Chemistry Says Evolution Impossible

Christianity QA » Christian Faith » Chemistry Says Evolution Impossible

Christian Faith

Question:

snip…… Perhaps you’d care to explain these "flaws" to the tens of thousands of qualified scientists working in fields directly related to the biological sciences who for some reason don’t seem to be aware of them.

These qualified scientists? They all had to pay allegiance to the god of ‘evolution’. Without this they would not have been granted their qualification. It is so sad that the world of ’science’ is built on the sand of such allegiance!!

Response:

May I say that your arguments, "Precision", adhere to your namesake. Dave Oldridge and others on this group who uphold evolutionary beliefs show their ignorance by their insulting comments and brevity of reply.

The brevity of replies is because your buddy didn’t know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. I will say, however, that your support reinforces my opinion against the argument that was presented.

Response:

Yep, at least you got one thing right. They all had to pay allegiance to the god of ‘evolution’.

Really? This argument is so lame that it barely deserves comment. Suffice it to say that a scientist that could prove the evidence that supports the science of evolution to be incorrect would be more famous than Einstein and a whole lot richer. Without this they would not have been granted their qualification.

Of course you can support this assertion with facts, can’t you Peter? It is so sad that the world of ’science’ is built on the sand of such allegiance!!

What is so sad is that scientific illiterates like you, exist in the 21st century.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – snip…… Perhaps you’d care to explain these "flaws" to the tens of thousands of qualified scientists working in fields directly related to the biological sciences who for some reason don’t seem to be aware of them. These qualified scientists? Yep, at least you got one thing right. They all had to pay allegiance to the god of ‘evolution’. Really? This argument is so lame that it barely deserves comment. Suffice it to say that a scientist that could prove the evidence that supports the science of evolution to be incorrect would be more famous than Einstein and a whole lot richer. Without this they would not have been granted their qualification. Of course you can support this assertion with facts, can’t you Peter? It is so sad that the world of ’science’ is built on the sand of such allegiance!! What is so sad is that scientific illiterates like you, exist in the 21st century.

