Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Mother of All Diamonds

Did life come from a primordial soup, or was it transported from somewhere else in space, or now the LATEST...

Diamonds May Have Jump-Started Life on Earth. Doesn't the term "mother of all diamonds" and doesn't suggesting someone is a "diamond in the rough" now take on new significance?

Comments/Questions:
1. This shows how determined natural man is to try to find ANY possibility ... in their quest to suppress or deny the truth.

2. And we get criticized for taking matters on the basis of faith? I quote "When primitive molecules landed on the surface of these hydrogenated diamonds in the atmosphere of early Earth, a few billion years ago, the resulting reaction may have been sufficient enough to generate more complex organic molecules that eventually gave rise to life, the researchers say."

3. Even if this was possible, it's another great step to show evidence it actually happened. (Not to mention explain the rise of intelligence, the origin and sustenance of laws, etc.)

4. "Hydrogenated diamond advances to the best of all possible origin-of-life platforms," the researchers contend." - To form this opinion, they first had to deny theistic presuppositions.

4. How many diamonds are there? How much time? Are they opening the possibility of "multiple" origins of life? Or, was this possibility so rare that it takes even "more faith" to trust it occured? And are various stages of life found having originated from diamonds exposed to hydrogen in the natural realm even today?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him nothing was made that has been made. IN HIM WAS LIFE, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." (John 1:1-5)


[By the way, it's great to be back from vacation and a Missions Trip outside the country where communications were voluntarily forfeited for a time in order to focus on the ministry]

13 comments:

  1. Great post! Glad to have you back in the saddle! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Swordbearer said: "Hydrogenated diamond advances to the best of all possible origin-of-life platforms," the researchers contend." - To form this opinion, they first had to deny theistic presuppositions."

    Science would be useless if scientists did not look for natural explanations rather than supernatural ones. It doesn't mean that they oppose Christianity, however. If we allowed ourselves to use gods as the explanation every time we didn't understand something, we wouldn't be able to learn anything about how the universe operates. We'd fill in every blank with "god," and we'd quit asking the questions that lead to new discoveries.

    ReplyDelete
  3. skeptimal said: "Science would be useless if scientists did not look for natural explanations rather than supernatural ones. It doesn't mean that they oppose Christianity, however..."

    Response:
    1. You must either be pulling my leg, or blind to the history and use of "origin of life" debates and attempts of discovery in presenting or trying to prove worldview positions.
    2. Surely you are not suggesting these scientists are simply or intentionally distinguishing between the first expression of life with no inference, deduction, relation or address at all to the source of life?
    3. Sure, "not opposing Christianity"...everyone can see how their methods and motives are completely independent of presuppositions, motives, etc., ........ NOT!!!!! (... & how the theory they espouse could fit perfectly consistent with the Christian postion...yawn).

    Note: I've not misunderstood your argument, I disagree that science (and particularly scientific theories) are belief and supposition free.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How about this for prophecy? :)

    Jer 2

    # 27 Who say to a tree, 'You are my father,' And to a stone, 'You gave me birth.' For they have turned their back to Me, And not their face ; ...

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Surely you are not suggesting these scientists are simply or intentionally distinguishing between the first expression of life with no inference, deduction, relation or address at all to the source of life?"

    I think they are theorizing a natural explanation for the first life on earth. If it were proven to be possible that life started this way, it would not disprove the existence of gods.

    As for "the theory they espouse could fit perfectly consistent with the Christian postion...,"
    are you suggesting that scientists should not theorize *anything* that disagrees with Christian dogma?

    "Note: I've not misunderstood your argument, I disagree that science (and particularly scientific theories) are belief and supposition free."

    There are always beliefs and assumptions, but scientists open their assumptions to testing or criticism. We all have a tendency to invest ourselves emotionally in our assumptions about life, but science will eventually yield if evidence is shown that a theory is disproven.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who said anything about astrology?

    The remarkable alignment of Man's perfidy with the predictions of God's word is far above the inventions of Man.

    See Romans 1 for even more insight.

    Man is so predictable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. skeptimal,

    ... but far more difficult to fit one's circumstances to the prediction ... that is, when the preditictions are of the number and magnitude (not to mention the preciseness) of Christ's (including his birth, death, burial, resurrection, fame, following, and power)!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "when the preditictions are of the number and magnitude (not to mention the preciseness) of Christ's (including his birth, death, burial, resurrection, fame, following, and power)!"

    Or...the authors made sure that Jesus' story fit the prophecies, which is more likely.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's right, because they had so much to gain; research grants, tenure, book deals...oh, wait...

    ReplyDelete
  10. "That's right, because they had so much to gain; research grants, tenure, book deals...oh, wait..."

    You raise a fair question, in that it is sometimes mystifying when people glorify religious figures. The Branch Davidians certainly didn't get rich (although they did get famous) for glorifying David Koresh. The Moonies sacrifice their daily lives for Reverand Moon so that he can keep them in legalized religious slavery. The Mormons traveled half way across the continent to honor the wishes of their leaders, and they even created a myth about seagulls eating locusts to amplify Brigham Young's image.

    Since several of the New Testament books reference the old prophecies, it was clearly important to the authors for their audience to believe Jesus fit the prophecies. And since those authors are our only history of Jesus, that makes them just a little suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  11. skeptimal said: "Or...the authors made sure that Jesus' story fit the prophecies, which is more likely."

    Response: Sure, they worked it it out so that he was born in Bethlehem. Sure, they worked it out where he died the type of death he did. Sure they worked it out where even today his gospel is forcefully advancing to the ends of the earth. Sure ;)

    ReplyDelete
  12. "There are always beliefs and assumptions, but scientists open their assumptions to testing or criticism. We all have a tendency to invest ourselves emotionally in our assumptions about life, but science will eventually yield if evidence is shown that a theory is disproven."

    Skeptimal,

    We have a huge problem here. You are correct when you state that "There are always beliefs and assumptions". But what is the foundation for these assumptions? It is true that "scientists open their assumptions to testing or criticism" (though those who reject evolution based on "evidence" are looked at as insane or stupid.)

    But what kind of testing or evidence should we consider? In a universe without God, we have no reason to assume the uniformity of nature, without which all inductive reasoning (including science) is worthless. We have no reason to believe that our minds have any connection with reality. They are merely "cosmic" accidents, firing off electricity in a random fashion. Thus any sort of evidence, or even this very conversation, becomes impossible.

    God is not be viewed as a subject of science, but rather as the precondition of science. Science is impossible (and irrational) without Him.

    See David Hume's Skepticism on Induction.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Puritan Lad said: "...In a universe without God, we have no reason to assume the uniformity of nature... We have no reason to believe that our minds have any connection with reality... They are merely "cosmic" accidents, firing off electricity in a random fashion. Thus any sort of evidence, or even this very conversation, becomes impossible."

    Puritan, what I understand you to be saying is that if Jehovah does not exist, we have no basis upon which to explore the world we live in. What I don't understand is how you reach that conclusion.

    I read through part of the Hume essay you linked to, and I skimmed the rest, and I don't see where he backs up that soaring leap either.

    It's true that we have only our senses, our reasoning, and our experiences to go by, and it's true that all of these things can mislead us. I don't see how this acknowledgement automatically leads to the existence of a specific god or to the existence of any gods.

    "God is not be viewed as a subject of science, but rather as the precondition of science. Science is impossible (and irrational) without Him."

    Your statement is a declaration of faith, which is fair enough. This is a Christian forum after all.

    ReplyDelete

Why I believe in baptizing babies (condensed version)

I grew up with the traditional Baptist view, typically referred to as " believers baptism ". It is theologically known as credobap...