A natural origin of life is impossible: Uncontrolled processes produce uncontrolled results

[Pastor Tim S]

Would you like a concise summary why a natural origin of life is impossible? Uncontrolled processes produce uncontrolled results. That is it. This principle applied to a natural setting is sufficient to prevent abiogenesis, which is the scientific name for the origin of life. The appearance of life would require very specific chemicals to appear in a very specific sequence in association with very specific other molecules. This requires tight process control.

In a pre-life setting, there are generally two assumed potential sources of energy to transform original, naturally occurring chemicals into new ones: lightning sparks and ultra-violet sunlight energy. Both of these are uncontrolled forms of energy. There is no means for sparks or UV light to provide the exact chemicals needed at the exact time and place needed for life to appear through purely natural processes. Therefore, they can't. End of discussion.

I discuss this in a short, under four minute YouTube video at

.

There are several other similar videos on a new YouTube channel I just started called 4min-cs. Although this video is a concise summary, the supporting analysis underlying it is extensive. It summarizes an article I co-authored with Dr. George Matzko, the now-retired chairman of the science department at Bob Jones University. The article is available online free at https://osf.io/p5nw3. This is geared to the professional scientist. Most on this board will probably find it difficult to understand. However, you might find it profitable to look at it and realize the depth to which the issue has been studied. The title of this post actually summarizes the thesis of the article and its contents. Conversely, the article gives exhaustive evidence in support of the validity of the title.

If natural processes cannot create life, then general evolutionary theory is moot. It is irrelevant. Once God is acknowledged as Creator, there is no reason to postulate large-scale, macroevolution. These five words, uncontrolled processes produce uncontrolled results, destroy the foundational concepts of evolutionary theory.

I am a Baptist pastor with a degree in physics from UCLA. I have studied these issues for many decades.

If you have opportunity to view the YouTube video and like it, it would help me if you could subscribe to the channel. Just click on a subscribe button on a YouTube page. This allows me to get higher ranking in search results.

 

[Yeshua1]

Would you like a concise summary why a natural origin of life is impossible? Uncontrolled processes produce uncontrolled results. That is it. This principle applied to a natural setting is sufficient to prevent abiogenesis, which is the scientific name for the origin of life. The appearance of life would require very specific chemicals to appear in a very specific sequence in association with very specific other molecules. This requires tight process control.

In a pre-life setting, there are generally two assumed potential sources of energy to transform original, naturally occurring chemicals into new ones: lightning sparks and ultra-violet sunlight energy. Both of these are uncontrolled forms of energy. There is no means for sparks or UV light to provide the exact chemicals needed at the exact time and place needed for life to appear through purely natural processes. Therefore, they can't. End of discussion.

I discuss this in a short, under four minute YouTube video at

.

There are several other similar videos on a new YouTube channel I just started called 4min-cs. Although this video is a concise summary, the supporting analysis underlying it is extensive. It summarizes an article I co-authored with Dr. George Matzko, the now-retired chairman of the science department at Bob Jones University. The article is available online free at https://osf.io/p5nw3. This is geared to the professional scientist. Most on this board will probably find it difficult to understand. However, you might find it profitable to look at it and realize the depth to which the issue has been studied. The title of this post actually summarizes the thesis of the article and its contents. Conversely, the article gives exhaustive evidence in support of the validity of the title.

If natural processes cannot create life, then general evolutionary theory is moot. It is irrelevant. Once God is acknowledged as Creator, there is no reason to postulate large-scale, macroevolution. These five words, uncontrolled processes produce uncontrolled results, destroy the foundational concepts of evolutionary theory.

I am a Baptist pastor with a degree in physics from UCLA. I have studied these issues for many decades.

If you have opportunity to view the YouTube video and like it, it would help me if you could subscribe to the channel. Just click on a subscribe button on a YouTube page. This allows me to get higher ranking in search results.

