In the evolutionary worldview, two theories of the origin of life have been presented as possibilities. The first is the Primordial Soup Theory, the idea that a bunch of chemicals accidentally ran together with just the right combination, and formed the first ever living cells. This theory, however, has run into dead ends for the following reasons:
......
The second theory that we are presented with is panspermia, the idea that life originated on another planet, and then was transferred to earth via meteorite. Again, this is a dead end because…
These are a few of the dead ends that naturalistic origin-of-life theories run into.
Now having watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I have been introduced to two new theories.
1.) Life’s basic building blocks formed on “crystals” and remained until there were enough to produce a cell. (Will some atheist please explain this in further detail?)
2.) A modification of panspermia, suggesting that highly evolved being from another planet seeded earth with early life.
The second theory was presented by none other than Richard Dawkins. Who would have thought that Dawkins was a proponent of intelligent design after all?
......
......
- The first life was far to complex to have simply put itself together.
- Life came into existence very quickly, after liquid water was formed.
- There is no evidence of a primordial soup, as all carbonaceous materials in the earth’s crust are postbiotic.
The second theory that we are presented with is panspermia, the idea that life originated on another planet, and then was transferred to earth via meteorite. Again, this is a dead end because…
- No living organism could survive such a trip.
- No sugars can be found on meteorites, which are a basic necessity for life.
- Even in the unlikely scenario that this could take place, the origin of life on that planet needs to be explained.
These are a few of the dead ends that naturalistic origin-of-life theories run into.
Now having watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I have been introduced to two new theories.
1.) Life’s basic building blocks formed on “crystals” and remained until there were enough to produce a cell. (Will some atheist please explain this in further detail?)
2.) A modification of panspermia, suggesting that highly evolved being from another planet seeded earth with early life.
The second theory was presented by none other than Richard Dawkins. Who would have thought that Dawkins was a proponent of intelligent design after all?
......
I also saw the movie yesterday. It seems that Darwinism is really a faith-based religion. It starts with the premise of their religion, which is no intelligent being or designer is behind the universe. This is premise is based on their faith alone as they cannot account for the origin of the universe, or the origin of life. They categorically deny a supreme being as even being a possibility because it would destroy their religious belief. I think this movie has done a good job of exposing this fact. As you say even Dawkins admitted that he has no clue on how life began and yet would accept aliens seeding life on earth as a possibility, as long as they themselves were a product of evolution. This of course only transfers the problem of life coming from non-life from earth to another planet somewhere. I was stunned that this man, who has duped so many, would make such a statement.
ReplyDeleteJust as Christians celebrate Easter and Christmas, atheists celebrate Darwin Day. However, Darwin’s bones are lying in grave!
DuckPhup,
ReplyDeleteWow! Somehow in your mocking and making fun of Christians, you failed to acknowledge that many intelligent people including many scientists believe the Christian message that a creator was behind the creation of life from non-life. You did not even offer an answer to that ultimate question. Also, it seems you must believe that something came from nothing without a cause, whereas Christians believe that a supreme being (an uncaused cause) was the reason matter came into being.
Apparently you believe in a different kind of magic. Your magic is nonsense.
Not to mention thatnNaturalism has no explanatory of predictive power, as David Hume pointed out long ago. Science cannot even explain itself without God.
ReplyDeleteSee Can Naturalism justify the preconditions of science?
BTW Duckphup, Stein makes no "pseudo scientific" arguments in the movie. It was not intended to be a scientific movie. Instead, he focused on the philosophical bias that exists on the North American Scientific establishment, one that even evolutionists should be disturbed over.