Alan McDougall

THe bible says " ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of truth" I agree no scientist know how life came to be out of the mass/energy of nature into living things|?Rock- to- life Abiogenesis has not been answered? Scientist cant even agree on what life is, or give a definition of it, yetclaim to have the answer to know how Abiogenesis happened by natural biologicalprocesses

Explain such short statements are meaningless?

Explain why? Moving objects influence the expansion of space. First the objects resist change intheir state of motion. This resistance is due to interaction of space with massand not due to action at distance of masses out there in the universe. The energy used up to overcome this inertia is used up in increasing the mass of the object. Once an object is set in motion, the expansion of space in front of the object slows producing slowing of time. While behind the moving object the expansion of space increases producing a faster time .

PARALLEL UNIVERSES: CAN THEY EXIST? http://leminuteur.fr...r/Universes.htm 58% of physicists (including Stephen Hawking) think multiple universes exist 18% (including Roger Penrose) do not accept this theory 13% admit the possibility, but remain unconvinced and 11 % have no opinion. Contrary to what you might expect, Sliders is actually based on real science. Indeed, the idea of parallel worlds may seem on the face of it to be pure fantasy, but for many scientists, it is much more than mere science-fiction. Einstein's theory of relativity predicted the existence of " black holes", a hypothesis which has since been verified. These cosmic phenomena arise from the death of a star, after it collapses in on itself under the force of its own gravity. Inside a black hole, gravity is so intense that even light cannot escape the gravitational field (hence the name black hole). Albert Einstein and another physicist by the name of Nathan Rosen posited that each black hole would symmetrically on another gravitational well called a white hole (or sometimes also white fountain). The black hole/white hole pair would form a "wormhole", or vortex (the interdimensional passage used by the Sliders, called an Einstein-Rosen Bridge). Thus, any matter swallowed up by the black hole would be quickly spat out by the white hole, in an unknown location... This could be either a distant point in the universe, in which case the wormhole would act as a shortcut through space and time. Alternatively, it could be a parallel universe, in which case it would act as a bridge between the different dimensions. The second hypothesis could explain the total absense of antimatter in the universe as we know it. According to the universe's governing principle of symmetry, there must be equal amounts of matter and antimatter. However, we have failed to discover the slightest trace of the latter, although we have succeeded in producing it artificially (at the CERN laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland in 1995, and in other particle accelerators). The existence of parallel universes could explain the lack of antimatter in our world. In parallel dimensions, then, there could be objects similar to the planets and stars we are familiar with in our own, but constructed of antimatter (this is one of the most recent theories, after the principles of dissymetry, and of the annihilation frontier). According to a poll of 72 leading physicists conducted by the American researcher David Raub in 1995 (published in the French periodical Sciences et Avenir in January 1998), the multiple universe theory is widely accepted: Sadly, we are not yet able to cross these bridges, if they exist. In fact, it would require a tremendous amount of energy to open a wormhole artificially, and the gravitational force inside would be so strong that we would be completely crushed. Thus, Quinn must be a true genius to be able to open an interdimensional vortex so easily and quickly, and without suffering any injury! Those who believe time travel may be possible rely similarly on the existence of parallel universes, which would allow for the resolution of the &quotgrandfather paradox": If a man were to go back in time and kill his grandfather as a child, logically speaking he would not be born, since his father before him would not be born. But if he wasn't born, he can't go back and kill his grandfather, therefore his grandfather lives, and the grandson is eventually born, therefore he can kill his grandfather, and so on... If you consider that wormholes are shortcuts through the space-time continuum, the man could use one to go kill his grandfather. However, he would arrive not in the past of his own universe, but instead in that of a parallel universe, in which his existence does not depend on the continued existence of his grandfather. In killing this version of his grandfather, he would simply be preventing the birth of his double in the parallel universe...

Scientists have not observedAbiogenesis happening in nature, nor have they been able to create a life formthrough controlled experiments If some advanced lab were to succeed with makinglife from the inanimate, it would be the work of their intelligence, however, tosuppose some cosmic intelligence might be behind the original Abiogenesis isrejected by most scientist but not all of course.

