Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   From protobionts to living cells
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 48 (497292)
02-03-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Cedre
02-03-2009 7:18 AM


Re: From protobionts to living cells - a response to Bluejay and Mr Jack
It turns out that the best Mr Jack and his colleagues can do and have been doing since 1882 is twiddle with a series of hypothesises. The question that must be asked after such a long period of time has passed is, have scientist ever regarded the likelihood that evolution as a theory may not be as probable as it is presumed by the larger science community? Have they (scientist) ever been plagued by the thought that they might perhaps be wasting expensive time and money trying hard to substantiate and sustain an untrue theory? They wouldn't dare ask such questions because the only alternative that remains afterwards for the cause of life on earth is God.
...
I must wonder is the scientific community afraid to admit the wrongness of this (abiogenesis) hypothesis, because the only other alternative is creation, so they deliberately mislead the masses and kill off their faith in a higher being. I don't know its just a thought.
As paranoid fantasies go, this one is somewhat vitiated by the fact that a large proportion of scientists have faith in God.
However, being scientists, they believe in a God who created this universe, the one we actually live in and which is revealed to us by scientific inquiry, rather than in the silly universe that exists only in the imaginations of creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Cedre, posted 02-03-2009 7:18 AM Cedre has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 48 (497397)
02-04-2009 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cedre
02-04-2009 1:13 AM


Re: Mutations
As beguiling as your offer sounds dear Wounded King, for the time being I"ll have to pass it up (not chicken out), instead I think that I'll linger a while longer on the subject of origins. However, I couldn't help notice that my refering you to a page has been an altogether otiose undertaking. I wonder how much evidence it will take to convince you people. Concerning the page, either you didn't analyse the sound evidence that is provided in it that clearly show the infeasibility of mutations to bring forth useful adaptations, or it may well be you've been blinded from seeing the evidence which is right before you by the dogmatic views of darwin followers.
There is a third option I'd like to proffer for your consideration, which is that, being familiar with the actual evidence (which does not include stuff that creationists make up) we are aware that the claims made by AiG are complete rubbish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 1:13 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 3:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 48 (497420)
02-04-2009 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cedre
02-04-2009 3:49 AM


Re: responding to Dr adequate
Your statement is frightfuly bold, Dr adequate. I will not speak for others but from experience I can avow that the different men and women who write on AiG are real qualified scientists, some of them are on a par with the best of what evolution can offer ...
On a par? I doubt that, firstly because of the mass of silly mistakes in the article, and partly because evolutionists produce good science, not random creationist blather.
Here, for example, are 72 Nobel-Prize winning scientists, and what they told the court in the case of Edwards v. Aguilard:
The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept [...] Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom. --- Nobel Laureates: Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.
Perhaps you could find 72 creationists with achievements "on a par" with these people.
They include, please note, Francis Crick and James Watson, discoverers of the structure of DNA, Har Khorana and Marshall Nirenberg, who deciphered the genetic code, Severo Ochoa, who discovered how DNA is transcribed into RNA, Robert Holley, who first described the structure of transfer RNA, David Baltimore, Howard Temin and Renato Dulbecco, discoverers of reverse transcriptase, Arthur Kornberg, the first man to isolate a DNA polymerase, Salvador Luria, who discovered restriction enzymes, Hamilton Smith, who discovered type II restriction enzymes and who sequenced the first bacterial genome, Barbara McClintock, who discovered transposons, and George Snell, who discovered the genetic factors underlying transplant acceptance or rejection. I think they might know a teensy bit more about genetics than this Dr. Gary Parker and his string of ridiculous mistakes.
What is more, though, is that, these scientists are also bible-believing christians, and to me it seems silly that they they would publish information with the intend to cozen unwitting readers. What good would it do for them but send them straight to the pits of hell. The bible guarantee us that all liars will have their part in hell, and in any event honesty is one of Christianity's precepts.
As has been pointed out to you, they don't know that they're wrong. It's not that they're deliberate liars, but just that they combine arrogance, ignorance, laziness and wishful thinking. They are not liars, who say things that they know to be untrue; they are bullshitters, who haven't taken the trouble to find out that what they're saying is untrue.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 3:49 AM Cedre has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 48 (497422)
02-04-2009 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Cedre
02-04-2009 5:10 AM


Re: Hunted
Well it's suprising for you to ask that question, my man, where've you been all this time, don't you get outsite of the house every so often to marvel at the beauty and sheer genius of nature. The hand of God hasn't been more evident in nature since the birth of science that has started unravelling the cell to unearth such involutions as the citric acid cycle, glycolysis and the various transport mechanism involved in generating useful energy, the slitting of the DNA helix ending up in two daughter DNA, transcription, translation ...
Well now you're just playing into my hands. Who do you think discovered all these things?
(See my previous post for an answer.)
The hand of God is evident and logic supports that notion, science may not be able to validate his existence beyond a shadow of or doubt but it sure does a brilliant task at revealing his handywork in nature.
But it is not "evident" to the people who actually study nature and found out all these things for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:10 AM Cedre has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 48 (497423)
02-04-2009 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Cedre
02-04-2009 5:34 AM


