What a terrible thing it is to want less pollution...
I'm sorry, but I have seen no evidence that God will protect the unbron from excessive mercury and arsenic in groundwater, etc.
Why noit "err" on the side of caution?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why evolution doesn't work.
- Thread starter Risen Tree
- Start date
What a terrible thing it is to want less pollution...
I'm sorry, but I have seen no evidence that God will protect the unbron from excessive mercury and arsenic in groundwater, etc.
Why noit "err" on the side of caution?
Why?
I grow tired of fringe fanatics insisting that because thy disagree with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that they are right.I'm really growing tired of seeing this. Just because the scientific community accepts a theory does not automatically make it true.
Please support accusation of lies.
Upvote
0
RT:
"Do you realize that I only share 2^-(15+1) = 0.00153% of my DNA with my 15th cousin, assuming no inbreeding along the way? "
Indeed. I am always surprised at the many bizarre 'matter-of-fact', yet totally bogus, claims creationists make.
And the utter confidence they project while making them...
"Do you realize that I only share 2^-(15+1) = 0.00153% of my DNA with my 15th cousin, assuming no inbreeding along the way? "
Indeed. I am always surprised at the many bizarre 'matter-of-fact', yet totally bogus, claims creationists make.
And the utter confidence they project while making them...
Upvote
0
Hi Chase,
Maybe at some point you can finish up these threads:
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000003.html
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000055.html
Of probable interest to all, especially those "interested" in biochemistry and evolution, M. Denton (yes, that one) has recently co-authored a paper in which those "improbability" claims of creationists are now on even less sure footing than they were originally:
J Theor Biol 2002 Dec 7;219(3):325-342
The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the Pre-Darwinian
Conception of Evolution by Natural Law.
DENTON MJ, MARSHALL CJ, LEGGE M.
Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
Before the Darwinian revolution many biologists considered organic forms to be determined by natural law like atoms or crystals and therefore necessary, intrinsic and immutable features of the world order, which will occur throughout the cosmos wherever there is life. The search for the natural determinants of organic form-the celebrated "Laws of Form"-was seen as one of the major tasks of biology. After Darwin, this Platonic conception of form was abandoned and natural selection, not natural law, was increasingly seen to be the main, if not the exclusive, determinant of organic form. However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds-advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics."
The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction. We argue that this is a major discovery which has many important implications regarding the origin of proteins, the origin of life and the fundamental nature of organic form. We speculate that it is unlikely that the folds will prove to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law, and suggest that natural law may have played a far greater role in the origin and evolution of life than is currently assumed.
Maybe at some point you can finish up these threads:
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000003.html
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000055.html
Of probable interest to all, especially those "interested" in biochemistry and evolution, M. Denton (yes, that one) has recently co-authored a paper in which those "improbability" claims of creationists are now on even less sure footing than they were originally:
J Theor Biol 2002 Dec 7;219(3):325-342
The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the Pre-Darwinian
Conception of Evolution by Natural Law.
DENTON MJ, MARSHALL CJ, LEGGE M.
Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
Before the Darwinian revolution many biologists considered organic forms to be determined by natural law like atoms or crystals and therefore necessary, intrinsic and immutable features of the world order, which will occur throughout the cosmos wherever there is life. The search for the natural determinants of organic form-the celebrated "Laws of Form"-was seen as one of the major tasks of biology. After Darwin, this Platonic conception of form was abandoned and natural selection, not natural law, was increasingly seen to be the main, if not the exclusive, determinant of organic form. However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds-advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics."
The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction. We argue that this is a major discovery which has many important implications regarding the origin of proteins, the origin of life and the fundamental nature of organic form. We speculate that it is unlikely that the folds will prove to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law, and suggest that natural law may have played a far greater role in the origin and evolution of life than is currently assumed.
Upvote
0
Lucaspa,
Thank you very much for replying to my post--I do appreciate it. And it's good to know someone who has a Ph.D in biochemistry. However, I would like to say that your attitude turned me off somewhat. As a matter of fact, I did read the paper, I photocopied it. It had been a long time since I read it (a couple months) and I did not readily identify the abstract. Whoever told me you quoted it said it was recent so I thought it might be Reader and Joyce, "A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides," Nature 420(6917):841-844, 19/26 December 2002. I looked at that abstract and no further--I honestly didn't check the other. Likewise, he didn't identify what the abstract said, and I must have glossed over it in the thread he directed me to.