Now that I think about it more I really dont know what he meant by that statement.

Dr Penrose is a highly respected physicist and colleague of Stephen Hawkins, watch the video and then givea sensible comment Dr Penrose is a highly respected physicist andcolleague of Stephen Hawkins, watch the video and then give sensible comment He is an atheist you might like that! The common objection to the"God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be?. If everything has a cause,why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the BigBang. A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. God has always existed and that God created time,along with the entire universe, being described as an expanding universe. Why is it impossible for the universe being uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea. So, an unbeliever who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearlytemporal.

DIDLIFE FORM BY ACCIDENT? http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/did-life-form-by-accident/ Mathematical Probabilities The next stop would be to delve into the mathematical probabilities thatvastly complex organs such as the brain, the eyes, etc., could have developedby themselves. However, before we begin, I would like you to be able to fathomwhat the numbers that we will be giving you represent. It has been estimatedthat in 30 billion years there would only be one to the power of 100 seconds.Scientists estimate that in our entire universe there is only one tothe power of 80 electrons (that is a one with 80 zeros after it). Therefore, Iguess we would agree that one to the power of 100 is a number that isimpossible for us to comprehend. With this introduction, we will hopefully, beable to properly appreciate the upcoming quotations. Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of 2 Nobel Prizes in chemistry,wrote, “The statistical probability that organic structures and the mostprecisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generatedby accident is zero.” .Thatis right In their book Evolution from Space, astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and ProfessorChandra Wickramasinghe calculated that the odds of randomly producing therequired enzymes for a simple living cell were 1 in 1040,000.Since the number of atoms in the known universe is only 1080,they argued that even a whole universe full of "primordial soup"wouldn't stand a chance. Hoyle also compared the random emergence of thesimplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through ajunk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein- zero! ProfessorFrancis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA, wrote: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could onlystate that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almosta miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have beensatisfied to get it going. The trouble is that there areabout two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a randomtrial is only one part in (1 to the power of 20)2,000=1 to the power of 40,000,an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the wholeuniverse consisted of organic soup. In terms of complexity, an individual cellis nothing when compared with a system like the mammalian brain. The human brain consists of aboutten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out between ten thousandand one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with othernerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in thehuman brain approaches one to the power of 15 or 15 thousand million million. Numbers in thisorder are of course completely beyondcomprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA(one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousandtrees per square mile. Despite the enormity of the number of connections, theramifying forest of fibres is not a chaotic random tangle but a highlyorganized network in which a high proportion of the fibres are unique adaptivecommunication channels following their own specially ordained pathway throughthe brain. Even if only one hundredth of the connections in the brain werespecifically organized, this would still represent a system containing a muchgreater number of specific connections than in the entire communicationsnetwork on Earth. GeorgeWald, leading evolutionist, wrote: Organic molecules, therefore forma large and formidable array, endless in variety and of the most bewilderingcomplexity. One cannot think of having organisms without them. This is preciselythe trouble, for to understand how organisms originated we must first explainhow such complicated molecules could come into being. That is only thebeginning. To make an organism requires not only a tremendous variety of thesesubstances, in adequate amounts and proper proportions, but also just the rightarrangement of them. Structure here is as important as composition - and what acomplication of structural. The most complex machine man has devised - say anelectronic brain - is child’s play compared with the simplest of livingorganisms. The especially trying thing is that complexity here involves suchsmall dimensions. It is on the molecular level; it consists of a detailedfitting of molecule-to-molecule such as no chemist can attempt. Continued An analogy to give us an idea ofthe complexity of a "simple" cell: "Altogether a typical cellcontains about ten million million atoms. Suppose we choose to build an exactreplica to a scale one thousand million times that of the cell so that each atomof the model would be the size of a tennis ball. Constructing such a model atthe rate of one atom per minute, it would take fifty million years to finish,and the object we would end up with would be [...] twenty kilometres indiameter, with a volume thousands of times that of the Great Pyramid." Allthe evidence shows that life is far too complex to have evolved by chance –there had to be some element of intelligence in the design for life. Getting VeryDesperate We continue. After scientists discovered the vast complexities of the DNAcode, and that these codes are to be found in even the simplest forms of life,they started to see “scary visions of a God.” Its massive complexities clearlypointed to a Great Designer, and that was no good. Therefore, they made up anew far-fetched theory, which in essence was saying - we see that there must bea God, but we do not want to acknowledge Him, so we must place God somewhereelse and are saying the following theory. However, before we tell you the “latest theory” we must first tell you thatthis theory is taken seriously by many in the scientific world, even though theones that expounded it really did not believe it themselves. (We will speakabout this shortly.) The second thing is, that you must know the credentials ofthe ones that said this theory, and they have great credentials. First, let us hear a little about Sir Francis Crick. Sir Francis H.C. Crick,a noted biologist, is the one who deduced the double-helical structure of DNA,for which he, together with his partner James Watson, later received the NobelPrize. Crick went on to contribute to the elucidation of the genetic code. Inshort, he is a much-respected scientist. In addition, what led Crick to givethe following view was the feeling that it is virtually impossible for theorigin of life to have been undirected (accident). Therefore, Crick, together with noted chemist Leslie Orgel (who is trainedscientists, who always look for naturalistic explanations to their problems -and to admit to a God would not be scientific) said the following wild theory.And mind you that this theory was proposed in 1973, and reaffirmed in 1983 whenCrick wrote it in a book called Life Itself, and reaffirmed again in 1992during an interview in Scientific American. The wild theory is as follows. They say that some extraterrestrial civilization of another solar system,because of the fear of extinction, decided to “seed” other planets with theessence of their live matter. Therefore, they sent frozen bacteria out intospace, and eventually it reached earth. While on earth, it was these livebacteria from outer space that evolved into life as we see it now. This istheir theory. In addition, this wild theory was necessary, since it helpedexplain a hurdle that could not be made. They, as well as many otherscientists, could not explain how an inanimate object could turn into even themost simple of life forms, bearing in mind the vast complexities that arefound in all life forms. Therefore, “necessity, the mother of all inventions”led them to make up this story, which supplied them with instant life, withouthaving to recognize God. Pretty wild, huh? Really desperate. This is the theoryof Drs. Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel. Now you know what weight the word “theory”has. We are also left with infiniteregression! Nevertheless, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, together with ChandraWickramasinghe, in Evolution from Space, said that just as it isimpossible for life to have developed by chance in our solar system, so toothere could never have developed intelligent life anywhere else in our entireuniverse as well. Hoyle wrote as follows: “Biochemical systems are exceedinglycomplex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through randomshuffling of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point whereit is no different from zero ... For life to have originated on earth it wouldbe necessary that quite explicit instructions should have been provided for itsassembly.” Therefore, Hoyle tries to pull off aninteresting trick. He says that really, the theory of seeding (which inscientific terms is called panspermia) is correct, but of course, there had tobe a Higher Intelligence, which created those outer space creatures thateventually sent down the seeds. So Hoyle, in order to avoid God, says the samefar-fetched “theory” as crick and Orgel, in order to take care of the problemof having to meet up with this Higher Intelligence. Hoyle said that it’s thecreatures from outer space that have the obligation to serve this HigherIntelligence, since it’s them who the Higher Intelligence created, and not us,so we earthlings have no obligation to serve Him. So even though Hoyle was atleast scientifically honest, as was Crick, by agreeing that life could neverhave evolved from inorganic (dead) matter, he still was not brave enough toface the God that he really admitted existed. But Newsweek could nothandle what Hoyle said, for ultimately, according to Hoyle, you still have toface a God somewhere at the top of the line, and this frightened them. Tongue in cheek, Newsweek(March 1982) says only that “Hoyle has actually performed the improbable featof reinventing religion ... [and had been] led to exactly the same view thatseemed prevalent in the Middle Ages: that life did not arise spontaneously onearth.” Apparently, when Hoyle the scientist is led to God, Newsweekis irritated. As mentioned before, Crick confided to Professor Robert Shapiro that hepersonally wasn’t really sold on the theory, and his real purpose in espousingthis new theory was to get people to drop all previous theories that they heldas true (such as the chemical soup theory, and the mutation theory, etc., allof them built on the idea that live matter can evolve from dead matter, whichhe held can’t be true) and give them an idea which they can relate to, such asunmanned rockets with live bacteria in them, to hold on to. He never reallybelieved this story, but it was to help people understand that this world couldonly have developed from live matter. So even though in public Crick says thathe still believes his theory to be “reasonable,” in private he told Shapirootherwise. Nothing illustrates more clearly just,how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact thatworld authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia.. Desperate people indeed. After hearing such “theories,” one sees the staunchloyalty these scientists have to “science,” for the sake of science. Nevertheless,it would be more honest if they would express more openly the problems thatthey face, and maybe, just maybe, suggest that there is an alternative solutionto the origin of our universe - God.