Re: Hunted
Perhaps Mr Hunter you do not realise just how huge a bone of contention not being able to explain how life originated for evolution is, if truth be told, it is a huge prickly thorn embedded out of reach in the side of evolution and no amount of abiobabble surgery will get rid of it. Let me explain why, Number one life as said by evolutionist has come about from non living mattr via four physical and chemical process aided by the(blind)force of natural selection and transforming abilities of mutations. First the emergence of dead organic matter like say nucleotides. Second the joining of the above-named monomers and others to form nucleic acids and other molecules such as amino acids. Third the arranging of these molecules into "protobionts" membrane-bound droplets with internal conditions differen't from that of their surroundings (So what my house has got conditions different from that of my yard, we keep it warm in winter and cool in summer but it doesn't mean its going to come to life someday or spontaneaosly give rise to a living cell). Then finally origin of self-replicating molecules that ushered in the age of replication. As easy as that. Hardly this sounds good on paper but what is its relevance to real world.
No amount of saying this makes it true.
The theory of evolution stands whether the first life was produced in accordance with the laws of nature or by God doing magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:34 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 5:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 39 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 6:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 48 (497435)
02-04-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Cedre
02-04-2009 6:02 AM


Re: Dr Adequate
Evolution isn't riding on such a clean and admirable slate as you think Dr. inadequately informed. You might want to look into Jean-Baptiste de Larmarck's work sometime, fascinating stuff, all disproved by the modern understanding of genetics, and who by the by was the father of genetics non other than a little christian monk called Gregor Mendel.
The "modern understanding of genetics" is, in fact, the theory of evolution. This is why biologists aren't Lamarckists.
Pray also look into the fruadulent models of embroyolgy that this guy Ernst Heinrich Haeckel invented to decieve.
I have looked at them. Haeckel was wrong. This is why his ideas form no part of the theory of evolution.
Are you familiar with Hitler, yes the dictator he commonly declared that Jews were completely ape, many of his ideas were inspred by the theory of devilution oh sorry i meant to say evolution.
I am familiar with Hitler's writings on this subject. You, evidently, are not.
"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi
"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
You see what I mean about Creationists being bullshitters? You could have easily found out that you were not telling the truth, but you couldn't be bothered.
Enough of that do you know Johannes Kepler, I think you're very familiar with this one Galileo Galilei , or Blaise Pascal,Robert Boyle, O this want is a masterpiece the cream of the crop Sir. Isaac Newton, what about Carolus Linnaeus the father of modern taxonomy, Louis Pasteur, and Lord Kelvin, all atleast believers in a God some really passionate about God, and you know what the list is endless but I think you've got my point so I'll stop here.
You're talking now almost exclusively about people who didn't know about evolution (with the exception of Lord Kelvin, whose arguments against it have definitively been proven wrong). You might as well point out that Newton didn't believe in the planet Neptune.
How about some people who are actually alive, and who are aware of all the discoveries made in biology over the last 150 years?
I note also that your original claim was, and I quote, about the "different men and women who write on AiG". You wrote:
"the different men and women who write on AiG are real qualified scientists, some of them are on a par with the best of what evolution can offer". None of the people you have named writes for AiG. Can you name anyone who writes for AiG who has made any contribution to science comparable to the 72 Nobel Laureates whom I listed?
(Hint: no you can't.)
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 6:02 AM Cedre has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 48 (497438)
02-04-2009 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Cedre
02-04-2009 6:20 AM


Re: Annafan
You have to face up to the facts if there is no known or at least plausible mechanism that could account for a spontaneous generation, we are left to conclude that a higher-intellegence is responsible for life.
No. This is a bizarre leap of illogic.
The history of science is full of people looking at things for which there was no known mechanism, and then discovering the mechanism. Anyone who had pointed at any of those things before the mechanism was discovered and said: "So we must conclude that God did it by magic" would have been wrong.
And that being so we have to come to terms with the fact that he may well be the God of the bible, and the world has been created as it is postulated in the Genesis account.
Another leap of illogic. Even if there was a requirement for magic as a cause for the first life, that would by no means confirm or even suggest the truth of a literal reading of Genesis.
Everything was created in its present form ...
A claim totally contraindicated by all the actual evidence having any bearing on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 6:20 AM Cedre has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024