Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How bout it Hollie,are you ready for a discussion centering on science ?
Sorry. I have no interest in refuting creationist ministry youtube videos.
Worse yet, I have no interest in spending additional time chasing down the altered, falsified and edited "quotes" that you and the creationist ministries have a habit of manufacturing. I've scolded you and the other fundie on many occasions for deliberately posting altered, falsified and edited "quotes". You have proven you can't be trusted to be honorable and truthful.
You and the creationist ministries have this idea that denigrating science somehow proves your gods. That's not the case.
It is important for fundies like you to accept that the history of your beliefs has caused immense damage to the world. Medicine, philosophy, the arts, science have all suffered because of the actions of men who believed in supernatural entities. According to the bible, god created man, and forced on man all manner of evil. Man didn't create Satan, the gods did. Man didn't create sin, the gods did. Satan was "evil" before man was created-- did you ever read the Adam and Eve tale?
No real data,real evidence Hollie, Molecular biology. I won't mention God and you don't mention God.
I have no interest in spending additional time chasing down the altered, falsified and edited "quotes"
If you spent a little less time cutting and pasting from previous posts, you might have more time for real discussions.
I've often bagged on the finches and the Darwinian folklore on Giraffe necks. Here is more evidence against the Pseudoscience still taught in high schools to indoctrinate children:
"Darwin (1871) and many African folk legends before him [...] proposed a simple but powerful explanation for the large and elongated shape. Long necks allowed giraffe to outreach presumed competitors, particularly during dry-season bottlenecks when leaves become scarce;..." (Simmons and Scheepers). However, this old African folk legend which is still commonly taught in high schools, fails to explain, among other things, the size differences between males and females. Giraffe cows are up to 1.5 meters shorter than the giraffe bulls, not to mention the offspring. The wide migration range of the giraffe and the low heights of the most common plants in their diet likewise argue against the dominant selection hypothesis. Also: 1) The fossil "links", which according to the theory should appear successively and replace each other, usually exist simultaneously for long periods of time. 2) Evolutionary derivations based on similarities rely on circular reasoning. 3) The giraffe has eigh t cervical vertebrae. Although the 8th vertebra displays almost all the characteristics of a neck vertebra, as an exception to the rule the first rib pair is attached there. 4) The origin of the long-necked giraffe by a macromutation is, due to the many synorganized structures, extremely improbable. 5) Sexual selection also lacks a mutational basis and, what is more, is frequently in conflict with natural selection ("head clubbing" is probably "a consequence of a long neck and not a cause"; see also Mitchell et al. 2009). 6) In contrast to the thus-far proposed naturalistic hypotheses, the intelligent design theory is basically testable. 7) The long-necked giraffes possibly all belong to the same basic type inasmuch as 8) a gradual evolution from the short-necked to the long-necked giraffe is ruled out by the duplication of a neck vertebra and the loss of a thoracic vertebra. 9) Chance mutations are principally not sufficient to explain the origin of the long-necked giraffe. 10) The intelligent design theory offers an adequate and satisfying solution to the problems and points to numerous "old" and new research projects. 11) Mitchell and Skinner present a good analysis of the selectionist problem; however, their phylogenetic hypotheses presuppose the correctness of the synthetic evolutionary theory, and their claims of "intermediate forms" are unproven (similarly summary Part 2). Part 1 shows why Dawkins and Kutschera are wrong. The scientific facts speak for design."
Amazon.com: The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) What do we really know? Testing the Theories of Gradualism, Macromutation, and Intelligent Design (9783869914718): Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Books
Sorry. I have no interest in refuting creationist ministry youtube videos.
Worse yet, I have no interest in spending additional time chasing down the altered, falsified and edited "quotes" that you and the creationist ministries have a habit of manufacturing. I've scolded you and the other fundie on many occasions for deliberately posting altered, falsified and edited "quotes". You have proven you can't be trusted to be honorable and truthful.