The fact that the Unverse itself has to have so many principles and rules that govern it have to be exactly right to even support any type of life is itself powerful evidence that God as its Creator exists!
Everything was built in just exactly right to have life originate and be sustained, but outside agency!

 

[Brad H.]

When demonstrating that God is, I like to use the acronym "IS" for this. It's two very simple steps. First the "I" stands for Infinite. It is easy to show that the universe which is finite had to have had an infinite source. The "S" stands for Sentient. It is very easy to show that the universe was formed by a sentient source since only things displaying engineering have been observed coming from a sentient source and never unguided processes. Then I simply ask what term do we assign to an infinite sentient source of the universe? This method eliminates bickering over abiogenesis and cuts straight to the meat of the issue.

You start by pointing out that we have never observed something form from nothing. That the universe is something and is easily demonstrated to be finite. The math of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicted that the universe had a beginning. This prediction was physically confirmed in 1929 by Astronomer Edwin Hubble when he observed the expansion of the universe. The fact that the universe had a beginning means that something with greater power must have produced it. This source must have always existed because if ever nothing existed then nothing would still exist. So we have just easily demonstrated that the universe must have an infinite source.

Next you ask the key question. Is there anything we observe in the universe that suggests that this infinite source is sentient in nature? In other words can we tell if the universe was engineered? Note that I will intentionally avoid the use of buzz words such as intelligent, design, and creation. These are flag words that will often shut down an atheist before you even get to discuss any facts. I save those words for later in the discussion. They often ask how do you “scientifically” detect engineering? I will point to other sciences that are trying to detect engineering. For example an archaeologist looks for recognizable design features that distinguishes an artifact from a natural occurring object. Likewise marine biologists who study dolphins look for specific sound patterns that correlate with certain behaviors which would tell them that the dolphins are actually communicating with an intelligent language. Even SETI astronomer Jill Tarter says they are looking for narrow band radio signals coming from deep space which would have to be engineered. Many atheists like to argue that we have only observed human intelligence and therefore would not be able to scientifically detect intelligence from a being like God. To this I point out that dolphins and extra terrestrials are not human and scientists don’t seem to think this is an issue. I point out that the common factor in anything that was engineered is that we the observers are able to tell that it was formed for a specific intent or purpose. They will want to drag you down the “complexity” bunny trail but don’t let them. We are not talking about things that are complex but rather things that are engineered. For example the pattern of a snowflake appears to be very ordered and complex but it doesn’t do anything. However a house key which is far less ordered and complex than a snowflake unlocks the door to only one house. We observe that it was formed for a purpose.

Now we have laid the ground work to point to things in the universe which display intention and purpose. If we can observe things like this we can conclude that the infinite source of the universe must also be sentient in nature. I point to things like the way our solar system is perfectly situated in a clear safe zone rather than one of our milky way’s chaotic spiral arms. The way our sun is quite small to the majority of the stars we observe and yet it’s the perfect size and temperature to support life. The way our distance from the sun happens to be in what scientists themselves even call the “Goldilocks” region. They tell us if we were any closer we would become a barren desert, any further and we would be a big ice ball. They tell us our moon is the perfect size and distance from earth to stabilize our 23 degree axis tilt with the sun. This is what creates the four seasons which is necessary for there to even be a food chain which is required for life. Our solar systems gas giants like Saturn and Jupiter are perfectly set in the outer rim protecting us from rogue meteors and comets which could otherwise swing in and destroy us. Scientists tell us if you were to just remove Jupiter from its current orbit that the impact rate of meteors on earth would increase by a thousand times its current rate. Our planets magnetic field acts like a force field that deflects solar wind which otherwise would have long since stripped away our atmosphere and destroyed all life. We live on the only known solid surface planet that has a circulating liquid iron core that generates this field. Our planet has the perfect mixture of nitrogen and oxygen in its atmosphere to support life. We have the perfect land to water mass ratio for life. Even plate tectonics is important for life here. There are hundreds of conditions like these all working together in unison like a well calibrated machine, all needed to exist at the perfect parameters, the exact locations, and the exact time just for life to be possible. Famous Nobel Prize winning Astrophysicist Arno Penzias once commented on this. “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe with the perfect conditions to support life. One with what you might call a supernatural plan.”

