Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)?
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 73 (487563)
11-02-2008 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
10-31-2008 12:57 PM


Hello Huntard, You and I share strong opinions!
I don’t know how to highlight your comments, so I’ll use quotes. I’ll appreciate instruction on how to highlight. I've truncated some of below:
I said: The initial 7 points have to do with cosmology, the origin/creation of the universe, 8-11 concern undirected assembly of the amino-acids from which the proteins in all living things are constructed.
You said the 7 points: “have nothing to do with evolution, as you did claim in the naming of your list.“
OK, Huntard, there may have been a better name for my original post. Pick one for me, if you please.
I disagree that cosmology has “nothing to do with evolution”. Creation of the universe without God MEANS creation of life w/o God. In my hand is THE ORIGIN OF LIFE by the late M. G. Ruten, Prof/Geology, Univ/Utrercht, Netherlands. The preface is by the illustrious evolutionist A. I. Oparin. which covers some of the same ground I did. Page 155 presents:
“The theory of evolution is based on 7 assumptions:
(1) Non living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.
(2) Spontaneous generation occurred only once
(3) Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.
(4) Protozoa gave rise to Metazoa
(5) The various invertebrate phyla are interrelated
(6) The invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates
(7) Within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to etc etc etc
“the first two assumptions, as we have repeatedly seen in this text, are still hypothetical.
“CHAPTER 8 Stages in the Early Evolution of Life Hypothetical character of assumptions about the early evolution of life: We will in this chapter consider some aspects of the early evolution of life which at some stage or other must have played their part during the early evolution of life. It is, however, impossible to tell . most obscure . even more hypothetical . Nevertheless there are certain considerations to be drawn as to what must have happened anyway sometime.”
Here's Evolutionism in full bloom: WING IT! IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED!
Huntard: You repeatedly say “Dark matter & dark energy are detected by their “effects on the rest of the universe.” Be frank about it: They have no known characteristics other than gravitational attraction. The universe exhibits characteristics cosmologists don’t understand, so they fantasize DM & DE to plug their theories. Sounds like the Houston Enron boys with their nonexistent assets. That may be good enough for you, Huntard, but not me. Your argument fails
“First of all, the universe did not come out of nothing”
Some authorities differ: BB cosmologist Heinz R. Pagels explained in Perfect Symmetry: “The very origin of the universe”how the fabric of space, time and matter can be created out of nothing.”
Paul Davies in: Physics and Our View of the World: “The appearance of the Universe from nothing need not violate the laws of physics.”
You say on the Origin of the Universe: "I can think of at least 20 right now.” I’m sincerely curious, please list some!
A. God created the both the design & substance of the universe. "Perhaps, there is however no evidence cor this." Perhaps you just haven't seen it.
Every effect must have an equal cause” derives from the 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. YOU explain: “That's not what the first law says, it actually states: quote: The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.”
You correctly give the formal law, which we’ve both seen expressed in other words, often it’s called the law of conservation. Note that I said “derives”.
So what caused the BB? You said, “the laws of physics break down”. I don’t believe they did for a preposterous everything-out-of-nothing theory for which the only proof is that scientists can’t figure out what holds the universe together.
2 & 3 “100 Billion galaxies were compressed into a point smaller than an atom: is the basic premise of the Big Bang paradigm, which posits that all matter & energy were originally compressed into a sub-microscopic point which exploded into our universe. BBT holds that nothing existed prior to the BB
“Nothing "exploded" it was an expansion of spacetime. Secondly, we don't know how the universe looked prior to T=10-43. It certainly wasn't nothing though.”
BBT estimates the velocity of the expansion at the speed of light or a multiple thereof. And you quibble that I call it an “explosion”, I’m not the first
“And since time began with the big bang, there is no "before" the big bang.“
A senseless idea.
“galaxies did not come out the big bang fully formed” Did I say they did?
4. The explosion event is called a Singularity Here comes an unanswerable objection which is expressed in Colin Ronan’s book “The Universe Explained”: “One of the most vexed questions facing astronomers is that of how much matter there is in the universe . results suggest there is barely 1% OF THE MASS THAT THE UNIVERSE SHOULD CONTAIN ACCORDING TO THE BIG BANG THEORY. There must be a vast amount of “dark matter that we simply cannot see.”
“It was the expansion of spacetime. Further, the expansion is not called a singularity. The term singularity refers to anything prior to T=10-43 at which point our maths break down.”
I accept your “singularity” correction, I misspoke. Several times you repeat:
8. In 1952 H. Urey & Stanley Miller at the Univ/Chicago produced amino acids by exposing a mix of gasses (CO2, Methane CH4 & Ammonia NH3) to a 50,000 volt spark for a week. The reaction products were isolated from the energy source to prevent decomposition. They assumed that Earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, non-oxygenic, similar to the gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus; and lightning & cosmic radiation supplied the energy to duplicate their lab experiment, forming amino acids which precipitated into the sea until it became a vast “pre-biotic soup”. This is called the “Spark in the Soup Theory “ in Richard Milner’s Encyclopedia of Evolution.
