When Kirk Cameron was asked to give his best shot at proving the existence of God, this is what he came up with,
"the fact that a painting proves there must be a painter, the human body proves there must be a designer"
The problem for Christians is this kind of argument can be too easily flatted.
To start, Why can't paintings paint themselves?
Simple, because they are made of chemicals that can't replicate themselves.
Living matter on the other hand does contain a chemical that can replicate itself. Even if god made DNA he does't need to intervene every time animals mate, the DNA does the job on its own.
So the real question is, How did DNA appear?
How did living matter come from none living sludge?
Here again Christians need to drop a common argument based on complete ignorance of scientific theory which is this:
"Scientists believe life just popped out of nowhere"
of cause that's not what scientists believe, life popping out of nowhere is no better a theory than life popping out of the hand of a deity.
So what do scientists believe about the origin of life? Lets take this step by step,
The first step involves looking at the primordial earth about 4.7 billion years ago, mostly wet, very warm and with an atmosphere composed of allsorts of gases,
Hydrogen, Hydrogen Cyanide, Methane and Ammonia among them.
DNA is just a long chain molecule made up of just four different types of nucleotide,
So the first question is, Where did the nucleotides come from?
And no there is no need to imagine that God sprinkled them on the Earth. They can form quite happily on there own,
In 1961, Joan Oró found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.
Conclusion: live can quite happily form on its own in the conditions that were around at that time.
How can we know this if we weren't there?
I suppose you could say the same for any field of science from the explosion of stars to the existence dinosaurs, to the eruption of an ancient volcano. The fact is we don't need to see events to understand what happened as long as the evidence is there, I can't prove that a bolt of lighting is the result of an electrical discharge even if I am looking at it, what I can say is that the origin of life has a natural explanation and in all cases of science we go with the natural explanation because if there is an natural explanation that fits all the evidence it makes more sense than an supernatural one with no evidence that relies on the intervention of unseeing and undetectable beings.
0 Comments | Add Comment | RSS
Submit to : Facebook | del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Windows Live | Yahoo
© Copyright2008 RandomBoo.com
