Evolution False? Absolute proof inside.

[Aureus]

Forget that. All you need to do is trace the second quote in his signature.

Haha thank for this tip.

Gradyll, your quotation

"It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell's machines...could have formed spontaneously...as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.”
Jack Szostak 2009 scientific american
"

Well, it was used by others. And when used in this manner as you have used it, Szostak's wife had this to say

How dare you misrepresent my husband. Your quote from the Scientific American article blatantly distorts his meaning. It is virtually impossible to imagine the cell we know now to emerging from the pre-biotic earth. He and others have, over many years, been showing incrementally how an RNA cell might have been created on early earth. There is nothing in my husband’s work that suggests otherwise. It is quite sickening that you would try to make him, a steadfast rationalist and atheist, into a proponent for I.D. You are in complete disagreement with Prof. Jack Szostak. Unfortunately for you his opinion is backed up by facts and mountains of results from peer reviewed research.
Please refrain from misrepresenting his opinions or work again. We consider it slander.

 

[lasthero]

This has been pointed out to him quite a few times. He doesn't care.

 

[bhsmte]

Haha thank for this tip.

Gradyll, your quotation

"It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell's machines...could have formed spontaneously...as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.”
Jack Szostak 2009 scientific american
"

Well, it was used by others. And when used in this manner as you have used it, Szostak's wife had this to say

This is just par for the course and almost expected behavior from some posters.

Desperate people do desperate things and quote mining, is indeed an act of desperation, to protect a belief.

 

[createdtoworship]

Haha thank for this tip.

Gradyll, your quotation

"It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell's machines...could have formed spontaneously...as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.”
Jack Szostak 2009 scientific american
"

Well, it was used by others. And when used in this manner as you have used it, Szostak's wife had this to say

I work this week so I won't have much time to devote to this but remember the paradox that Szostak admitted to:

"On the other hand, the paradox would disappear if the first organisms did not require proteins at all. "

so either there were no proteins, or there was a paradox, and who would believe no proteins were needed in abiogenesis?

so most likely his doubt slipped, and I caught it.

secondly there are no such thing as quote mines:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7824867-12/#post65722254

 

[PsychoSarah]

I work this week so I won't have much time to devote to this but remember the paradox that Szostak admitted to:

"On the other hand, the paradox would disappear if the first organisms did not require proteins at all. "

so either there were no proteins, or there was a paradox, and who would believe no proteins were needed in abiogenesis?

so most likely his doubt slipped, and I caught it.

secondly there are no such thing as quote mines:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7824867-12/#post65722254

Denying the existence of quote mines after being on this site would be like denying the existence of the sun while you were staring right at it.

 

[[serious]]

I work this week so I won't have much time to devote to this but remember the paradox that Szostak admitted to:

"On the other hand, the paradox would disappear if the first organisms did not require proteins at all. "

so either there were no proteins, or there was a paradox, and who would believe no proteins were needed in abiogenesis?

What kind of scientist would propose an origin of life that didn't initially use proteins? What, does he have some sort of RNA enzyme system he thinks could replace it? And if he's discovered some sort of RNA enzyme, why hasn't he published it? I'm sure they would give him a nobel prize in science if he could show RNA had some sort of enzymatic activity in a key biological system like telomere lengthening.

Oh wait, he actually did all of that.

 

[Aureus]

I work this week so I won't have much time to devote to this but remember the paradox that Szostak admitted to:

"On the other hand, the paradox would disappear if the first organisms did not require proteins at all. "

so either there were no proteins, or there was a paradox, and who would believe no proteins were needed in abiogenesis?

so most likely his doubt slipped, and I caught it.

secondly there are no such thing as quote mines:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7824867-12/#post65722254

Really no quote mining? you just quote mined again.

"On the other hand, the paradox would disappear if the first organisms
did not require proteins at all. Recent experiments suggest it
would have been possible for genetic molecules similar to DNA or to
its close relative RNA to form spontaneously. And because these molecules
can curl up in different shapes and act as rudimentary catalysts,
they may have become able to copy themselves—to reproduce—without
the need for proteins. The earliest forms of life could have been
simple membranes made of fatty acids—also structures known to
form spontaneously—that enveloped water and these self-replicating
genetic molecules."

Your signature consists of three quotes. Two of them Isaac Newton quotes neither of which apparently are from a primary source and are therefor of questionable authenticity. One of them is a deliberately plucked quote taken entirely out of context that you then attempt to justify by taking yet *another* quote entirely out of context.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

You are engaging in corrupt communication with every post you make.

 

[AV1611VET]

Denying the existence of quote mines after being on this site would be like denying the existence of the sun while you were staring right at it.

I was under the impression that, back in T. Leary's days, students stared at the sun while on LSD.

You know? that chemical compound that scientists created in a laboratory?

 

[AV1611VET]

What kind of scientist would propose an origin of life that didn't initially use proteins?

One who believes in angels?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I was under the impression that, back in T. Leary's days, students stared at the sun while on DSL.

You know? that chemical compound that scientists created in a laboratory?

You mean LSD? Actually, the first high on that chemical was the result of some guy seeing strange goop and deciding to eat it.

Of all the drugs you could have picked on, you chose the one that was never used as a medicine, but rather as a weapon. Sure, the long term effects weren't initially known, but those labs it was first created in were government facilities testing if it had military uses. One notably being mind control.

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean LSD?

Wow!

Thanks again!

 

[[serious]]

Really no quote mining? you just quote mined again.

"On the other hand, the paradox would disappear if the first organisms
did not require proteins at all. Recent experiments suggest it
would have been possible for genetic molecules similar to DNA or to
its close relative RNA to form spontaneously. And because these molecules
can curl up in different shapes and act as rudimentary catalysts,
they may have become able to copy themselves—to reproduce—without
the need for proteins. The earliest forms of life could have been
simple membranes made of fatty acids—also structures known to
form spontaneously—that enveloped water and these self-replicating
genetic molecules."

That's not quote mining, that's just selecting a part of a quote that you can make sound like it kind of supports your position even though the very next sentence contradicts your position.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Wow!

Thanks again!

I greatly dislike it when you only address the most trivial parts of my posts.

 

[[serious]]

Wow!

Thanks again!

Hey, we can all be a little DiSLexic at times.

 

[[serious]]

I greatly dislike it when you only address the most trivial parts of my posts.

I took it as implied agreement on the broader point as well. I might be giving him too much credit, but AV generally admits it when he gets underlying facts wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, we can all be a little DiSLexic at times.

Ouch!

 

[AV1611VET]

I greatly dislike it when you only address the most trivial parts of my posts.

Well, excuse me.

What's to address?

Here ...

You mean LSD?

Yes, I meant LSD.

Actually, the first high on that chemical was the result of some guy seeing strange goop and deciding to eat it.

Okay.

Of all the drugs you could have picked on, you chose the one that was never used as a medicine, but rather as a weapon.

Okay.

Sure, the long term effects weren't initially known, but those labs it was first created in were government facilities testing if it had military uses.

Okay.

One notably being mind control.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Oka... er ... ... sorry.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Seriously AV, there are so many drugs that were used as medicine, I don't know how you managed to pick one of the few which wasn't.

Meth
Cocaine
Marijuana (it's made a bit of a comeback)
Opium
Alcohol (the beer kind, yup)
Heroin

Seriously, all those were at some point in time used commonly as medicines.

 

[Aureus]

Opium

Pretty much still is. Whole class of medical opiates.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Pretty much still is. Whole class of medical opiates.

Opiates is a class of many chemicals, sorry, didn't want to list them all out.