“Yes, it has however NOTHING to do with evolution. And what is the point you're trying to make here?”
This is the basis for the modern theory of chemical evolution. There’s no evidence at all that Earth had such an atmosphere, which would be evidenced geologically. It would be fatal to life. No one explains how it converted to the 78%N + 21%O we enjoy.
“The early atmosphere of the earth was indeed different, so, subsequent experiments were conducted using that composition. It turned out that the building blocks for life still formed in these experiments. And the transition was brought about by plants and algea.”
You are just wrong, here. They claim it was similar to the “gas planets”, but have zero evidence, which would be found in the composition of rocks. This is another WHAT MUST HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAY, SOMETIME excuse.. Ammonia will kill algae and plants in a minute. This mother-goose proposition is grossly unscientific & without a shred of evidence.
10. Amino acids are small structures, over 100 have been identified. Random synthesis produces equal quantities of right handed and left handed ones, but only levo, left-handed, are used in the proteins of all living things. There are 20 in our flesh, composed of 10 to 27 atoms each, variously assembled into 30-50,000 proteins some with 10,000 amino acids, strung together like beads on a chain which electrostatically influence their configuration with one another in such a way to form the specific molecules of life.
AAs are labil, break down easily. Linked AAs are called peptides. Proteins could be called large biological polypeptides. For example hemoglobin is a construction of 574 amino acids in 4 polypeptide chains. These are absolutely specific. Substitute Valine for Glutamic Acid at position 6 of the B chain and you get Sickle Cell Anemia.
“No evolution here. What's your point anyway?”
My point is: Complexity of life: impossible without God.
10 & 11 The precision of biological structures defies probability, makes undirected evolution a fairy tale. The theory is that the “prebiotic soup” was pulled up on the shoulders of volcanoes into shallow pools where at 175 degrees or so the amino acids polymerized into polypeptides & proteins, all this in a toxic atmosphere which contained no oxygen. UV & other hi-energy radiation forms Ozone [O3] from diatomic oxygen [O2]. This is what shields us from the lethal UV & cosmic radiation. Unshielded, the suns rays would destroy the burgeoning “precursors” of life. The whole spark-in-the-soup idea is unscientific baloney.
M G Ruten wrote in Origin of Life: “One of the many paradoxes encountered in the early history of life lies in the fact that The same rays of the sun which formed the building blocks of the molecules of life were lethal for life.”
The assembly of AAs into proteins takes place in our cells by a linkage which involves the loss of 2 Hydrogen atoms from the amino [NH3] site and the loss of an atom of oxygen form the carboxyl [CO2] site of the adjacent amino acid, forming a molecule of H2O. It’s a DEHYDRATION PROCESS and could not accumulate in the sea, nor persist, because peptides dissolve when hydrolyzed.
Protein synthesis takes place in the ribosomes in our cells, which exclude free water so dehydrating peptide linkage can proceed.
“No evolution once more. And the point you're trying to make is”
On authority lists 19 separate steps and dozens of enzymes required for protein synthesis within cells. The critical question is: Source of information. Where did the precise design for tens of thousands of proteins in you originate? Or for the tens of millions of species which have existed on our planet? What design? I think the doctrine this perfection of precision came without a designer is simply ludicrous!
Argument from personal incredulity. Just because you can't believe it happened, doesn't mean it didn't.
If you don’t perceive design, this exchange is hopeless.
Your body also makes sugars, fats, DNA, and living cells more complicated than the electrical/communication systems of a city of millions. Consider the complexity of a single micro-organism which Jehovah placed in you to combat pathogenic invaders, T4 PHAGE, it hunts down and eats bacteria:
Molecular weight of its DNA: 120,000,000 120 million! Specificity is 10 to the 78,000th power = 1 chance in 10 X 78,000 zeros. No matter how many athiestic materialists shout the evidence down: it calls for a design & designer, who's name alone is Jehovah. Psalm 83:18
“Even IF your "evidence" points to a designer, how do you know this designer is Jehovah?”
If you have an interest, I’ll provide abundant evidence.
"I think I pointed some of it out. Perhaps Onifre would like to add to this?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 10-31-2008 12:57 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by DrJones*, posted 11-02-2008 3:08 AM chemscience has not replied
 Message 9 by Granny Magda, posted 11-02-2008 5:43 AM chemscience has not replied
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 11-02-2008 7:05 AM chemscience has replied
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 11-02-2008 7:39 AM chemscience has not replied
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 11-02-2008 4:18 PM chemscience has replied
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 11-02-2008 7:43 PM chemscience has not replied
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2008 8:35 PM chemscience has replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 73 (487604)
11-02-2008 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
11-02-2008 7:05 AM


