IF evolution is true,

You are responding to an argument that I didn't make.

You claimed that evolution doesn't explain the transition from non-life. My response was that that many evolutionists (secular humanists) promote the idea of a "priordial soup" which brought about through chance happening the constituents elements of life along with another chance happening (the "primordial spark"), or the subsequent coming together of chemical processes and phenomena which collaboratively ignited the life process at precisely the right window of time, again by chance.

Now I know a TE perhaps does not subscribe to the time and chance alone theory but you didn't qualify it as a TE statement.
</font>[/QUOTE]Hank

I was just trying to show, with a little humor, that the evolutionist primordial soup was ridiculous.

 

OH, OK. Throw in the Big Bang with a little of it's resultant "invisible matter" (perhaps an invisible onion) into the soup for good measure.

HankD

 

Yes they may all be wrong.
I base my primary "interpretation" on the Hebrew.

Most English Bibles (even some of the non-Traditional text types) hearken back to their roots in the Wycliff and Tyndale English Bibles transmitting favorite words down through the centuries.

They could also be wrong for today because of Elizabethan/Jacobean definitions differing from modern (21st century) English.

The Middle English word "marrow" could and did include all foods not just bone "marrow".

HankD

 

Okay, that makes your interpretation more plausible. I've added that to my file.

I still haven't seen a verse that shows animal death started with sin, though.

 

True, or one that states that they did die before Adam sinned.

HankD

 

"OH, OK. Throw in the Big Bang with a little of it's resultant "invisible matter" (perhaps an invisible onion) into the soup for good measure."

Is there a problem with dark matter? The observational evidence for it is fairly solid. Let's see.

One way to directly measure the mass of an object is by examining what is known as an Einstein ring. This hapens when a foreground object lies directly in line with a background object such that it acts as a gravitational lens. The background object gets distorted into a ring shaped appearance. The size and shape of the ring allows for a direct measurement of the mass of the foreground object. As it turns out, when galaxies act as a lens, the calulated mass is greater than the observed mass.

In example two, stars rotate about the center of their galaxy according to set laws of motion. However, if you examine that orbital velocites of the stars, they indicate that there is much more mass present that what is visible.

Example three is similar. Whole groups of galaxies can be examined to check how they orbit one another. Again the velocites show that there is much more mass there than what is visible.

In all three cases, the observations show that there is about five times as much unseen matter as there is visible matter. I am not sure why you would even make a derisive comment about dark matter unless you just doubt everything.

As far as the other, I am not sure that anyone seriously speculates on a primordial goo. Do you know of any who do? In any case, that is abiogenesis and not evolution.

 

No, except that I choose not to believe it exists

Here is a blurb written mostly in the layman’s terms for those who want to know:

“The VLT Weighs the Invisible Matter in the Universe”

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=3201

I thought it was a humorous comment following another statement of humor from another poster. The phrase “invisible matter” is an oxymoron (“a combination of contradictory or incongruous words”) and I used it an ironic fashion with my statement concerning the “invisible onion” (which are matter but are usually visible).

However I admit that the value judgment you passed upon my comment may be correct although I’m not going to detract it.

Please define “everything”

I never said it was evolution. I indicated that it was prebiotic when I said that some believed that it supplied the “constituent elements” for evolution.

HankD

 

There are some on this forum who are confused about what evolution teaches about the origin of life. The following summary may be instructive.

Source:http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_files/Martin_&_Russell.pdf

On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the
evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to
chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes
to nucleated cells.

William Martin[1] and Michael J. Russell[2]

1Institut fu¨ r Botanik III, Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Du¨ sseldorf, Universita¨tsstrasse 1, 40225 Du¨ sseldorf, Germany
2Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, Rankine Avenue, East Kilbride,
Glasgow G75 0QF, UK ([email protected])

All life is organized as cells. Physical compartmentation from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, hence inorganic matter with such attributes would be life’s most likely forebear. We propose that life evolved in structured iron monosulphide precipitates in a seepage site hydrothermal mound at a redox, pH and temperature gradient between sulphide-rich hydrothermal fluid and iron(II)-containing waters of the Hadean ocean floor. The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes. The known capability of FeS and NiS to catalyse the synthesis of the acetyl-methylsulphide from carbon monoxide and methylsulphide, constituents of hydrothermal fluid, indicates that pre-biotic syntheses occurred at the inner surfaces of these metal-sulphide-walled compartments, which furthermore restrained reacted products from diffusion into the ocean, providing sufficient concentrations of reactants to forge the transition from geochemistry to biochemistry. The chemistry of what is known as the RNA-world could have taken place within these naturally forming, catalyticwalled compartments to give rise to replicating systems. Sufficient concentrations of precursors to support replication would have been synthesized in situ geochemically and biogeochemically, with FeS (and NiS) centres playing the central catalytic role. The universal ancestor we infer was not a free-living cell, but rather was confined to the naturally chemiosmotic, FeS compartments within which the synthesis of its constituents occurred. The first free-living cells are suggested to have been eubacterial and archaebacterial chemoautotrophs that emerged more than 3.8 Gyr ago from their inorganic confines. We propose that the emergence of these prokaryotic lineages from inorganic confines occurred independently, facilitated by the independent origins of membrane-lipid biosynthesis: isoprenoid ether membranes in the archaebacterial and fatty acid ester membranes in the eubacterial lineage. The eukaryotes, all of which are ancestrally heterotrophs and possess eubacterial lipids, are suggested to have arisen ca. 2 Gyr ago through symbiosis involving an autotrophic archaebacterial host and a heterotrophic eubacterial symbiont, the common ancestor of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. The attributes shared by all prokaryotes are viewed as inheritances from their confined universal ancestor. The attributes that distinguish eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet are uniform within the groups, are viewed as relics of their phase of differentiation after divergence from the non-free-living universal ancestor and before the origin of the free-living chemoautotrophic lifestyle. The attributes shared by eukaryotes with eubacteria and archaebacteria, respectively, are viewed as inheritances via symbiosis. The attributes unique to eukaryotes are viewed as inventions specific to their lineage. The origin of the eukaryotic endomembrane system and nuclear membrane are suggested to be the fortuitous result of the expression of genes for eubacterial membrane lipid synthesis by an archaebacterial genetic apparatus in a compartment that was not fully prepared to accommodate such compounds, resulting in vesicles of eubacterial lipids that accumulated in the cytosol around their site of synthesis. Under these premises, the most ancient divide in the living world is that between eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet the steepest evolutionary grade is that between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

