Ran across this after my post above, which sort of supports what I said:
Senator
Ran across this after my post above, which sort of supports what I said:
Wise Men Still Seek Him
Esquire
Good video, even though I only watched about half. Here are a couple of the points that he makes (although this is from a different source)
https://townhall.com/columnists/denn...verse-n1621935Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly."
...
Unless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-tuned to create life, let alone intelligent life. Additionally, it is atheistic dogma, not science, to dismiss design as unscientific. The argument that science cannot suggest that intelligence comes from intelligence or design from an intelligent designer is simply a tautology. It is dogma masquerading as science.
And now, many atheist scientists have inadvertently provided logical proof of this.
They have put forward the notion of a multiverse -- the idea that there are many, perhaps an infinite number of, other universes. This idea renders meaningless the fine-tuning and, of course, the design arguments. After all, with an infinite number of universes, a universe with parameters friendly to intelligent life is more likely to arise somewhere by chance.
But there is not a shred of evidence of the existence of these other universes. Nor could there be since contact with another universe is impossible.
Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn: The fact that atheists have resorted to the multiverse argument constitutes a tacit admission that they have lost the argument about design in this universe. The evidence in this universe for design -- or, if you will, the fine-tuning that cannot be explained by chance or by "enough time" -- is so compelling that the only way around it is to suggest that our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes.
Senator
Thanks 9er.
Yes, I thought it was a good vid, and your article is also good. But I'm not biased at all. LOL
The Christian students out witnessing is the reason for this thread. Among others.
I also think it would be very cool if we could get that kind of interaction here.
Wise Men Still Seek Him
Esquire
Panspermia Makes a Comeback
Once ridiculed by most evolutionists, the idea that life on earth was seeded from extraterrestrial microscopic life which came to earth on meteoroids or space dust is making a comeback in a recent peer-reviewed, scientific paper. And why is this once ridiculed theory making a comeback? Because Darwinian evolution cannot explain the emergence of life on earth. Here are some key excerpts from that paper:
The continuing antagonism to the panspermic implications of Pasteur's dictum [“All life comes from life”] led the way to the emergence of the dominant biological paradigm - abiogenesis in a primordial soup. The latter idea was developed at a time when the earliest living cells were considered to be exceedingly simple structures that could subsequently evolve in a Darwinian way. These ideas should of course have been critically examined and rejected after the discovery of the exceedingly complex molecular structures involved in proteins and in DNA. But this did not happen. Modern ideas of abiogenesis in hydrothermal vents or elsewhere on the primitive Earth have developed into sophisticated conjectures with little or no evidential support.(emphasis added)The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions (Appendix A), an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, 1982, 2000). All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure (Deamer, 2011; Walker and Wickramasinghe, 2015).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...79610718300798
Senator
Hey 9er,
Pasteur, and would that be Louis Pasteur (?) might of said that "All life comes from life", but wasn't it Dr. Creek in a paper in 1973, the discoverer of DNA in 1953, present the idea of Panspermia, or at least directed Panspermia? Since he was an active and militant atheist, and evolutionist, and his discovery of DNA, actually blew apart, and destroyed the theory of evolution.The continuing antagonism to the panspermic implications of Pasteur's dictum [“All life comes from life”]
No, wait.....wait. Ahim (as he clears his throat, and squares his shirt)……
Do you really believe that?
I mean Panspermia is not only backed by the scientific community, but also in the fossil record, by the Cambrian Explosion.
And if you consider that the Cambrian Explosion happened during a violent time of meteorite, and asteroid hits on the earth, and those meteorites and asteroids could easily bring life from outer space.
I mean really, do you think that we on earth, and earth itself, is the ONLY place that life exists?
And what about all the UFO phenom? Don't you think it even possible that Aliens could of seeded the planet? I mean after all there have been at least 2 movies explaining all this: Mission to Mars, and Prometheus
There are even missions to gather microbes on the space station.
All you Bible thumpers are the same, don't want to face reality.
(Be gentle with me, I'm just playing a part here LOL)
Wise Men Still Seek Him
Esquire
LOL You play the part really well! With all the evidence for God staring them in the face, being the devout atheists that they are all they could do is come up with a crazy idea which really doesn't solve the problem. Did you catch the use of the word "miracle" in that second quote? It still amazes me how often evolutionists use that word and the word "designed" to describe complex natural structures in life but they refuse to accept the implications of what they are saying.Originally Posted by CaryC
But I think the best part of those quotes is that creating the first living cell from non-living elements would "require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions". Isn't that exactly what we were discussing with dissimulo?
Esquire
Here is a quote from another article which talks about that "information hurdle".