Yes Peter, see if you can do us all a favor and be "called home" soon! LOL Cindy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You appear to be confusing two issues One is the process (long since validated) of evolution The other is the process of the actual creation of consciousness and life itself (still very much a mystery) You are confusing them for ideological reasons and I find this dishonest. Sorry! Rest assured that it wasn’t my intentiion to confuse anything. I distinctly thought that the original post in this thread was dealing with the improbability of biological evolution that could lead to a biological body (i.e., the human organism). If evolution can’t even create a host body for a sentient being without the help of an intelligent Creator then you can’t very well argue the actual creation of consciousness, can you? If we were arguing the creation of consciousness then wouldn’t one of many possible replies to this topic go something like this: "Okay, so you’ve shown the improbability of evolution creating an advanced organism such as the human body to even host the soul of a sentient intelligence… But can you prove the mystery of actual creation of consciousness and life itself in the form of a spirit entity?" In other words, anyone argues that it is scientifically improbable that biological life as complex as humans is created but has likely evolved, then our next discussion is about the process of the actual creation of consciousness and life itself (still very much a mystery, I agree!) by a Creator. My quotation was strictly concerned with debunking the belief (perhaps long since validated but nonetheless mistaken) in evolution of any species, especially including humans. God created the complex human organism as the "temple" of the souls and sentient intelligence that qualifies humans as advanced sentient beings in this universe. I believe science will one day have to accept this truth as fact. Precision Chemistry Says Evolution Impossible Evolutionary religionists claim that inorganic chemicals given billions of years(or if that doesn’t work trillions) will somehow turn into living people. What is more they claim it is a "fact" that this has happened(of course no one was there to see it, measure it or repeat it was there?). Their incredible ignorance of real chemistry is most astounding. As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry I find that one basic problem prevents anything like the discription given above from occurring anywhere at any time under even different conditions. Chemicals have no life in themselves and even DNA has not a life of its own. DNA-a polymer of nucleotides- is a very complicated molecule for certain and anything this highly structured is not capable of being formed randomly. The three chemical reasons are: 1. Chemical stablitiy 2. Chemical reactivity 3. Chemical selectivity If any one of these criteria are not met there could be no DNA(let alone amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins or RNA). Evolution’s holy grail says that radom chance and natural processes formed life(you and me). However, they fail to consider that chemicals must obey the three criteria of stablilty, reactivity and selectivity which is anything but radom or natural. These three criteria must be guided, controlled and produced by a trained chemist in the laboratory and they have been met by the Great Creator to create life. You are no accident. You are, however, accountable to the Creator who made you. Your 45 years in the field of industrial chemistry has obviously paid off! Your professional background in chemistry not only explains your eloquent thesis but increases your credibility considerably on this subject matter. You explained the flaws in evolutionary theory quite well and that was an excellent commentary. That is why I thought you would find some material that I ran across interesting. I wanted to add some additional information that reflects my personal beliefs as a Christian of the Jehovah’s Witness faith. Although I know the various denominations of Christian faith may disagree on specific teachings pertaining to Jesus Christ, I would like to believe we all come together on the important matter of creation! Unfortunately some have been lead astray from the faith and abandoned their belief that God created mankind. This material might help to further shed light on the improbability of life originating by chance. Below is an excerpt from the book CREATION (1985. Publisher: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York), in Chapter 4 "Could Life Originate by Chance?" (pp. 42-45; paragraphs 14-20; note – the word "Footnote" and brackets are added to footnote numbers in quotation for clarity; actual numbered footnotes are shown below quotation). This quoted text provides some interesting information on the topic of evolution: "Would an ‘Organic Soup’ Form? "(14) Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."[Footnote 10] Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: "Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis." This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be "the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists]."[Footnote 11] "(15) There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are "right-handed" and others are "left-handed." Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed! "(16) How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J. D. Bernal acknowledges: "It must be admitted that the explanation . . . still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain." He concluded: "We may never be able to explain it." [Footnote 12] "Probability and Spontaneous Proteins "(17) What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones-no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup? "(18) The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe! "(19) Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10^40,000! ‘An outrageously small probability,’ Hoyle

Response:

Chemistry Says Evolution Impossible

Let’s see what new deranged bull shit this moronic maniac has Evolutionary religionists claim that inorganic chemicals given billions of years(or if that doesn’t work trillions) will somehow turn into living people.

There is no such thing as "Religious evolution" dipshit!!! Wrong again, zit brain. Inorganic chemicals will turn into organic chemicals …. they will turn into more complex, organic chemicls … and so it goes.. There is NO SUCH THING as a "direct line" from inorganic chemicls to man. What is more they claim it is a "fact" that this has happened(of course no one was there to see it, measure it or repeat it was there?). Their incredible ignorance of real chemistry is most astounding.

Your ignorance is what is astounding, though, sadly, not rare. No one was "there" to see God do any of his tricks either. No one NEEDS to ber there to see anything! The EVIDENCE tells us what happened – turd brain! As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry

If you are a chemist – then I am the reincarnation of Einstein! I find that one basic problem prevents anything like the discription given above from occurring anywhere at any time under even different conditions. Chemicals have no life in themselves and even DNA has not a life of its own. DNA-a polymer of nucleotides- is a very complicated molecule for certain and anything this highly structured is not capable of being formed randomly.

The ONLY ignorant assholes who claim things happened "randodmly" are uneducated assholes like you!!!! IF you were a chemist, you would KNOW that chemical process ARE NOT RANDOM!!!! (snip remaining garbage from someone trying for the crap-head of the year award!)

Response:

Chemistry Says Evolution Impossible

I noticed you did not post this to any of the science NGs, why? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Evolutionary religionists claim that inorganic chemicals given billions of years(or if that doesn’t work trillions) will somehow turn into living people. What is more they claim it is a "fact" that this has happened(of course no one was there to see it, measure it or repeat it was there?). Their incredible ignorance of real chemistry is most astounding. As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry I find that one basic problem prevents anything like the discription given above from occurring anywhere at any time under even different conditions. Chemicals have no life in themselves and even DNA has not a life of its own. DNA-a polymer of nucleotides- is a very complicated molecule for certain and anything this highly structured is not capable of being formed randomly. The three chemical reasons are: 1. Chemical stablitiy 2. Chemical reactivity 3. Chemical selectivity If any one of these criteria are not met there could be no DNA(let alone amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins or RNA). Evolution’s holy grail says that radom chance and natural processes formed life(you and me). However, they fail to consider that chemicals must obey the three criteria of stablilty, reactivity and selectivity which is anything but radom or natural. These three criteria must be guided, controlled and produced by a trained chemist in the laboratory and they have been met by the Great Creator to create life. You are no accident. You are, however, accountable to the Creator who made you.

Now I know why you didn’t post to science NGs, this stuff is too silly and only Creationist are stupid enough to believe it. JohnN

Response:

It’s very unlikely that IKnowHim has "45 years background" in Chemistry. He cuts and pastes from other (fundamentalist) websites, usually without attribution, and often apparently without even understanding what he posts (at least, he’s usually unable to engage in meaningful debate after the first post). You explained the flaws in evolutionary theory quite well and that was an excellent commentary. That is why I thought you would find some material that I ran across interesting.

Well no, he didn’t. Evolutionists *do not* "claim that inorganic chemicals given billions of years(or if that doesn’t work trillions) will somehow turn into living people." That’s not even a baby’s description of what evolution is about. The appearance of life from a non-living system is nothing to do with evolution…that’s a separate subject called "abiogenesis". evolution deals only with how life *develoed* once it was already there, not with how it arose inthe first instance. Why hasn’t IKnowHim got that through his skull yet…he’s been told enough times! And this comment: "However, they fail to consider that chemicals must obey the three criteria of stablilty, reactivity and selectivity which is anything but radom or natural. These three criteria must be guided, controlled and produced by a trained chemist in the laboratory" is just ludicrous. There are reactions going on in nature all around us that proceed quite nicely without any "trained chemist" controlling them! "Would an ‘Organic Soup’ Form? "(15) There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are "right-handed" and others are "left-handed." Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed!

So what…just because we don’t as yet know why a particular "handedness" may be preferred is no reason for disallowing a natural explanation for it. The rest of your quote-mining again has nothing to do with evolution as such…you are discussing abiogenesis. Even so, the statistical tricks and figures you glibly quote (including from Hoyle…an evolutionist who believed that the origin of life was "pamspermia", btw) have been refurted many times, here and elsewhere. Rob

Response:

hmmm. so viruses aren’t alive? viruses, little more than collections of self-replicating DNA, are one of the most successful forms of "life" on this planet. that right there shoots a little hole in whatever you’re trying to claim. a 45 year veteran? what are your credentials? what exactly do you do that you can make such a presumption? are you a chemist, or a clerk, or a janitor, or a deskjockey, or a … what? you need to do a little better than that to explain to me how evolution is impossible because of chemistry. "chemical selectivity"? are you sure you know what you’re talking about? Saul Sabia

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry Bwahahahahaaaa! What, are you the janitor at the lab?? Yeah, he probably knows which cleaners will get the grease off the garage floor. He certainly understands nothing about incipient prebiotic chemistry and denies what little has managed to force its way past his filters. I’m not sure I’d even hire him for a short order cook. He’d be too opinionated and the customers would leave when he served them lousy food and wouldn’t change his ways. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all. Yes, I agree that a false witness is detestable in the eyes of God… which brings me to a question. What qualifies you to state what is detestable in the eyes of God! BTW which God, bible God or the real God? The real one. He told me Himself that He hates lying and hypocrisy.

