Evidence for God from Science

Leprechaun wrote:

DannyM wrote:

Leprechaun wrote:It is clear that a self-replicating molecule could spontaneously arise, this is all the 'information' that is required, once this happens all else follows. When I said 'generated' I clearly meant that in conditions replicating those of the young earth we come ever closer to simulating the creation of life.

I want to hone in on this for a moment. Let me ask you what 'information' you are talking about here... And what about your "all else follows" comment - do you mean genetic information simply follows from your laboratory-controlled experiment? And please lay out what the early earth conditions are in your opinion...

I am not sure what excactly it is you are referring to when you say 'information' and so I have taken it to mean a particular sequence of amino acids (or something of that nautre). If we are using 'information' to denote such sequences then I can't see any barrier to the spontaneous arrival of a particular sequence.

Please could you give a response to my post prior to the one you've quoted here. And you've still managed to avoid two of my questions in what you've quoted.

I'd even go one further than 'information' and say that what you require here is specific knowledge; i.e., you require a continuous supply of activated nucleotides to drive your 'RNA replication'. This would not work in a primordial broth. Activated nucleotides in the broth would not last very long given the unfavourable chemical cross-reactions that would occur. What has been 'achieved' in the lab is these cross-reactions have been avoided. How? Intelligent agents! So what you think has been 'achieved' has actually been a gerrymandered experimentation which, in terms of trying to explain the origin of life, which is the point, leaves you right back at square one.

Even taking your assertions on their own merit, we see that you fail.
-
-

neo-x wrote: If you say chance, than I think it is too slow. Yes it looks good enough on the surface, it just gets sticky when you come down to the details. It is like you're playing roulette and you win for 4 billion years, flat out. This is not a very good logic to produce a statement like (all else follows). Chance can not be the only factor here. So a supposition that a self replicating molecule (under a young earth condition) could spontaneously arise, is like saying a tornado hit the scrap yard and assembled the scarp into a fully functional Ferrari. This is very thin. Some sort of guidance would be needed, information if you would say, code, instructions whatever. This is what Danny has been asking you for the last some posts and what is the source of of that information, how and why did it generate in the first place. Change in any order requires a motive, a need.

No, that's right, Neo. A successful self-replicating RNA molecule must be able to direct the synthesis of adenine, cytosine, ribose, uracil and guanine. If it cannot do this, it will not be able to replicate in the 'broth'. Added to this, it must be able to activate all of the nucleotides. As I said, taking this on its own merits, one simply cannot invoke chance to explain such phenomena. And this says nothing of the fact that the above is wishful thinking anyhow. And we haven't even got to the instructions needed to yield different sequences of amino acids.

Leprechaun wrote:Also, can I see this quote about the odds of an enzyme forming?

I was quoting from Ravi Zacharias' book, "Can Man Live Without God". It's documented in the Bibliography. If you are that interested in knowing, then you should probably contact Dr. Singh at the University of Cardiff in Wales.

In John Lennox's book, "God's Undertaker. Has Science Buried God?", Lennox also goes through probability mathematics, to show just how remote it is for life to have come about by random chance. You should probably give it a read. 1in 1X 10 ^40000 is greater than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Even if you cut off a few thousand zeroes from the answer, the chance of life occuring randomly is still utterly immense.

Katabole wrote:

Leprechaun wrote:Also, can I see this quote about the odds of an enzyme forming?

I was quoting from Ravi Zacharias' book, "Can Man Live Without God". It's documented in the Bibliography. If you are that interested in knowing, then you should probably contact Dr. Singh at the University of Cardiff in Wales.

In John Lennox's book, "God's Undertaker. Has Science Buried God?", Lennox also goes through probability mathematics, to show just how remote it is for life to have come about by random chance. You should probably give it a read. 1in 1X 10 ^40000 is greater than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Even if you cut off a few thousand zeroes from the answer, the chance of life occuring randomly is still utterly immense.

I can't help but feel that his argument is going to be disingenuous as is often the case when creationists pull out such "probability arguments". Here is a good piece discussing them in general:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

DannyM wrote: No, that's right, Neo. A successful self-replicating RNA molecule must be able to direct the synthesis of adenine, cytosine, ribose, uracil and guanine. If it cannot do this, it will not be able to replicate in the 'broth'. Added to this, it must be able to activate all of the nucleotides. As I said, taking this on its own merits, one simply cannot invoke chance to explain such phenomena. And this says nothing of the fact that the above is wishful thinking anyhow. And we haven't even got to the instructions needed to yield different sequences of amino acids.

Where does this claim stem from (apart from creationist literature) and how difficult is this prcocess?

Repost these two questions I am supposed to have dodged.

Leprechaun,

You skirt over both my responses to you and then expect me to answer a fresh question? Is that how you think this works? I think you need to go back and start addressing at least some of my responses to you...

Danny

Leprechaun wrote:I can't help but feel that his argument is going to be disingenuous as is often the case when creationists pull out such "probability arguments".

Whether it is a creationist or not, it was a mathematical probability I included and not a theological assertion.

If you "can't help but feel that his argument is going to be disingenuous", then you already have a closed mindset. Dr. Lennox who is a mathematics professor at Oxford, has three PhD's. I would suggest that you attempt to read the books with an "open mind" because as Dr. Lennox has stated, 'Nonsense is still nonsense even if it is spoken by someone intelligent.'

However, if you are correct and human beings are simply the product of mindless, random processes, then don't be offended when others wrong you because they are not doing anything "wrong". They are simply dancing to their DNA. And as Nietzche stated in his book, "Beyond Good and Evil", you cannot express moral values whatsoever, without implicity invoking God.

Katabole wrote:If you "can't help but feel that his argument is going to be disingenuous", then you already have a closed mindset. Dr. Lennox who is a mathematics professor at Oxford, has three PhD's. I would suggest that you attempt to read the books with an "open mind" because as Dr. Lennox has stated, 'Nonsense is still nonsense even if it is spoken by someone intelligent.'

I like this one from Lennox:

"Science can tell you that if you add strychnine to someone's drink it will kill them. But science cannot tell you whether it is morally right or wrong to put strychnine into your grandmother's tea so that you can get your hands on her property."

Looks like science is not the only begetter of truth

The numbers are lying, they're lying I tell you!

No but seriously, the numbers aren't lying, they're ridiculous. The only theory that I think makes any sort of rebuttal to the design argument is the multiverse theory, but:
1) It seems that no one has developed a final version of it.
2) It's not really researched and it couldn't be anyways, because we could never find evidence for it anyways. Well, the only "evidence" for it would just as well be evidence for God. So:
3) The theory in general seems desperate. Well, at least it's honest, since it admits that the universe couldn't arise "by chance".