Creationists

[Dr.Drock]

Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.

I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.

Now present your evidence.

No, you take a man's word for what he says god said, then all the interpretations over thousands of years.

I have given many reasons why i trust the bible. But you accuse me of something you do yourself taking the word of men who claim your relatives are chimps.

Who wrote the Bible? Men

Who rewrote it over thousands of years? Men

Who translanted it over and over again to new languages thought up by men? Men

 

[Youwerecreated]

No he didn't, his stupid assessment that mutations can't be beneficial was proven wrong by the experiment, and many others I'm sure.

But what I'm saying is you don't look at people's proof when it says something you don't want to hear, so why do you ask for proof when you don't even acknowledge or click on it?

Evidently you did not read what he stated you are lying.

His jibberish is that beneficial mutations can't affect a large population, which my link with the experiment already proved was pure hysterical lunacy. It wasn't "theorized" to be wrong, it was proven wrong in a lab.

He's a nutjob who tells you what you want to hear, so you lap it up.

Really,can you point out any positive mutation that spread through the whole population of man through natural selection and prove it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

We don't have a "main argument", DNA is a piece of the evidence of evolution but there's many many pieces of evidence of evolution.

Like I already showed you with these quotes, kind can mean he's the guiding hand behind evolution. It doesn't say every species stayed the same.

All things comes from the ground could be interpretted to mean elements on the ground are what started live and evolved into the plants and animals we see today.

You don't have to take the science-hating side, you can believe your Bible without sounding like a crazy fundamentalist kook, most christians take the sane side and they embrace science. But you choose to sound like a kook for whatever reason.

How do you get around this ?

26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them

Doesn't say how long it took him to create man, most christians I hear say a day to God isn't the same as a day to man.

So you could interpret it to mean, according to man's time it took billions of years to finish creating our current species with how he used his guiding hand in evolution.

See, still didn't have to deny science.

Like i said in the past the max age of the planet is 13,000 years old going by what the bible states. But i don't know for sure i was not there.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, you take a man's word for what he says god said, then all the interpretations over thousands of years.

I have given many reasons why i trust the bible. But you accuse me of something you do yourself taking the word of men who claim your relatives are chimps.

Who wrote the Bible? Men

Who rewrote it over thousands of years? Men

Who translanted it over and over again to new languages thought up by men? Men

Yes men wrote it and translated it but why did they have to translate it over and over ? I'll tell you because they made it available in all lanuages and each lanuage added words to their vocabulary but they did not change the message that is what you're missing.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Evidently you did not read what he stated you are lying.

His jibberish is that beneficial mutations can't affect a large population, which my link with the experiment already proved was pure hysterical lunacy. It wasn't "theorized" to be wrong, it was proven wrong in a lab.

He's a nutjob who tells you what you want to hear, so you lap it up.

Really,can you point out any positive mutation that spread through the whole population of man through natural selection and prove it ?

I see, now we're moving the goalposts to only include man. Since you didn't like being proven wrong when beneficial mutations were shown in mice, I can see why you'd want to move the goalposts.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans

The links shows mutations in man with relation to heart disease and how those with the mutation are beneficial to those with the mutation. There's other instances of benefticial mutations as well in the link.

All done by doctors with MD's, all with evidence to back them up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We don't have a "main argument", DNA is a piece of the evidence of evolution but there's many many pieces of evidence of evolution.

Like I already showed you with these quotes, kind can mean he's the guiding hand behind evolution. It doesn't say every species stayed the same.

All things comes from the ground could be interpretted to mean elements on the ground are what started live and evolved into the plants and animals we see today.

You don't have to take the science-hating side, you can believe your Bible without sounding like a crazy fundamentalist kook, most christians take the sane side and they embrace science. But you choose to sound like a kook for whatever reason.

How do you get around this ?

26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them

Doesn't say how long it took him to create man, most christians I hear say a day to God isn't the same as a day to man.

So you could interpret it to mean, according to man's time it took billions of years to finish creating our current species with how he used his guiding hand in evolution.

See, still didn't have to deny science.

Ok let's use your reasoning God said he created all in 6 days.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Now do you think it is possible for anything especially man to evolve in a thousand years ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I have given many reasons why i trust the bible. But you accuse me of something you do yourself taking the word of men who claim your relatives are chimps.

Who wrote the Bible? Men

Who rewrote it over thousands of years? Men

Who translanted it over and over again to new languages thought up by men? Men

Yes men wrote it and translated it but why did they have to translate it over and over ? I'll tell you because they made it available in all lanuages and each lanuage added words to their vocabulary but they did not change the message that is what you're missing.

How do you know they didn't change the message?

Have you ever studied a foreign language? There's words that are in one language and aren't in another so you can't provide an exact translation.

If someone can't provide an exact translation through multiple languages over thousands of years, don't you think it's possible for a flawed species to make a flaw in the message?

 

[LOki]

I have been pointing out to you evidence of design.

No you haven't.

And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.

I can see you have clearly capitulated.

Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.

I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.

Now present your evidence.

Last chance.

Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.

Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.

Your refusal of my request will make patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Furthermore, such continued (and intellectually disingenuous) refusals will be taken as prima facie evidence that your patent disdain for the validity of verifiable evidence and valid logic discredits your every rebuttal to the case of evolution, and certainly every accusation you make disparaging evolutionists.

I predict, as I have so successfully before, that you will not. You are the Prince of Turds; a shining credit to the intellectual dishonesty of every superstitious retard who shares your patently invalid beliefs.

 

[Youwerecreated]

His jibberish is that beneficial mutations can't affect a large population, which my link with the experiment already proved was pure hysterical lunacy. It wasn't "theorized" to be wrong, it was proven wrong in a lab.

He's a nutjob who tells you what you want to hear, so you lap it up.

Really,can you point out any positive mutation that spread through the whole population of man through natural selection and prove it ?

I see, now we're moving the goalposts to only include man. Since you didn't like being proven wrong when beneficial mutations were shown in mice, I can see why you'd want to move the goalposts.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans

The links shows mutations in man with relation to heart disease and how those with the mutation are beneficial to those with the mutation. There's other instances of benefticial mutations as well in the link.

All done by doctors with MD's, all with evidence to back them up.

Drock a positive mutation has to be present in all humans for macro-evolution not a certain few.

 

[Dr.Drock]

How do you get around this ?

26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them

Doesn't say how long it took him to create man, most christians I hear say a day to God isn't the same as a day to man.

So you could interpret it to mean, according to man's time it took billions of years to finish creating our current species with how he used his guiding hand in evolution.

See, still didn't have to deny science.

Ok let's use your reasoning God said he created all in 6 days.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Now do you think it is possible for anything especially man to evolve in a thousand years ?

That could just mean one days is as important to the lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as important to the lord as one day.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Really,can you point out any positive mutation that spread through the whole population of man through natural selection and prove it ?

I see, now we're moving the goalposts to only include man. Since you didn't like being proven wrong when beneficial mutations were shown in mice, I can see why you'd want to move the goalposts.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans

The links shows mutations in man with relation to heart disease and how those with the mutation are beneficial to those with the mutation. There's other instances of benefticial mutations as well in the link.

All done by doctors with MD's, all with evidence to back them up.

Drock a positive mutation has to be present in all humans for macro-evolution not a certain few.

No, no it doesn't. But thank you for waving the white flag by not questioning the doctor's findings.

Macroevolution doesn't happen only because of beneficial mutations, I tried getting that through your thick head dozens of pages ago and it seems I failed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who wrote the Bible? Men

Who rewrote it over thousands of years? Men

Who translanted it over and over again to new languages thought up by men? Men

Yes men wrote it and translated it but why did they have to translate it over and over ? I'll tell you because they made it available in all lanuages and each lanuage added words to their vocabulary but they did not change the message that is what you're missing.

How do you know they didn't change the message?

Have you ever studied a foreign language? There's words that are in one language and aren't in another so you can't provide an exact translation.

If someone can't provide an exact translation through multiple languages over thousands of years, don't you think it's possible for a flawed species to make a flaw in the message?

Drock i have eleven different versions i see the same message in all of them.

