New theory on how life begins throws out need for God

Talk about whatever!

New theory on how life begins throws out need for God

Postby Michaels153 » March 7th, 2016, 11:42 am

http://www.independent.co.uk. by Andrew Griffin
"How life emerged from non-life has been a central question puzzling scientists and theologists." The real question scientists should be puzzled with is could life emerge from non-life. Instead, the scientists have accepted as fact, the premise that Life did begin from non-life (and they are not referring to the Biblical account of God creating Adam and Eve.)
"A new theory could answer the question on how life began-and throw out the need for God. We begin with a new theory, and then state that this new theory “COULD”….throw out the need for God.
A writer on the website of Richard Dawkins' Foundation says that the theory has put God "on the
ropes" (wishful thinking on the part of Atheists) and has "terrified" (?) Christians. This “new theory” has not terrified Christians. It may have produced a few chuckles. It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup (Alexander Oparin, J.B.S. Haldane. This theory was replaced in 2010, see Wiley- Blackwell, “New research rejects 80-year (And there goes another tenet of the Evolutionists, that over time, through trial and error [you can substitute “by accident or luck”]
theory of ‘primordial soup’ as the origin of life. – http://www.sciencedaily.com)and a bolt of lightning). Instead, Life itself came about by necessity-it follows from the Laws of Nature, and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill. The problem for scientists attempting to understand how living beings -which tend to be far better at taking energy from the environment and dissipating it as heat- could come about from non-living ones.
But a new theory proposed by a researcher at MIT and first reported in Quanta magazine, proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy. The emergence of life might not be the luck of atoms arranging themselves in the right way it says, but an inevitable event if the conditions are correct.
"You start with a clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant. “England said. (Okay, so now this new theory is proposing a variant form of Photosynthesis that is minus the seeds, soil, water, and the production of Carbohydrates from Carbon Dioxide. No sunlight required. No assist from Chlorophyll. Just find a flat surface like a parking lot space, place the beverage warmer somewhere on it. Plug the beverage warmer into an extension cord. Turn on the beverage warmer. Take the flashlight. Attach it to a Tripod. Fasten it so that it is fixed over the beverage warmer. Make sure the flashlight has the batteries in it and turn the flashlight on. Stand back, and wait for the emergence of the plant. It would probably be a good idea to have a camcorder next to the beverage warmer to record the emergence of the plant. And just sit back and wait for true science to produce this “inevitable event.”) I am sure that this will result in a Nobel Prize for this research. Just think of the ramifications of this colossal research. Depleted Rain Forests can be returned to flourish with a Maglite and D batteries. And once sufficient research has been accomplished, science will be able to produce various vegetables by adjusting the angle of the flashlight on the beverage warmer. No more hunger anywhere!
Of course, this “theory”, begs the question of “Why are there deserts? Why doesn’t the Sun, (light source) focused on the desert, with more than a clump of atoms, transform those atoms into plants?
Paul Rosenberg, writing this week on Richard Dawkins’ site, said that the theory could make things “a whole lot worse for creationists”. (Not hardly)
As Rosenberg notes, the idea that life could have evolved from non-living things is one that has been held for some time, and was described by the pre-Socratic philosophers. But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research (Can’t wait to see this mathematical research!) and a proposal (Yes, a proposal that includes a beverage warmer, a flashlight, and a never ending supply of Eveready batteries) that can be put to the test. (Yes please put it to the test, maybe it won’t take 80 years for this theory to be replaced by another.
*Could it be that funding sources are drying up? Evolution “Theory” and “Climate Change” are not raking in the funds that it once did so that something new had to be invented with the potential to replace those lost funds?
Remember the Progressive Creed: "Take all the money you can. From all the people you can. In all the ways that you can. For as long as you can."

On Richard Dawkins website there is a section that updates you on his condition. I will save you the trouble of going to it and looking it up. His condition remains the same. He is still stupid.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2215
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: New theory on how life begins throws out need for God

Postby Michaels153 » March 7th, 2016, 11:07 pm

Here are some comments taken from the site of the article:
Dan Haines
This is really nonsense journalism. It makes a completely false step by implying that science only needs to explain the emergence of life to discredit the idea of god. Not at all so. In Western religions, God doesn't just create life, he creates the universe itself.
johnny_tremain
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.”
A statement that perfectly exemplifies the idiocy of evolutionism. Yes, as a Christian, I am simply "terrified" of such logic and reason.
AnalogReigns
Nothing but magic here. Not a scientific theory--that is based on observation--at all.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2215
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: New theory on how life begins throws out need for God

Postby Michaels153 » March 7th, 2016, 11:24 pm

There were a couple of things that really stood out and reminded me of the constant cycle of lies by liberals.
1) "As Rosenberg notes, the idea that life could have evolved from non-living things is one that has been held for some time, and was described by the pre-Socratic philosophers. But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin,"
They said that the ideas that Darwin proposed were not new either,"Others had made part of the argument,but nobody could work out convincingly how transformations in nature might take place." .
2) "You start with a clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant. “England said.
As absurd as that is, Darwin wrote: "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." (P. 155 of chapter VI - Difficulties on Theory).
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2215
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm


Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron