Author
|
Topic: The Simplest Protein of Life
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
To conclude, I think the chances of a living cell forming from chemicals that just happened to bond, is ridiculously unlikely. And every biologist in the world agrees with you. That is indeed not how living cells are produced: the chemicals don't "just happen to bond". Well done. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by BoredomSetsIn, posted 10-01-2012 9:00 AM | | BoredomSetsIn has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
When did I ever say this has to do with evolution?? You didn't. Which is kind of like discussing the origin of cheese without mentioning milk.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 6 by BoredomSetsIn, posted 10-02-2012 6:33 AM | | BoredomSetsIn has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 23 of 281 (674905)
10-04-2012 3:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by zaius137 10-04-2012 2:47 AM
|
|
The common way evolutionists minimize the problems of forming a protein ex nihilo ... ... is to point out that no evolutionist believes that that is what happened.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 22 by zaius137, posted 10-04-2012 2:47 AM | | zaius137 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 25 of 281 (674964)
10-04-2012 4:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by dwise1 10-04-2012 3:12 PM
|
|
It is the creationists who know how proteins actually form and yet who concoct and disseminate these ludicrous probability claims who are the liars ... That may however constitute an empty set.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 24 by dwise1, posted 10-04-2012 3:12 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Your case is lost...
So you're a crackpot about biology too? I might have guessed. In fact, I did. When I saw that you'd posted on this thread, I thought to myself: "A.M. will once again have degraded himself by drooling out stupid nonsense in public". And I was right. I must confess, I didn't guess just how stupid it would be. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Your case is lost...
Was that intended to mean anything, and if so was it related in any way to the topic?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Counterpoint The Surrealism Of The Underlying Metaphor
If you want a more extensive argument why water may be degrading to a memory arising from oblivion ... Good grief.
Replies to this message: | | Message 121 by Tangle, posted 10-18-2012 3:38 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Your case is lost...
What is exactly the simplest possible chemical and mechanical configuration that is that limit? Perhaps you could answer that question. Oh, wait, no you can't.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Your case is lost...
Sorry, Gyps, you might not be aware of that but in the meantime the relativity has been high-jacked by the bigbangism that restored back the naive idea of the universal calendar and is creationist geocentrism in disguise. This may possibly be the stupidest single sentence ever written. Should we congratulate you?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 275 of 281 (725149)
04-24-2014 1:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 263 by Ed67 04-24-2014 11:16 AM
|
|
Re: God of the Gaps Fallacy
And the whining "God of the Gaps" is not an argument. It shows that you have been presented with a situation that can best be explained by positing a creator. When Darwinists have no response, they whine "You used God-Of-The-Gaps" So, we'll add the phrase "God of the Gaps" to the list of things you don't understand, then.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 263 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:16 AM | | Ed67 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 276 of 281 (725150)
04-24-2014 1:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 268 by Ed67 04-24-2014 11:43 AM
|
|
Re: One Fell Swoop? Why not?
You mean, that's not how Darwinists believe EVOLUTION works, so they blithely dismiss the possibility without more thought. It's the FAITH STATEMENT that 'everything came about by some form of evolutionary process' that blinds Darwinists to the possibility of life being created in 'one fell swoop'. However, in view of the evidence, I submit that 'one fell swoop' is an inference to the best explanation for life's origin. Have you actually hit your head on something? Should we be concerned? You do seem unable to follow the simplest argument. Whatever the etiology of this defect, this should concern you.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 268 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:43 AM | | Ed67 has not replied |
|