You and the creationist ministries have this idea that denigrating science somehow proves your gods. That's not the case.
It is important for fundies like you to accept that the history of your beliefs has caused immense damage to the world. Medicine, philosophy, the arts, science have all suffered because of the actions of men who believed in supernatural entities. According to the bible, god created man, and forced on man all manner of evil. Man didn't create Satan, the gods did. Man didn't create sin, the gods did. Satan was "evil" before man was created-- did you ever read the Adam and Eve tale?
No real data,real evidence Hollie, Molecular biology. I won't mention God and you don't mention God.
"Real data,real evidence".... yeah.... just watch this video I cut and pasted from the ICR.
You're kidding, right?
More "science" from the creationist ministries:
Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DIs Egnor
The Panda's Thumb: Intelligent Design: 2007 Archives
By Guest Contributor on April 16, 2007 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)
by Douglas L. Theobald
As many of you undoubtedly know, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is the Discovery Institutes latest garrulous creationist mouthpiece. In a recent blog entry (Mr. Lemonick, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell - Evolution News & Views) responding to Michael Lemonick of Time Magazine, Egnor claims that the 19th century scientists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell used the inference to design to study electricity:
Lets ask: what role did the inference to design play for scientists who gave us electricity? The two scientific pioneers of classical electromagnetism, Faraday and Maxwell, were particularly devout Christians who inferred design everywhere in nature. They believed that God designed everything including electricity. Their approach to science was pure design inference, undiluted by atheism or materialism . They worked entirely from the design inference.
Faraday and Maxwell were Christians who did indeed see design in nature. However, Egnor has it backwards.
Continue reading Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor.
Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor - The Panda's Thumb
Claim CB040:
CB040: Left-handed amino acids
The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
Response:
1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).
Links:
Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. Chemical and Engineering News 81(32): 5. C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - SERINE FLAVORS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP
References:
1. Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595. 2. Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advancesin Space Research 23(2): 293-299. 3. Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed SolarSystem? Nature 389: 234-235. 4. McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234. 5. Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151. 6. Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltaniand M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801. 7. Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283. 8. Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523. 9. TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. News Release 10. Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.
No real data,real evidence Hollie, Molecular biology. I won't mention God and you don't mention God.
"Real data,real evidence".... yeah.... just watch this video I cut and pasted from the ICR.
You're kidding, right?
No, your words and my words and if I paste anything it will be from someone on your side.
Claim CB040:
CB040: Left-handed amino acids
The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
Response:
1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).
Links:
Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. Chemical and Engineering News 81(32): 5. C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - SERINE FLAVORS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP
References:
1. Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595. 2. Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advancesin Space Research 23(2): 293-299. 3. Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed SolarSystem? Nature 389: 234-235. 4. McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234. 5. Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151. 6. Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltaniand M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801. 7. Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283. 8. Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523. 9. TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. News Release 10. Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.
"Real data,real evidence".... yeah.... just watch this video I cut and pasted from the ICR.
You're kidding, right?
No, your words and my words and if I paste anything it will be from someone on your side.
You're still not getting it.
You have demonstrated on several occasions that the "quotes" you post are falsified, altered or edited. I've corrected these falsified "quotes" and you continued with attempts to deceive and misrepresent.
The problem you face is that the creationist ministries are never able to present a coherent argument in support of a 6,000 year old earth and evidence for the gods. The entirety of the Christian creationist argument amounts to frantic and hysterical attempts to denigrate science. You and the other fundie creationist have never argued in support of evidence for your gods. Both of you frantically cut and paste material from creationist hacks who invent weird claims that purport to show something about "left handed amino acids" do something to refute the entirety of the science proving evolution.
It's silly and a waste of time. There is ample refutation to these creationist claims as I posted in this thread.
Your flailing attempts to vilify science with outrageous claims, (so often invented and contrived) from creationist ministries is just not something I have an interest in pursuing.
The issue is that you don't know what you're arguing.Claim CB040:
CB040: Left-handed amino acids
The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
Response:
1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).
Links:
Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. Chemical and Engineering News 81(32): 5. C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - SERINE FLAVORS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP
References:
1. Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595. 2. Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advancesin Space Research 23(2): 293-299. 3. Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed SolarSystem? Nature 389: 234-235. 4. McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234. 5. Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151. 6. Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltaniand M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801. 7. Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283. 8. Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523. 9. TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. News Release 10. Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.
Look,left handed amino acids connect to produce proteins and they connect to form life.Right handed amino acids can't connect in that sequence of forming because that would prove to be fatal to the organism. Right handed amino acids are produced by cells as well but these right handed amino acids perform other duties that is not what you are understanding.
What you are attempting to do is show that right handed amino acids refute what is said they are not harmful to the formation of life they are if they were to connect with left handed amino acids. That is the part you are misunderstanding. Right handed amino acids are also produced by cells and they do have functions within a cell but not with forming life.
Let's let an agnostic man of science help you understand how the process works since you won't believe me. Here it is in a nutshell
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGVsIrAEn9s]Origin of Life 1 -- Abiogenesis - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gOP3Erie-Q&feature=watch_response]Origin of Life 2 -- The Simple Life - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i25UJG1S578&feature=relmfu]Origin of Life 3 -- Science & Creation Myths - YouTube[/ame]
You and Daws need to watch these videos to understand what I have been arguing.
Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer".No, your words and my words and if I paste anything it will be from someone on your side.
You're still not getting it.
You have demonstrated on several occasions that the "quotes" you post are falsified, altered or edited. I've corrected these falsified "quotes" and you continued with attempts to deceive and misrepresent.
The problem you face is that the creationist ministries are never able to present a coherent argument in support of a 6,000 year old earth and evidence for the gods. The entirety of the Christian creationist argument amounts to frantic and hysterical attempts to denigrate science. You and the other fundie creationist have never argued in support of evidence for your gods. Both of you frantically cut and paste material from creationist hacks who invent weird claims that purport to show something about "left handed amino acids" do something to refute the entirety of the science proving evolution.
It's silly and a waste of time. There is ample refutation to these creationist claims as I posted in this thread.
Your flailing attempts to vilify science with outrageous claims, (so often invented and contrived) from creationist ministries is just not something I have an interest in pursuing.
Wrong,your creation view is Abiogenesis no more credible by your own reasoning. Because you deny complexity as evidence of a designer.
The issue is that you don't know what you're arguing.Claim CB040:
CB040: Left-handed amino acids
The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
Response:
1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).
Links:
Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. Chemical and Engineering News 81(32): 5. C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - SERINE FLAVORS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP
References:
1. Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595. 2. Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advancesin Space Research 23(2): 293-299. 3. Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed SolarSystem? Nature 389: 234-235. 4. McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234. 5. Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151. 6. Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltaniand M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801. 7. Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283. 8. Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523. 9. TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. News Release 10. Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.
Look,left handed amino acids connect to produce proteins and they connect to form life.Right handed amino acids can't connect in that sequence of forming because that would prove to be fatal to the organism. Right handed amino acids are produced by cells as well but these right handed amino acids perform other duties that is not what you are understanding.
What you are attempting to do is show that right handed amino acids refute what is said they are not harmful to the formation of life they are if they were to connect with left handed amino acids. That is the part you are misunderstanding. Right handed amino acids are also produced by cells and they do have functions within a cell but not with forming life.
Let's let an agnostic man of science help you understand how the process works since you won't believe me. Here it is in a nutshell
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGVsIrAEn9s]Origin of Life 1 -- Abiogenesis - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gOP3Erie-Q&feature=watch_response]Origin of Life 2 -- The Simple Life - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i25UJG1S578&feature=relmfu]Origin of Life 3 -- Science & Creation Myths - YouTube[/ame]
You and Daws need to watch these videos to understand what I have been arguing.