YES IT DOES! In your opinion are you the only voice in the forum, yes it remains a valididea in an infinite eternal universe anything can happen including life cominginto existence without any creator! If the answer to the question was as easy and settled as suppose why the hugeinterest and ongoing debate around this topic?

Not really he has supposedly given us a free will, which I would take away immediately I became God

Are, you now dictating to the forum how we should debate, I will debateexactly as I want to without your permission to do so. You continue to use anoxymoron idea of life not have evolving is chance/yet it did. And was somehowmindlessly ordered by the laws of nature. My previous statement in post #49 remains a valid one?

I could accept that life evolved by chance alone if the universe were infiniteand eternal, the problem with that idea is how did we reach this moment intime, if time had no beginning and stretched back into past eternity? In such auniverse anything that could happen, will happen, including life not cominginto existence or vanishing and coming into existence countless times over inan everlasting cycle. Most scientific minds now accept the Big Bang theory as the most likely way ouruniverse came into existence, thus in my opinion the time scale since its birthsome 14.5 billion years ago is to small for life to evolve by chance.

Yes my mistake a meant "Strawman" This "Intelligence" I refer to in my opinion is not a god of religion, but Existence itself having a sort of connsiousness of its own and continually creating and sustaining reality. Existence is and must be both Infinite and Eternal so to try and tell you how, where, why, what about its origin is beyond my puny brain as is it yours and every other entity in the universe. Life is about "Information" such as real Code, DNA for example the universe, likewise has cosmic laws that have no reason for being what they are other than they are what they are. Information and coding usually originates from a thinking mind , A scientist I think James something quoted "The universe is less like a great well oiled machine and more like a "Great Thought" the more often he looked at it. (I will come back with the actual source of that quote later!) If chemistry outside the lab, is not random, and in nature iteslf how does it order itself from within and without to create living organisms?

Even a reasonable rational argument for the remotest of possiblities that some sort of intelligence underpins the evolution of life, is always dismissed as "Starman" instead of coming up with a reasonable ration argument for the existence of life by chance alone

Strawman arguments are those that attempt to attack a particular position or idea by presenting a false ideaas the real thing. In other words, the opposing position is misrepresented by a weaker and easily defeated Strawman argument.? However it is undeniable fact that the simplest living system far outshines the complexity of for, example the most complex flying machine ever created by man, namely the "Spaceshuttle". Even the "simplest" living cell easily does this. Take a good hard scientific look at a cockroach and you will notice it is almost unimaginably more complex than the Spaceshuttler. How long would it take for a really realitively simple object from atom to molocule, to evolve into a Spaceshuttle, given the same enormous time scale and billions of small steps it supposidly took life to come into existence by blnd chance alone?

Agreed! Again a mindless lawgiver! Damnation man!! it was not plagiarism , how the heck would I suck that out of my memory, I just overlooked the link and dont like being called a liar by little spiteful men like you!! Please try to be friendly instead of showing off your supposed huge knowledge by putting other people down!