Likewise even physicists tell us that the laws of physics are all perfectly fine tuned to allow for life. Forces like electromagnetic force, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, excitation of nuclei, temperature, and speed of light are all set at the exact parameters needed. If any of these factors were out of proportion even slightly then none of the elements (especially carbon so necessary for life) could even exist. Famous astrophysicist Georg Elis even commented once and said, “Amazing fine tuning occurs in all the laws that makes this possible.” He added that he, “finds it difficult not to use the word miraculous when describing their complexity.”

The thing that I think points to engineering most of all is the code found in the DNA of all living things. A code that warps our most sophisticated computer software programs by comparison. I see it as one brother puts it, “The Author’s signature in the cell.”

At this we have shown the universe has an infinite source and that source must be sentient. In other words we have proven that God “IS.”

Blessings
Brad

 

[Phillip Diller]

When demonstrating that God is, I like to use the acronym "IS" for this. It's two very simple steps. First the "I" stands for Infinite. It is easy to show that the universe which is finite had to have had an infinite source. The "S" stands for Sentient. It is very easy to show that the universe was formed by a sentient source since only things displaying engineering have been observed coming from a sentient source and never unguided processes. Then I simply ask what term do we assign to an infinite sentient source of the universe? This method eliminates bickering over abiogenesis and cuts straight to the meat of the issue.

You start by pointing out that we have never observed something form from nothing. That the universe is something and is easily demonstrated to be finite. The math of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicted that the universe had a beginning. This prediction was physically confirmed in 1929 by Astronomer Edwin Hubble when he observed the expansion of the universe. The fact that the universe had a beginning means that something with greater power must have produced it. This source must have always existed because if ever nothing existed then nothing would still exist. So we have just easily demonstrated that the universe must have an infinite source.

Next you ask the key question. Is there anything we observe in the universe that suggests that this infinite source is sentient in nature? In other words can we tell if the universe was engineered? Note that I will intentionally avoid the use of buzz words such as intelligent, design, and creation. These are flag words that will often shut down an atheist before you even get to discuss any facts. I save those words for later in the discussion. They often ask how do you “scientifically” detect engineering? I will point to other sciences that are trying to detect engineering. For example an archaeologist looks for recognizable design features that distinguishes an artifact from a natural occurring object. Likewise marine biologists who study dolphins look for specific sound patterns that correlate with certain behaviors which would tell them that the dolphins are actually communicating with an intelligent language. Even SETI astronomer Jill Tarter says they are looking for narrow band radio signals coming from deep space which would have to be engineered. Many atheists like to argue that we have only observed human intelligence and therefore would not be able to scientifically detect intelligence from a being like God. To this I point out that dolphins and extra terrestrials are not human and scientists don’t seem to think this is an issue. I point out that the common factor in anything that was engineered is that we the observers are able to tell that it was formed for a specific intent or purpose. They will want to drag you down the “complexity” bunny trail but don’t let them. We are not talking about things that are complex but rather things that are engineered. For example the pattern of a snowflake appears to be very ordered and complex but it doesn’t do anything. However a house key which is far less ordered and complex than a snowflake unlocks the door to only one house. We observe that it was formed for a purpose.