Manuscripts have been handed down over the years but I still see too much of the bible being verfied through archaeology and has been stated the things contained in the scriptures that men did not know until modern day science confirmed them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No you haven't.

And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.

I can see you have clearly capitulated.

Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.

I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.

Now present your evidence.

Last chance.

Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.

Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.

Your refusal of my request will make patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Furthermore, such continued (and intellectually disingenuous) refusals will be taken as prima facie evidence that your patent disdain for the validity of verifiable evidence and valid logic discredits your every rebuttal to the case of evolution, and certainly every accusation you make disparaging evolutionists.

I predict, as I have so successfully before, that you will not. You are the Prince of Turds; a shining credit to the intellectual dishonesty of every superstitious retard who shares your patently invalid beliefs.

Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.

 

[Dragon]

Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.

He CAN prove it to anyone willing to honestly evaluate the evidence. The problem is that that clearly does not describe you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I see, now we're moving the goalposts to only include man. Since you didn't like being proven wrong when beneficial mutations were shown in mice, I can see why you'd want to move the goalposts.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans

The links shows mutations in man with relation to heart disease and how those with the mutation are beneficial to those with the mutation. There's other instances of benefticial mutations as well in the link.

All done by doctors with MD's, all with evidence to back them up.

Drock a positive mutation has to be present in all humans for macro-evolution not a certain few.

No, no it doesn't. But thank you for waving the white flag by not questioning the doctor's findings.

Macroevolution doesn't happen only because of beneficial mutations, I tried getting that through your thick head dozens of pages ago and it seems I failed.

Yes it does

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.

He CAN prove it to anyone willing to honestly evaluate the evidence. The problem is that that clearly does not describe you.

Explain chirality according to your theory ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.

He CAN prove it to anyone willing to honestly evaluate the evidence. The problem is that that clearly does not describe you.

Here you go.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

by Charles McCombs, Ph.D. *

Download Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality PDF

When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals. Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption and has never been demonstrated. Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the building blocks of life. I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator? For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of chirality. Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they do not even want to discuss.

Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.

What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.

I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

There is another problem with DNA and how it works in the human body. As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.

Let's look at DNA and this repair mechanism, if indeed they were formed from random chance natural processes. If the repair mechanism evolved first, what use is a repair mechanism if DNA has not evolved yet? If DNA evolved first, how would the DNA even know it would be better off with a repair mechanism? Can molecules think? DNA is not a stable chemical molecule, and without a repair mechanism, it would easily deteriorate by chemical oxidation and other processes. There is no mechanism to explain how DNA could exist for millions of years while the repair mechanism evolved. DNA would just decompose back into pond scum before the alleged billions of random chance mutations could ever form the repair mechanism.

Once we realize that design does not happen by chance, then we realize that the entire universe is not the product of a random, chance process; it is the result of an omnipotent Creator who created everything by just His Word. I hope you are beginning to see the problem. Evolution can give you a theory that might on the surface seem possible, but when true science gets involved and scientists start asking questions, the problems and false logic of the theory become apparent. This is why evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

* Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

 

[Dragon]

By the way, your statement that a positive mutation has to be present in "all humans" for "macroevolution" to take place is completely wrong.

If "macroevolution" were to take place in the human species, it would be through a new species branching off from us. The most likely way for this to happen is if a human population were to be isolated from all other humans for a few million years. Conceivably this could happen as a result of space colonization. The different population groups and the different circumstances of life on the other planet would cause the two populations to diverge through evolution. Eventually (but again, we're talking at least a million years) the colony population could be changed enough that it and Earth humans would no longer be interfertile. Whatever mutations had occurred in the colony population would not exist at all in the Earth population, let alone be present in "all humans."

 

[Dragon]

In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions.

[All snipped except the pertinent part.] [You could have done this yourself if you had understood what you were quoting.]

If left-handed proteins and nucleic acids are necessary for life, then right-handed proteins and DNA will be eliminated by natural selection. There is no need for chirality to occur "randomly." Evolution is not random. This is not a problem.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh, well, if DRAGON says so, it must be so.

More evidence of the idiocy of pseudo intellectuals who poo-pooh their betters.