Nevertheless it is an interesting question, asked by many highly intellectual people It was a wordpress article justoverlooked putting link, nothing sinister http://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/nobel-prize-winners-who-believe-in-intelligent-design/ This is what the authors personal view on intellent Design is! My Reflections on the Intelligent Design Debate I believe in evolution. I believe in intelligent design. I’m not sure what my opinion is of macro-evolution and I’m pretty sure I’m not a young-earther in the traditional sense, but there are certainly others who share my opinion on both of these issues (See peer reviewed article links & the dissent from darwin as well as the article by Stephen Meyer, which is an incredible article). I believe that textbooks should at least teach the controversy for greater public awareness of the issue. Does intelligent it belong in a science textbook? Does intelligent design belong in the science classroom? I’m not entirely sure. Perhaps its more of a civics, government, or history issue rather than a science one. However, it seems that science looses even more if its not included in a scientific context (i.e. they have to re-clarify and re-explain their approach or position on intelligent design at a later date). The current policy seems to be one of avoidance of conflict and controversy….but thats just an elephant in the room. Lawsusually need a thinker behind them don't they? DH did not answer the questionbecause he does not know what life is or how to definite Life with any exactitude

II know it is easy to lie with statistics, but to be truthful this is a factor on both sides of the debate, about how life came into existence. You are right, however, the enigma of rock to life remains and as of yet we dont realy know exactly what life is! How can anyone claim to know how life evolved when no one really knows what life exactly is , my comment Alan? "http://b.scorecardresearch.com/b?c1=2&c2=6035753&c3=6035753&c4=http://www.livescience.com/&c5=Technology- News&c6=&c15=C67BD3C1&cv=1.3&cj=1"style="display:none" width="0" height="0"alt="" /> In the wake of controversy over thepossible discovery of arsenic-eating life last week — a finding that couldexpand the bounds of what scientists think life is capable of — a basicquestion perhaps deserves revisiting: Just what, exactly, is life? "We don't have a very good definitionof life," said researcher Christopher Voigt of the University ofCalifornia, San Francisco, who works on syntheticbiology. "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at whatpoint we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, itjust becomes way too murky." The question of what constitutes life has dogged scientists since the early days. Working toward a definition Aristotle was the first to attempt todefine life, and his proposal boils down to life being something that grows andmaintains itself (he called this "nutrition"), and reproduces. In 1944, Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger defined life as that which resists decaying to disorder and equilibrium. This definition relates to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that closed systems will naturally gain entropy, or disorder, over time. Essentially, like a teenager's room, without any help from mom, it will inevitably get messier. But by taking in nutrients and metabolizing them, living things can work against this trend. However, this definition would mean that crystals, which take in energy and create order when they form elaborate lattices of particles, count as life. This is the problem with most proposed definitions of life: They tend of have loopholes. For example, some have proposed that life is that which can reproduce itself. However, that definition would exclude mules, which are born sterile, and would include nonliving things like fire. Others have suggested that life is something that can metabolize — that is, take in energy to move or grow, and release waste — but many nonliving things, like cars, can do that. "Life, because it is such a complex system of things with so many interacting parts, each of which is essential, it'sreally tough to make a definition," said biochemist David Deamer of theUniversity of California, Santa Cruz. Despite the difficulty of pinning down life, some scientists aren't content to give up, saying a working definition of life is necessary if we are to identify living things beyond Earth. In that case, the adage, "You'll know it when you see it" just doesn't cut it. Some Nobel prize winners who believe in some sort of intelligent underpinning reality. Like me they are mostly theists or deists and rational at that! Other Nobel Prize Winners on Intelligent Design and Fine Tuned Universe ALBERT EINSTEIN, Nobel Laureate in Physics (he believed in a God like Spinoza did, but a God who design echoed throughout the universe) MAX PLANCK, Nobel Laureate in Physics WERNER HEISENBERG, Nobel Laureate in Physics ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER, Nobel Laureate in Physics ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics: CHARLES TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics ARTHUR SCHAWLOW, Nobel Laureate in Physics WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Nobel Laureate in Physics SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG, Nobel Laureate in Physics GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Nobel Laureate in Physics ARTHUR COMPTON, Nobel Laureate in Physics ARNO PENZIAS, Nobel Laureate in Physics ALEXIS CARREL, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology SIR JOHN ECCLES, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology JOSEPH MURRAY, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology SIR ERNST CHAIN, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology GEORGE WALD, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology (note: he has quotes which defend atheism & deism) SIR DEREK BARTON, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry CHRISTIAN ANFINSEN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry WALTER KOHN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry

I wrote this some time ago! Areyou a fluke" Well lets us consider that, of the almost infinitely worlds in thisunimaginably vast universe youwere lucky enough to be born on planet earth possibly the only world that canharbour life. Of the six five billion people you are the offspring of only two uniquepersons, namely your mom and dad. Of your mom's some twenty thousand eggs, youarose from just one of them. Out of your dads half billion or so sperm cells,only one reached that specific egg to create the unique being that you are. Noone else has or will ever have your exact DNA code. There has never been someone exactly like you in all creation going backfifteen or so billion years namely, the estimated age of the universe. In alleternities going into the infinite future there will never be another exactlylike you. Lastly, you were lucky enough to come into existence in a universe beautifullybalanced to harbour human and other life. So the question begs, are you a fluke? on the other hand, the work of a mind ofunimaginable omniscience? Then please tell me exactly how life came to be? Rocks to living things in such a relatively short time, how? If they are not random, what is organising them?

http://crl.i8.com/Evolution/Dna.html DNA Molecules and the Odds Against Evolution Within each cell there is an area called the nucleus which contains the all-important chromosomes. Chromosomes are microscopically small, rod-shaped structures which carry the genes. Within the chromosomes is an even smaller structure called DNA. This is one of the most important chemical substances in the human body -- or in any other living thing. Increasing scientific understanding of DNA molecules has revealed enormous problems for materialism. DNA is a super-molecule which stores coded hereditary information. It consists of two long "chains" of chemical "building blocks" paired together. In humans, the strands of DNA are almost 2 yards long, yet less than a trillionth of an inch thick. In function, DNA is somewhat like a computer program on a floppy disk. It stores and transfers encoded information and instructions. It is said that the DNA of a human stores enough information code to fill 1,000 books -- each with 500 pages of very small, closely-printed type. The DNA code produces a product far more sophisticated than that of any computer. Amazingly, this enormous set of instructions fits with ease within a single cell and routinely directs the formation of entire adult humans, starting with just a single fertilized egg. Even the DNA of a bacterium is highly complex, containing at least 3 million units, all aligned in a very precise, meaningful sequence. DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism -- a miniaturized marvel. the information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an asprin tablet! Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA. Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it! - "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago." Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31). How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old -- and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th Power seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! In other words, probabilities greatly favor those that believe an intelligent designer was responsible for originating even the simplest DNA molecules. Chemist Dr. Grebe: "That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code." Researcher and mathematician I.L Cohen: "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear....Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution vs the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today." Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point. He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing "a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeng 747 from the materials therein." Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes. many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no know n physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures. Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this "master program" could have only originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture. Dr Wilder-Smith is an honored scientist who is certainly well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What is his considered opinion as to the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal? "...an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA...is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information." " As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell. There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed it in a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice -- so that the cell builds itself from the information..." One need only look carefully at any living creature to gain some concept of their enormous complexity. If you have a pet, consider the complexities that must be involved -- enabling that "package of matter" to move about, play, remember, show signs of affection, eat, and reproduce! If that is not enough to boggle your mind, imagine being given the task of constructing a similar living pet from carbon, calcium, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. -- the animal's basic constituent parts. If you have ever held a beloved pet in your hands, completely limp and dead, you may have some comprehension of the