Noah's Flood And "mental Gymanstics" - Local Flooders Wanted!

[MormonFreeThinker]

 From what I can tell, Donald Parry (Ph.D. in Hebrew) is up-to-date on "academic Biblical Studies" (and has authored many such studies himself), and he is pretty clear that Genesis is describing a global flood. 

 

Donald Parry believes in a Global Flood because of Elder Mcconkie, Donald started with the answer before doing research.

Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer disagrees with Donald Parry. 

Hugh Nibley also disagrees with Donald Parry. 

 

two children of mine own seed from the dust of the earth.

 

You will get an infinite regress. 

Edited December 3, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Of all the conditions we have seen so far in the universe none of them support abiogenesis. I have seen myself literally create life from the dust of the earth. I created two children of mine own seed from the dust of the earth.

 

The human body is 65% water not dust.

[danielwoods]

CFR where Abiogenesis violates the laws of physics.

 

Scientists have yet to discover a single molecule that has “learned to make copies of itself”. Abiogensis doesn't exist except in the minds of those who believe it happened. 

 

Since science is about what is observed, then life only comes from life, because life hasn't ever been observed to come from anything else. 

[thesometimesaint]

Scientists have yet to discover a single molecule that has “learned to make copies of itself”. Abiogensis doesn't exist except in the minds of those who believe it happened. 

 

Since science is about what is observed, then life only comes from life, because life hasn't ever been observed to come from anything else. 

 

That's not a law of physics.

SEE self replicating molecules

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml

The CFR still stands.

[danielwoods]

That's not a law of physics.

SEE self replicating molecules

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml

The CFR still stands.

 

I appreciate your CFR, but just as I can't disprove the theory that poka dotted pink elephants are flying behind Jupiter, I can't prove a negative. All I can say is that the physics doesn't support the idea, and that science hasn't ever observed it to happen. Your link demonstrates this, shall we look at it?

From your link, "life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously."

How can one be certain when it not only hasn't ever been observed, it can't even be replicated in a controlled environment? Certainty is a declaration of faith, not science.

"Many biologists hypothesize that this step led to an "RNA world"…"

Indeed they do, without any actual evidence that this happened, or could happen.

"Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for ‘biologists in general’ that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10²⁴) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences."

Dover, Gabby. 1999. Looping the evolutionary loop. Review of the origins of life: from the birth of life to the origin of language. Nature. 399:217–218.

 

Your article continues, "Once a self-replicating molecule formed…" 

 

Without any evidence that such has ever happened, they simply claim it happened.

Edited December 3, 2014 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

How do you know? Have you seen all the conditions in the universe? 

Have you seen God literally creating life out of the dust?

 

Based on what we have observed, it can't happen. Not for the lack of searching, no. Scientists have tried and tried to make non-living matter live… it simply doesn't happen on it's own. 

[danielwoods]

Since there is no evidence that he sinned and was judged for it, I suppose you are leaning towards the latter. 

 

No evidence he sinned and was judged? I guess if you ignore what God said to him, sure. 

[Rob Osborn]

The human body is 65% water not dust.

So, I am still made from the dust of the earth.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 that science hasn't ever observed it to happen. 

 

Has science seen God creating life literally out of the dust? Our known universe is very big, science has not studied the planets outside the solar system. The reason why abiogensis will probably not happen again on earth is because the conditions today are different from conditions in the past in two important ways: First, there was little or no molecular oxygen in the atmosphere or oceans when life first appeared. Free oxygen is reactive and would likely have interfered with the formation of complex organic molecules. More importantly, there was no life around before life appeared. The life that is around today would scavenge and eat any complex molecules before they could turn into anything approaching new life.

 

Bytheway, a magical abiogenesis contradicts the fine-tuning argument, you need a natural abiognesis for the fine-tuning argument to work.

 

 

Based on what we have observed, it can't happen. Not for the lack of searching, no. Scientists have tried and tried to make non-living matter live… it simply doesn't happen on it's own. 

 

 God did it in his lab using natural processes, not magic. 

[thesometimesaint]

This world is full of self replicating non-living things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6405

 

 

This world is replete with self replicating organic molecules.