Now we have laid the ground work to point to things in the universe which display intention and purpose. If we can observe things like this we can conclude that the infinite source of the universe must also be sentient in nature. I point to things like the way our solar system is perfectly situated in a clear safe zone rather than one of our milky way’s chaotic spiral arms. The way our sun is quite small to the majority of the stars we observe and yet it’s the perfect size and temperature to support life. The way our distance from the sun happens to be in what scientists themselves even call the “Goldilocks” region. They tell us if we were any closer we would become a barren desert, any further and we would be a big ice ball. They tell us our moon is the perfect size and distance from earth to stabilize our 23 degree axis tilt with the sun. This is what creates the four seasons which is necessary for there to even be a food chain which is required for life. Our solar systems gas giants like Saturn and Jupiter are perfectly set in the outer rim protecting us from rogue meteors and comets which could otherwise swing in and destroy us. Scientists tell us if you were to just remove Jupiter from its current orbit that the impact rate of meteors on earth would increase by a thousand times its current rate. Our planets magnetic field acts like a force field that deflects solar wind which otherwise would have long since stripped away our atmosphere and destroyed all life. We live on the only known solid surface planet that has a circulating liquid iron core that generates this field. Our planet has the perfect mixture of nitrogen and oxygen in its atmosphere to support life. We have the perfect land to water mass ratio for life. Even plate tectonics is important for life here. There are hundreds of conditions like these all working together in unison like a well calibrated machine, all needed to exist at the perfect parameters, the exact locations, and the exact time just for life to be possible. Famous Nobel Prize winning Astrophysicist Arno Penzias once commented on this. “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe with the perfect conditions to support life. One with what you might call a supernatural plan.”

Likewise even physicists tell us that the laws of physics are all perfectly fine tuned to allow for life. Forces like electromagnetic force, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, excitation of nuclei, temperature, and speed of light are all set at the exact parameters needed. If any of these factors were out of proportion even slightly then none of the elements (especially carbon so necessary for life) could even exist. Famous astrophysicist Georg Elis even commented once and said, “Amazing fine tuning occurs in all the laws that makes this possible.” He added that he, “finds it difficult not to use the word miraculous when describing their complexity.”

The thing that I think points to engineering most of all is the code found in the DNA of all living things. A code that warps our most sophisticated computer software programs by comparison. I see it as one brother puts it, “The Author’s signature in the cell.”

At this we have shown the universe has an infinite source and that source must be sentient. In other words we have proven that God “IS.”

Blessings
Brad

Surely you are referring to Stephen Meyer's book - the one book in my library of Creation Science materials that I don't loan out. One point that evolutionists love to ignore is that the coding regions of DNA primarily contain information on how to synthesize proteins. The problem for abiogenesis is that that information can only be read by proteins. DNA without proteins is like having a library without anyone who can read. Proteins without DNA cannot replicate. And I have yet to hear any evolutionist give a coherent explanation of how DNA came to contain coded information for that synthesis by gradual, random modifications. As Dr. Whitcomb used to say, "Random changes to highly ordered systems can only produce disintegration and collapse". You can't improve the text of your favorite book by randomly changing letters in it. And the idea that given enough time and anything will happen is self-deception. The human genome is about 3 billion nucleotides long and very specific. Even by evolutionary time scales there is no way that DNA could have formed by any random process, even if all the matter in the universe existed in the forms of the four bases, right-handed 5-carbon sugars and phosphates. The mathematical probabilities of just getting 100 left-handed alpha amino acids to bond in the correct order, using only peptide bonds, is a nightmare scenario. Real science does not support abiogenesis and evolution. It did not happen!

 

[church mouse guy]

The complexity of DNA makes Darwin scientifically impossible based on the mathematics of it all: 20 amino acids in a strand of 250 molecues arranged just so or 20 to the 250th power.

 

[Brad H.]

