You Won’t Believe What’s Going On Inside of You

Bornagain, That's great! Thanks! Eugene S

Eugene it is in this video at the 2:40 mark;

The Case for a Creator (Chapter 3 of 10) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKoiivfe_mo

further notes: Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life 'problem' escalates dramatically over the commonly cited 1 in 10^40,000 odds for the origin of life when working from a thermodynamic perspective,:

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University)

Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number:

DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias) http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html

Also of interest is the information content that is derived in a cell when working from a thermodynamic perspective:

“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong 'The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica." Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894

of note: The 10^12 bits of information number for a bacterium is derived from entropic considerations, which is, due to the tightly integrated relationship between information and entropy, considered the most accurate measure of the transcendent quantum information/entanglement which is constraining (entangling?) a 'simple' life form to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium.

"Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ....The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental..." Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]

For calculations, from the thermodynamic perspective, please see the following site:

Moleular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: - Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz' deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/molecular.htm

Further comments:

The Theist holds the Intellectual High-Ground - March 2011 Excerpt: To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU) http://www.faithfulnews.com/contents/view_content2/49631/rabbi-moshe-averick-the-theist-holds-the-intellectual-high-ground-apologetics-christian-apologetics-defending-gospel Scientists Prove Again that Life is the Result of Intelligent Design - Rabbi Moshe Averick - August 2011 Excerpt: “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” - Dr. Lynn Margulis http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/

bornagain77

BA, I know you are an expert on video-clips. Could you point me to Jon Wells’ you-tube video where he shows that once a cell membrane is punctured, the cell dies regardless of all the other conditions favourable to life (basically a counter-abiogenesis demonstration). This was called something like “10 minutes proof of ID” if I remember rightly. I have seen it months ago but could not find. Thanks. Eugene S

"You Won’t Believe What’s Going On Inside of You" Indeed: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet Hillsong United - From The Inside Out (legendas em português) - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hWy2TRF31s bornagain77

The animation is incredible. "I shall laud you, for in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made." (Psalm 139) Barb

I suppose it is a truism but, really, it's not about science, metaphysics or religion. It's about simple, inerrant logic and the infantile, even at times, petulant, refusal of 'naturalists' to, as you indicate, Gil, follow the evidence where it leads. That's the real scandal, which future generations will ponder in appalled incredulity. We choose our assumptions with our hearts, which can be sensitive to the truth or blank it, often with great emotional intensity, as many of them do, since it is their world-view that is in the balance. Moral questions arising from the mismatch between the design of the penis and that of the anus could cause great anxiety, to not a few of the militant atheists in the 'naturalist' camp; hence the tendency to rage about scientific issues, relating to design. Axel

Cornelius, The fact that people with reasonable IQs -- who are familiar with contemporary man-made technology, and who are also familiar with the technology evident in living systems -- can accept the transparent fantasy that Darwinian mechanisms can produce such biological systems, is a testimony to the ability of some to abandon all reason, even when bludgeoned over the head with evidence and logic. The great irony is that those of us who follow the evidence where it leads are labeled enemies of science, when the real state of affairs is precisely the opposite. GilDodgen