My, My, CORAGYPS, AREN'T WE SNIDE!
QUOTHS THOU: "And I'd sort of hope that someone choosing "chemscience" as a screen name would know a little about how amide bonds form. Hint: it's not with both hydrogens off the amine nitrogen."
CHEMSCIENCE was the company I sold when I retired, merged into another firm. I still own the 16,000 sq ft plant I custom built in a good industrial park, spent 40 years in commercial chemistry.
In this dehydrating syntheses a single H separates from the amine group in one amino acid, while the other is in the hydroxyl [OH] from the carboxyl group in the joining amino acid. This dehydration eliminates accumulation of "prebiotic soup" in the seas. The thermodynamic-point-of-equilibrium is such that peptides formed in the sea would rapidly dissolve.
WIKIPEDIA: "As both the amine and carboxylic acid groups of amino acids can react to form amide bonds, one amino acid molecule can react with another and become joined through an amide linkage. This polymerization of amino acids is what creates proteins. This condensation reaction yields the newly formed peptide bond and a molecule of water."
OF COURSE, THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF OCEANIC ACCUMULATION DOESN'T PREVENT THIS LIE FROM BEING TAUGHT AS THE MECHANISM OF BIOSYNTHESIS IN THE HALLS OF BIOCHEMISTRY!
In our cells peptide polymerization transpires in ribosomes.
CHEMSCIENCE! (If you don't mind)
Edited by chemscience, : SPELLING

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 11-02-2008 7:05 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 11-02-2008 5:38 PM chemscience has replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 73 (487613)
11-02-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coragyps
11-02-2008 5:38 PM


WHALES & AMINO ACIDS.
TRY THIS ON FOR SIZE:
A WHALE CAN WEIGH 50 TONS.
THE LARGEST AMINO ACID IN YOUR PROTOPLASM, TRYPTOPHAN,
HAS A MOLECULAR WEIGHT 204, the lightest is GLYCENE,75.
The weight of a living cell may be millions of times greater.
THE whale and you are steadily dissolving, but both are also
being steadily replaced by life processes. All your cells are replaced on a consistant schedule.
Microscopic amino acids, simple chemicals, aren't alive, have no replacement systems operative, are soluable especially in salt water.
CHEMSCIENCE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 11-02-2008 5:38 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by bluescat48, posted 11-02-2008 6:20 PM chemscience has not replied
 Message 20 by Coragyps, posted 11-02-2008 6:49 PM chemscience has not replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 73 (487615)
11-02-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Huntard
11-02-2008 4:18 PM


