Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: flyingfish
let us pause now for a moment of science..

Yes, good idea. Science, as in the synonym, knowledge, which essentially means a familiarity with facts (to keep it short).

Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.
Question: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?

Fact: Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.
Question: If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance (natural processes alone). The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical. It is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

a reply to: whereislogic

You forgot a link from your cult to back you up.

a reply to: TerryDon79

THE ability to speak is one unique trait that separates us from the animals. Sadly, some people misuse this privilege.
...
“There exists the one speaking thoughtlessly as with the stabs of a sword,” says the Bible.—Proverbs 12:18.
...
The Bible provides a good strategy, namely, to love our neighbor. (Matthew 7:12; Luke 10:27) Genuine concern and love for neighbor will motivate us always to use words that heal. The Bible says: “Let a rotten saying not proceed out of your mouth, but whatever saying is good for building up as the need may be, that it may impart what is favorable to the hearers.”—Ephesians 4:29.

Source: Avoid Speech That Injures: Awake!—2003

Is that better? Didn't feel like linking something behind a pdf download (no direct link) that I already linked before several times and some people apparently have little difficulty in finding or recognizing where it's from anyway.

Philippians 4:5:

Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near.

Microbiologist Radu Popa does not agree with the Bible’s account of creation. Yet, in 2004 he asked: “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?”13 He also stated: “The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.”14

13. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, by Radu Popa, 2004, p. 129.
14. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, pp. 126-127.

Fact: The extraordinarily complex molecules that make up a cell—DNA, RNA, proteins—seem designed to work together.
Question: What seems more likely to you? Did unintelligent [chemical] evolution [a.k.a. abiogenesis by natural processes alone, a.k.a. chemical evolution followed by biological evolution, a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life", a.k.a. "self-organizational scenarios", etc., i.e. philosophical naturalism, 'nature did it'] construct the intricate machines depicted [in the many videos I shared in this forum about that subject], or were those machines the product of an intelligent mind?
Fact: Some respected scientists say that even a “simple” cell is far too complex to have arisen by chance on earth.
Question: If some scientists are willing to speculate that life came from an extraterrestrial source, what is the basis for ruling out God as that Source?

Source: The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking

a reply to: whereislogic

Just for you

As for everything else? No point in me answering questions built on strawman.

a reply to: TerryDon79
You could have at least spelled out the word you have the biggest issue with before referring to "questions built on strawman". I'll take a guess then:

a reply to: whereislogic

My issue is the religious people who can't grasp science and complain about it constantly. Then use it daily to post about how it's religion, or to power their houses, or supply their food, water and electricity, or use it when they're not well or their kids aren't well.

It's hypocrisy at its finest.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.
Question: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?

You poor confused fellow. What you call a fact is actually an unknown. The false dichotomy is cute though. The scientific basis is the experiments with abiogenesis and DNA self assembly (to keep it simple).

Fact: Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.
Question: If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

That isn't how it works. Scientists set up the experiment to best represent earth's early environment. Nothing about that experiment was forced. Everything the scientists did was based on processes that naturally happen.

Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive.

Sure

Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance (natural processes alone).

Not a fact, and not relevant. Sorry. There are pretty good hypotheses out there now and just because somebody's opinion is that it is unlikely, doesn't mean it's impossible or cannot happen. I find it much more unlikely that god exists. You talk about proteins, but what is god made of? I'd think that the construction of god would be far more complex and unlikely to happen on its own. Where did this god come from?

The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical. It is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.

Not a fact. This claim is based on propaganda and I bet you don't have one single scientific source to verify that claim, which you called a fact. DNA self assembly has merit behind it, as does RNA world hypothesis and abiogenesis. The origin of life has never been observed so it is dishonest to suggest that YOU know how rare it is.

Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

Intelligent mind requires greater faith by far. According to science, intelligent minds did not evolve until recently in our history, so there is no reason to believe that one existed prior to life. That doesn't even make sense and only works if you invoke all kinds of assumptions.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: whereislogic

My issue is the religious people who can't grasp science and complain about it constantly. Then use it daily to post about how it's religion, or to power their houses, or supply their food, water and electricity, or use it when they're not well or their kids aren't well.

It's hypocrisy at its finest.

Wait a minute, that is what you are mad about? Religious people that use technology?

Terrydon I urge you to take all of this life a lot less seriously.

a reply to: sputniksteve

It sounds like he's referring to the hypocrisy of using products of science while at the same time using such products to spread an anti-science agenda.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Why do people assume that someone is taking something overly seriously? It is very hard to read a persons mood, based off of a few words on a screen. Now if you knew TerryDon79, and had communicated with him regularly, then you might know his mood. Otherwise, you are projecting your perceived opinion on him. That is rude.

What i believe is happening here, is someone is calling someone out on a logically dubious point. As a consequence, we should butt out of that.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: sputniksteve

Why do people assume that someone is taking something overly seriously? It is very hard to read a persons mood, based off of a few words on a screen. Now if you knew TerryDon79, and had communicated with him regularly, then you might know his mood. Otherwise, you are projecting your perceived opinion on him. That is rude.

