Why the Christian/Judeo/Islamic God?

Nice to see you too!

 

Haha, olderwaterbrother, althought we don't agree on religion, it's nice to see that you don't get on your hight horses.
Peace

 

The Primitive Atmosphere​

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.

Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.” Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”

Would an “Organic Soup” Form?​

How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”
Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.” Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”

There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are “right-handed” and others are “left-handed.” Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed!

How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J. D. Bernal acknowledges: “It must be admitted that the explanation . . . still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain.” He concluded: “We may never be able to explain it.”

The Remarkable Genetic Code​

Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.” Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code “the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.” And Francis Crick concluded: “In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.”

Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished “in one blow” by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.

Is It Scientific?​

If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?

 

Thanx!

I find that people who don't agree, if they are at least agreeable can have some very interesting and enjoyable conversations.

I like the Bible, personally I find it to be very interesting and enjoyable and you might have noticed I like defending it also.

Yeah and no need for "hight horses" I'm mostly in it for the fun of it and at the end of the day, I just hope for a little better understanding among friends.

Peace and Love and Sharing Man, Sharing,
OWB

 

Impressive OlderWaterBrother. I don't think I've ever heard as good an argument for divine intervention and against evolution. First person I can't think of a good argument back off the top of my head. I applaud but at some point you and I'll have to have a good debate lol. I personally do not agree with the evolution theory. But I don't quite agree with the biblical theory either. It does hit closer to home I think tho.

 

Thanx!

We're kind of in the same boat, evolution just seems to me to have too many holes that are filled with; we are here so evolution must be true. But Biblical theory although satisfactory to me on so many levels has the one big hole; where did God come from?

So it would be nice if there was some third option but I've never found it.

PS I enjoy a good debate so feel free but one thing to me the winner is the one who gets the most understanding of both sides of the discussion!

 

I've got a theory that human beings were brought here, and that earth itself was made, by aliens. Perhaps a more advanced form of humanity that lived here in the times of the dinosaurs but existed in areas apart from them. I mean people are discovering ancient ruins under the ocean that date far far back in time. I can't recall the exact date but its old and If I find a link I'll post it here. Aliens would explain alot of ancient human development such as how the pyramids were made, why we are developing so fast compared to other creatures, why we have so many different types of people. But then again maybe I'm just some weird alien fanatic lol. Either way there is another reasonable option for ya man

 

aha! the link was right here on hipforums! Whooda thunk it??!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyj3aug3bzY

 

Thanx again.

I have heard that and thought about it a bit and on the surface seems a plausible explanation but it merely delays the evolution vs. creation debate because sooner or later someone's going to ask; and where did they come from?

PS Thanx for the link I'm watching it Now.

 

True. I guess when it comes down to it there may very well have to be a higher being. But to call it God or gods I just see as wrong. Because if that higher being is god then what was before it and what do we call it? It's a nvr ending cycle and it just keeps going an' going an' going. when it comes down to it all we can say is to have faith in what you have faith in.

 

well son of peace, it was a good argument, but im afraid olderwaters has commited the sraw man fallacy, while im sure its not on purpose, i must correct you olderwaters.

To set up a straw man argument is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute.

so lets examine olderwaters' argument:

as you can see, the straw man that he is trying to set up here is this: a man named miller did an expirament way back in 1953 and got only 4 out of 20 amino acids. 30 years later, scientists are still not able to do it! not only that, even if they did do it, the amino acids would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.

well as it turns out olderwaters, somewhere between 1953 and now, someone decided to repeat the miller/urey experiment. in fact, it has been repeated many times. did you seriously think scientists would do one single expirament and declare victory?

let me give you one example: in a recent issue of "Science" magazine ("Prebiotic Soup-Revisiting the Miller Experiment," by Jeffrey Bada and Antonio Lazcano, vol 300, pg 745-746, May 2, 2003) jeffrey reviews the expirament once more in for the magazine and talks about its success.

the miller experiment was first repeated by Jeffrey Baba in 1983, when DR. Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids. Bada presented his results this week at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in Chicago.

so between 1953 and now there have been new insights about the atmosphere in the Archaean Eon period of earth. (when first monocellular life apeared) Dr. Baba simply used the new data that we learned and rectified the model.

as for your second point, the "cosmic rays", while im not an expert, i am willing to consider your position if you show me some kind of source for this claim.

as far as wikipedia is concerned it had this to say about the Archean palaeoenvironment:
-had oxygen, in lower levels than todays atmosphere.
-temperatures near modern level.
-large amounts of greenhouse gasses (which protect the earth from harmful rays)

your move olderwaters.

 

Actually, no, you still have more to refute. So still your move.

 

But how can that be satisfied, I wander?
According to the biblical view, He has always been here. When I picture Him as the Creator of everything, including space and time as we know them, can we rightfully ask about things beyond our grasp?

Is my picture wrong, though? The science supports the view, that all this space-time continuum had its beginning. That the Universe (aka our world) has its boundaries. Before I should ask about God, I should wander also about what was before anything started to be; what is there beyond the boundaries of the existing world. If sombody can give me any idea of these, then, maybe, we could start about where God came from...

 

It sure would be nice if you people are going to debate using other peoples material, if you could include links. Then we could see that this stuff is nothing more than parroting some other apologist with little to no honest scientific background. We could determine if the author has an agenda or has an honest scientific background. We have no reason to believe these copy and pasted argument without links to the authorship. OWB, you were shown that the first part of your argument was falacious thus invalid (a strawman) thus we have nothing else to refute until you refute the charge or provide a better argument.

 

You want me to do all your work for you?

I believe quite a few names were supplied, which is more than what you usually do, so look them up for yourself.

As for refuting my whole argument by refuting one part, that only follows if my argument is of the type where my whole argument is based on the point you refuted.

You know the old if this and this are true then this must be true and obviously my post was not in that form but is more in the form of stating a number separate facts any one of which could be used to show my point and the negation of any one of which would not necessarily refute the rest.

As you must realize this, I don’t understand why you would say otherwise.

PS As for having an agenda; who doesn’t including you and me?

 

Hes makin egoacids again. Smells like farts.

 

OK. As regards the source. You might want to read here about the sources and the citations of the already posted data, and much much more.
BTW, did you have this material in mind when starting this post, Itsdarts?
This article shows, that we have a great variety to choose from. We can even believe in "clever energy" instead of intelligent Creator operating this energy. (To me it is much like believing in a clever videoplayer or intelligent radioreceiver, or even clever radiowaves -- but it is "only me", I guess.)

This is a battle within one's own mind and one's own heart.
As a matter of fact, nothing is impossible in one's mind. Such is our power of imagination, such is our inner freedom. You can resort to common sense; then again, you can decide to avoid common sense, if it is taking you away from your purpose. Or, alternatively and more cleverly, one can define his own version of common sense.

In order to bring it all home, it might be enough to ask oneself:
Why do we need a Creator? Why do we need Impersonal Intelligence, rather than a Creator? Why do we need evolution without any kind of supernatural presence?

 

No, just add a link to the site you stole this from. Its common curtesy and polite debate form. If you copied and pasted, its obvious you had a link to the web site and there IS a tool in the reply form that allows you to add links.

Without a link, it appears you have something to hide, even if you don't. Go to many other debate forums and you will be chastised for not SUPPORTING your arguments. Not to mention, many people would like a little credit for their work that you blantently stole, a link to the original article is polite. WHen I debate and copy someones argument to support my argument, I DO cite the link for further reference. Before accusing me of plagerism, provide evidence of me copying and pasting someone elses argument without me supplying the link.

By refuting one part, we have no reason to assume the rest is worth our time. An example would be the first sentence of the second stolen article you sited but did not link to ( I wonder why?) "How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all."

This too is a straw man because aboigenesis per the Urey/Miller experiment doesn't necessarily say that ammino acids " formed in the atmosphere" nor does it say that they "drifted down and form organic soup in the oceans". So now we have two strawmen arguments, is it really necesary to continue when all you've done is parrot some apologists blog who happens to say things you like to hear in order to keep your false beliefs? I think not. Cite your sources.

You know the old if this and this are true then this must be true and obviously my post was not in that form but is more in the form of stating a number separate facts any one of which could be used to show my point and the negation of any one of which would not necessarily refute the rest.

As you must realize this, I don’t understand why you would say otherwise.

Scientists don't have an agenda to prove (or disprove) your god or any other god. They develope theories based on available evidence, how is that an agenda. What are you afraid of? Why wouldn't you cite a link to your sources? Obviously apologists have an agenda and yes even me, but when I debate, I typically will cite my sources if I'm copying and pasting someones material, its the polite thing to do.

 

What posted data? I was refering to OWB's post just a few posts ago. I saw nothing supporting his arguments in your link other than some Reporters Op/ed piece that seemingly agrees with your views.

Not at all. My OP has nothing to do with Abiogenesis or evolution. It has to do with why people choose Christianity over any other god or no god at all. Sadly, this thread has been derailed without very few people responding to the OP.

The article you cited is nothing more than an Op/ed piece. The "opinion" of some reporter. It also appears to confuse Abiogenesis with evolution, two totally different sciences. Science admits that it is clueless as to the exact cause of life forming, but it is certain that evolution is the mechanism that lead to the evolving of that first life form. I don't remember who said it, but they said that without evolution, everything we know about biology would be wrong, or something to that effect. As for Abiogensis, there are a number of competing theories as to how life formed on this planet, one of them being Panspermia, life already formed and brought here by a comet, by pure random luck/chance. As for your Op/ed piece, I can agree that "mother nature" is the probable cause of Abiogensis and evolution, but i see no reason to call her "God" let alone the Christian god.

 

as far as the evolution of genetic make up, this is what modern science has shown us:

i didnt want to include a very technical version because not many readers will understand it but if you want it here is a full explenation of how this works:

for the sake of saving your time im going to summarize the article:

1)Simple Biological Molecules Were Formed Under Prebiotic Conditions
2)Polymers Containing Nucleotides Are Capable of Self-replication
3)Natural Selection Helps to Shape the Self-Replication Systems
4)Polynucleotides Became The Blueprint for Polypeptides
5)The First Cell

is it scientific? lets see:

1) we have observational data about how the atmostphere was in the Archean palaeoenvironment.

2)hypothesis: try to produce organic molecules under these conditions

3)experiment : you can read all about it in "Science" magazine ("Prebiotic Soup-Revisiting the Miller Experiment," by Jeffrey Bada and Antonio Lazcano, vol 300, pg 745-746, May 2, 2003). or do a web search of Jeffrey Baba or other scientists who have repeated the Miller/Urey experiment.

4)results: well Jeffrey Baba published his results, he was able to successfully produce organic molecules.

obviously we can see that if it was published in "science" magazine, it is scientific.

olderwaters you just got intellectually BITCH SLAPPED!!:cheers2: