Did someone request a session with Mr. Spanktacular's ass-tanning machine? Brrrrr.... rumble rumble... slappity slappity slap...
...the necessity of the astounding complexity and orderly information in the DNA, which is absolutely necessary for the replication of said cell, the thing goes beyond ridiculous, to think that this all "just came about" on its own.
In order to make this statement you must first define complexity and information in an objective and measurable way, and then present criteria on which to judge whether something could not have generated despite the odds for it to have been generated in an abiological environment.
If this were true, why was it such a great discovery when Pasteur proved that maggots do not grow directly from rotting meat? Why was this a "discovery" at all, if "spontaneous generation" can, indeed, occur?
The "spontaneous generation" discredited by Pasteur was not the same thing as "abiogenesis". If you do not understand this, you need to read more about both.
Abiogenesis, the generation of life by nonlife, as theorized occured in an environment which was nothing like we have on earth today. Thus if it is still going on, which is not guaranteed, it would have to be in environments humans may not even have access to, much less be able to monitor readily.
Indeed, even if life was continually being generated it is unlikely we could notice as it would be totally microscopic. We have a hard enough time finding giant squid in their environment, good luck to a prion or bacteria at some isolated vent.
To date, we have NO scientific data to support:
(1) order growing out of disorder (Second Law of Thermodynamics);
(2) matter coming from nothing (the First Law);
(3) LIFE springing from NON-Life (the Second Law);
(4) LIFE changing into more complex forms (genetics).
1) The 2nd law allows for increases in order. This is especially true for a planet filled with energy trapping environments, and energy sources.
2) I assume you are referring to the Big Bang. That is a cosmological theory and is totally separate from the issue of abiogenesis and evolution. There could be no way of discounting that Gods created the universe and life fell out by accident. Anyhow, cosmological theory does not detail, and I'm uncertain what we could use to test, what occured before the Big Bang. It certainly does not require a sudden creation of matter and energy from nowhere. It could be from a point source (from a previous collapse?) or from contact with another dimension.
3) The 2nd law does not prevent life coming from nonlife. I'm interested in how this is different from point #1? After that you can address how the second law applies to chemical groups becoming self-replicating.
4) This is untrue, unless you have a definition of complexity which you'd like to share. In addition to bacterial life which has been shown to generate new ways of eating and surviving, I have two threads within the ID area which involve observed changes in a plant and humans which can only be described as an increase in complexity. I might add that genetic mutation is not the only theorized source of biological change in evolution.
However, there is no evidence to support that there is NO Creator.
Stick to your guns chum. Remember observable, repeatable, and predictable.
What the hell is a Creator? Never seen one, never had any tests beyond singular nonrepeatable anecdotes, and allows no predictions (beyond someone mentioning a creator when they run out of answers and/or a willingness to admit they just do not know).
You have used bad references to actual scientific laws and observations to supposedly undercut broad scientific theories, then immediately cut to irrational assertions of purely theoretical entities.
If He was also Created, then He is not the true Creator, but a first Creature...So, going to the First and Original Creator of all things, He could only be Eternal. If He is Eternal, then He must be spiritual, and not subject to the laws of matter.
This does not follow logically at all. We are talking about a specific Creator, no? That creator may very well have needed a Creator, depending on the laws pertaining to the supernatural...
Wait a minute. What is spiritual? Again, you have introduced a purely theoretical entity (this time an underlying force or plane of existence) with no testable qualities.
But back to assuming a spiritual realm... There may be laws which say all sorts of things about the Creator of life in this Universe... or rather this planet because that is all we can really talk about.
First of course we need to find a Creator and something in this "spiritual plane" and see how they interact with each other and this "material/energy plane".
This makes perfect sense to me, as it complies totally with the observable Laws of Nature.
Perhaps you can point out the research I've overlooked on the existence of a Creator, which exists in a "spiritual plane", and interacted with our Universe (indeed creating it, yet being separate from it).
Slappity slappity slap... you about done? Those cheeks look pretty red from here.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