GOODBY HUNTARD
HUNTARD: The complete name of the book I have is
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE BY NATURAL CAUSES The full name
isn’t On the spine, only inside. I hadn’t noticed the
last 3 words of the title. Elsevier Publishing Company
Amsterdam London New York 1971 Library/Congress #73-118255
“He’s a Geology professor? Why is he talking about evolution then?” You have strange rules!
“I’m pretty sure we’ll have the definitive answer sometime in the future” But no one has now!
I cited Psalm 83: EIGHTEEN, not 13.
Your “20 points I heard from creationists, etc.” says I don’t think for myself.
Of course the first law is called the “Law of conservation of energy”, I abbreviated.
I was curious about your 20 cosmologies. You name “Pink unicorns & spaghetti monsters, ridiculing believers, myself included.
Spin your fantasy, but find another target. I’m not your fool.
CHEMSCIENCE
Edited by chemscience, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 11-02-2008 4:18 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 11-02-2008 6:49 PM chemscience has not replied
 Message 29 by Huntard, posted 11-03-2008 12:41 PM chemscience has replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 73 (487655)
11-03-2008 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
11-02-2008 8:35 PM


RAZO, YOU'VE DONE ME A KINDNESS!
Thank You, RAZO!
I appreciate your guidance & counsel. I printed the list you recommended and now better understand how this Forum is catagorized. I'll learn a lot from the archives.
The assumption that one who believes in Creation is ignorant or dumb colors many posts. That mindset lets slip the hounds of arrogance & vituperation, and forecloses the prospect of learning. Bad manners offend. You said it's a fray, Razo. It's more like a boxing gym with Christian punching bags.
Sometimes a donkey can surprise you with a load of gold. I'm an evangelist. This isn't the right forum for such, I think I'll cause others, as I've seen, to mock God. I certainly don't want to be part of that. Evolutionism's takeover is abetted by Christendom's failure to teach the truth of the Bible, a complicated/beautiful book in which we find:
100 times it says the soul dies, they're never called immortal/deathless.
A soul is simply a "breather", animal or human. The dead are asleep.
No torture in Hell, it's the grave. The Lake of Fire = annihilation!
In the Old Testament [75% of Bible] no one hoped to go to heaven
Heavenly life was first offered at the last supper to a "little flock"
Most of mankind will populate Earth forever in perfection. Thy Kingdom Come!
The resurrection is for both the righteous & unrighteous Acts 24:15
Christians must forsake war. JWs died in Nazi ovens & USSR slave camps.
None of us is paid or titled: "Freely you received, freely give."
Christianity isn't a business. It requires a spotless life, in peace.
Jehovah is God, Jesus isn't. There's no mysterious Trinity.
God's Kingdom will save the Earth & human race, soon!
This Forum aside, mountains of evidence & 70 years of research convince me
the Kingdom promises are real. I like sharing them. Probably better elsewhere.
My sincere appreciation, RAZO!
CHEMSCIENCE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2008 8:35 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by onifre, posted 11-03-2008 10:10 AM chemscience has not replied
 Message 28 by Admin, posted 11-03-2008 10:15 AM chemscience has not replied
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 11-03-2008 12:58 PM chemscience has not replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 73 (487696)
11-03-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Huntard
11-03-2008 12:41 PM