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/li...t-many-levels/A human cell contains two sets of DNA, each consisting of about three billion subunits called “nucleotides.” There are four different nucleotides, and they can be arranged in many different ways, so DNA is quite complex. Most of our DNA, however, must be arranged in a very specific way to provide the information a cell uses to make RNAs and proteins. Mathematician William Dembski has called this “complex specified information.”
Complexity (such as we see in a pile of autumn leaves) can arise spontaneously from unguided natural processes, but complex specified information cannot. The only known source of complex specified information is an intelligent mind, which can envision a goal and arrange things to actualize that goal — in this case, a living cell.
Senator
LOL I missed my calling? As an actor? LOL
Is that like using words to describe 1 in 10164?But I think the best part of those quotes is that creating the first living cell from non-living elements would "require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions". Isn't that exactly what we were discussing with dissimulo?
Came across this when looking to see if Crick was actually the first to come up with panspermia. Which he wasn't, so I missed it on that, but I think even though the "seeding" idea was around since the 1800's he really brought it to the forefront.
I'm going to put the link up first, just because when reading this snippet, it may come across as being from Answers in Genesis, or some Creation Science Institute.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/o...-of-panspermia
Note it is, or will be as soon as I put it up, from Cosmos Magazine "The Science of Everything" don't think that is a Christian publication. Like I said this is just a snippet, the whole article is about why panspermia is a viable theory.
In the nineteenth century a confluence of three scientific developments led some to consider panspermia more seriously.
The first development was that the Kant-Laplace hypothesis that the solar system formed from a nebula, indicated that the early earth’s surface was too hot to sustain life. This meant that life first appeared in a lifeless environment.
Secondly, Darwin’s evolutionary theory implied a point of origin from which all life descends but made no attempt to elucidate what it might be. This put the question of the origin of life firmly on the map. (and I might add-only the question-added)
Thirdly, Louis Pasteur’s experiments thoroughly debunked the idea of “spontaneous generation”, that life could come from inert matter. As Rudolph Virchow, the later physician and polymath put it, Omnis cellula e cellula, ‘all cells come from cells”.
These three discoveries made it scientifically near-impossible to imagine life arising on the early Earth from non-living matter, but made the question of origin more urgent than ever before.
The Bible was written to give us information about God and His plan. However, there is enough information in it, to show us He not only made, and has a plan, but created everything that has to do with that plan. Earth, the Solar System, and Humans.
The snippet above not only shows, and reveals that the beginnings are totally wrong, by non-believers, but try to substitute another plan when unwilling to accept there is a God, and He has a plan. So they back off of ammino acids coming together to form a protein, and via for a position somewhere else in the evolutionary chain. NEVER explaining the origins of life, where did the first cell come from? Because they can't. It was created by a creator.
Wise Men Still Seek Him
Esquire
Exactly.
That was a good article because I wasn't aware of all of that history for panspermia. I guess it shouldn't surprise us because we are told "they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened".
Senator
Hey 9er,
I know you, and I disagree on some eschatology, no harm, no foul there, and that's a non-disassociation doctrine, that I think we both agree on.
I also think that on some of the details of the large over-arching end times doctrines there is a lot of guess work.
Like the Anti-Christ, every few years there is a new candidate. I was hung up on Javier Solana for a long time. The over-arching doctrine is there is going to be a person known as the Antichrist. The details as to who that is, is guess work, at least at this point.
"The Lie" is another. We know there is going to be one, just not what it is, so we guess.
So here is another guess.
The start of evolution, and now the move to panspermia, is an end time ploy.
It may be that the AC will use this, in some fashion to not only proclaim himself superior, and show that by works, but offer that to humans in return for worship. The next step in the evolutionary chain.
Like I said just a guess, but all kinds of rabbit's can be run around that thought. The big gray's planted the seeds, on earth, and the AC has already reached the next step, and will lead us, etc. Yeah hath God said? Ney, Ye shall be as gods. Kind of thing.
Shifting gears, or thoughts:
With the discovery of DNA I have often wondered if these verses using the word substance takes on a new, or more in-depth meaning:
Psa_139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Psa_139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.That as the definition I wonder in those verses DNA is not meant, or at least included in the meaning.SUB'STANCE, n. [L. substantia, substo; sub and sto, to stand.]
1. In a general sense, being; something existing by itself; that which really is or exists; equally applicable to matter or spirit. Thus the soul of man is called an immaterial substance, a cogitative substance, a substance endued with thought. We say, a stone is a hard substance, tallow is a soft substance.
2. That which supports accidents.
That which subsists by itself is called substance; that which subsists in and by another, is called a mode or manner of being.
3. The essential part; the main or material part. In this epitome, we have the substance of the whole book.
This edition is the same in substance with the Latin.
4. Something real, not imaginary; something solid, not empty.
Heroic virtue did his actions guide,
And he the substance, not th' appearance chose.
5. Body; corporeal nature or matter.
Wise Men Still Seek Him
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote