Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)?

or You're the one, chemscience, that's said both. Which scenario are you claiming now?And do bacteria and whales dissolve in seawater? They're made largely of polypeptides. How does that work?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

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

And its a good thing that they disolve in water or else the condensation necessary to create proteins from the amino acids would not occur and this planet would have no life.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

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.CHEMSCIENCEEdited by chemscience, : No reason given.

Chemscience:And a lipid vesicle with peptides inside is a little bag like a bacterium is, protecting the contents from hydrolysis. Yhese sort of structures have been made in the lab.Where's your data showing that amino acids are more soluble in salt water than fresh? My own 37 years in the chemistry biz makes me a little sceptical - you wouldn't be Making Things Up, would you?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Psalm 83:18

quote:

---

That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

---

So...You claim that the god of the Bible is the creator of all things.How do you back up this claim?It says so in the Bible.Well gosh, so it does! Do you know what circular reasoning is?Mutate and Survive.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi, Chemscience. Welcome to EvC! Everybody else has concentrated on the first two assumptions, which deal with abiogenesis, and explained how the Theory of Evolution does not hinge on these. I would like to add that none of the other five are assumptions that the Theory of Evolution relies upon, either.There are two different models of which you need to be aware: (1) Evolution by Natural Selection (“animals change in a heritable fashion over time, in a process regulated by environmental conditions”)---this I will henceforth abbreviate “ToE,” for convenience; and (2) Natural History (“the retelling of how evolution has played out in the past”). If you think about it, these two models are not at all the same. Note that “natural history” is not, itself, a theory, but is simply a field of study that pieces together how evolution happened in the past. Our understanding of natural history can change a thousand times over without once causing a problem for ToE.For example:“Assumption” #3 in your citation states, “viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.” Natural history states that this is true. But, if viruses arose separately from the primordial soup, evolution would still be happening. So, the ToE does not require assumption #3, nor does it actually assume assumption #3 at all. In fact, that all organisms are related is actually a conclusion, based on applying the ToE to the data that has been collected.“Assumption” #4 in your citation states, “Protozoa gave rise to Metazoa.” Again, notice my parenthetical explanation for the ToE model. What part of, “animals change in a heritable fashion over time, in a process regulated by environmental conditions” hinges on the Metazoa arising from the Protozoa? Only current understanding of natural history posit this. The mechanism proposed by ToE still functions just the same in a scenario where the Metazoa did not evolve from the Protozoa.I could continue down the list and show how each of the other “assumptions” is neither required nor assumed by ToE, but is only important to the concept of Natural History. So, when you, or any other creationist, argues against evolution, you should learn to distinguish our current understanding of the world’s history from our current understanding of the mechanisms that have been working throughout that history, because the ToE is really only one of those two things, and it isn’t the one that contradicts Genesis.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Welcome to the fray here at EvC, chemscience, Unfortunately for you, you do not get to decide on this matter. Terms used in science are defined by the scientists doing the science and not by people who have barely (if at all) studied it. If you do not use the terminology as defined in science then you are talking babble about babble.Simply speaking you are committing the logical fallacy of composition, whereby you are conflating all of science from cosmology to chemistry to geology to biology, etc. etc., into evolutionary biology. Sadly for you this just is not how science in general, and evolution in particular, work.http://theautonomist.com/...permanent/fallacies.php#compofalThis is commonly used in advertising (eg attack ads) to conflate, say, a political opponent with muslims, say, and then conflate muslims with terrorsts ... This is called the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, common for creationist types to use, because it is so similar to accepting the authority of their religion.http://theautonomist.com/...p/permanent/fallacies.php#advereIt is also commonly used in advertising, where an "endorsement" is used to somehow validate the product being hawked.Simply speaking, just because you have one voice saying something that doesn't make it true. You can quote anybody, and this applies.What you need to show is that the comment is true to use it, ... and then, curiously, you don't need to appeal to the authority. An easy target, and you got hit on it. You shouldn't blame Huntard when you literally asked for it.What you have listed are a number of PRATTs, and that means you have not really investigated the matter beyond a cursory, comfort zone, beginning. You're journey of understanding, should you choose to undertake it, may take a long time: how fast you go depends on what baggage you are willing or unwilling to leave behind. I suggest first that you discard false beliefs or what you think is true about evolution in particular and science in general.See Talk Origins PRATT list - An Index to Creationist Claims for a(n astonishing) number of such false concepts.If you are willing to learn, there are a bunch of people here who can help you in your quest for truth.If you want to adamantly declare your beliefs to be true, then I see no benefit to communication with a rock.Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

See The geological aspects of the origin of life on earth. by M. G. Rutten
Published in 1962, Elsevier Pub. Co. (Amsterdam, New York)
LCCN: 62010363
Dewey: 577.01
LC: QH325 .R82
Subject: Life ” Origin.
Geology.also listed on Amazon.comStill not a biology book eh?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

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 24:15Christians 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

I agree, I was hoping however that chemsci would be different and at least listen to the evidence...wishful thinking on my part.I dont know how it isn't obvious to him that he is completely in the dark on these subjects. I guess if they come into the discussion with, like you say--"The ultimate answers are "known" to its practitioners"--kinda attitude, then this will be one of those threads, like Buzsaw and his steel bar thread, that will get repetative. Yeah, and it looks like chemsci is fitting this profile quite nicely.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This is your bias, not ours.EvC is full of Christians who are experts in their fields of science; In fact a few have already replied to you on this thread. Its not about being Christian, or of any faith for that matter, its about educating yourself properly in science.It is not the scientist who is being arrogant, it is the person who is not a scientist, who claims to know MORE than the scientist, fails to give evidence for anything they claim, and then gets sensitive when the scientist tells them off.If you come in with that "I already know more about this shit than you do" attitude, and then fail to show proof for what you claim, professionals in the fields will lose patience and their temper since they've been working in Biology and Cosmology for many years for a laymen to come in and try to prove their worth with arguments from incredulity and appeals to authority.The great thing about EvC that I've found is that the authorities on alot of these subjects are here. You have your work cut out for you if you plan on sticking around and challenging certain theories. You'll find that alot of people in this forum realllllyyyy know what they're talking about.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This thread resides in one of the science forums. Discussion of God and religion is not appropriate for the science forums. Hence, any mocking of God would be discouraged by moderators, as would evangelizing. Evolutionists are unlikely to bring up God or religion in this thread, so if you don't either then it's a pretty safe bet you won't encounter any mocking of God.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hello again Chemscience. No worries, everybody makes mistakes, it's admitting you are wrong that is the hard part. And when you do, it shows you are willing to progress in life.But, according to RAZD, this is still not the title of the book. In which of course he is right, it's NOT about biology. Strange rules? What do you mean strange rules? Would you hire a bricklayer to do chemical analysis in that plant of yours? I wouldn't. And I would want a biologist to talk to me about biology, not a geologist. Just like no one knew where lightning came from a few hundred years ago, so we still don't know exactly how life first got started on this planet. Does this mean that god was a valid alternative for how lightning came to be? Whoopsee! See, everyone makes mistakes, and I'll admit I was wrong about the psalm you cited. That doesn't change the fact that Psalms AREN'T evidence. You wanted a better name for your list, and I gave you one. Don't ask people for something, and then when they give it to you complain about it. But, I'm not saying you don't think for yourself entirely, just where these points are concerned. Like RAZD points out, they are PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Your entire list is made up of them, there is evidence that refutes each and every point, yet somehow, you never came across it, while you only have to search the internet for a very short while to come up with that evidence. Oh alright, I might have overreacted there a bit. Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't deal with matter though. I did not mean to ridicule you, my apologies if you got offended. The point I was trying to make is that you can dream of any entity and claim it created the universe. When there is NO evidence to support it, everything is equally valid, and thus, not valid at all. My fantasy? What fantasy? I'm talking about reality all the time.I asked you to present some evidence which you say you have. I'm sad to see you haven't done so yet.

---

I hunt for the truth

His name is RAZD, but I'm sure he'll forgive you. That's probably because we've seen many who are. When presented with evidence that refutes their position, they usually cry "NUH-UH!" and then claim the are still right. That's not the hallmark of a person of intelligence, now is it? At least when it comes to that bit of their lives, they DO seem to be ignorant and dumb. This doesn't mean they can't pass complicated tests or anything, just that they seem closed of to some part of reality. The problem is these people often claim to be right even when shown evidence that they are wrong. This frustrates the people who show them the evidence, as they feel like all their effort was in vain. Yes, though people get offended FAR too easily these days. No, being christian has NOTHING to do with it, it has to do with denying evidence. As pointed out, MANY of the people on this board are Christian, and MANY of them are scientists. Of course he can, he has to present the gold though, not just assert he has it. This is indeed not a forum for preaching, this is the science bit of the forum, meaning you have to present evidence for your claims. And not agreeing with you is NOT equivalent to mocking god. You're not, you're not responsible for other peoples actions. For something to be considered TRUE, it needs supporting evidence. If you say so. There are a whole lot of people though, not in the least other Christians, who will disagree with you on that. Especially the "Jesus isn't god" part Please present these "mountains of evidence". Oh, by the way, shouldn't god be take on faith alone? And if you want to believe the promises in the bible are real, go right ahead, don't claim they are supported by evidence without presenting that evidence though.So, I'll ask you again. Please provide the mountains of evidence for your claims, or stop claiming there are mountains of evidence.

---

I hunt for the truth