Re: OK, HUNTARD
I'LL OFFER EVIDENCE, BUT WHERE?
ADM MADE CLEAR EVANGELISM ISN'T FOR THIS THREAD. I LIKE TO KEEP THE RULES. MY LAST POST SIMPLY IDENTIFIED A THEOLOGICAL POSITION, A SORT OF MANIFESTO. I'LL GO ANYWHERE YOU TRANSFER THE DISCUSSION, WOULD LIKE TO START AFRESH.
MY FORMAL EDUCATION GOES BACK OVER 50 YEARS & I'VE NOT USED ALL OF IT. THE FIELDS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE SEEN MUCH CHANGE/DEVELOPMENT/
MODIFICATION, OF SOME OF WHICH I'M NOT AWARE.
I MAY BE OUT-OF-DATE, OR WRONG, BUT I'LL NOT BE DISHONEST, NOR TWIST CITATIONS.
DISCUSSION RULES:
THE HEARER IS KING, YOU DECIDE IF "EVIDENCE" IS VALID
"THUS SAITH THE LORD" ISN'T PROOF IN ITSELF.
CHALLENGE IS WELCOME, BUT NOT RIDICULE. I'VE BEEN TO 100,000 DOORS, AM COMFORTABLE WITH DISAGREEMENT, LEAVE WHEN ACRIMONY COMMENCES.
TRUE CHRISTIANITY IS CONSIDERATE AS WELL AS EVANGELICAL.
I NEED TO CITE AUTHORITIES, SINCE I'M NOT A UNIVERSAL EXPERT.
YOU DECIDE IF THE AUTHORITY(S) ARE ADMISSABLE. I CAN'T PRESENT CONVINCING ARGUMENTS ON JUST MY SAY-SO.
PLEASE SIGNAL IF EVIDENCE IS SATISFACTORY ON A POINT. TO AGREE ON ONE CONCEPT ISN'T SURRENDER. THIS ISN'T A CONTEST WITH WINNERS & LOSERS
FIRST ON THE MENU IS "FULFILLED PROPHECY AS CONFIRMATION OF SCRIPTURE". OK?
CHEMSCIENCE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Huntard, posted 11-03-2008 12:41 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 11-03-2008 3:24 PM chemscience has replied
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2008 3:36 PM chemscience has not replied
 Message 34 by onifre, posted 11-03-2008 3:45 PM chemscience has not replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 73 (487706)
11-03-2008 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Huntard
11-03-2008 3:24 PM


Re: OK, HUNTARD #2
SO WHERE DO WE START, ON WHICH THREAD?
OOPS: Excuse the caps, Sorry. I see them better but will abide as advised.
I'll start with some prophecies about kingdoms & peoples fulfilled long after they were written. The effects are cumulative: after a certain number of bullseyes are unlikely to be a series of lucky guesses.
7 Prophecies:
Nineveh & the Assyrian empire. In 740 BC the Assyrians conquered the Northern 10 tribes, Israel. Jehovah pronounced judgment in the Bi book of Nahum who foretold Nineveh's fate.
Babylon & the Chaldeans Destroyed Jerusalem & conquered southern 2 tribe kingdom of Judah in 607BC [most authorities date this event at 586-589BC]
The Arabs: Prophecy to Hagar, who's son, Ishmael became first Arab, father of the race. circa 1950 BC fulfillment extends to our time.
The Hebrews Prophecy in Deuteronomy 28
Tyre Ezekiel 26 & Enc/Americana
Cyrus Conquest of Babylon
The Greeks: Alexander Vanquished Persians
My burden is both to identify the prophesies and show their fulfillments aren't coincidence; also to show they were written prior to fulfillment. I expect my data will be largely original.
Often asked: "If God is Good, why are things so Bad?" otherwise named "The Problem of Evil." On this topic the question is" Is my answer reasonable, if true? Possible subject for later investigation.
By the way, if I'm right about these things, you get to live forever, on Earth in youth & paradise! That's really Jehovah wants for you: The meek shall inherit the Earth. I persist because you have so much to gain, but never fear, hellfire aint here.
Where do we start?
CHEMSCIENCE
Edited by chemscience, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 11-03-2008 3:24 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by bluescat48, posted 11-03-2008 6:51 PM chemscience has replied
 Message 37 by onifre, posted 11-03-2008 7:49 PM chemscience has not replied
 Message 38 by Admin, posted 11-03-2008 7:52 PM chemscience has replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 73 (487715)
11-03-2008 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by bluescat48
11-03-2008 6:51 PM


