Cook the primeval soup for billions of years and Voila!

Well thanks Domoman but I don't care for the way you treat what you call "evolutionists." I am an "evolutionist" and so were all my sources. I think what you should have said was "Darwinian, chance worshipping, mutation intoxicated, natural selection happy, evolutionists," evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, Paul Zachary Myers, Wesley Elsberry and Allen MacNeill. I have left out all the dead ones of which there have been thousands. They are all, living and dead, homozygous at the atheist/Darwinian locus and there is absolutely nothing that can be done for them. It is as simple as that! I love it so! P.S. I notice you have pluralized planets. Which other planet did you have in mind where you think there is life? JohnADavison

Speaking further JohnADavison: I think that if the universe has the set properties to create life when such-and-such chemicals combine it is a clear sign of intelligence. So even if life could arise by "chance" it could only do so because the universe was created with that ability. That is, even if a specific protein could arise randomly when specific amino acids are randomly put into specific patterns, this would show that life's whole ability to function is literally built into the universe, and more specifically, in a code like fashion. If that's not design, I don't know what is! If life's function is not literally built into the universe that means that organic matter cannot arise by such-and-such chemicals combining. That means that for any life to arise its organic compounds/molecules must be programmed to function. But for something to be programmed the logical conclusion is that it must be programmed by an intelligent agent. Honestly to me it seems that Intelligent Design wins hands down. Whether or not life could evolve into what it is today is another question. But as far as first life is concerned, I see ID as the clear winner. Another probing question which evolutionists cannot seem to answer is this: why does life have the ability to see, hear, feel, taste, smell etc. at all? Now, I'm not asking HOW life could have evolved these functions, but rather WHY COULD LIFE HAVE EVOLVED THESE FUNCTIONS AT ALL? It could be that the organic compounds within life did not allow for the development of eyes, ears, tongues, touch-sensitive nerves etc., but life can. What about emotions? It could be that organic compounds could not have had the capacity to be happy, sad, angry, jealous, selfish, etc. but life can. Such things as these, from a philosophical stand point at least, I find very confirming as grounds for an intelligent agent behind life. To make this idea clear I'll present an analogy: imagine yourself stumbling upon a computer game in which you are allowed to fly through space and visit planets. Furthermore, you find that on certain planets complex creatures (such as those on Earth) arise and form from chemical reactions on these planets. Would you ever suggest that these creatures are the result of a glitch rather than careful and skillful programming by the video game's creators? Of course not! Even if the absolute outcome of these creatures was not predetermined (at least absolutely anyway) there would still need to be, built into the program, the properties and functions which allow any sort of complex life to evolve. Life on these planets could not evolve eyes and see, ears and hear etc. if the programmers did not build the program with that function. Sure, the program could glitch, but it would not create any real meaningful functions for the creatures in the game. (Besides, if our real universe got to glitch like any sort of program does, we would be, in all likelihood, wiped out in an instant.) Hope that made sense, and I'll see you around, Domoman Domoman

JohnADavison, Thanks for your response, man! That was quite lengthy, but I enjoyed what you had to say and wish you best of luck in your studies! Your views as well as Leo Berg's I find very interesting. :) Domoman

Hey Skeech, I got the quote you wanted. From an interview with Stephen C. Meyer by Lee Strobel (a former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune): Lee Strobel: "I hear scientists talk a lot about this prebiotic soup. How much evidence is there that it actually existed?" Stephen C. Meyer: "That's a very interesting issue. The answer is there isn't any evidence." Strobel: "What do you mean, 'there isn't any'?" Meyer: "If this prebiotic soup had really existed it would have been rich in amino acids. Therefore, there would have been a lot of nitrogen, because amino acids are nitrogenous. So when we examine the earliest sediments of the Earth, we should find large deposits of nitrogen-rich minerals." Strobel: "What have scientists found?" Meyer: Those deposit have never been located. In fact, Jim Brooks wrote in 1985 that 'the nitrogen content of early organic matter is relatively low - just .015 percent.' He said in Origins of Life: 'From this we can be reasonably certain that there never was any substantial amount of 'primitive soup' on Earth when pre-Cambrian sediments were formed; if such a soup ever existed it was only for a brief period of time.'" Domoman

I have exposed the censorship being displayed here on my weblog on the "Why Banishment? thread. Uncommon Descent has once again proven to be a bitter disappointment to this evolutionist. jadavison.wordpress.com JohnADavison

Why have my comments not been approved? Are they abusive, are they without merit? Surely there must be a reason. I can assure the authors of any thread where I have submitted a comment that remains under moderation for what I regard as an excessive period of time, that I will evaluate that policy wherever I am still allowed to comment without the restraints of delayed "moderation." I have no intention of abandoning this opportunity to speak at Uncommon Descent. If my comments fail to appear in a timely manner it will be interpreted to be censorship. JohnADavison

I see that my lengthy response to the excellent question posed specifically to me by Domoman is still "awaiting moderation." I hope Domoman does not get the mistaken impression that I am unwilling to respond. JohnADavison