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26858/

http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/cfb/cells.htm

 

This world is replete with self replicating inorganic molecules.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20906-lifelike-cells-are-made-of-metal.html#.VH9eNMnSTFI

 

Organic molecules on comets, and other planets

http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/philae-detected-organic-molecules-comet

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2340

 

Name one law of physics that abiogenesis violates.

Here are the basic laws of physics.

http://www.spec2000.net/06-basicphysics.htm

 

The CFR still stands that abiogenesis violates any law of physics.

[thesometimesaint]

Based on what we have observed, it can't happen. Not for the lack of searching, no. Scientists have tried and tried to make non-living matter live… it simply doesn't happen on it's own. 

 

RNA developed in lab.

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

[Rob Osborn]

RNA developed in lab.

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Dont be fooled people. Intelligent designers (the lab techs) just created a base ingredient for RNA. No intelligent information formed on its own. Let me repeat- No intelligent information formed on its own.

Thanks.

[mnn727]

So, I am still made from the dust of the earth.

Really? thats funny cause the human body is 0% dust

[Rob Osborn]

Really? thats funny cause the human body is 0% dust

We all return to dust eventually.

[ERayR]

Really? thats funny cause the human body is 0% dust

 

Elements contained in the dust of the earth.  The things that make plants grow and contain vitamins and minerals etc which in turn are nourishing to bodies.

[danielwoods]

Has science seen God creating life literally out of the dust?

Your question seems to indicate that you think that God creating life out of dust would violate the principles we observe everyday? 

We observe this principle everyday. Never has there been an observation that contradicts it. That is that life comes from life. When God created life, he himself imparted life into it. Thus life creating life. There is no other way known to science for life or information to come about, other than from life and intelligence. 

 

Our known universe is very big, science has not studied the planets outside the solar system. The reason why abiogensis will probably not happen again on earth is because the conditions today are different from conditions in the past in two important ways: First, there was little or no molecular oxygen in the atmosphere or oceans when life first appeared. Free oxygen is reactive and would likely have interfered with the formation of complex organic molecules. More importantly, there was no life around before life appeared. The life that is around today would scavenge and eat any complex molecules before they could turn into anything approaching new life.

It's a nice hypothesis, but with no observational evidence to support it as even a possibility of happening, it is simply blind faith. You don't think that scientists have been trying for decades to replicate what happened using these same theorized early earth perimeters?

 

Bytheway, a magical abiogenesis contradicts the fine-tuning argument, you need a natural abiognesis for the fine-tuning argument to work.

 

 God did it in his lab using natural processes, not magic.

 

I agree God did it. Your claim that he did it with natural processes is contrary to what he claims.

[danielwoods]

This world is full of self replicating non-living things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6405

 

 

This world is replete with self replicating organic molecules.

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26858/

http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/cfb/cells.htm

 

This world is replete with self replicating inorganic molecules.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20906-lifelike-cells-are-made-of-metal.html#.VH9eNMnSTFI

 

Organic molecules on comets, and other planets

http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/philae-detected-organic-molecules-comet

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2340

"biologist Frank Salisbury explained the problem in a paper in American Biology Teacher:

It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment."

Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, 33: 335-338 (September, 1971)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html

 

Name one law of physics that abiogenesis violates.

Here are the basic laws of physics.

http://www.spec2000.net/06-basicphysics.htm

 

The CFR still stands that abiogenesis violates any law of physics.

It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

""What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily]."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

[mnn727]

Elements contained in the dust of the earth.  The things that make plants grow and contain vitamins and minerals etc which in turn are nourishing to bodies.

We all know that's not what Rob meant

[thesometimesaint]

"biologist Frank Salisbury explained the problem in a paper in American Biology Teacher:

It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment."

Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, 33: 335-338 (September, 1971)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html

 

It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

""What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily]."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

 

1971 is a little dated.

 

Thank you for the second law of thermodynamics(Law of Entropy). It proves you don't what the hell you are talking about. It says that in any closed system energy asymptotes to near 0 where no useful work can be accomplished. The earth is not a closed system. We are constantly receiving energy in the form of light and heat from our sun. 

SEE Second Law of thermodynamics

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

[danielwoods]

1971 is a little dated.

 

Thank you for the second law of thermodynamics(Law of Entropy). It proves you don't what the hell you are talking about. It says that in any closed system energy asymptotes to near 0 where no useful work can be accomplished. The earth is not a closed system. We are constantly receiving energy in the form of light and heat from our sun. 

SEE Second Law of thermodynamics

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

 

I guess if you ignore what I wrote, then sure. 

 

I quoted a scientist who explained that adding energy from the sun only reduces the entropy temporarily… 

 

It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

""What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily]."

[thesometimesaint]

 

I guess if you ignore what I wrote, then sure. 

 

I quoted a scientist who explained that adding energy from the sun only reduces the entropy temporarily… 

 

It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

""What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily]."

 

I didn't ignore it. 1971 is dated for modern research into making RNA.

SEE http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

 

Sure if by temporarily you mean over a Trillion years. The estimated lifespan of our sun.

http://www.universetoday.com/18847/life-of-the-sun/

 

Abiogenesis doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is not a closed system, it constantly receives energy from our sun.

SEE

[danielwoods]

I didn't ignore it. 1971 is dated for modern research into making RNA.

SEE http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Almost seems like a joke. Here's some quotes from your article.

"“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”"

 

Notice they are mixing the ingredients together, and this is all based on their imagination (belief). 

 "they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it."

 

Wow, quite a hands on process for some "natural" occurrences...

 

"At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”"

 

 

The process only shows how difficult it is, and that it wouldn't have occurred naturally (without intelligent involvement). 

 

Darwin had no idea that a "simple cell" was far more complex than a super computer.

 

Sure if by temporarily you mean over a Trillion years. The estimated lifespan of our sun.

http://www.universetoday.com/18847/life-of-the-sun/

 

Abiogenesis doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is not a closed system, it constantly receives energy from our sun.

SEE

Unless you can show how the suns energy creates a mechanism that causes abiogensis to occur (for which I'm sure you'd receive some sort of prize), and instead of an increase of entropy, it decreases it, the 2nd law is violated by abiogensis.

[Rob Osborn]

Almost seems like a joke. Here's some quotes from your article.

"“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”"

 

Notice they are mixing the ingredients together, and this is all based on their imagination (belief). 

 "they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it."

 

Wow, quite a hands on process for some "natural" occurrences...

 

"At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”"

 

 

The process only shows how difficult it is, and that it wouldn't have occurred naturally (without intelligent involvement). 

 

Darwin had no idea that a "simple cell" was far more complex than a super computer.

 

Unless you can show how the suns energy creates a mechanism that causes abiogensis to occur (for which I'm sure you'd receive some sort of prize), and instead of an increase of entropy, it decreases it, the 2nd law is violated by abiogensis.

I completely agree!

[ERayR]

We all know that's not what Rob meant

 

It may not be but I have no desire to go back over all the posts and short of mind reading I did not see it in what I read.

[thesometimesaint]

Almost seems like a joke. Here's some quotes from your article.

"“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”"

 

Notice they are mixing the ingredients together, and this is all based on their imagination (belief). 

 "they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it."

 

Wow, quite a hands on process for some "natural" occurrences...

 

"At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”"

 

 

The process only shows how difficult it is, and that it wouldn't have occurred naturally (without intelligent involvement). 

 

Darwin had no idea that a "simple cell" was far more complex than a super computer.

 

Unless you can show how the suns energy creates a mechanism that causes abiogensis to occur (for which I'm sure you'd receive some sort of prize), and instead of an increase of entropy, it decreases it, the 2nd law is violated by abiogensis.

 

Teleological argument.

 

Darwin didn't know a lot of things, He didn't know about Abiogenesis, genetics, or airplanes. It isn't as if Darwin is the last word on anything. His Theory of Evolution concerns is how life changed once it got here. Every test thrown against it so far has failed to falsify it. Here is a simple to do easy test to disprove Evolution. No fancy degrees, just a shovel, paper and pencil. That is what Darwin had. Now just dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. I eagerly await your publication in The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science AKA Science.

 

The sun releases energy from combining Hydrogen atoms to form Helium. That is what ultimately powers all life on this planet. Abiogenesis is the process by which nonliving chemicals combined and recombined to form more complex chemicals and eventually what we recognize as life. I don't desire any prizes. My desire is to be a good husband, father, and Grandfather. Unfortunately for you Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak will share the $1.4 million Noble Prize in Medicine for their work in Abiogenesis.