DeletedUser
Ouch. Is that barb directed towards me? Nice.
Good one, although this is not an original thought of yours. The separation of evolution from "origin of life" as a means of diffusing the substantial origins problem is plastered on a majority of anti-creation internet sites, which is where you found it. Did I limit this conversation to "evolution only"? No, my point on Intelligent Design applies to both. If fact, if we limited the conversation to natural selection, we would have no controversy at all. The fact is, the theory of evolution, AS IT IS TAUGHT IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, is not limited to natural selection. It includes the origin of life, creative mutations, and long ages. This can be seen from the table of contents of the typical college biology textbook (need examples? I have 'em!). The natural spontaneous origin of life, or abiogenesis, is scientifically absurd. The oxygen-less Miller–Urey research actually argues against abiogenesis. Louis Pasteur, Stanley Miller, and many others have found many reasons why it can't happen. But it is the foundation of the theory of evolution taught to our school children.
You are doing what many evolutionists do in seeking to separate abiogenesis from the theory of evolution. A wise move really, because abiogenesis is so clearly false. You and others want to start with a living cell and proceed from there. But that is cheating. You must start at the starting line. Please, start with a dead planet that naturally and spontaneously produces the first living thing. Scientifically, evolution as an explanation for the existence of all the various forms of life on Earth, is a non-starter. My point all along has been that a Designer, or intelligent originator, if you will, can be logically and scientifically inferred from the evidence we can indeed see.
Of course it's relevant. It's relevant, like I said before, to the people who teach it, and it's logically relevant in that HOW life started would probably have a bearing on how it propagated. Remember you believe (word specifically chosen) that the invisible building blocks of all life forms formed themselves into highly complex and organized structures. How that could happen, could very well be related to how the building blocks came into being in the first place. But again, you are just repeating a diversionary tactic to get away from the abiogenesis problem.
Jack my friend, are you listening to yourself? And that makes sense how? Aging is an example of evolution? Huh?
I didn't comment on it because the language used in the quote clearly communicates the point. Watch this now- According to the experts, DNA IS a message sequence. It IS a set of directives. You would not receive a set of directions or orders and assume that there was no person, no intelligence behind it would you? Yet, that is what is happening here.
Again, you are insisting that we start with existing DNA, and want only to talk about what happens to it post-creation. I am not discussing how DNA gets altered. If your spouse tells you to go to the store and buy a dozen eggs and you buy 13 instead, the fact remains that your spouse gave you the instructions to begin with. You are trying to tell me that just because the code can change without intelligent directive, the directions themselves are therefore the result of random chance. That is simply not logical. Non-intelligent alterations do not disprove the evidence for intelligent origination.
Let's keep this point simple. Grasp this one: “DNA functions like a software program. Software comes from programmers. Information, whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal -- always arises from an intelligent source.”
You can either agree or disagree with that statement. But if you disagree, you are just as much a man of faith as I am. Agreed?
See above.
So Oakland's definition that "all life that has ever been observed comes from life that already exists" is wrong? And your definition of the law of Biogenesis is that "organism's don't appear fully formed?". What does that even mean? Am I fully formed? At what point in the evolutionary process was I not "fully formed"? Have I therefore stopped evolving? Was I ever actually "fully formed"? Huh? Dude, get off the anti-creationist sites, they are giving you a bunch of non-sensible drivel.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
Simpson and Beck, in their biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology, state that "there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell."
I will have to pass on your fictitious definition.
Hah, :laugh:, sure you could. But you would be wrong. I did make a mistake: I quoted from Wiki. Never quote from wiki. I left the subject alone because you were trying to define the application of the law within closed systems. No can do.
The fact is, the ramifications of 2LOT are readily observable for all of us, and apply to both open and closed systems. 2LOT describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. The effects of the 2LOT are all around, touching everything in the universe. This reaffirms everything I have tried to say on 2LOT, and I see a lot of just plain common sense here:
" In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves. It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.
Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.
Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.
However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.
If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency toward “disarrangedness” brought by the 2nd Law. If such an important force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all scientists. Yet, the fact is, no such force of nature has been found.
A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism."