OK, as long as it was the real one! Cindy

Response:

The real one. He told me Himself that He hates lying and hypocrisy. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry Bwahahahahaaaa! What, are you the janitor at the lab?? Yeah, he probably knows which cleaners will get the grease off the garage floor. He certainly understands nothing about incipient prebiotic chemistry and denies what little has managed to force its way past his filters. I’m not sure I’d even hire him for a short order cook. He’d be too opinionated and the customers would leave when he served them lousy food and wouldn’t change his ways. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all. Yes, I agree that a false witness is detestable in the eyes of God… which brings me to a question. What is your degree in, to qualify your negative critique and unkind remarks? I gather you’ve got a university Ph.D. in one of the sciences and come highly qualified in the field of chemistry?

Nope…no degrees (unless you count my PhD in Advanced Pedantry from BSU). Just a good general education and an excellent bullshit detector. You only need the ability to do a little bit of research on the internet to know this bullshit for what it is, not a PhD. Which is why I question the claims to academic achievement of some of the people posting in these echoes. KnowNothing is a typical example. Now I HAVE taken university-level courses in evolutionary biology, embryology and chemistry (but not biochemistry). And I can stand nose to nose with most of the serious physicists in the business. If you doubt my critique….go back and read some of KnowNothing’s posts about ANY subject and you’ll quickly either get your own ignorant superstitions supported (if that’s what you’re about) or learn that he (she or it…it hides behind an alias) is a posing hypocrite. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 4ax.com: As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry Bwahahahahaaaa! What, are you the janitor at the lab?? Yeah, he probably knows which cleaners will get the grease off the garage floor. He certainly understands nothing about incipient prebiotic chemistry and denies what little has managed to force its way past his filters. I’m not sure I’d even hire him for a short order cook. He’d be too opinionated and the customers would leave when he served them lousy food and wouldn’t change his ways. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all. Yes, I agree that a false witness is detestable in the eyes of God… which brings me to a question.

What qualifies you to state what is detestable in the eyes of God! BTW which God, bible God or the real God? Cindy

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Chemistry Says Evolution Impossible Evolutionary religionists claim that inorganic chemicals given billions of years(or if that doesn’t work trillions) will somehow turn into living people. What is more they claim it is a "fact" that this has happened(of course no one was there to see it, measure it or repeat it was there?). Their incredible ignorance of real chemistry is most astounding. As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry I find that one basic problem prevents anything like the discription given above from occurring anywhere at any time under even different conditions. Chemicals have no life in themselves and even DNA has not a life of its own. DNA-a polymer of nucleotides- is a very complicated molecule for certain and anything this highly structured is not capable of being formed randomly. The three chemical reasons are: 1. Chemical stablitiy 2. Chemical reactivity 3. Chemical selectivity If any one of these criteria are not met there could be no DNA(let alone amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins or RNA). Evolution’s holy grail says that radom chance and natural processes formed life(you and me). However, they fail to consider that chemicals must obey the three criteria of stablilty, reactivity and selectivity which is anything but radom or natural. These three criteria must be guided, controlled and produced by a trained chemist in the laboratory and they have been met by the Great Creator to create life. You are no accident. You are, however, accountable to the Creator who made you. Your 45 years in the field of industrial chemistry has obviously paid off! Your professional background in chemistry not only explains your eloquent thesis but increases your credibility considerably on this subject matter.

IDontKnowShit has no background in professional chemistry. He’s a Liar for Jesus, nothing more. You explained the flaws in evolutionary theory quite well and that was an excellent commentary. That is why I thought you would find some material that I ran across interesting.

Perhaps you’d care to explain these "flaws" to the tens of thousands of qualified scientists working in fields directly related to the biological sciences who for some reason don’t seem to be aware of them. I wanted to add some additional information that reflects my personal beliefs as a Christian of the Jehovah’s Witness faith. Although I know the various denominations of Christian faith may disagree on specific teachings pertaining to Jesus Christ, I would like to believe we all come together on the important matter of creation!

Ah. A JW. That explains it. ‘Nuff said. <remaining drivel snipped

Response:

Chemistry Says Evolution Impossible

Which claim merely serves to illustrate that you know no more about chemistry than you do about biology.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Chemistry Says Evolution Impossible Evolutionary religionists claim that inorganic chemicals given billions of years(or if that doesn’t work trillions) will somehow turn into living people. What is more they claim it is a "fact" that this has happened(of course no one was there to see it, measure it or repeat it was there?). Their incredible ignorance of real chemistry is most astounding. As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry I find that one basic problem prevents anything like the discription given above from occurring anywhere at any time under even different conditions. Chemicals have no life in themselves and even DNA has not a life of its own. DNA-a polymer of nucleotides- is a very complicated molecule for certain and anything this highly structured is not capable of being formed randomly. The three chemical reasons are: 1. Chemical stablitiy 2. Chemical reactivity 3. Chemical selectivity If any one of these criteria are not met there could be no DNA(let alone amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins or RNA). Evolution’s holy grail says that radom chance and natural processes formed life(you and me). However, they fail to consider that chemicals must obey the three criteria of stablilty, reactivity and selectivity which is anything but radom or natural. These three criteria must be guided, controlled and produced by a trained chemist in the laboratory and they have been met by the Great Creator to create life. You are no accident. You are, however, accountable to the Creator who made you. Your 45 years in the field of industrial chemistry has obviously paid off! Your professional background in chemistry not only explains your eloquent thesis but increases your credibility considerably on this subject matter. You explained the flaws in evolutionary theory quite well and that was an excellent commentary. That is why I thought you would find some material that I ran across interesting. I wanted to add some additional information that reflects my personal beliefs as a Christian of the Jehovah’s Witness faith. Although I know the various denominations of Christian faith may disagree on specific teachings pertaining to Jesus Christ, I would like to believe we all come together on the important matter of creation! Unfortunately some have been lead astray from the faith and abandoned their belief that God created mankind. This material might help to further shed light on the improbability of life originating by chance. Below is an excerpt from the book CREATION (1985. Publisher: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York), in Chapter 4 "Could Life Originate by Chance?" (pp. 42-45; paragraphs 14-20; note – the word "Footnote" and brackets are added to footnote numbers in quotation for clarity; actual numbered footnotes are shown below quotation). This quoted text provides some interesting information on the topic of evolution: "Would an ‘Organic Soup’ Form? "(14) Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."[Footnote 10] Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: "Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis." This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be "the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists]."[Footnote 11] "(15) There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are "right-handed" and others are "left-handed." Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed! "(16) How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J. D. Bernal acknowledges: "It must be admitted that the explanation . . . still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain." He concluded: "We may never be able to explain it." [Footnote 12] "Probability and Spontaneous Proteins "(17) What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones-no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup? "(18) The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe! "(19) Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10^40,000! ‘An outrageously small probability,’ Hoyle asserts, ‘that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.’ He adds: ‘If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." [Footnote 13] "(20) However, the chances actually are far fewer than this ‘outrageously small’ figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: ‘Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.’" [Footnote 14]" Footnotes (p. 252; References Listed by Chapter): 11. Scientific American, ‘The Origin of Life,’ by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50. 12. The Origin of Life, by John D. Bernal, 1967, p. 144. 13. Evolution From Space, p. 24. 14. New Scientist, ‘Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,’ by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151. My apologies if there were any errors in reproducing this quotation.