Domoman That is an excellent question (#11). All I can do is give you my opinion. I do not believe that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to become alive even once. If that were possible I believe it would have been demonstrated in the laboratory long ago. I also, with Einstein, do not believe that chance has played a major role in any aspect of biology or cosmology generally. I realize that some think that we will be able one day to manufacture living, evolving organisms. I am not one of them. I further believe that there were at least two Creators, one malevolent, the other benevolent. As those who are familiar with my sources are aware, I regard Leo Berg as the greatest student of phylogeny of all time. I have predicted that one day we will be speaking of Bergian rather than Darwinian evolution. He never mentioned God and interpreted the natural world with complete objectivity free from any ideological restraints. This is what he offered with respect to the question of origins. "Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically." Nomogenesis, page 406. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record at variance with this conclusion and as far as I am concerned he may be correct. He also offered this conviction with respect to the origins of both ontogeny and phylogeny. "Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance." Nomogenesis, page 134 It is no wonder that Stephen J. Gould, Ernst Mayr, William Provine, Richard Dawkins all have ignored the greatest Russian biologist of his day. I believe only Mayr even listed him in his Bibliography, only to make no mention of him in the text. That omission constitutes a cynical slur on the science of the most revered biologist that Russia ever produced. Julian Huxley dismissed Berg's evolution with a footnote in his "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis." page 491. There is more biological science in any one chapter of Nomogenesis than in all the collected writings of the five Darwinians I listed above. The complete title of Berg's only evolutionary text is "Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law." Apparently Berg felt that the appearance of life was an inevitable result of entirely natural laws. I do not share that conviction. I can't imagine the laws that would make that result inevitable even once. I know of no such laws and I dare say neither does anyone else. Accordingly I remain a nonsectarian Creationist with a capital C, a position I believe I share with Albert Einstein. "Everything is determnined... by forces over which we have no control." I hope this serves as a partial answewr to the question you have posed. JohnADavison

Not to derail this thread, but skeech, Mack G has responded to you on the "No Conceptual Leaps" thread. feebish

BTW Skeech, you said,

Yes, we Darwinists are not only amoral, atheistic, chance-worshipping puppy beaters; we’re also soup Nazis.

To clarify, in case this was aimed at myself: I do not believe that believing in Darwinism automatically makes you amoral; atheistic; a puppy beater; or a soup Nazi (lol yay Seinfeld!). If I've made that impression I've either a) accidently misstated myself or b) been misunderstood. I might hold that Darwinists rely too much on chance however, whatever that would be correctly called. Domoman

JohnADavison, You said,

One thing remains certain. Chance could never have played a role in either event. “Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.” Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.

Would you think this means that, at least from a materialist perspective, that only some sort of Natural Law could explain the formation of first-life? (Not to say I'm a materialist, which I'm not. But I'm interested in seeing what materialists see as an alternative to chance.) Domoman

Hey Skeech, I can get you the quote if you want. I'm at school right now and don't have the book on me, but if I remember I'll be sure to get it to you. Domoman

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-nature/message/42 This source summarizes the conflict that once consumed the discussion of the origin of life. We had the neptunists who favored an aquatic environment and the vulcanists who preferred a volcanic environment. More recently we have seen these views revived. George Wald, Nobel laureate, proposed what he called the "Organic Soup Hypothesis." Sidney Fox took the opposing or Vulcanist position when he demonstrated that heating a dry mixture of amino acids could result in the dehydration synthesis of protein chains, some of which demonstrated enzyme activity. Fox called these "proteinoids." I was a faculty member at Florida State University when Sidney called us into his laboratory to see his spherical "proteinoids" under the microscope. You can imagine the excitement as some of the spherical proteinoids had assumed a dumbell form and seemed to be dividing! Of course neither of these opposing models has proven to be of much help in understanding the origin or origins of life which still remain the great mysteries of both ontogeny and phylogeny. The simple truth is that no one has the foggiest idea of how life arose or sunsequently evolved. One thing remains certain. Chance could never have played a role in either event. "Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance." Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134. JohnADavison

How long was the cooking time again, I want to get that right! One million years, 10 Billion years, 10 Trillion years? Can anyone help me out here? I don't want to overcook my primeval soup. It's so funny how he uses ID in a weak sense to get to the soup though. "You see the house, you check if the light is on, and then you can check if there is anyone cooking some soup!" WOW sxussd13

Yes, we Darwinists are not only amoral, atheistic, chance-worshipping puppy beaters; we're also soup Nazis. Domoman, do you know what evidence Meyer adduces in support of his claim? skeech plus

Stephen C. Meyer, in an interview, actually suggested there is very, very little evidence of there ever being a primeval/primordial soup. Don't doubt the "The Soup" though, that would be scientific blasphemy. xD Domoman

I know of no reputable scientist of note who would DEMAND the elimination of the supernatural from his analysis of the world around him. While there may be no evidence for supernatural intervention at present does not mean that was always the case. First causes are like that. They are not to be denied. Richard P. Feynman, often touted as an atheist, once compared scientific discovery to a religious experience, thereby exposing his religiosity for all to see. JohnADavison

As long as it doesn't resort to God or any other supernatural phenomenon, it is science. No facts or statistically believable theories required. Just give it "deep time". Same goes for the origin of a life friendly universe. Physical characteristics life-friendly yet astronomically unlikely? Well....there are billions and billions of universes. "That's not nearly enough". Okay, how about a universe for every atom in this universe? "Not enough". Okay, then multiply all of those universes by the number of atoms in the universe again. "Not enough. Tell you what, do that a couple more times, and I think we're getting somewhere". Alright! Science is FUN! uoflcard

Something's gonna crawl out of that stuff, right? Now that's science! GilDodgen

The notion of spontaneous generation (abiogenesis) was laid to rest first by Redi in the 17th century, next by Spallanzani in the 18th and finally, one would think, by Pasteur in the 19th, yet it keeps on surviving in defiance of the testimony of the experimental laboratory. It is hard to believe isn't it? Not at all. It is the only conceivable posture for mentalities hamstrung at conception, not only blind but also, like nearly all pure white cats, stone deaf to what Einstein called "the music of the spheres." They really can't help it. They were "born that way." JohnADavison

"amino acids are the building blocks of SUGARS and proteins and things" Good one Alan. idnet.com.au