Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire More fun for creationists!

While reading a book about beginnings this little jewel came out.

"The origin of life from non-living chemicals has been an article of blind faith, not science, and this has been true since the time of Darwin. The main problem with much chemical evolutionary theorizing is that the theorists consider life as an assembly of chemicals rather than an information-processing machine, and they never answer the question, 'How did the molecular hardware get to write its own software?' Natural selection can't explain origin of first life. Machines are required to process this information. But this information includes instructions to build theses machines."

italics are in the original text

Not a busy day for you?

DNA is the topic. Was DNA Helix a designed structure? Or was it a random event of creation through chemical interaction?

The fight you're looking to pick with science won't work, because science doesn't put forth any definitive explanation of the origins of life. It merely speculates, and doesn't pretend to know.

This has nothing to do with evolution of species, which science is as sure of as it is that the earth orbits the sun, since the evidence for each is about on par in terms of degree of certainty.

baltz526,



According to Dr. Crick the DNA molecule is too complex to have happened by chance. He coined the word "panspermia". His idea was spacemen brought DNA to earth. That only begs the question how did they get their DNA?




The argument is about evolution. I heard the same argument you are making about the evolution of stars and planets. The problem with your argument is I read books by evolutionists who use the word "evolution" when referring to starts and subsequently planets.

But back to your trying to get around the concept of nothing to something. In order to get to "evolution of species" one has to accept either the molecules came together fortuitously or they were created.

The fact lots of scientists accept molecules to man evolution does not make it true. Lots of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation of life. Along comes a creationist and proved them wrong with scientific experiments. Lots of Ph.D scientists don't accept the idea of molecules to man at all. In fact in the book I am presently reading there are both young earth creationist and old earth evolutionists. They start with a presupposition and look for evidence to support their contention. Both have and use the same facts. It's the way they interpret them produces two schools of thought.

You are in an untenable position of trying to be an evolutionist who tries vainly to bring God into the mix. The God you claim to believe says, "For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalm 33:9) If you accept Him at His Word, then you can't believe in slow gradual change over millions or billions of years. If you don't accept Him at His Word then give up your religiousness and switch to something else.

probably most of us can agree that there is something strange going on. i mean, there's at least a few physicists out there that believes the universe in all it's convolusions is demanded for the Urth to continue on in an orderly health of the eco-system, including man and his culture.

strange indeed.

I merely believe the Bible, which tells us that God created nature, then commanded it to bring forth all the living creatures, and it did as commanded. The process wasn't specified, nor the time scale. The fact that God can see that something is good before it happens is a characteristic of divine prescience.

The God you claim to believe says, "For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalm 33:9) This sure sounds like a time scale to me. You reject His Word about six days for creation. Do you reject His Word about raining forty days at the time of Noah's Flood? When does a day with a numerical modifier and evening and morning modifier actually mean one day with an evening and morning?

You reject God's Word where it says he brought Israel out of an iron furnace. You say he didn't mean a literal iron furnace, but that it was a mere metaphor. Aren't you worried about that? I mean, you believe every word is to be taken in its most literal sense, right?

No, that isn't true. God's ways are not ours and God's time is not ours. God is not a magician swinging a wand around making things appear and disappear. He is THE master chemist, master mathematician, master botanist, master designer and inventor of all scientific disciplines. He is the responsible intellect for all that has been, is and will be.

[/quote]You reject God's Word where it says he brought Israel out of an iron furnace. You say he didn't mean a literal iron furnace, but that it was a mere metaphor. Aren't you worried about that? I mean, you believe every word is to be taken in its most literal sense, right? [/quote]

No.

Then you are being inconsistent.

But for you and some others God is not the Master Communicator. He can't describe when and how He did creation and have you believe Him.

There is NO doubt in my mind that you, Ringman, are God's special little being.

I doubt your attempt at Cherry Picking.

From Wiki:

Creationism[edit]
Crick was a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."[84] Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.[85]

In addition, Panspermia does not necessarily spacemen. Once again, you show your ignorance on all things scientific.

Talk about cherry picking, where did you get the idea, where do you get the idea I say he is a creationist? And whether you accept it or not he did coin the word "panspermia" pushing the idea DNA came from space because he sort of used the word miracle to describe it. Originally it was thought to come on a meteorite. But that fell in disrepute when logic shows any biological material would burn up on entry. Then it was changed to spacemen seeded the earth.

If I quote an evolutionist you would call me ignorant because your world view does not allow you to accept even an evolutionists statement that disagrees with your presupposition.

Maybe you could enlighten us about how the first molecules formed proteins and generated information.

If you don't mind would you show me from God's Word where we are instructed to accept all of His Word literally? God tells us he covers us with His pinions and wings. Even Jesus got in on the act and used metaphors regularly.

No, that isn't true either. Just because he hasn't yet doesn't mean he can't or won't. I have an eternity for him to explain things to me if he wishes. Most likely God trying to describe to me his blueprint for life would be like me trying to explain to our cats how I can walk into a dark room and make it light.

That's growth on your part.

Here's one hypothesis:



and another: