"The Science Book!"

[ebia]

Dr. Robert V. Gentry stands unrefuted in the scientific literature...
...

I asked what that meant before. You declined to answer iirc.

Stop spamming and engage.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I asked what that meant before. You declined to answer iirc.

Stop spamming and engage.

Be nice, huh?

 

[Calminian]

3 Angels Messages,

Enjoyed you post to the Creation Resources. There was one on the dinosaurs I found particularly interesting.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Which one was that? Just curious.

 

[3 Angels Messages]

Dealing with more rocks, etc...

Three Great [older, but still great] Videos:

No Evolution:
No Evolution

Stratification:
No Evolution: Stratification

Philosophy:
No Evolution: Philosophy

...and now again from another angle...

[The Population Problem - Ian Juby, aka "Wazooloo" Youtube, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:
The Population Problem, CrEvo Rant #71 - YouTube

[Problem Solved... Increase in information in DNA... uhhh... never mind... - Ian Juby, aka "Wazooloo" Youtube, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:
Problem solved!: CrEvo rant #35 with Wazooloo - YouTube

[Response to "8th Foundational Falsehood" - Ian Juby, aka "Wazooloo", Youtube, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:
Ian Juby responds to AronRa's "8th Foundational falsehood of creationism" Wazooloo - YouTube

[Origin of Life by evolution? Noooope!... - Ian Juby, "Wazooloo", Youtube, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:
Evolution and the Origin of Life: CrEvo Rant #63 - YouTube

[Something from Nothing? - Ian Juby, "Wazooloo", Youtube, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:
Something from nothing - this is Genesis Week with Ian Juby (Wazooloo), Season 1, Episode 3 - YouTube

 

[Assyrian]

Spam spam spam spam...

 

[Smidlee]

I think you have no idea what most scientists know.

I'm far from being a know-it-all but I wouldn't say I have no idea. When I read an evolutionist describe what happen in our bodies/cell down to the small details then when trying to explain how these thing evolve all I read is "gugu-gaga" this tells me something what what they actually know and what they don't.
One thing I learn from sci-fi shows like Star Trek is it's a lot easier to imagine something (like traveling to the stars) than actually doing it. It's so easy to say "Beam me up, Scotty" in the make-believe world. It sounds so simple too.

 

[sfs]

I'm far from being a know-it-all but I wouldn't say I have no idea. When I read an evolutionist describe what happen in our bodies/cell down to the small details then when trying to explain how these thing evolve all I read is "gugu-gaga" this tells me something what what they actually know and what they don't.

This is what you offer to show that you do know something about evolution? "Gugu-gaga"? I'll repeat my challenge: what scientific work have you actually read about evolution? What were the problems with it? You've accused large numbers of scientists of lying -- don't you feel even the slightest need to back up your accusations?

 

[Smidlee]

This is what you offer to show that you do know something about evolution? "Gugu-gaga"? I'll repeat my challenge: what scientific work have you actually read about evolution? What were the problems with it? You've accused large numbers of scientists of lying -- don't you feel even the slightest need to back up your accusations?

For example by recommendment from another site is "The Plausibility of Life" and their gugu gaga is "facilitated variation".
So you think paying lip services to something is lying? Sometimes in a work place it's best to avoid confrontation. I remember one scientist admitted (I would say he was being honest) often if you want to be funded you have to go along with the current theory. The theory he was referring to was the Big Bang.

 

[sfs]

For example by recommendment from another site is "The Plausibility of Life" and their gugu gaga is "facilitated variation".

First of all, I asked about scientific work, not books for the general public. Second, you've read The Plausibility of Life and have specific scientific objections to it? If so, what are they?

So you think paying lip services to something is lying? Sometimes in a work place it's best to avoid confrontation.

Heck, yes. Paying lip service to a theory means acting like it's true when you know it's not. What is that but lying? Do you really think that's okay? As a scientist, I don't, and I don't as a Christian either.

I remember one scientist admitted (I would say he was being honest) often if you want to be funded you have to go along with the current theory. The theory he was referring to was the Big Bang.

It's a little hard to respond to unsourced comments by an unnamed scientist in a different field. What I can say is that it is simply not true that most scientists know there are major problems with evolution but keep quiet to avoid trouble. Biologists certainly know there are problems with evolutionary biology -- unanswered questions, competing explanations for particular facts, models that oversimplify complex realities -- but I don't know any that pretend that the problems don't exist. What they do not think that evolution is fundamentally wrong, or inadequate to explain the diversity and changes in life. Other than a tiny handful of religiously motivated individuals, biologists know evolution as an immensely powerful and successful theory that makes sense out of a vast range of biological data. If you think that biologists really know that evolution is wrong, but are conspiring to keep quiet about that fact, then yes, you don't know anything about real biologists.

 

[Smidlee]

First of all, I asked about scientific work, not books for the general public. Second, you've read The Plausibility of Life and have specific scientific objections to it? If so, what are they?

Their science seems rock solid until they try to bring evolution in the picture.

Heck, yes. Paying lip service to a theory means acting like it's true when you know it's not. What is that but lying? Do you really think that's okay? As a scientist, I don't, and I don't as a Christian either.

So you think it's wrong for a Christian who in biology class to give the expected evolution answer yet personally disagree with it? I would give the expected answer but if ask personally if I believe in evolution I would admit I did not.
While Daniel refuses to eat the king's meat and the king's drink he didn't make a big deal with their new names. Daniel knew when to take a stand and when not to.

It's a little hard to respond to unsourced comments by an unnamed scientist in a different field. What I can say is that it is simply not true that most scientists know there are major problems with evolution but keep quiet to avoid trouble. Biologists certainly know there are problems with evolutionary biology -- unanswered questions, competing explanations for particular facts, models that oversimplify complex realities -- but I don't know any that pretend that the problems don't exist. What they do not think that evolution is fundamentally wrong, or inadequate to explain the diversity and changes in life. Other than a tiny handful of religiously motivated individuals, biologists know evolution as an immensely powerful and successful theory that makes sense out of a vast range of biological data.

Really? How do you know this is true? Elijah thought he was the only one true to God but God let him know there were many others that were faithful yet they were more silent than Elijah.
There are scientist honest enough to admit they believe evolution even though the evidence is lacking in their field. I see evolutionist on sites like this more dogmatic about evolution than a lot of scientist are.
Notice you wrote "Biologist know" as if they are some kind of cult. I'm not an engineer yet I can clearly see the evidence of what engineer claims.

P.S This evolutionist has a theory of why people believe in evolution. Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - opinion - 12 October 2011 - New Scientist
Lying to ourselves helps us have more children which is probably also a lie to help us have more children.

 

[3 Angels Messages]

“Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life would arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. ...” [Wikipedia; Abiogenesis - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ],a process which is not scientific, and violates scientific laws, like biogenesis.

“...abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material ...” [Wikipedia; Spontaneous Generation - Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

“...The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. ...” [Wikipedia; Abiogenesis - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

“...Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that certain complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances. ...” [Wikipedia; Abiogenesis; subsection, “Spontaneous Generation” - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

“...In 1861, Louis Pasteur performed a series of experiments which demonstrated that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not spontaneously appear in sterile, nutrient-rich media. ...” [Wikipedia; Abiogenesis; subsection, “Spontaneous Generation” - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

“...There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. ...” [Wikipedia; Abiogenesis; subsection “Current Models - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

“... No one has synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life ...” [Wikipedia; Abiogenesis; subsection “Current Models” - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

“...Whether the mixture of gases used in the Miller–Urey experiment truly reflects the atmospheric content of early Earth is a controversial topic. ...” [Wikipedia; Abiogenesis; sub-subsection “reducing atmosphere” - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

“... The "soup" theory relies on the assumption proposed by Darwin that in an environment with no pre-existing life, organic molecules may have accumulated and provided an environment for chemical evolution. ...” [Wikiepdia; Abiogenesis; sub-subsection “Regarding monomer accumulation” - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

“...The spontaneous formation of complex polymers from abiotically generated monomers under the conditions posited by the "soup" theory is not at all a straightforward process. Besides the necessary basic organic monomers, compounds that would have prohibited the formation of polymers were formed in high concentration during the Miller–Urey and Oró experiments. The Miller experiment, for example, produces many substances that would undergo cross-reactions with the amino acids or terminate the peptide chain.