Surely you are referring to Stephen Meyer's book - the one book in my library of Creation Science materials that I don't loan out. One point that evolutionists love to ignore is that the coding regions of DNA primarily contain information on how to synthesize proteins. The problem for abiogenesis is that that information can only be read by proteins. DNA without proteins is like having a library without anyone who can read. Proteins without DNA cannot replicate. And I have yet to hear any evolutionist give a coherent explanation of how DNA came to contain coded information for that synthesis by gradual, random modifications. As Dr. Whitcomb used to say, "Random changes to highly ordered systems can only produce disintegration and collapse". You can't improve the text of your favorite book by randomly changing letters in it. And the idea that given enough time and anything will happen is self-deception. The human genome is about 3 billion nucleotides long and very specific. Even by evolutionary time scales there is no way that DNA could have formed by any random process, even if all the matter in the universe existed in the forms of the four bases, right-handed 5-carbon sugars and phosphates. The mathematical probabilities of just getting 100 left-handed alpha amino acids to bond in the correct order, using only peptide bonds, is a nightmare scenario. Real science does not support abiogenesis and evolution. It did not happen!

Yes absolutely. I am referring to his book "Signature in the Cell." I have conversed with a lot of evolutionists and they usually try to get around the abiogenesis problem by simply ignoring it. What they will say is evolution is true and therefore abiogenesis must have happened even if we haven't yet figured out how. So I usually don't even try to start by discussing abiogenesis with them. It leads to a circular argument. I will start with demanding evidence for evolution aka UCD. There are only two places that we can look, the fossils or the lab, and if we don't see the evidence there then we can work our way back to abiogenesis. You have to be careful and spend most of the time to show them that similarity arguments are not evidence. Creation theory expects similarity among the various organisms so similarity is polysemic evidence and useless in this discussion. However once you have eliminated similarity from the discussion all they can do is stare like a deer in the headlights because they have nothing else. Nothing!


In the rocks we need at least one finely graduated chain between any two major forms (not every link but just no sudden jumps requiring a leap of imagination) or in the lab we need at least one example of OBSERVEDDDD new genetic information being added to the genome of a MULTI-celled organism which gives it an advantage over its previous relatives. You have to stress the words “observed” and “multi” celled because they will try and tell you about a fish in the artic that developed antifreeze blood when its cousin elsewhere doesn’t, or a single celled organism that developed the ability to metabolize a new food group in the lab. Things like the fish were not observed under a controlled environment where it was known that none of the population possessed the trait. Also I won’t allow single cell experiments because most single celled organisms have a type of DNA called plasmids that almost no multi celled organisms have. This DNA has been shown to give them a very unique ability to alter their DNA under stressed conditions such as being starved for food. It’s almost as though they were “designed” with the knowledge that they had no ability to migrate to a new location like multi celled life can. If they wine too much about your rejection of single celled experiments I usually retort by saying, " Your the one claiming there is all this evidence for evolution, so surely you can come up with at least one example in a multi celled organism to satisfy a skeptic like me?


Once you have established these criteria (which are logical and reasonable) you will see even PhDs struggle to no avail.

Blessings
Brad

 

[Brad H.]

The complexity of DNA makes Darwin scientifically impossible based on the mathematics of it all: 20 amino acids in a strand of 250 molecues arranged just so or 20 to the 250th power.

I fully agree with your sentiments however we have to be oh so careful with our wording when conversing with evolutionists. That’s because they aren’t looking for the truth but rather a loop hole in your argument. They will grab an innocently used word like “complexity” and wreak havoc with it. They will point out that any random number is in and of itself complex. For example, if you roll ten dice one at a time, the number you randomly come up with on all ten in that exact order is so specific that the odds of rolling that exact number in that order is astronomical. And yet you rolled it on the very first try. Their logic is sound and they are correct.

The problem is that we are not talking about “complexity” really. What we are actually talking about is “specificity.” Dembski was so close when he coined the term Complex Specified Information. Had he just left the word “complex” out of it, he would have nailed it. Evolutionists will only focus on that word complex and never address specificity at all. If you were to rephrase your statement to say that DNA is much too specified for Darwinian evolution to be possible, then you will leave the evolutionist with nothing to do except to try and twist the meaning of specified. The actual meaning is anything in which an observer can see was formed for a particular purpose. Sometimes evolutionists are so spring loaded that even when you don’t use the word complexity but rather use specificity, they will go off on a rant about complexity. I wait until they are finished and then just ask “where did I say complex anywhere?”

You see, it doesn’t matter how complex a string of letters are from dropping marbles on a keyboard. They might be complex however they have no purpose. Likewise a snowflake under a microscope looks far more complex than a house key, yet the snowflake’s pattern doesn’t do anything while the house key is specifically formed to open my front door. It is true that we see things with complexity form naturally in nature all the time. However what we have never observed, not once in the entire history of humanity, is something with a particular purpose form by random processes. DNA code demonstrates incredible specificity and engineering. Something that requires an immense Intellect to form.

Blessings
Brad

 

[church mouse guy]

I fully agree with your sentiments however we have to be oh so careful with our wording when conversing with evolutionists. That’s because they aren’t looking for the truth but rather a loop hole in your argument. They will grab an innocently used word like “complexity” and wreak havoc with it. They will point out that any random number is in and of itself complex. For example, if you roll ten dice one at a time, the number you randomly come up with on all ten in that exact order is so specific that the odds of rolling that exact number in that order is astronomical. And yet you rolled it on the very first try. Their logic is sound and they are correct.

The problem is that we are not talking about “complexity” really. What we are actually talking about is “specificity.” Dembski was so close when he coined the term Complex Specified Information. Had he just left the word “complex” out of it, he would have nailed it. Evolutionists will only focus on that word complex and never address specificity at all. If you were to rephrase your statement to say that DNA is much too specified for Darwinian evolution to be possible, then you will leave the evolutionist with nothing to do except to try and twist the meaning of specified. The actual meaning is anything in which an observer can see was formed for a particular purpose. Sometimes evolutionists are so spring loaded that even when you don’t use the word complexity but rather use specificity, they will go off on a rant about complexity. I wait until they are finished and then just ask “where did I say complex anywhere?”

You see, it doesn’t matter how complex a string of letters are from dropping marbles on a keyboard. They might be complex however they have no purpose. Likewise a snowflake under a microscope looks far more complex than a house key, yet the snowflake’s pattern doesn’t do anything while the house key is specifically formed to open my front door. It is true that we see things with complexity form naturally in nature all the time. However what we have never observed, not once in the entire history of humanity, is something with a particular purpose form by random processes. DNA code demonstrates incredible specificity and engineering. Something that requires an immense Intellect to form.

Blessings
Brad

I'll tell you what. If you want to debate over the word complexity, read this article, Giving Up Darwin - Claremont Review of Books

Darwin believed that the cell was simple. DNA proved him wrong once and for all. The opposite of simple is complex so I guess that people would want to argue words more than schoolboy mathematics about how DNA is constructed and how it has to be just so.

 

[Brad H.]

duplicate

 

[Brad H.]

I'll tell you what. If you want to debate over the word complexity, read this article, Giving Up Darwin - Claremont Review of Books

Darwin believed that the cell was simple. DNA proved him wrong once and for all. The opposite of simple is complex so I guess that people would want to argue words more than schoolboy mathematics about how DNA is constructed and how it has to be just so.

I think it was with you that I ran into this problem before. You seem to mistake my comments as if I were against you. I am completely in agreement with you. I have no desire to "debate over the word complexity" with you or anyone. I am telling you this as a friend and someone who has debated with evolutionists for over fifteen years now. They will snare you in your wording if you aren't careful. If you don't care I don't care. I was just trying to help you push the conversation past all the bunny trails and into the more meaningful discussion. Pardon me so sorry. Carry on

 

[just-want-peace]

Basically, it factors down to "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE, or HAVE FAITH IN"!
The Evos love to claim that "creationists have no proof", ergo they win!!
Well, as a creationist, I freely admit that I have NO PROOF, but, as a Christian/creationist, I have the WORD that tells the only needed explanation - - - "HE SAID- - " and this is the faith that they scream is foolish.
As noted from many sources, THEY have NO PROOF either, so we are both looking at the same "evidence" but coming to different conclusions. Ergo they are no different in this respect than the creationist - 'cept their faith is in evolution vs the creationist's faith is in God.
BOTH are faith, tho' only we admit it.
They will learn better in the future, hopefully prior to their demise!!

 

[church mouse guy]

Basically, it factors down to "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE, or HAVE FAITH IN"!
The Evos love to claim that "creationists have no proof", ergo they win!!
Well, as a creationist, I freely admit that I have NO PROOF, but, as a Christian/creationist, I have the WORD that tells the only needed explanation - - - "HE SAID- - " and this is the faith that they scream is foolish.
As noted from many sources, THEY have NO PROOF either, so we are both looking at the same "evidence" but coming to different conclusions. Ergo they are no different in this respect than the creationist - 'cept their faith is in evolution vs the creationist's faith is in God.
BOTH are faith, tho' only we admit it.
They will learn better in the future, hopefully prior to their demise!!

In May of last year we got mathematical proof from DNA that evolution is impossible. Evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible.

 

[church mouse guy]

I think it was with you that I ran into this problem before. You seem to mistake my comments as if I were against you. I am completely in agreement with you. I have no desire to "debate over the word complexity" with you or anyone. I am telling you this as a friend and someone who has debated with evolutionists for over fifteen years now. They will snare you in your wording if you aren't careful. If you don't care I don't care. I was just trying to help you push the conversation past all the bunny trails and into the more meaningful discussion. Pardon me so sorry. Carry on

I think Darwin called it the simple cell. Darwin was a white supremacist, as you know.

 

[Yeshua1]

I fully agree with your sentiments however we have to be oh so careful with our wording when conversing with evolutionists. That’s because they aren’t looking for the truth but rather a loop hole in your argument. They will grab an innocently used word like “complexity” and wreak havoc with it. They will point out that any random number is in and of itself complex. For example, if you roll ten dice one at a time, the number you randomly come up with on all ten in that exact order is so specific that the odds of rolling that exact number in that order is astronomical. And yet you rolled it on the very first try. Their logic is sound and they are correct.

The problem is that we are not talking about “complexity” really. What we are actually talking about is “specificity.” Dembski was so close when he coined the term Complex Specified Information. Had he just left the word “complex” out of it, he would have nailed it. Evolutionists will only focus on that word complex and never address specificity at all. If you were to rephrase your statement to say that DNA is much too specified for Darwinian evolution to be possible, then you will leave the evolutionist with nothing to do except to try and twist the meaning of specified. The actual meaning is anything in which an observer can see was formed for a particular purpose. Sometimes evolutionists are so spring loaded that even when you don’t use the word complexity but rather use specificity, they will go off on a rant about complexity. I wait until they are finished and then just ask “where did I say complex anywhere?”

You see, it doesn’t matter how complex a string of letters are from dropping marbles on a keyboard. They might be complex however they have no purpose. Likewise a snowflake under a microscope looks far more complex than a house key, yet the snowflake’s pattern doesn’t do anything while the house key is specifically formed to open my front door. It is true that we see things with complexity form naturally in nature all the time. However what we have never observed, not once in the entire history of humanity, is something with a particular purpose form by random processes. DNA code demonstrates incredible specificity and engineering. Something that requires an immense Intellect to form.

Blessings
Brad

Assuming that life could ever originate from natural means, which it cannot, how can they explain the mathematical formula of just how fine tuned laws of Physics were at time of creation to even allow for life to exist itself?

 

[Phillip Diller]

One of the explanations they like to use is the multi-verse scenario, claiming that there are an infinite number of unseen parallel universes, each with random values for the various forces that are at work, and ours just happens to be the one where all of those values just happen to be right for the formation of life. It is, of course, science fiction. They are, however, willing to believe anything rather than face the truth - real science does not support abiogenesis or Darwinian evolution.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I fully agree with your sentiments however we have to be oh so careful with our wording when conversing with evolutionists. That’s because they aren’t looking for the truth but rather a loop hole in your argument. They will grab an innocently used word like “complexity” and wreak havoc with it. They will point out that any random number is in and of itself complex. For example, if you roll ten dice one at a time, the number you randomly come up with on all ten in that exact order is so specific that the odds of rolling that exact number in that order is astronomical. And yet you rolled it on the very first try. Their logic is sound and they are correct.

The problem is that we are not talking about “complexity” really. What we are actually talking about is “specificity.” Dembski was so close when he coined the term Complex Specified Information. Had he just left the word “complex” out of it, he would have nailed it. Evolutionists will only focus on that word complex and never address specificity at all. If you were to rephrase your statement to say that DNA is much too specified for Darwinian evolution to be possible, then you will leave the evolutionist with nothing to do except to try and twist the meaning of specified. The actual meaning is anything in which an observer can see was formed for a particular purpose. Sometimes evolutionists are so spring loaded that even when you don’t use the word complexity but rather use specificity, they will go off on a rant about complexity. I wait until they are finished and then just ask “where did I say complex anywhere?”

You see, it doesn’t matter how complex a string of letters are from dropping marbles on a keyboard. They might be complex however they have no purpose. Likewise a snowflake under a microscope looks far more complex than a house key, yet the snowflake’s pattern doesn’t do anything while the house key is specifically formed to open my front door. It is true that we see things with complexity form naturally in nature all the time. However what we have never observed, not once in the entire history of humanity, is something with a particular purpose form by random processes. DNA code demonstrates incredible specificity and engineering. Something that requires an immense Intellect to form.

Blessings
Brad

I appreciate your input and insight, and admire the extent of your patience.

I understand what you are getting at, yet cannot see how the word complex should be omitted, as simple specified information would surely not meet any criteria suitable for the discussion. Adding complex nails it. The very fact that anyone seizes on complex insisting on ignoring specified is indication enough that truth is far from their goal.

As for the ten dice example, their logic is completely lacking, as your own explanation points out. The sequence must first be specified to be of any significance, at which point theirs fails at once. But further to the point, and of far more import, in the first, second, third, and fourth place, etc., though not in that order, there must be dice, the right kind and number, they must be thrown, and someone must throw them. Their logic is nothing of the sort.

 

[Gold Dragon]

If natural processes cannot create life, then general evolutionary theory is moot. It is irrelevant. Once God is acknowledged as Creator, there is no reason to postulate large-scale, macroevolution. These five words, uncontrolled processes produce uncontrolled results, destroy the foundational concepts of evolutionary theory.

I am a Baptist pastor with a degree in physics from UCLA. I have studied these issues for many decades.

As someone who subscribes to theistic evolution, I would say the evidence and theories for abiogenesis are poor and unconvincing. But it is good that you acknowledge that abiogenesis is a separate concept from evolution which explains the origin of species, not the origin of life. Evolution assumes that life already existed.

I would say even if abiogenesis is impossible, it does not make evolution moot. The reason I believe evolution to be true is because of the overwhelming genetic and biological data that confirms it as the best way to understand species. Maybe we will get better data in the future suggesting another theory (like how Einsteinian gravity expanded on Newtonian). But until then it is the best we have.

I would also say even if abiogenesis were a well substantiated scientific theory, God would still be the creator and originator of abiogenesis. Scientific theories do not and can not disprove that God was the creator of that scientific mechanism. It also does not disprove genesis either which tells us that God created life but not the scientific mechanism that he used to do that. Yes he spoke it. But what did that speech look like? It could have looked like abiogenesis. Just like "let there be light" could look like an expanding universe from a single point of very high energy.

But in terms of the uncontrolled processes statement, are you talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Because we know entropy can decrease in an isolated system when energy is put into it. I'm sure you have heard the example of the structure of a snowflake as an example of order occuring randomly in nature. Is this what you are referring to?

 

[church mouse guy]

Talk about Darwin's racism.