A secular scientist who attempted to explain the origins of life has made a bold admission that bolsters arguments against Darwinian evolution. Jack Szostak of Harvard University published a 2016 paper in Nature Chemistry claiming he and his colleagues had figured out a way to get RNA to replicate itself.
Darwinian evolutionists believe RNA, a nucleic acid present in all living cells, were some of the first molecules to form on the Earth and give rise to living things. But for that to happen, the RNA would have had to somehow reproduce on its own without requisite enzymes that would not have evolved yet. Szostak claimed to have facilitated RNA self-replication in his lab, but earlier this month, he said one of his colleagues, Tivoli Olsen, realized they had misinterpreted the data when she could not reproduce the original experiment‚Äôs results.
‚ÄúIn retrospect, we were totally blinded by our...
Norm from Minnesota writes: No one would look at any device we have today and exclaim, "isn't it amazing that this just happened into existence." They know there were many people involved in designing and building it. Yet these same people will look at a universe that is infinitely more complex and make that very statement.
Yes, and isn't it interesting how nature is balanced just perfectly in order to support life. Move some ratios just a degree to the left or to the right, and you habe mass extinction, or no life to begin with. That puddle of bubbling soup sure was smart...
No one would look at any device we have today and exclaim, "isn't it amazing that this just happened into existence." They know there were many people involved in designing and building it. Yet these same people will look at a universe that is infinitely more complex and make that very statement.
& I- raised in a " church" that taught Evilution as true-- But His Light came to open blind "eyes" "Darwin admitted that millions of ‚Äėmissing links,‚Äô transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species.Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated.‚ÄĚ Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God ‚ÄúThere are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist...denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin‚Äôs theory and the fossil record are in conflict.‚ÄĚ David Berlinsky
‚ÄúScientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.‚ÄĚ Time mag, Nov. 7, 1977 Still! ‚Äúevolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing"Chesterton
Christopher000 wrote: Amazing to me that some of the brightest minds on planet earth support and fight for evolutionary, big bang, soup...spark...life, nonsense. Another good question is why don't we see primates evolving into men still today. They can say it takes billions of years, but even so, we should still be witness to evolution going on all around us, on some level, at any given moment.
Thanks Chris, your entire comment was excellent. I look at it this way:
1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Christopher000 wrote: evolving into men still today
"One blood" Acts 17:26 vs Darwin's " favored races"
Some have wondered, if we are all descendents of Adam & Eve, why are there so many races? The Bible informed us 2,000 years ago that God has made all nations from ‚Äúone blood.‚ÄĚ We are all of the same race‚ÄĒthe ‚Äúhuman race,‚ÄĚ descendents of Adam&Eve, something science is slowly coming to realize. Reuters news service reported the following article by Maggie Fox: Science may have caught up with the Bible, which says that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans alive today. Peter Underhill of Stanford University in California remarked on findings published in the November 2000 issue of the journal Nature Genetics...Geneticists have long agreed there is no genetic basis to race‚ÄĒonly to ethnic and geographic groups. ‚ÄúPeople look at a very conspicuous trait like skin color and they say, ‚ÄėWell, this person‚Äôs so different‚Äô...but that‚Äôs only skin deep,‚ÄĚ Underhill said. ‚ÄúWhen you look at the level of the Y chromosome you find that, gee, there is very little difference between them. And skin color differences are strictly a consequence of climate.‚ÄĚ
Always a valid, and key argument, Frank...makes no sense, whatsoever. The intricacies and complexities of life, seen and unseen, how everything functions as a whole, as well as the fine tuned balances needed for life, whether biological, or the physics and laws of nature, all scream loud and crystal clear that there was a mind behind it all. Amazing to me that some of the brightest minds on planet earth support and fight for evolutionary, big bang, soup...spark...life, nonsense. Another good question is why don't we see primates evolving into men still today. They can say it takes billions of years, but even so, we should still be witness to evolution going on all around us, on some level, at any given moment.
Frank wrote: ..No one will dare even postulate and answer to this reproduction necessity. Otherwise there could be no reproduction of the species. And this impossible process had to replicate itself to accommodate the millions of species that reproduce in our world!
& Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?) &
Natural selection only works with existing information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
Mutations are always deletions of code and diminish genetic choices by limiting code or damaging previous good information - how does throwing rocks at computers make a cell phone??
Can it b possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Simply ask evolutionists the following question(s). They say that there was some sort of matter that formed itself and this matter was struck by a bolt of energy. Now when this occurred, it caused a cell to form. This cell then decided to multiply and create the beginning of a human. Irreducible complexity would then necessitate that this cell formed a complete human that suddenly had life. Irreducible complexity is simply the thought that a heart cannot exist without all of the other major organs existing at the same time. If someone takes a major organ away, then all the other organs will die. Now even a scientist will say the odds against a cell multiplying in nature is so little that it is statistically impossible.
Now this cell growth that resulted randomly from nature then had to replicate what took place to create the opposite sex. Now why would anyone believe that this random evolutionary process would then start all over again to produce the necessary sexual organs to reproduce. No one will dare even postulate and answer to this reproduction necessity. Otherwise there could be no reproduction of the species. And this impossible process had to replicate itself to accommodate the millions of species that reproduce in our world!
Which evolved first (how,&how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find & eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body‚Äôs resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?
Evolution News wrote: Twenty years ago, biochemist Michael Behe sparked a revolution with his book, Darwin‚Äôs Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, which went on to sell 300,000 copies. Today, a growing number of scientists embrace some or all of intelligent design theory, while many of the rest feel the sting of Behe‚Äôs challenge and wish they could answer him.
Now, learn the story of the beginning of the intelligent design movement and the ongoing debate between Darwin‚Äôs theory and design in the documentary Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines ‚Äď available for free online! Find it at [URL=https://revolutionarybehe.com/]]]https://revolutionarybehe.com/[/URL]
--[URL=http://tinyurl.com/ybc2tzmh]]]http://tinyurl.com/ybc2tzmh (Celebrating Michael Behe‚Äôs Intelligent Design Revolution, Documentary Is Now Free Online!)[/URL]
‚Äúcheck and double check our interpretations of data. This applies to all points of view on the origins spectrum.‚ÄĚ 2Peter 3:3‚Äď8 tells us that people who scoff at the Bible are ‚Äúwillingly ignorant‚ÄĚ of the Creation &the Flood. In order to understand science &the Bible, we must not be ignorant of those two great events in Earth‚Äôs history. Over 500 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis account. Noah‚Äôs ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a ‚Äúbarge‚ÄĚ shape, not a pointed ‚Äúboat‚ÄĚ shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts and sails to catch the wind. Noah‚Äôs ark needed neither of those and therefore had far less torsional stress. .. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest. Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and polystrata fossils are best explained by a Flood.