Originally posted by clickclick
Spontaneous generation violates the law of biogenesis.
The form of spontaneous generation that has been disproven is the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. There is no law of biogenesis that states very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
The form of spontaneous generation that has been disproven is the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. There is no law of biogenesis that states very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
That is correct to an extent. Though the law of biogenisis states that living things can not be formed from non-living things. There is no evidence that there has ever been an exception to this law. Aswell as no evidence to support that even very primitive life can be formed by abiogensis. There is no evidence that very primitive forms of life ever existed, or that there could or would have been a probiotic soup either.
Originally posted by clickclickYes I could see how you'd think that spontaneous generation of life would be more far fetched then life being created by an omnipotent being, but the far fetched part of creation is not the fact that an omnipotent being could've made life, but that it even existed in the first place. Just an all-powerful all-knowing being existing is more far fetched alone than anything in the theory of evolution as far as I'm concerned. That's all a matter of opinion though. If we were certain that some sort of God existed, I would definitely believe that God created life. But, we don't know if God exists and never really will so the whole foundation of the theory that God created us is gone in my eyes.
As I said, it depends on what you mean by evolution. Certain aspects are feasible while others are not. For instance (there are certainly more), if we were to begin at the origin of life itself. Spontaneous generation violates the law of biogenesis. Which one is more far fetched? Is life creating life not in keeping with the law and observable scientific evidence while the other is unfounded and lacking enough credibility to even be considered a good hypothesis?Now if one wants to contend that merely some form of evolution took place, then that is more plausible at least.
And God isn't nor ever was really "alive" so God creating life is not life creating life, it's a supernatural being creating life.
Originally posted by clickclick
That is correct to an extent. Though the law of biogenisis states that living things can not be formed from non-living things. There is no evidence that there has ever been an exception to this law. Aswell as no evidence to support that even very primitive life can be formed by abiogensis. There is no evidence that very primitive forms of life ever existed, or that there could or would have been a probiotic soup either.
First, there is no law of biogensis. Second, the impossibility of life arising from non-life by way of a long and propitious series of chemical selections has never been demonstrated, let alone, proven. Furthermore, evolutionary theory does not account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists. Even if abiogenesis could be disproven, it would not affect the validity of evolutionary theory.
"Science," said two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, " is the search for the TRUTH."
Johnthan Wells, PHD, PHD studied geology at Princeton University.He was an aeithist, and works at the Discovery Institue and a senior member of the Institute's Center for Science and Culture. His undergrad was the University of California at Berkley for geology and physics with a minor in biology..At yale he wrote a book called "Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism. He also has a doctorate in molecular and cell biology from Berkeley. His focuse primarily was on vertebrate embryology and evolution. He is quoted "Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution Is Wrong." He put all the Icons to Evolution to the test, which there are mainly four.
The first thing he investigated was the "Miller Experiment."
Miller used the atmospheric theories Nobel laureate Harold Urey.
Miller chose a hydrogen rich mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapor, which many scientist thought our atmospher was made of back then. A methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth.
By the 1970's Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkins declarred Miller's theory of the early atmosphere need to be abandoned. Two of the leading origin of life researchers, Klause Dose and Sidney Fox confirmed Miller used the wrong gas mixture, and Science magazine in 1995 said "experts now dismiss Millers experiment." The best hypothesis now agree that there was very little hydrogent in the early atmospher, beacause it would have escaped into space. Instead the atmosphere probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vaper. Scientists found that his mixture in the correct atmospher would Create formaldehyde, Cyanide. It is so toxic nothing organic could form. It kills embryos.
This is the first theory that has been disproved...Tune in tomorrow for the next theory that was disproved.
Originally posted by debbiejo
explain what you mean by Abiogenesis theory so I understand it.
Do you mean to tell me that you posted a dispute to the Miller experiment and you do not even know what abiogenesis theory is? Perhaps you should refrain from posting rhetoric when you do not have an understanding of the theories you are trying to dispute.