Hi Bluescat48
Hello, Bluescat48
I should offer what persuades me against accidentalism:
The Cambrian Explosion introduced multiple phyla w/o trace of ancestors
The discontinuity of fossils.
The relentless series of extinctions, killing: 80% of Ordovician species, 80% Devonian, 95-99.9% Permian, 75% Triassic and 70% of Cretaceous species: contradicts propaganda of "4 billion years of gradual development", the line the public is fed, but you know better.
A chart from the Life Book EARLY MAN hangs in thousands of classrooms illustrating "25 million years of evolution." The first 4 critters: Piopithecus, Procounsul, Dryopithecus & Oreopithecus are captioned as not being ancestral to man. Next, Ramapithecus, was dated at 5 MY ago and considered our first confirmed ancestor. When someone finally found a complete jawbone he was reclassified as “sivapithecus” a genus considered ancestral to orangutans & back-dated to 15MY.
Then the EARLY MAN chart shows 2MY of australopithecines which both Leaky and Montegu deny were ancestral to humans. THE WHOLE CHART IS A LIE! But there it hangs in front of millions of children selling a greater lie: evolution is science and God made nothing. I wrote:
Two hours had passed and I’d had my fill
Of this pseudoscientific swill
So I left the professor’s masterly tones
Worshipping apes and monkeys and bones
To reflect upon the great disgrace
That’s fallen on the human race
Slaving it’s vast intelligence
In service to such ignorance. [From Who Flings the Stars?]
Evolutionist Nobel Laureate du Nouy called the game in Human Destiny: “Each group, order or family seems to be born suddenly and we hardly ever find the forms which link them to the preceding strain. When we discover them they are already completely differentiated. . in general it is impossible to authentically connect a new group with an ancient one.”
Paleontology, incl: Schweitzer's discovery: red elastic tissue in Montana T-Rex, complete with odor of decay
Discontinuous & anachronistic layers of fossils: Lewis overthrust: lower fossils are “1,230,000,000 years younger than those above.” Explanation: 800 trillions tons of rock slid 50 miles.
Donald Johanson’s confession in LUCY that students believe anything you tell them. He found Lucy.
Many scientists of high credentials decry this myth, as Michael Denton called it.
Mathematical improbability
Disregard of artistry: Peacocks & Butterflies & Songbirds & Kittens
Unlikely/Bizarre systems of development: grub to cocoon to butterfly, shout divine design
Terns migrate pole to pole. Fragile Canadian Monarch butterflies traverse 2,000 miles to a tiny patch of forest in Mexico. They’re equipped with a unique circadian clock which lets them to fly by sunlight, automatically compensating for the sun’s position as the day advances.
No doubt you have explain-aways for the foregoing, evolutionary “scientists” never lack for reasons,but to me the majesty of creation testifies to a living God, “who created us, not we ourselves.” Or I'm in the wrong catagory,
thread.
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe in it because Creation is unthinkable”: Sir Arthur Keith, President, Royal Anthropological Institute. Evolution & Ethics, 1947
Aldous Huxley in 6/66 Report: Professions of a Confessest Atheist: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning ... objected to a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom”
Question: In China they take an aborted fetus, make soup out of it, and sell it for $40/Bowl. Since we're all just naked apes, and they need protein to sustain their masses, is there any moral basis on which to condemn the practice?
CHEMSCIENCE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by bluescat48, posted 11-03-2008 6:51 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Granny Magda, posted 11-03-2008 9:52 PM chemscience has replied
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2008 10:36 PM chemscience has replied
 Message 45 by bluescat48, posted 11-03-2008 11:41 PM chemscience has not replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 73 (487716)
11-03-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by bluescat48
11-03-2008 6:51 PM


Re: OK, HUNTARD #2
Hello Bluescat48
Huntard wanted to see the evidence of Bible authenticity I spoke of, I'm offering to present such, but don't wish to infringe on the wrong thread.
Answering your question: I believe these things contradict Darwinism:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by bluescat48, posted 11-03-2008 6:51 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2008 9:34 PM chemscience has not replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 73 (487720)
11-03-2008 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Granny Magda
11-03-2008 9:52 PM


Re: Tern Migration
Hi, Granny!
Dr. Steven Reppert, neurobiologist, says the Monarchs "have an entirely different way of building a circadian clock than the other insects and animals studied so far. ... I want to understnd how the brain incorporates information about time & space, and the monarch is a spectacular example."
Learning more of the secrets of the Monarchs inner timepiece might give scientists further insight into circadian clocks of humans & animals and may lead to new therapies for neurological afflictions.
TERNS: They cross thousands of miles of open ocean, powered by perhaps an ounce of body fat. If they miss target they die. Who taught terns where Antartica is? Trial & Error would be fatal. One generation of drowned terns and the species becomes extinct.
Of course one could posit their migrations commenced in Gondwana, before the continents separated, but that was about 4 times before birds are said to have arrived. Archeopteryx, [who was a real bird, btw] is pegged at 145 MY. So that Idea flunks. (It was mine, don't blame it on anybody else)
So the problem remains, How these fragile creatures acquired the skill and sense of direction to execute enormous round trips. I vote for Jehovah.
Now be frank, Granny: Based on this improbable phenomenon, could a reasonable person see it as basis for belief in creation?
If you have another idea please explain it in detail.
CHEMSCIENCE
Edited by chemscience, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Granny Magda, posted 11-03-2008 9:52 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Parasomnium, posted 11-04-2008 4:32 AM chemscience has not replied
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2008 5:57 AM chemscience has not replied
 Message 56 by Granny Magda, posted 11-04-2008 10:12 AM chemscience has replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 73 (487723)
11-04-2008 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coyote
11-03-2008 10:36 PM


CHEMSCIENCE ANSWERS COYOTE
COYOTE I like your name, at Phoenix Union HS Coyote was our mascot.
I love to hear them sing.
"But don't let that stand in the way of the standard creationist talking point that science is all wrong and can't be trusted because it changes. Those changes represent improvements; science is becoming more accurate all the time. Your examples from the Early Man book are horribly outdated. Care to try again with current scientific findings?"
Read carefully: my complaint is the DISHONESTY of a chart supposedly presenting 25MY of prehumans but the first 15MY weren’t "prehuman". It was commonly stripped of the subscripts under the critters. Visually it’s very persuasive. Who reads the captions anyway?
Those beasts are in your family album because they’ve nothing else to put there. Pictures sell books.
I’m holding a laminated Cambridge Research Group Ltd. 1997 chart called EVOLUTION with 16 butterflies progressing from iridescent blue, to a ones with orange spots, to orange butterflies.
I probably paid ten bucks for it in some museum. It’s convincing, but inspection reveals the 16 are the same bug, colored over. This is deceit, fraud, dishonest, perverse mendacious flim-flam. But I bet they sold a lot posters, and victims of their fraud were reinforced in an unscientific viewpoint.
I have a book from 30 years after the Piltdown fraud exposure with him right in the middle of the chart. Who cares?
"But don't let that stand in the way of the standard creationist talking point that science is all wrong and can't be trusted because it changes. Those changes represent improvements; science is becoming more accurate all the time."
You just used a standard evolutionist talking point: “We had it wrong, but we’re learning, & all creationist viewpoints are mass produced.”
I didn’t say science is all wrong. I'm saying evolutionism isn’t science. In science you don't have to lie.
"your examples from the Early Man book are horribly outdated."
No, Coyote, It's Darwin who's outdated. Didn't know a thing about the cell, DNA or biochemistry, but fashioned a myth that persuades millions whales walked on land & birds are dinosaurs. It's not testable, it's not science, it's just conjecture, with an agenda.
I received a solicitation from TEACH12.com with this headline: Could String Theory Be the Long-Sought "Theory of Everything"
24 lectures for $69.95.
TIME's 8/21/06 article: "The Unraveling of String Theory"
says "Without a shred of evidence, critics say, It doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong." Just think, if I get the CD I can impress all my egghead friends. Who cares if it aint science!
Columbia U. mathematician Peter Woit called it a "Rube Goldberg contraption"
Sounds like a 10 dimensional hallucination to CHEMSCIENCE.
But UltraDNS Client Redirection Service has all these CDs and they have to sell them to somebody.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2008 10:36 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Huntard, posted 11-04-2008 7:04 AM chemscience has not replied
 Message 51 by bluescat48, posted 11-04-2008 7:50 AM chemscience has replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 73 (487749)
11-04-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by bluescat48
11-04-2008 7:50 AM


