Over at the WWGHA Science Forums, a Moderator has been posting some stuff from creationist "journals" for me to debunk. Let's see how I did:
Why Abiogenesis is Impossible By Jerry Bergman
"If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means."
This is ridiculous. We need fossil "missing links" of molecules that lead to life? Those would surely not be preserved. Secondly, what about the virus? I would argue that it is a living transitional between life and nonlife, because it has some characteristics of life (a genetic code, the ability to reproduce) but cannot reproduce outside of the cell.
Secondly, this organism does not have to come together all at once, not by a long shot. Current theories of abiogenesis posit that a simple replicating molecule was formed, and then through mutation and selection evolved into life. Such replicators have been produced in the laboratory.
Thirdly, the first replicator need not be autotrophic. It need only be something that can stay around long enough to make a few copies of itself. Besides, evidence indicates that the ocean was a several percent solution of organic materials. The first organisms would have almost certainly fed off of that, and would therefore not have to eat other organisms or produce their own food from sunlight as organisms do now.
For more, please see:
A Mechanism for Accelarated Radioactive Decay
Kaluza-Klein theory, originally proposed in 1921 to 1926, has been described as a miraculous synthesis of Einstein’s gravitation theory with Maxwell’s equations of electricity and magnetism. In an approach which anticipated modern string theory, Kaluza and Klein added a fifth dimension of space to the three familiar spatial dimensions and one time dimension. The extension of Einstein’s theory to this fifth dimension then led naturally to Maxwell’s equations. The theory also naturally leads to a relation between the constant G of Newton’s law of gravitation and the fine structure constant a = e2/hc. This relation depends on the circumference of the compactified fifth dimension, so that variation in this circumference over the history of the universe could be viewed as variation in physical constants, such as the fine structure constant. If, during early creation week, say before the creation of man, such variations were to occur, they could lead to accelerated nuclear decay, thus adjusting isotopic abundances, without giving humans an unacceptable dose of radiation.
"If, during early creation week, say before the creation of man, such variations were to occur, they could lead to accelerated nuclear decay, thus adjusting isotopic abundances, without giving humans an unacceptable dose of radiation."
And we always hear that evolutionists engage in wil speculation. ; )
First of all, creationists believe that the geologic column, since it contains fossils (of course), came after the fall of man (when death supposedly entered the world). So why would radiometric dates of millions of years appear long after the alleged creation, after these alleged variances occured? Secondly, geologists use something known as the principle of superposition. It states that all layers of the geologic column were originally layed down horizontally, with the older on the bottom and the younger at the top. Why would radiometric dating agee with this if it was wrong?