 

Does that stuff above sound like PRIMORDIAL SOUP?

 

OH, OK. Throw in the Big Bang with a little of it's resultant "invisible matter" (perhaps an invisible onion) into the soup for good measure.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]If I throw onion in it is going to be a great big Vidalia, perhaps two or three, and a little, no a lot, of garlic also.

 

OH, OK. Throw in the Big Bang with a little of it's resultant "invisible matter" (perhaps an invisible onion) into the soup for good measure.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]If I throw onion in it is going to be a great big Vidalia, perhaps two or three, and a little, no a lot, of garlic also. </font>[/QUOTE]That onion and garlic might result in a big bang!!

 

Here's a match for you OR!


C====

 

I believe the altitude is getting to you MP.

 

Hi jdcanady,

No rush, but did you get a chance to consider my response from June 20?

 

No response on my post of EVOLUTION from non life to life from the evolutionists? Strange!

Of course the atheistic philosophy of evolution states that all that is came from WHERE? They can't agree.

Perhaps they are Googling.

 

I haven't responded because I do not understand the point of the post.

You initially posted this in response to me asking about someone trying to support the idea that anyone suggests that there was a primordial goo covering the early planet that gave rise to life. Since this has nothing to do with a primordial goo and instead talks about how small precipitates of iron could have catalyzed early reations on the road from none-life to life, I was confused about the direction you were taking and thus chose not to respond hoping it would later become clear.

But since you posted it, maybe you can tell us what you meant. It does not support the goo thing that you guys were asserting.

Worse, it provides a possible path for the abiogenesis which you seem to think is not possible. Perhaps you could critique the material for us and point out the factual flaws that the peer reviewers missed.

Of course maybe one day you will tell us just what entropy is supposed to prevent from happening regarding evolution, too.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2994/3.html#000033

 

UTEOTW

I never suggested primordial goo, except in a humorous manner, at least to me but perhaps not to evolutionists. It is a fact that some evolutionists talked about primordial goo in the past. Someone even passed a spark through it band proclaimed: let there be life.

I believe it was you who stated that life from nonlife was not evolutionary theory but abiogenesis. I made the post simply to show that the term evolution is used to describe the process by which life developed from nonlife.

As far as entropy and evolution I told you, you did not believe it, that is your problem. Other people have stated it far better than I but you don't believe them either. Why beat a dead horse?

 

The (or a) Singularity (The beginning and the end if you will). And you are correct they don't know where "Singularity" came from or indeed even had an origin.

"Singularity" is also the quasi-religious philosophy behind the "science" of Big-Bang, Primordial Soup and the Evolution of The Species, their creators are the gods of secular humanism.

http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Singularity

It is the elan vital of Henri Bergson's Creative Evolution, a mormonesque view of man evolving toward the ultimate, the universe become aware of itself.

http://www.ru.org/elan.htm#taylor

Some Singularity/Elan Vital Hollywood slogans:
"life will find a way", "the force be with you".

HankD

 

Personally, I explained exactly what I meant documenting the explanation from those who created the theory/theories of the Primordial Soup and it's relationship to the process of the Evolution of the Species.

HankD

 

"I believe it was you who stated that life from nonlife was not evolutionary theory but abiogenesis. I made the post simply to show that the term evolution is used to describe the process by which life developed from nonlife."

The question becomes "What is life?" Abiogenesis is the transition from non-living to living and evolution is how life diversified once it got started. There, of course, should be a fuzzy area in between where you are not sure how to define things. You also have bolded some things that everyone would agree is life, such as the transition from bacteria like cells to cells like plants and animals which adds further to the confusion.

But the point remains that you are presenting a paper that shows a possible path for something which you say is not possible. I just don't get it.

"As far as entropy and evolution I told you , you did not believe it, that is your peoblem. Other people have stated it far better than I but you don't believe them either. Why beat a dead horse?"

Because the key point of your post was trying to tie the entropy of information together as being the same as the entropy of thermodynamics. I showed that you key source for trying to do this actually says the opposite. Your key source actually says "The point is that information 'entropy' in all of its myriad nonphysicochemical forms as a measure of information or abstract communication has no relevance to the evaluation of thermodynamic entropy change in the movement of macro objects because such information 'entropy' does not deal with microparticles whose perturbations are related to temperature." Quoting a reference to your source there.

That denies the whole basis for your assertion.

In addition, no one every seems to be able to point to anything specific that entropy prevent. It is all handwaving and assertions but nothing concrete.