Response:

Yes, I agree that a false witness is detestable in the eyes of God… which brings me to a question. What is your degree in, to qualify your negative critique and unkind remarks? I gather you’ve got a university Ph.D. in one of the sciences and come highly qualified in the field of chemistry? Precision

Response:

Sorry! Rest assured that it wasn’t my intentiion to confuse anything. I distinctly thought that the original post in this thread was dealing with the improbability of biological evolution that could lead to a biological body (i.e., the human organism). If evolution can’t even create a host body for a sentient being without the help of an intelligent Creator then you can’t very well argue the actual creation of consciousness, can you? If we were arguing the creation of consciousness then wouldn’t one of many possible replies to this topic go something like this: "Okay, so you’ve shown the improbability of evolution creating an advanced organism such as the human body to even host the soul of a sentient intelligence… But can you prove the mystery of actual creation of consciousness and life itself in the form of a spirit entity?" In other words, anyone argues that it is scientifically improbable that biological life as complex as humans is created but has likely evolved, then our next discussion is about the process of the actual creation of consciousness and life itself (still very much a mystery, I agree!) by a Creator. My quotation was strictly concerned with debunking the belief (perhaps long since validated but nonetheless mistaken) in evolution of any species, especially including humans. God created the complex human organism as the "temple" of the souls and sentient intelligence that qualifies humans as advanced sentient beings in this universe. I believe science will one day have to accept this truth as fact. Precision – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Chemistry Says Evolution Impossible Evolutionary religionists claim that inorganic chemicals given billions of years(or if that doesn’t work trillions) will somehow turn into living people. What is more they claim it is a "fact" that this has happened(of course no one was there to see it, measure it or repeat it was there?). Their incredible ignorance of real chemistry is most astounding. As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry I find that one basic problem prevents anything like the discription given above from occurring anywhere at any time under even different conditions. Chemicals have no life in themselves and even DNA has not a life of its own. DNA-a polymer of nucleotides- is a very complicated molecule for certain and anything this highly structured is not capable of being formed randomly. The three chemical reasons are: 1. Chemical stablitiy 2. Chemical reactivity 3. Chemical selectivity If any one of these criteria are not met there could be no DNA(let alone amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins or RNA). Evolution’s holy grail says that radom chance and natural processes formed life(you and me). However, they fail to consider that chemicals must obey the three criteria of stablilty, reactivity and selectivity which is anything but radom or natural. These three criteria must be guided, controlled and produced by a trained chemist in the laboratory and they have been met by the Great Creator to create life. You are no accident. You are, however, accountable to the Creator who made you. Your 45 years in the field of industrial chemistry has obviously paid off! Your professional background in chemistry not only explains your eloquent thesis but increases your credibility considerably on this subject matter. You explained the flaws in evolutionary theory quite well and that was an excellent commentary. That is why I thought you would find some material that I ran across interesting. I wanted to add some additional information that reflects my personal beliefs as a Christian of the Jehovah’s Witness faith. Although I know the various denominations of Christian faith may disagree on specific teachings pertaining to Jesus Christ, I would like to believe we all come together on the important matter of creation! Unfortunately some have been lead astray from the faith and abandoned their belief that God created mankind. This material might help to further shed light on the improbability of life originating by chance. Below is an excerpt from the book CREATION (1985. Publisher: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York), in Chapter 4 "Could Life Originate by Chance?" (pp. 42-45; paragraphs 14-20; note – the word "Footnote" and brackets are added to footnote numbers in quotation for clarity; actual numbered footnotes are shown below quotation). This quoted text provides some interesting information on the topic of evolution: "Would an ‘Organic Soup’ Form? "(14) Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."[Footnote 10] Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: "Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis." This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be "the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists]."[Footnote 11] "(15) There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are "right-handed" and others are "left-handed." Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed! "(16) How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J. D. Bernal acknowledges: "It must be admitted that the explanation . . . still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain." He concluded: "We may never be able to explain it." [Footnote 12] "Probability and Spontaneous Proteins "(17) What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones-no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup? "(18) The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe! "(19) Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10^40,000! ‘An outrageously small probability,’ Hoyle asserts, ‘that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.’ He adds: ‘If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." [Footnote 13] "(20) However, the chances actually are far fewer than this ‘outrageously small’ figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: ‘Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the

Response:

That is perplexing. You are claiming that no chemicals occur naturally. Salt from ancient evaporated sea water, mined calcium carbonate, iron oxides (rust), and more can only come from the laboratory of a trained chemist. Your world is a very strange place, and it does not match the reality of this world. Joe

Response:

You appear to be confusing two issues One is the process (long since validated) of evolution The other is the process of the actual creation of consciousness and life itself (still very much a mystery) You are confusing them for ideological reasons and I find this dishonest. Sorry! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Chemistry Says Evolution Impossible Evolutionary religionists claim that inorganic chemicals given billions of years(or if that doesn’t work trillions) will somehow turn into living people. What is more they claim it is a "fact" that this has happened(of course no one was there to see it, measure it or repeat it was there?). Their incredible ignorance of real chemistry is most astounding. As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry I find that one basic problem prevents anything like the discription given above from occurring anywhere at any time under even different conditions. Chemicals have no life in themselves and even DNA has not a life of its own. DNA-a polymer of nucleotides- is a very complicated molecule for certain and anything this highly structured is not capable of being formed randomly. The three chemical reasons are: 1. Chemical stablitiy 2. Chemical reactivity 3. Chemical selectivity If any one of these criteria are not met there could be no DNA(let alone amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins or RNA). Evolution’s holy grail says that radom chance and natural processes formed life(you and me). However, they fail to consider that chemicals must obey the three criteria of stablilty, reactivity and selectivity which is anything but radom or natural. These three criteria must be guided, controlled and produced by a trained chemist in the laboratory and they have been met by the Great Creator to create life. You are no accident. You are, however, accountable to the Creator who made you. Your 45 years in the field of industrial chemistry has obviously paid off! Your professional background in chemistry not only explains your eloquent thesis but increases your credibility considerably on this subject matter. You explained the flaws in evolutionary theory quite well and that was an excellent commentary. That is why I thought you would find some material that I ran across interesting. I wanted to add some additional information that reflects my personal beliefs as a Christian of the Jehovah’s Witness faith. Although I know the various denominations of Christian faith may disagree on specific teachings pertaining to Jesus Christ, I would like to believe we all come together on the important matter of creation! Unfortunately some have been lead astray from the faith and abandoned their belief that God created mankind. This material might help to further shed light on the improbability of life originating by chance. Below is an excerpt from the book CREATION (1985. Publisher: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York), in Chapter 4 "Could Life Originate by Chance?" (pp. 42-45; paragraphs 14-20; note – the word "Footnote" and brackets are added to footnote numbers in quotation for clarity; actual numbered footnotes are shown below quotation). This quoted text provides some interesting information on the topic of evolution: "Would an ‘Organic Soup’ Form? "(14) Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."[Footnote 10] Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: "Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis." This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be "the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists]."[Footnote 11] "(15) There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are "right-handed" and others are "left-handed." Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed! "(16) How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J. D. Bernal acknowledges: "It must be admitted that the explanation . . . still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain." He concluded: "We may never be able to explain it." [Footnote 12] "Probability and Spontaneous Proteins "(17) What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones-no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup? "(18) The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe! "(19) Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10^40,000! ‘An outrageously small probability,’ Hoyle asserts, ‘that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.’ He adds: ‘If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." [Footnote 13] "(20) However, the chances actually are far fewer than this ‘outrageously small’ figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: ‘Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.’" [Footnote 14]" Footnotes (p. 252; References Listed by Chapter): 11. Scientific American, ‘The Origin of Life,’ by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50. 12. The Origin of Life, by John D. Bernal, 1967, p. 144. 13. Evolution From Space, p. 24. 14. New Scientist, ‘Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,’ by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151. My apologies if there were any errors in reproducing this quotation. Precision

Response:

Chemistry Says Evolution Impossible Evolutionary religionists claim that inorganic chemicals given billions of years(or if that doesn’t work trillions) will somehow turn into living people. What is more they claim it is a "fact" that this has happened(of course no one was there to see it, measure it or repeat it was there?). Their incredible ignorance of real chemistry is most astounding. As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry I find that one basic problem prevents anything like the discription given above from occurring anywhere at any time under even different conditions. Chemicals have no life in themselves and even DNA has not a life of its own. DNA-a polymer of nucleotides- is a very complicated molecule for certain and anything this highly structured is not capable of being formed randomly. The three chemical reasons are: 1. Chemical stablitiy 2. Chemical reactivity 3. Chemical selectivity If any one of these criteria are not met there could be no DNA(let alone amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins or RNA). Evolution’s holy grail says that radom chance and natural processes formed life(you and me). However, they fail to consider that chemicals must obey the three criteria of stablilty, reactivity and selectivity which is anything but radom or natural. These three criteria must be guided, controlled and produced by a trained chemist in the laboratory and they have been met by the Great Creator to create life. You are no accident. You are, however, accountable to the Creator who made you.

Response:

As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry

Bwahahahahaaaa! What, are you the janitor at the lab??

Response:

4ax.com: As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry Bwahahahahaaaa! What, are you the janitor at the lab??

Yeah, he probably knows which cleaners will get the grease off the garage floor. He certainly understands nothing about incipient prebiotic chemistry and denies what little has managed to force its way past his filters. I’m not sure I’d even hire him for a short order cook. He’d be too opinionated and the customers would leave when he served them lousy food and wouldn’t change his ways. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

As a 45 year veteran of making my living in the field of industrial chemistry Bwahahahahaaaa! What, are you the janitor at the lab??

Otherwise how have you missed the obvious: The building blocks of consciousness are part of the nature and function of matter. And this neither promotes or precludes the existence of God. Rather it defines the mechanism whereby evolution can take place, with or without divine instigation or guidance. (A family member is a crystallographer – so lets not throw educational claims at each other)

Response:

Your 45 years in the field of industrial chemistry has obviously paid off! Your professional background in chemistry not only explains your eloquent thesis but increases your credibility considerably on this subject matter. You explained the flaws in evolutionary theory quite well and that was an excellent commentary. That is why I thought you would find some material that I ran across interesting. I wanted to add some additional information that reflects my personal beliefs as a Christian of the Jehovah’s Witness faith. Although I know the various denominations of Christian faith may disagree on specific teachings pertaining to Jesus Christ, I would like to believe we all come together on the important matter of creation! Unfortunately some have been lead astray from the faith and abandoned their belief that God created mankind. This material might help to further shed light on the improbability of life originating by chance. Below is an excerpt from the book CREATION (1985. Publisher: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York), in Chapter 4 "Could Life Originate by Chance?" (pp. 42-45; paragraphs 14-20; note – the word "Footnote" and brackets are added to footnote numbers in quotation for clarity; actual numbered footnotes are shown below quotation). This quoted text provides some interesting information on the topic of evolution: "Would an ‘Organic Soup’ Form? "(14) Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."[Footnote 10] Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: "Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis." This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be "the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists]."[Footnote 11] "(15) There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are "right-handed" and others are "left-handed." Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed! "(16) How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J. D. Bernal acknowledges: "It must be admitted that the explanation . . . still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain." He concluded: "We may never be able to explain it." [Footnote 12] "Probability and Spontaneous Proteins "(17) What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones-no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup? "(18) The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe! "(19) Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10^40,000! ‘An outrageously small probability,’ Hoyle asserts, ‘that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.’ He adds: ‘If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." [Footnote 13] "(20) However, the chances actually are far fewer than this ‘outrageously small’ figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: ‘Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.’" [Footnote 14]" Footnotes (p. 252; References Listed by Chapter): 11. Scientific American, ‘The Origin of Life,’ by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50. 12. The Origin of Life, by John D. Bernal, 1967, p. 144. 13. Evolution From Space, p. 24. 14. New Scientist, ‘Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,’ by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151. My apologies if there were any errors in reproducing this quotation. Precision

Response:

Address: http://christianityqa.com/christian-faith/chemistry-says-evolution-impossible-920802.html

Christianity QA

Questions & Answers about Christianity