so as to bring forth life? That's what He says in Genesis.

 

[Barbarian]

I can't really address any of that cuz I am not a scientist but I try to and read and listen with interest. And I still get it, the gist of it at least. And that is that, microscopes are getting better and better. Look! it's not a blob of jelly, it has...structure.

Well, the most evolved cells have a lot of it. Mycoplasmas, not so much. And there's a history to this. Parts of your cells aren't even you; they have their own bacterial DNA and reproduce on their own, but neither you nor they can survive without each other. They are called "mitochondria", and all the energy transformations in your body depend on them. Without them, you can't even think a thought. But primitive cells don't have them. They are endosymbionts, living things that became integrated into eukaryotic cells. Perhaps they were once prey of those cells, or parasites on them.

At the extreme of simplicity, you find things that aren't quite cells and aren't quite viruses, at a place where the border between living and non-living is blurred and uncertain.

 

[Barbarian]

I read some stuff, they are working on making it possible to play back video movies from a persons DNA. Wow. Our DNA contains the record of our entire life, as well as all of our ancestors in our bloodline on earth.
Wouldn't that be something?!

(what would that do to the judicial system?!)

Some changes to chromosomes are the result of exposure to various things. But it's not like a tape where you can replay events. That's what your nervous system is for. And it's not a very reliable recorder.

 

[jasonc]

Yes. Edison wanted direct current. The problem is that there's no efficient way to conduct DC efficiently over long distances. We'd have generators in every neighborhood, if we used DC.

Inductive charging (like your Qi-enabled cell phone) works if the device needs little power and it's close to the conducting wires. The more current, the farther it works.

I know about eddy currents and it's why I said it's not worth it

Imagine you have a pace maker and are in Los of an inducer ...it won't go well for you .

Right of way Will be interesting .

 

[Tenchi]

I saw the Uncommon Knowledge panel discussion a few days ago and greatly enjoyed it. I watched Steven Myer on another Uncommon Knowledge panel a week or so ago having a more philosophical/historical discussion with the interviewer and two other panelists. He's got quite an expansive breadth and depth of knowledge, speaking with facility on such matters as easily as he does cellular mechanics or cosmology! I also, of course, enjoyed listening to John Lennox and Michael Behe, to whom I've listened many times over the last decade or so. Good stuff.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why is it so hard to believe that God created nature so as to bring forth life? That's what He says in Genesis.

It seems mathematically impossible for me to be able to believe that the combination of "stuff" (chemicals) needed to BEGIN life could have happened per chance.

Did you watch the OP video?
Dr. John Lennox is a world-reknown mathematician - he believes the same.

 

[Tenchi]

You might also be interested in Dr. James Tour, a world-renowned chemist and Christian. He's got some excellent and detailed podcasts on the impossibility of abiogenesis (or, at least, the impossibility of showing with current scientific understanding how it might have occurred without any assistance from an intelligent agent).

https://www.youtube.com/@DrJamesTour

 

[Barbarian]

It seems mathematically impossible for me to be able to believe that the combination of "stuff" (chemicals) needed to BEGIN life could have happened per chance.

Chemistry isn't by chance. And I have more faith in God than I do in John Lennox. Since the earth produced living things according to God's will, I'm going with that.

 

[Barbarian]

You might also be interested in Dr. James Tour, a world-renowned chemist and Christian. He's got some excellent and detailed podcasts on the impossibility of abiogenesis (or, at least, the impossibility of showing with current scientific understanding how it might have occurred without any assistance from an intelligent agent).

Right now the evidence indicates that abiogenesis is a fact, but it's still not quite clear how it all happened. Nevertheless, we have God's word on it:
Gen 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

 

[GodsGrace]

Chemistry isn't by chance. And I have more faith in God than I do in John Lennox. Since the earth produced living things according to God's will, I'm going with that.

So you agree with John Lennox!

 

[Barbarian]

So you agree with John Lennox!

If Lennox accepts abiogenesis, I do.

 

[Tenchi]

Right now the evidence indicates that abiogenesis is a fact

Nope. You might want to check out Dr. Tour's videos.

 

[Edward]

Some changes to chromosomes are the result of exposure to various things. But it's not like a tape where you can replay events. That's what your nervous system is for. And it's not a very reliable recorder.

They said it is. They said thats what they are working on now. They havent done it yet last I heard. But for some reason they think it will be a possibility in the future.

 

[Barbarian]

Right now the evidence indicates that abiogenesis is a fact

Nope.

Yep. Even honest creationists, familiar with evidence, admit that it is:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution... Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.
YE Creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

You might want to check out Dr. Tour's videos

The creationists I cited actually know about things like biology and paleontology. They have doctorates in those fields and know the evidence. Tour is an amateur. So there is that. He seems unable to grasp the issues in genetics, anatomy, paleontology, and embyology that support evolution. It's not his fault; he's a chemist. I suppose everything looks easy when one doesn't understand it.

 

[Barbarian]

They said it is. They said thats what they are working on now. They havent done it yet last I heard. But for some reason they think it will be a possibility in the future.

It's been years since I took any coursework in Genetics and now it's years since I taught genetics. Do you have a link to the literature?

 

[Tenchi]

Tour is an amateur.

Goodness. Watch his videos and then explain to me where he goes wrong in his explanations of the impossibility of abiogenesis, from a chemical standpoint. I didn't suggest Dr. Tour as anything other than a chemist whose extremely high-level expertise in the field positions him very well to comment on the viability of the notion that a "prebiotic soup" could have produced life. As he explains in significant detail, the attempts to reproduce such an event have thus far come nowhere close to establishing abiogenesis as viable.

 

[Barbarian]

Goodness. Watch his videos and then explain to me where he goes wrong in his explanations of the impossibility of abiogenesis

God says the earth brought forth living things. So your guy's imagination doesn't really matter.

I didn't suggest Dr. Tour as anything other than a chemist whose extremely high-level expertise in the field positions him very well to comment on the viability of the notion that a "prebiotic soup" could have produced life.

It's not just God he's challenging. There are many people who actually understand biochemistry who have pointed out his failure to understand.

As he explains in significant detail, the attempts to reproduce such an event have thus far come nowhere close to establishing abiogenesis as viable.

I've read lot of news reports from the early 1900s about how manned flight is impossible. So if an amatuer disagrees with real biologisrts and biochemists, it doesn't mean much, does it?

.

 

[Edward]

It's been years since I took any coursework in Genetics and now it's years since I taught genetics. Do you have a link to the literature?

I don't think so. I'll look around for it and post it if I find it.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't think so. I'll look around for it and post it if I find it.

I'm still looking.