You are hoping to denigrate science with the presumption that will somehow prove your gods. It won't.
As I noted before, your rabid cutting and pasting of YouTube videos is the entirety of your argument. I suppose I could cut and paste videos in refutation to your videos and in turn you could cut and paste more videos.
I suppose that at some pount, the videos could pair off by themselves and have their own debates.
Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer".You're still not getting it.
You have demonstrated on several occasions that the "quotes" you post are falsified, altered or edited. I've corrected these falsified "quotes" and you continued with attempts to deceive and misrepresent.
The problem you face is that the creationist ministries are never able to present a coherent argument in support of a 6,000 year old earth and evidence for the gods. The entirety of the Christian creationist argument amounts to frantic and hysterical attempts to denigrate science. You and the other fundie creationist have never argued in support of evidence for your gods. Both of you frantically cut and paste material from creationist hacks who invent weird claims that purport to show something about "left handed amino acids" do something to refute the entirety of the science proving evolution.
It's silly and a waste of time. There is ample refutation to these creationist claims as I posted in this thread.
Your flailing attempts to vilify science with outrageous claims, (so often invented and contrived) from creationist ministries is just not something I have an interest in pursuing.
Wrong,your creation view is Abiogenesis no more credible by your own reasoning. Because you deny complexity as evidence of a designer.
Your only argument in the affirmative is "yes it does, because I say so'.
There is nothing in the natural world that requires a "designer". You are arguing from a religious perspective and your religion is far removed from a science paradigm.
Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer".You're still not getting it.
You have demonstrated on several occasions that the "quotes" you post are falsified, altered or edited. I've corrected these falsified "quotes" and you continued with attempts to deceive and misrepresent.
The problem you face is that the creationist ministries are never able to present a coherent argument in support of a 6,000 year old earth and evidence for the gods. The entirety of the Christian creationist argument amounts to frantic and hysterical attempts to denigrate science. You and the other fundie creationist have never argued in support of evidence for your gods. Both of you frantically cut and paste material from creationist hacks who invent weird claims that purport to show something about "left handed amino acids" do something to refute the entirety of the science proving evolution.
It's silly and a waste of time. There is ample refutation to these creationist claims as I posted in this thread.
Your flailing attempts to vilify science with outrageous claims, (so often invented and contrived) from creationist ministries is just not something I have an interest in pursuing.
Wrong,your creation view is Abiogenesis no more credible by your own reasoning. Because you deny complexity as evidence of a designer.
Your only argument in the affirmative is "yes it does, because I say so'.
There is nothing in the natural world that requires a "designer". You are arguing from a religious perspective and your religion is far removed from a science paradigm.
I have no interest in spending additional time chasing down the altered, falsified and edited "quotes"
If you spent a little less time cutting and pasting from previous posts, you might have more time for real discussions.
Only with grown-ups.
More "science" from the creationist ministries:
Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DIs Egnor
The Panda's Thumb: Intelligent Design: 2007 Archives
By Guest Contributor on April 16, 2007 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)
by Douglas L. Theobald
As many of you undoubtedly know, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is the Discovery Institutes latest garrulous creationist mouthpiece. In a recent blog entry (Mr. Lemonick, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell - Evolution News & Views) responding to Michael Lemonick of Time Magazine, Egnor claims that the 19th century scientists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell used the inference to design to study electricity:
Lets ask: what role did the inference to design play for scientists who gave us electricity? The two scientific pioneers of classical electromagnetism, Faraday and Maxwell, were particularly devout Christians who inferred design everywhere in nature. They believed that God designed everything including electricity. Their approach to science was pure design inference, undiluted by atheism or materialism . They worked entirely from the design inference.
Faraday and Maxwell were Christians who did indeed see design in nature. However, Egnor has it backwards.
Continue reading Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor.
Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor - The Panda's Thumb
