Evolution, the rebuttal....

Ok I decided to start another thread because the other one was taking too long to load. Anyhow, I jotted down some notes today about an evolution theory. Here it goes.


How to build a living organism.

1. Start with amino acids. There are 80 types, but only 20 found in living matter. There are right-handed and left-handed amino acids. Only left handed amino acids work in living matter. These amino acids also need peptide bonds in correct places for the protein to be able to fold in a specific 3 dimensional way or it wont work. So we 20 amino acids of the left-handed type with peptide bonds in the correct place and the correct amino acids linked in the right sequence to produce protein molecules.
A collection of protein molecules (about 200) with just the right functions to get a living cell.

2. There exists a DNA molecule in every cell. DNA along with RNA directs the sequencing of amino acids through biochemical instructions. But to make DNA
is much much more complex than amino acids.

"Difficulties in synthesizing DNA and RNA are at present beyond our imagination."
Klaus Dose, Institute for Biochemistry, Mainz, Germany


That is a very basic example of building a living organism. Let's look at a theory proposed by many evolutionists – The Random Chance theory. This theory's main point is that given adequate time, non living matter could develop into living matter. So what is adequate time? I'd say infinite time is adequate. The universe though, is not infinitely old because in 1965 background radiation was discovered which led scientists to estimate the age of the universe to be somewhere between 5 and 14.5 billion years old. Let's assume the earth is 14 billion years old. Initially earth would be too hot to support life. With the discovery of micro fossils, scientists believe that the gap between earth reaching the right temp to sustain life and the emergence of life to be about 400 million years old. This my friend is not much time for life to assemble. The chance of producing one functional protein molecule in 1 billion year is 1 in 1x10exp[60]. That's not a typo, it is 10 followed by 60 zeroes.

Some of you might find this hard to swallow, but scientists DON'T believe in random chance anymore.

"I build molecules for a living. I cant begin to tell you how difficult that job is."
"I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."

Dr. James Tour, Rice University, Department of Chemistry

The information that I have presented today is extracted from a book I read a couple of years ago, "The Case For Faith."

Excellent

I agree. I have thought that for awhile now.

And what exactly has this to do with evolution.

Everyone knows that there is less consent about the origin of the first forms of life than about the evolution of organisms, but there are quite a number of theories to explain that instead of just blaming it on the invisible man in the sky.

"And what exactly has this to do with evolution."

If you had been following the other thread, you would know that the evolution we are talking about is the evolutionary claim for life's creation and existence, and not the biological evolution that no one denies.

"If you had been following the other thread,"

Wasn´t the point of this thread not to have to read the whole other thread?

"you would know that the evolution we are talking about is the evolutionary claim for life's creation and existence, and not the biological evolution that no one denies."

Sure nobody denies that humans involved out of one-cell organisms. Good that we have clarified that.

"...and not the biological evolution that no one denies."

It seems my work is done here :-)

Prof.

Isn´t this what is called Theist Evolutionary "theory"?

I don´t think this is even labeled as Creationism.

by biological evolution creationist mean variation/adaptability w/in species or micro "evolution". Creationist do not believe that a single cell "became" a multi cell "became" a fish, became a lizard, became a bird, became a mammal, became a monkey, became a man. Now many evolutionist may not believe the same thing or the "exact" same "map". This is close to what was taught in my biology classes along with a "tree" or pregressive illustrations of just such a supposed event.

"1. Random Chance theory says that life started by chance given enough time."

I have never, ever heard a single biologist, evolutionist or chemist talk about something called a "Random Chance Theory." Nor does such a title accurately describe any theories of which I'm aware.

It does, however, accurately describe many Theist's misunderstanding concerning scientific theories of life.

Prof.

Prof, evolutionist believe that given enough time, their theory could take place. Time is of essence. They also (unless they are theist) believe it happened "by chance" or by "accident". Their was randomness and chance given over time.

I'm a bit suprised that because the variables required are titled by an accurate description that you "never heard of it". I guess the opposite would be called, "the Purposeful, Designed, (not requiring a huge amount of time)origins of life theory". Now obviously I'm "making" that title up but it describes the opposing camps theory. What about "Random, chance, and great amounts of time" do you not believe to be accurate?

Leaving to workout!

rooster, nice to meet ya.

prof, you've never heard of Random Chance? How else do evolutionists think life evolved from non living matter - time and chance. In my post above, the Random Chance theory was told by a Walter L. Bradley, a very very credible source.

I got an idea. Why dont you descibe to me how life started. Let's see if there is any randomness to it and if it required an absorbient amount of time.

It seems to me that evolutionists often disregard abiogenesis as a small part that's relatively unimportant overall. I think the complete opposite. The most important parts of man's journey are his beginning and possible end.

"...and not the biological evolution that no one denies."
It seems my work is done here :-)



Prof your work isnt dont until you tell me how life evolved from nothing, mainly how nonliving matter became living matter.

"mainly how nonliving matter became living matter. "


I think that is an intresting question too, but even more interesting imo is how living matter became living *councious* matter.

Maybe Prof has a suggestion?

Saying that God created life MAY explain man's origins, but it certainly doesn't PROVE anything. Another thing to consider is that every religion has it's own creation story so why would someone discount all others in favor of the Christian God?

"Saying that God created life MAY explain man's origins, but it certainly doesn't PROVE anything."

It proves that God created man. This is the topic at hand. What proofs do you want? Or rather what proofs as to what do you want?


"Another thing to consider is that every religion has it's own creation story so why would someone discount all others in favor of the Christian God?"

Because the Bible is the MOST historically credible source. There is no other writings that have had numerous findings (manuscripts, biblical cities, etc..) that backs it's authenticity.

"so why would someone discount all others in favor of the Christian God? "

Because the Bible says so.. Doh!

;-)

"Because the Bible is the MOST historically credible source."

I don´t think that makes it credible in other areas. The Bible is not meant to take over the role of Science.

"The Bible is not meant to take over the role of Science"

He was asking about the christian God as opposed to other Gods, not about science in any way.