BUTTERFLY CHART
The morphology and positioning of each insect is identical, dimensions, position of antenna, scalloping of wing edges, etc.
I wish you could see it, you'd agree.
Perhaps you can buy the chart
CHEMSCIENCE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by bluescat48, posted 11-04-2008 7:50 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by dwise1, posted 11-04-2008 1:36 PM chemscience has not replied
 Message 63 by bluescat48, posted 11-04-2008 2:33 PM chemscience has replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 73 (487757)
11-04-2008 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Blue Jay
11-03-2008 11:56 PM


Re: Gish Gallup
Thanks for the lesson, Bluejay.
Huntard is "sad" that I'd not given evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration. I outlined a protocol & menu of considerations to examine. I understand they were acceptable to Huntard.
I asked "where?" since ADM says this thread isn't for theological
topics. I want to answer Huntard's request, to isolate & concentrate on the evidence for Bible authenticity. If I do so here, I'll be out of bounds, a condition some apparently think I'm in right now.
I've been asked to back up what I believe with facts: I can do it. I'm new to this venue, unfamiliar with the compartmentalization of topics. A solution is for me to go away so as not to disturb the congruence of the thread. I've heard "No" often.
To Bluescat I listed some of my objections to accidentalism, not a complete list. I attended a 2 day symposium at Emory U advertised thusly: "Evolution vs Creation We thought it would be nice to throw eaverybody together in one room, we want to frame the controversy."
They framed it well: 9 "experts" on stage, none supported creation. The room reeked with hubris. The 400 or so biologists, Darwinists & students were told to play nice with the other kids and not use an insulting or snide manner should they speak to yahoos, idiots and dodos, terms referenced to believers like Betty and me.
I beat Tiger Woods in a round of golf last week. He didn't play badly, but I kept score.
No trespass intended.
CHEMSCIENCE
Edited by chemscience, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 11-03-2008 11:56 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by bluescat48, posted 11-04-2008 2:23 PM chemscience has not replied
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2008 2:27 PM chemscience has not replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 73 (487765)
11-04-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by bluescat48
11-04-2008 2:33 PM


PROCURING BUTTERFLY CHART
Good Show, Bluescat!
I admire a man who wants to get his hands on the evidence.
Copyright MCMXCVII
Cambridge Research Group, Ltd.
800-468-4227
Mine may have come from the British Museum.
CHEMSCIENCE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by bluescat48, posted 11-04-2008 2:33 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 11-04-2008 3:43 PM chemscience has not replied

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 73 (487771)
11-04-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Granny Magda
11-04-2008 10:12 AM


Re: Tern Migration
You sure know a lot about birds, Granny!
Obviously my inclusion of Tern migration is unconvincing.
How about a nice hot bowl of fetal soup?
Cheers!
CHEMSCIENCE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Granny Magda, posted 11-04-2008 10:12 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 11-04-2008 3:35 PM chemscience has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024