Ken wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:35 pm
The Miller-Urey experiment in which they generated amino acids and other organic precursors to life was conducted within liquid water (to simulate the earth's early oceans) and all life as we know it is based on liquid water.
the Miller-Urey experiment could only produce amino acids, which they called "the building blocks of life". To compare amino acids to a living organism that can extract energy from its environment and replicate itself, is like comparing a bag of nuts and bolts to a fully functioning 747 airplane, gassed up and ready to taxi. (But life is even more complicated than that.)
Plus, life could be based on silicon and not carbon, but we have not seen any evidence of this alternative form of life. No, it looks like Pasteur still reigns, and only life can create life.
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:35 pm
What actually happened is that geologists developed radiometric dating techniques in the 1920s and began to use long-half life isotopes (potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating) to estimate the age of old rocks and rock layers directly for the first time. As well as Carbon-14 dating to estimate the age of much more recent organic remains.
The fatal flaw with this type of radioactive dating is that it "assumes" that potassium/argon, uranium/lead and carbon14/carbon 12 - that these half lives do not change or decay in nature, but only in the fossils of dead animals. So they look at the amount of decay of these substances in the natural world, and compare it to the radioactive decay in a fossil, and if the fossil show more decay than in nature, they use the decay rate to determine the age of the fossil. If the fossil shows less decay than found in nature, it is discarded as an anomaly.
But their assumption is that these radioactive substances do not decay in nature, but somehow stay the same, but only start to decay once an animal dies and can no longer get exposed to these substances in Nature.
Why do these radioactive substances decay by their half lives in a fossil, but they do not decay in the rest of the world? What makes decay happen in one place, but not the other?
It would seem that the radioactive substance would not know whether it is in a fossil or not, or just located in a rock somewhere awaiting to be found.
A better explanation is that when these radioactive substances are mined and purified, that by putting the substances in close proximity to the same substance, that this is inflating the amount of radioactivity and making the whole dating process meaningless. But since radioactive dating makes the Earth really, really old, then these questions are never asked. Belief in this type of radioactive dating makes us have to follow the "scientific" agenda, that the Earth is really old, "God" doesn't exist, and man came from monkeys, you know, that kind of "science".
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:35 pm
Science isn't a belief system. It is an ever expanding body of knowledge that is constantly subject to change and revision in light of new information. If the theory of evolution by natural selection turns out not to be a true or accurate explanation for how life on earth changes. Then the scientists who manage to overturn it will be among the most famous names of the 21st century. Up there with Darwin, Newton, and Einstein. THAT is how science works.
When the Theory of Spontaneous Generation was discredited in the 1800's, the "scientific" community pressured Darwin to say that not only could birds in the same species have different beaks, but that they could "through natural selection" evolve into entirely new species. Darwin did not originally teach this, as there is a problem with creating a species with new chromosomes and creating a male and female of the new species at the same time by evolution from an older species. Everyone should know this is impossible, including Darwin.
Other men came up with theories similar to Darwin, but only evolution inside a species. But Darwin craved notoriety, and changed his theory to say evolution could create all new species to please these "scientists", and with this change he became one of the greatest "scientists" of all time.
One of the greatest dogmas of "Modern Science" is that God does not exist, and there is no intelligent design. If you challenge this dogma, you will be banished, just like Semmelweis.
Here is what Thomas Coons said about the limitations of "Modern Science""
"Modern Science is not an open minded inquiry into the truth. Rather, it is a "Professional Group" subject to sociological forces, that demands at any given time a shared model of reality, or "paradigm".
This "paradigm" is not just an idea, but what sets the limits of what you can investigate, how you can test it, how you publish it, and the way that the professional community expects you to follow a series of dogmas within that group.
When your research does not fit into this "paradigm", you are marginalized, dismissed and ignored."
I hold that "science" has only advanced in areas that cannot challenge atheism, like computers or physics (lasers, robotics, etc), yet it has made very little progress in biology because it cannot see beyond the material world to see the Creator of all biology.
"Science" is reductionist because it simplifies the complexities of the spiritual, or the world that cannot be seen, to fit inside a much simpler "material only" world view. Science believes that all creatures, including man are "mechanical", like a robot, and do not have a soul, or connection with a higher power or consciousness.
For this reason, "science" cannot explain something as simple as how a homing pigeon can find its nest. Or how an embryo can form the correct pattern for building the bones of a child in the womb. "Science" has no real theory for the reading of the DNA strand to create a new embryo. "Science" is limited by a materialist world view.
I believe the human body is just a holding place for the development of the spiritual man, that is set free when the body is no longer necessary. "Science" believes that when a man dies, he is dead forever, with no purpose, no soul, and no reason to endure this world, other than to satisfy his own animal pleasures.
This "materialist" view of "science" is what is holding back Humanity from advancing to the next level of spirituality.
"Modern Science's" idea of advancement is to put a chip in our brains and hook us all up to a computer like in the Matrix, or make us into a cybernetic organism. They know nothing about the power of a positive attitude, or the will to succeed, or how new ideas develop in men, or the source of inspiration that guides men to achieve great things. It was the inspiration of Man that made the advancements of "science" possible, and not random chance. Yet "science" knows nothing of the origin of inspiration, or how a man can write a beautiful piece of music, while a computer cannot.
"Science" is the problem behind materialism, and having a spiritual connection to the Creator is the answer.
Have a nice day, Ken. I appreciate our talks. You know quite a lot, and I have really had to work my brain to be able to talk to you about this.
John
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."