More fundamentally, it can be argued that the most crucial challenge unanswered by this theory is how the relatively simple organic building blocks polymerise and form more complex structures, interacting in consistent ways to form a protocell. For example, in an aqueous environment hydrolysis of oligomers/polymers into their constituent monomers would be favored over the condensation of individual monomers into polymers. ...” [Wikipedia; Abiogenesis; sub-subsection “regarding further transformation” - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

“...Some process in chemical evolution must account for the origin of homochirality, i.e. all building blocks in living organisms having the same "handedness" (amino acids being left-handed, nucleic acid sugars (ribose and deoxyribose) being right-handed, and chiral phosphoglycerides). Chiral molecules can be synthesized, but in the absence of a chiral source or a chiral catalyst, they are formed in a 50/50 mixture of both enantiomers. This is called a racemic mixture. Clark has suggested that homochirality may have started in space, ...” [Wikipedia; Abiogenesis; subsection “Models to explain Homochirality” - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ], that's right, when all else fails to be able to produce it on earth, they move it "off world"... nope not done here, but maybe a long time ago in a galaxy far far away...

“...The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered ...” [Wikipedia; Abiogenesis; subsection “From organic molecules to protocells” - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

“...Possible role of bubbles...” [Wikipedia; Abiogenesis - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ], this is science?

“Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter … The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial … It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). … Louis Pasteur's 1859 experiment put the question to rest.” [Wikiepdia; Spontaneous Generation - Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

“Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon. The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified. ...” [Wikipedia; Spontaneous Generation; subsection “Description” - Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ], the "modern version" simply has supposedly more steps, but it is merely a re-worked version of "spontaneous generation", which has been shown to be invalid, and they even call it as such.

 

[Assyrian]

Odd that you mention both Pasteur and chirality. Pasteur never thought his experiment disproved abiogenesis. Pasteur was an evolutionist (a Lamarckian) who though life originated on earth as a result of natural chiral processes.

Louis Pasteur - Wikiquote
The universe is asymmetric and I am persuaded that life, as it is known to us, is a direct result of the asymmetry of the universe or of its indirect consequences. The universe is asymmetric.
Works Vol. 1 (1 June 1874) Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences
​

What Pasteur's experiments showed was that the bacteria that soured milk and wine were the result of contamination, that it wasn't new bacteria spontaneously generating every time.

 

[Smidlee]

Pasteur as well as everyone else in 1874 believe cells were very simple. I wonder if he would continue stand by that quote if he knew what we know today. We now know why "bacteria and fungi do not spontaneously appear in sterile, nutrient-rich media"

 

[Assyrian]

Pasteur as well as everyone else in 1874 believe cells were very simple. I wonder if he would continue stand by that quote if he knew what we know today. We now know why "bacteria and fungi do not spontaneously appear in sterile, nutrient-rich media"

What ifs are always pretty speculative, but if Pasteur accepted evolution with the little evidence they had in 1874, he would hardly change his mind when 138 years of scientific research has only provided more evidence supporting evolution. What your complexity argument shows is that modern bacteria and fungi are too complex to be the first self replicators, a point that confirms Pasteur's experiments and that I think Pasteur would have agreed heartily with.

 

[Smidlee]

Evolution is way too simple after 150 years. All we got from evolution is still the "little eyeball that could" story and about some unknown Frankincell that has no evidence of ever existing.

 

[Assyrian]

Evolution is way too simple after 150 years. All we got from evolution is still the "little eyeball that could" story and about some unknown Frankincell that has no evidence of ever existing.

Perhaps it is your understanding of evolution that is too simplistic.