What i believe is happening here, is someone is calling someone out on a logically dubious point. As a consequence, we should butt out of that.

I read the words is all. I made an observation. I stick by it still.

I am going to say you guys are 100% right and you read me like a book all around. Sorry I spoke up. I will limp back out the door.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Speaking up is fine, but I'm not sure you read TerryDon correctly. I just manners checked you. It is considered flaming (or was back in the day) to ascribe feeling, to words. If he was not POSTING ALL IN CAPS or bold, cursing (hard to do here) etc. You can't read much in a post. Yet people do so, to try and put some bias on the posts people make.

originally posted by: Barcs
You poor confused fellow. What you call a fact is actually an unknown.

Care to elaborate why I'm confused about thinking the only thing that has been observed (regarding this subject) is a fact? The only thing I and many others have observed is that "all scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter." Care to elaborate why I should favor what I figuratively perceive to be The Great 'We Don't Know Yet'-God of the agnostic and convenient feigns of ignorance regarding inconvenient facts/realities that hurt certain storytelling ventures? And why I should view it as a false dichotomy?

The scientific basis is the experiments with abiogenesis and DNA self assembly (to keep it simple).

My study of the results and methodology of these experiments have shown me something else including the fact quoted above (also regarding your argumentation later), and including the fact that the results of these experiments are often presented along with a lot of fancy storytelling regarding the question that was asked. And why should I count fancy storytelling as a scientific basis for the question that was asked?

originally posted by: whereislogic
Care to elaborate why I'm confused about thinking the only thing that has been observed (regarding this subject) is a fact?

I'd love to. You stated an opinion as fact. Just because we haven't seen life originate, doesn't mean it can't happen. There is no logical connection between not seeing it, and it being impossible or unlikely. Plus you'd be flat out wrong, because research HAS been done on this matter, and none of it suggests that it cannot happen. I've posted this research for you many times, but it is never addressed, it gets denied/ignored every time. Find me a conclusion of any peer reviewed paper that claims it has determined that life cannot arise from non life.

The only thing I and many others have observed is that "all scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter."

Sorry, but I don't think anybody has observed 2 planets colliding. I guess that cannot happen either? It must be impossible if we have not seen it yet! And I'd love to hear your observations of the scientific research that you claim to have made. Science doesn't prove things cannot happen. That's not how it works, so your statement about scientific research indicating that life cannot come from non life, is wrong and illogical.

Your statement only holds true if you ignore the multiple abiogenesis experiments plus the DNA self assembly experiment and rely on a vague unknown definition of life that has never really been laid out. Ribozymes point toward RNA world. Experiments with self assembly have been done. Comet impact events can create amino acids. All of this is verified. It may not be enough to prove conclusively that life arose naturally, but they are getting there. What they have done is demonstrated several steps of the process, but it's no simple matter. You are just lumping all of this together in some vague generalizing statement and expecting people to just go along.

My study of the results and methodology of these experiments have shown me something else including the fact quoted above (also regarding your argumentation later), and including the fact that the results of these experiments are often presented along with a lot of fancy storytelling regarding the question that was asked. And why should I count fancy storytelling as a scientific basis for the question that was asked?

Can you please post your analysis and study of the methodology and results of these experiments? What do you specifically disagree with? I'd LOVE to read your top notch scientific logical analysis on the experiments I mentioned.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: whereislogic

My issue is the religious people who can't grasp science and complain about it constantly. Then use it daily to post about how it's religion, or to power their houses, or supply their food, water and electricity, or use it when they're not well or their kids aren't well.

It's hypocrisy at its finest.

I'm curious. Who are these "religious people" are you referring to?

Also, are the books written by Dr. Hawkings scientific or are they just his opinions in your estimation?

For example, as quoted in the OP - is The Grand Design just a book of opinions?

In other words, should his books be treated as mere opinions and can't be used in any scientific studies?

a reply to: edmc^2

Now you're just trolling. And badly at that.

a reply to: edmc^2

Do you know the difference between "Pop Sci" for the masses, and a peer reviewed journal for well peers? Nope I thought not. When you do, you will see that your questions are utter nonsense.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

Now you're just trolling. And badly at that.

No. Just pinning this down because you're a moving target. You seem to change your opinion when something goes against it.

Now, I already know according to Noinden it's Dr. Hawkings opinion - in the category of Pop Sci. So how do you view it?

Scientific or not?

just a question. what are you scared of?

a reply to: edmc^2

An opinion is an opinion. Science is science.

I don't understand how that's difficult to understand.

Asfor your "moving target" comment? I've not moved any targets. I've said fromthe get go that you haven't based this thread and your conclusions on logic. What you have done is redefine definitions of words and completely avoid anything that contradicts you with putting your fingers in your ears and going "goddidit! goddidit! G
goddidit!"

You know what? I'm done with this thread. There's no point in trying to counter someone who is so biased they have to ignore facts.

Buh-bye.

oops.