helplessness of even the most intelligent and sophisticated scientist when it comes to the overwhelming problem of trying to create life. In contrast, the natural world does not have the advantages people bring to the problem. In nature, there are only matter, energy, time, chance and the physical laws -- no guiding force, no purpose, and no goal. Yet, even with all of modern man's accumulated knowledge, advanced tools, and experience, we are still absolutely overwhelmed at the complexities. This is despite the fact that we are certainly not starting from absolute zero in this problem, for there are millions of actual living examples of life to scrutinize. THE INCREDIBLE COMPLEXITY OF MAN All living things are extremely complex, even the tiniest single-celled animals and bacteria. However, none surpasses the overall complexity of the human being. Not only is each person constructed of trillions of molecules and cells, but the human brain alone is filled with billions of cells forming trillions of trillions of connections. The design of the human brain is truly awesome and beyond our understanding. Every cubic inch of the human brain contains at least 100 million nerve cells interconnected by 10 thousand miles of fibers. It has been said that man's 3 pound brain is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the entire universe! Far more complicated than any computer, the human brain is capable of storing and creatively manipulating seemingly infinite amounts of information. Its capabilities and potential stagger the imagination. The more we use it, the better it becomes. The brain capabilities of even the smallest insects are mind-boggling. The tiny speck of a brain found in a little ant, butterfly or bee enable them not only to see, smell, taste and move, but even to fly with great precision. Butterflies routinely navigate enormous distances. Bees and ants carry on complex social organizations, building projects, and communications. These miniature brains put our computers and avionics to shame, in comparison. The marvels of the bodies of both animals and man are evidently endless. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith makes this thought-provoking and humbling statement: "When one considers that the entire chemical information to construct a man, elephant, frog or an orchid was compressed into two minuscule reproductive cells (sperm and egg nuclei), one can only be astounded. In addition to this, all the information is available on the genes to repair the body (not only to construct it) when it is injured. If one were to request an engineer to accomplish this feat of information miniaturization, one would be considered fit for the psychiatric clinic." It is certainly true that a machine carefully made by a craftsman reflects the existence of it's creator. It would be foolish to suggest that time and chance could make a typewriter or a microwave oven, or that the individual parts could form themselves into these complex mechanisms due to the physical properties of matter. Yet, life is far, far more complex than any man-made machine. The more scientists study life, the more they become deeply impressed. Nature is full of intricate design and beauty. In contrast to man-made objects, which look increasingly crude in finish and detail the closer they are viewed (i.e., through powerful microscopes), the closer life is examined the more complex and wondrous it appears. Planet Earth is filled with myriad forms of life, each with enormous levels of complexity. Materialists believe life in all its amazing forms consist merely of atoms and molecules. They believe these atoms and molecules formed themselves into millions of intricate animals and plants. This view was born out of an earlier, more naive period in science when the extreme complexity of living systems was not understood. Even if nature could build the necessary proteins and enzymes, it is far from producing life. There is an enormous difference between producing a building block and producing a fully operating and serviced 100-story skyscraper from those building blocks. Buildings require builders; programs require programmers. Today, most scientists are convinced that life could never have come into being without some form of highly intelligent and powerful designer. THE BOTTOM LINE on the origin of life - During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing. - As yet, evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many elements of the cosmos. - It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes. - there is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life. However what do your scientific minds have to say about the above?

Very nice you would make a really great God!! Yes whylimit what you do as God to one planet, the universe is almost infinite insize, I would give my beings the ability to go anywhere in the universe instantaneously I have been a fan of Science Fiction for most of my life, thus I know about Larry Nivens Ring worlds. You would also make a great God, maybe you will be one if you are a Mormon?

What about elliminating death and suffering?

What about changing the cruel “Eat of be Eaten way we earthlingsustain life, to a way of directly absorbing energy from the sun with some sortof a solar panel type skin to do the same?

Dont irritate me with nonsense, change the question. To this if you could change all of nature or improve the universe, or life what would you do?