As far as I can see there is no connection between the kind of spontaneous ordering that occurs from energy flow through systems and the work required to build informational intensive macromolecules like DNA without some kind of mechanism that would be necessary to play a crucial role of a template..etc..that would direct the flow of energy in such a way to create the unique information that defines life. The big question on how did the machine originate would be just as challenging as the question of how did the DNA originate.
It just doesn't prove anything...
It's just another way for evolutionists to hang on to their precious theory.
Originally posted by debbiejo
As far as I can see there is no connection between the kind of spontaneous ordering that occurs from energy flow through systems and the work required to build informational intensive macromolecules like DNA without some kind of mechanism that would be necessary to play a crucial role of a template..etc..that would direct the flow of energy in such a way to create the unique information that defines life. The big question on how did the machine originate would be just as challenging as the question of how did the DNA originate.
It just doesn't prove anything...
It's just another way for evolutionists to hang on to their precious theory.
Abiogenesis theory does not claim that complex life originated from non-life. Therefore, the fact that the individual in your post cannot see how DNA could spontaneously generate from non-life does not contradict this theory, it affirms it.
First, there is no law of biogensis. Second, the impossibility of life arising from non-life by way of a long and propitious series of chemical selections has never been demonstrated, let alone, proven. Furthermore, evolutionary theory does not account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists. Even if abiogenesis could be disproven, it would not affect the validity of evolutionary theory.
What do you mean there is no law? I dont disagree with the last bit either, as I said there are some parts that are feasible. But you have to consider what is invovled in life arising from non life. For one, even primitive life forms are serious conjecture, so is the atmosphere that is proposed. Absolutely unsubstatiated beliefs. Added to which, since when does functional information arise randomly?
Yes I could see how you'd think that spontaneous generation of life would be more far fetched then life being created by an omnipotent being, but the far fetched part of creation is not the fact that an omnipotent being could've made life, but that it even existed in the first place. Just an all-powerful all-knowing being existing is more far fetched alone than anything in the theory of evolution as far as I'm concerned. That's all a matter of opinion though. If we were certain that some sort of God existed, I would definitely believe that God created life. But, we don't know if God exists and never really will so the whole foundation of the theory that God created us is gone in my eyes.And God isn't nor ever was really "alive" so God creating life is not life creating life, it's a supernatural being creating life.
Yeah, I know where you are coming from.
Originally posted by clickclick
What do you mean there is no law? I dont disagree with the last bit either, as I said there are some parts that are feasible. But you have to consider what is invovled in life arising from non life. For one, even primitive life forms are serious conjecture, so is the atmosphere that is proposed. Absolutely unsubstatiated beliefs. Added to which, since when does functional information arise randomly?
Allow me to clarify, there is no law of biogenesis which states that primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules. Calculations of the improbability of abiogenesis presume that life forms from non-life by chance. Abiogenesis does not operate by chance but by chance and biochemistry, making these calculations meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex procucts and these products interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules have been observed to form from non-living molecules in conditions that exist in space.
Also evolution was faked in the case of Haechel's Embryos..
His embryos of images of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit, and human side by side at three stages of development. There are 3 problems with the drawings. What Haechel said was the early stage of development wasn't true. It was really mid-point. At the earlier stages the embryos look quite different from each other. They are truly very different. So, first (he lied). He also only showed 3 of the 7 vertebrate classes. In his famous eight columns. Four are manuals, but they're all placental mammals. There are two other kinds of mammals that he didn't show, which are different. The fish...happen to be more similar than the ones he omitted. He used a salamander to represent amphibians instead of a frog, which looks very different.. So he stacked the deck by picking representatives that came closest to fitting his idea. Then he went even further by faking the similarities.
When some biologists exposed this in an article a few years ago, the evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard complained that this was nothing new. He had known about it for twenty years and it was no secret to the experts..
Guess you can't trust your own textbooks to tell you the truth.