On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

First scientists having in mind the preconceived conclusion change the name stigma into eyespots.
Then they omit the fact that many bacteria with no stigma have the same reaction to light.
Then they would omit the fact that some move away some move to some move along the light.
And I can continue for pages, but I think for anyone who can think the said, along with my previous post you and the scientists have not bothered address, is enough.

those who have ear will hear, those who don't... will stay at their blind beliefs.

Your eyespot into an eye is utter gibberish no different from any other evidence and logical conclusions of evolution

 

All with no exclusions useful and not BS theories start from a set of assumptions which need and have no proof, no evidence.
You may look at Genesis as at a set of assumptions of the Bible.
The thing is no believer in evolution can possibly have even a slight clue what Newtons mechanics or Einstein's TOR are made of.
No one expect any comprehension from clueless.

 

What read says that Christ represented the idea of Truth,... as it was directed against the Pharisee, et al.
In this way he stood for the Truth,... symbolically.

Truth is born out of Reality.
It is the image of Reality, too.
Truth explains to us that,... the father to who Christ referred,... was actually Reality,... which we know does exist as it unfolds moment by moment.

In spite of your confusion on this,... you believe Reality exists.
And you understand that only Truth can make us know Reality,... for what it is.
You use Truth as evidence for all the realities you state.

 

You believe in Genesis in spite the science minded people do not accept how you understand what Genesis say,... as far as their reading it is concerned.
Why do you insist others must understand Genesis the way you do,... when the science seems to also support the Bible?

Isn't polite to let them see Genesis as their science explains it?
What is your overall plan,...

Do you want only believers of Genesis who think as you do,.. and other believers can just drop dead...?

 

I see no evidence here supporting an alternative to abiogenesis. What is your theory to explain the fact that there is life, and what is your evidence (something that can be replicated on demand, since that is what you demand from the scientific theories)?

 

Chemical evolution asserts the potential of abiogenesis, given enough time.

 

From your link:

Cretinism may "mimic" many pathological features of evolution, but it doesn't explain them. While someone suffering from this disease doesn't look normal, they still look human, from the lack of brow ridges to the pronounced nasal bone. No paleontologist would ever confuse the two.

 

I see no word Genesis in the text you quoited.

 

You see none because I have never tried to offer any in the text you quoted. I just pointed that scientists posted total gibberish and explained why it is so. It seems you have no objection. Presence or absence of any alternate, would make no sane person to accept gibberish as true. Belief in evolution all based on gozzilions of gibberish posted by scientists is insane.

 

Most people who study the research believe it supports the possibility of abiogenesis and the certainty of mutation, evolution, and natural selection. If it looks like gibberish to you, maybe you have been depending too much on Creationist websites for your education.

 

It does nothing of the sort.
Time does NOT work the magic you and others have so long pretended.
The statistics of polypeptide are insuperable, and no amount of time will accomplish what you claim.

Human hemoglobin has 574 amino acid residues coiled in a very complex manner.
Of 20 possible amino acids in humans, the space, or possible number of combinations which
could be formed in a sequence of 574, 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 574 times equals 1
chance in 10 to the 747th power.

1 chance in 50 may be defined as "impossible." (Richard Dawkins defines 1 chance in 10^40 as impossible.)
10^50 grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to pluto.
Blindfolded, could you hypothetically select one unique grain of sand, from 15 solar systems full of sand,
on your first AND ONLY TRY? You don't get an infinite number of attempts. The number is 1/10^50,
not infinity/10^50.

That's just for one polypeptide. Others are larger, over 2,000 amino residues in length. So the impossibility
gets far more impossible. Time and random mutations are quite meaningless.

 

The word science is derived from scientia, Latin for "knowledge," which is to say, the search for truth.
No matter HOW many people, or scientists, believe something, that does not make it so. Didn't you even know that?

Evolution is not falsifiable, no matter how much you might claim to the contrary. Therefore evolution is not science.

If evolution were the certainty, the "fact" it is so often held to be, these scholars would have no reason to say the things they said:

After Seeing The Impossibility Of Evolution, These Scientists Made The Following Observations:

"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..." (Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, pg. 418.)

"After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." (Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, The Immense Journey, pg. 144.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." (Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?" (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational." (Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

"Evolution is faith, a religion." (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather." (Dr. David Berlinski)

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it." (H.S. Lipson, Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 13

"A time honored scientific tenet of faith." (Professor David Allbrook)

"Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia." (Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology,"pg. 23)

"When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given way to agnosticism. Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken we have no acceptable account of the origin of species." (Dr. William Bateson, great geneticist of Cambridge)

"Chance renders evolution impossible." (Dr. James Coppedge)

"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it." (Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture," pg. 9)

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science." (Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.)

"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. (Dr. Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177)

"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature...It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts." (Dr. P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194)

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century...The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.)

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science." (George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.)

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake." (Dr. Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution." (Sir Cecil Wakely)
"It's impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species." (Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the "Hopeful Monster" theory.)

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96.)

"The theory of life that undermined ninteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas...In the past ten years has emerged a new breed of biologists who are scientifically respectable, but who have their doubts about Darwinism." (Dr. B. Leith, scientist)

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble." (Albert Einstein)

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses." (Dr. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147)

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (Dr. John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought")

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe." (Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77)

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all." (H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.)

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory." (Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)
"The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity." (Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." (Malcolm Muggeridge)

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist..denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict." (Dr. David Berlinski)

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." (Time Magazine, Nov. 7, 1977)

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." (Dr. Ronald R. West)

"The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate." (Dr. James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 241)

"I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields." (David M. Raup, "Geology and Creation," Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 1

"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence." (Dr. Johnathan Wells, author of the book, "Icons of Evolution")

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency--or, rather, Agency--must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (Astronomer George Greenstein, "The Symbiotic Universe," page 27)

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan." (Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, "Cosmos, Bios, and Theos," page 83)

"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces." (George Sim Johnson "Did Darwin Get it Right?" The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 1999)

"The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (Werner von Braun, father of space science, "Gone Bananas," World September 7, 2002)

"Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical." (Sir John Templeton "the Humble Approach," page 115)

"It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out...The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design." (Physicist Paul Davies, "God and the New Physics," page 189)

"Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose accidentally created humans who are so obsessed with purpose?" (Sir John Templeton, "The Humble Approach: Scientists Discover God," page 19)

"Set aside the many competing explanations of the Big Bang; something made an entire cosmos out of nothing. It is this realization--that something transcendent started it all--which has hard-science types...using terms like 'miracle.'" (Gregg Easterbrook, "The New Convergence")

"Perhaps the best argument...that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas...being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory." (C. J. Isham, "Creation of the Universe as a Quatum Process" page 37

"Science and religion...are friends, not foes, in the common quest for knowledge. Some people may find this surprising, for there's a feeling throughout our society that religious belief is outmoded, or downright impossible, in a scientific age. I don't agree. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if people in this so-called 'scientific age' knew a bit more about science than many of them actually do, they'd find it easier to share my views." (Physicist John Polkinghorne, "Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity")

"Science...has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must have included any role for God." (Professor Phillip E. Johnson, "The Church Of Darwin," Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999)


Chance Renders Evolution Impossible

"The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is, 1 in 10-161 power, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...for a minimum set of required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is, 1 in 10-119,879 power. It would take, 10-119,879 power, years on average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119,831 zeros." (Dr. James Coppege from, "The Farce of Evolution" page 71)

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity." (George Gallup, the famous statistician)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein." (Sir Fred Hoyle, Highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz)

"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place." (Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability)

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer."(Professor Richard Dawkins, an atheist)

"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation." (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts." (Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris & past-president of French Academy of Science.)
"It is emphatically the case that life could not arise spontaneously in a primeval soup from its kind." (Dr. A.E Wilder Smith, chemist and former evolutionist)

"The idea of spontaneous generation of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even to the scale of the billions of years during which prebotic evolution occurred." (Dr. Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize winner)
"The complexity of the simple
st known type cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)

"The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle---an architect." (Scientist Allan Sandage)

"One may well find oneself beginning to doubt whether all this could conceivably be the product of an enormous lottery presided over by natural selection, blindly picking the rare winners from among numbers drawn at utter random.....nevertheless although the miracle of life stands "explained" it does not strike us as any less miraculous. As Francois Mauriac wrote, "What this professor says is far more incredible than what we poor Christians believe." (French Biochemist and Nobel Prize winner, Jacques Monod, "Chance and Necessity.")

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated" (Sidney W. Fox, "The Origins of Pre-Biological Systems)

"In terms of their basic biochemical design....no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)

"We have always underestimated the cell...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts." (Bruce Alberts, President, National; Academy of Sciences "The Cell as a Collectrion of Protein Machines," Cell 92, February 8, 199

"We should reject, as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Biochemist, Franklin M. Harold "The Way of the Cell," page 205)

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation." (Professor Phillip E. Johnson)

"The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them. Humanity has endured as the center of the heavens moved from the earth to beyond the sun, as the history of life expanded to encompass long-dead reptiles, as the eternal universe proved mortal. We will endure the opening of Darwin's Black box" (Michael j. Behe, Biochemist "Darwin's Black Box, pg. 252")

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." (Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, pg. 8

"Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument." (Dr. Chandra Wickramasinge, cited in, Creation vs Evolution, John Ankerberg, pg. 20.)

"Complex molecules that are essential to particular organisms often have such a vast information content as...to make the theory of evolution impossible." (Bird, Origin of Species Revisited, Vol. 1, pg. 71)

"A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution." (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Swedish botanist and geneticist, English Summary of Synthetische Artbildung, pg. 1142-43, 1186.)

 

I am willing to subscribe to this point of view:

 

What would help this argument is for man to duplicate, by removing chance and eons of time, on purpose, a single self replicating single cell organism, that is life. Until that is done, it is nothing more than creative thinking to say chance, time, and a primordial soup with the right conditions can see the arise of a single cell self replicating organism. Crick found it so improbably that he had to think that it happened somewhere else and then got here. But that is just pushing it off to somewhere else, what he saw as improbable as ever happening here on earth.

To think that chance and billions of years can manifest a self replicating cell is based upon an unproven idea that this can indeed happen. If you assume something can happen, it is still an assumption until we can actually by manipulation create it ourselves. Until then, I will stay with another idea, that Consciousness not matter is the ground of the universe. I like it because it then gives a purpose to creation. Instead of some fluke with no purpose driving it. Gets rid of existential anxiety. Gives consciousness some meaning.

 

Chemical evolution asserts the possibility of abiogenesis.

 

Nothing more than the old creationist argument from incredulity. SSDD

 

Lots of opinions quoted but 0 facts supporting your alternative. Is your alternative explanation falsifiable?

 

I merely pointed that you copy pasted gibberish and explained why. All people who study the research believe it supports the possibility of abiogenesis, all of them post gibberish and none of them can counter points I made. You have been free to counter but you have not been able. It does not matter where I go for education. If my points coincide with Creationists websites it means that Creationists websites point to gibberish too, but I don't think all sane people have go to Creationists websites in order to be able to learn how to see gibberish.

 

Neither presence nor absence of any alternate would make a sane person to accept gibberish posted by believers in evolution as true. Belief in evolution being all based on gazillions of gibberish posted by evolutionists is insane.

 

So....Uh...NO?

Do you find it at all strange that the VAST majority see your suppositions as silly?

 

I am not surprised at all when a believer in evolution calls himself the VAST majority.
I am not surprised at all if another thug joins a flash mob to attack somebody who looks decent.
I just demonstrated that the 2 mentalities are not different, why would I be surprised?
I am rather pleased with another demonstration you have provided to confirm my point.

 

You don't have much knowledge as far as Statistics do you?

1 chance in 10^150th is a Statistical Impossibility.

Not 1 in 10^50th or 10^40th.

AA

 

Do you find it at all strange that most people understand that your intellect is extremely limited?

 

It get's really old after awhile reading the idiocies of some members posts.

AA

 

As I am not surprised at all when a believer in evolution calls himself the VAST majority I cannot be surprised when a believer in evolution calls himself most people.

I am not surprised at all if another thug joins a flash mob to attack somebody who looks decent.

I just demonstrated that the 2 mentalities are not different, why would I be surprised?

Why in the world would anybody be surprised to see believers in evolution deserting to insults and trolling? You just a bit different because your posts never have any other content, while some believers in evolution
at least start from trying to imitate some intellect.
I am rather pleased with another demonstration you have provided to confirm my point.