 

[Smidlee]

Perhaps it is your understanding of evolution that is too simplistic.

Even natural selection seems to be questioned.

 

[Assyrian]

Even natural selection seems to be questioned.

Because there are other means of selection at work too, but even Darwin realised that.

 

[sfs]

Their science seems rock solid until they try to bring evolution in the picture.

Which is to say, you don't have any specific scientific objections. Have you read the book or not? Why are you so unwilling to say anything concrete?

So you think it's wrong for a Christian who in biology class to give the expected evolution answer yet personally disagree with it? I would give the expected answer but if ask personally if I believe in evolution I would admit I did not.

If I were a student who disagreed with evolution, I would let my teacher know that I was answering questions about what the theory says, rather than what I believed to be true. Since when did dissembling and cowardice become acceptable in Christianity? (Forgivable, sure, but that's something else.)

The situation is much more stark with biologists, who are professionals working in their chosen field, and reporting their own findings. If they're reporting results as if evolution were true when they don't believe it, then yes, they're lying.

While Daniel refuses to eat the king's meat and the king's drink he didn't make a big deal with their new names. Daniel knew when to take a stand and when not to.

What do new names have to do with anything?

Really? How do you know this is true?

I am a biologist. I work with other biologists, share offices with them, chat with them in the halls, drink with them in bars, hang out with them at conferences. In many cases, I know about their political beliefs, I know about their attitudes toward religion, about their favorite sports teams. Without a single exception in my professional life, they routinely and instinctively turn to evolution as the explanatory framework for handling a variety of biological questions and for formulating research questions. There are plenty of arguments about the details and importance of various evolutionary mechanisms, and plenty of willingness to challenge accepted ideas, but never even a hint that they doubt the broad outlines of evolutionary theory. The only reason the question comes up at all is because they're aware of creationism, which they view as an outside threat. (And, in many cases, as evidence that Christians are dim-witted fanatics -- thanks a bunch, creationists.)

There are scientist honest enough to admit they believe evolution even though the evidence is lacking in their field.

Who? Again, specifics are needed. (Lewontin, maybe, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone else make anything like that statement.)

Notice you wrote "Biologist know" as if they are some kind of cult. I'm not an engineer yet I can clearly see the evidence of what engineer claims.

Airline pilots know that airplanes fly. Does suggest to you that they are some kind of cult? As an engineer, you can see and judge that engineers know what they're talking about, that there is evidence for their claims. How would you respond to someone who told you that there were serious problems with Ohm's Law, and that most electrical engineers just paid lip service to it to avoid confrontation?

Really, that's exactly how ridiculous this discussion is to someone within biology. You don't read biology research, you don't know what biologists do or how they think, but when a biologist comes along and tells you what's going on in the field, you are completely confident that you know better than he does. Can you see how arrogant and disconnected from reality this has to seem to scientists?

 

[metherion]

Airline pilots know that airplanes fly. Does suggest to you that they are some kind of cult? As an engineer, you can see and judge that engineers know what they're talking about, that there is evidence for their claims. How would you respond to someone who told you that there were serious problems with Ohm's Law, and that most electrical engineers just paid lip service to it to avoid confrontation?

Funny story, people do that a lot with chemists and entropy. Entropy originates in physical chemistry, in thermodynamics, and yet everybody seems to tell me how it works (wrongly) and how it dismisses evolution (which it doesn't) and how I must be stupid to not see it because the concept of entropy is so simple (which it isn't).

And that's also amusing, because I also have a degree in chemical engineering, and spent two semesters on thermodynamics there (in addition to the p-chem I'm taking for my master's), so I know entropy from there too, yet apparently even we engineers don't know what we're talking about. Quite amusing.


And no, I'm not trying to degree drop myself to get a one-up on the other people on this board. Back when I was at the University of Delaware, we had preachers who would come and stand on the street corners and rail against evolution and the like, and they would tell me how entropy worked and tell me what I said above when I said they were wrong. And then, of course, there are all the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS PREVENTS EVOLUTION things you see on the web.

Metherion