Are there any known naturally occuring proteins of that type? As far as I've read, D amino acids are only used in the oligopeptides of bacterial cell walls and antibiotics. Also, I have heard that if a certain something is added to a polypeptide chain, it could switch them all, if I remember correctly. Do you have any references so the supposed pathways, etc.?
It is Moreland, editor. The authors of the actual article are Bradley and Thaxton, of whom I'm sure you're aware and have a great commentary about
I apologize, you are correct (at least I think). Wasn't that the case where the results were withdrawn because one of the memebers of the team had tampered witht he experiments?
As far as proteins forming in water, how? And, according to a textbook I have, hydrolyzation is spontaneous and exergonic, Purves et al, Life: The Sciece of Biology, 2001 p. 99. And couldn't this take affect after Hydrothermal Vents got them together. And what are protocells?
Exactly, but I couldn't find the quote, so how would I have known? And if you can find a creationist source that quotes that, I would certainly like to know. I found it quite on my own. And actually I'm not busted. If you can find one place in the creationist literature where it is quoted, I'd like to see it.
Rufus, I am actually 14 years old (as of sep 27), and did read the entire article, though much of it was above my head--thank you. I read about biochemistry when I can, and as much as I can. Lucuspa, it's great that you, with a Ph.D, can advise everyone to 'sit back' and enjoy while you argue against me. I'm trying to test different ideas (and you'll notice this post was mostly questions) and develop a view point through discussion. Your attitude was not especially impressive for a first impression.
I have a number of quotes from the scientific literature that I feel contradict some of your statements, and I have a couple of ideas I want to look up. I feel that if I engaged in any argument right now would be an ad hominem one, because I'm a little upset. Perhaps I am a moron for questioning different veiwpoint--and perhaps not. Nevertheless, I don't wish to be treated as one.
I feel that the scientific literautre takes a much more skeptical view of the problems I've mentioned than your view, but I don't have any time right now. Exams are next week, and I've got two presentations this week, so I don't have much time. See you later, and it was a pleasure.
-Chase
Thank you very much for replying to my post--I do appreciate it. And it's good to know someone who has a Ph.D in biochemistry. However, I would like to say that your attitude turned me off somewhat. As a matter of fact, I did read the paper, I photocopied it. It had been a long time since I read it (a couple months) and I did not readily identify the abstract. Whoever told me you quoted it said it was recent so I thought it might be Reader and Joyce, "A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides," Nature 420(6917):841-844, 19/26 December 2002. I looked at that abstract and no further--I honestly didn't check the other. Likewise, he didn't identify what the abstract said, and I must have glossed over it in the thread he directed me to.
Are there any known naturally occuring proteins of that type? As far as I've read, D amino acids are only used in the oligopeptides of bacterial cell walls and antibiotics. Also, I have heard that if a certain something is added to a polypeptide chain, it could switch them all, if I remember correctly. Do you have any references so the supposed pathways, etc.?
It is Moreland, editor. The authors of the actual article are Bradley and Thaxton, of whom I'm sure you're aware and have a great commentary about
I apologize, you are correct (at least I think). Wasn't that the case where the results were withdrawn because one of the memebers of the team had tampered witht he experiments?
As far as proteins forming in water, how? And, according to a textbook I have, hydrolyzation is spontaneous and exergonic, Purves et al, Life: The Sciece of Biology, 2001 p. 99. And couldn't this take affect after Hydrothermal Vents got them together. And what are protocells?
Exactly, but I couldn't find the quote, so how would I have known? And if you can find a creationist source that quotes that, I would certainly like to know. I found it quite on my own. And actually I'm not busted. If you can find one place in the creationist literature where it is quoted, I'd like to see it.
Rufus, I am actually 14 years old (as of sep 27), and did read the entire article, though much of it was above my head--thank you. I read about biochemistry when I can, and as much as I can. Lucuspa, it's great that you, with a Ph.D, can advise everyone to 'sit back' and enjoy while you argue against me. I'm trying to test different ideas (and you'll notice this post was mostly questions) and develop a view point through discussion. Your attitude was not especially impressive for a first impression.
I have a number of quotes from the scientific literature that I feel contradict some of your statements, and I have a couple of ideas I want to look up. I feel that if I engaged in any argument right now would be an ad hominem one, because I'm a little upset. Perhaps I am a moron for questioning different veiwpoint--and perhaps not. Nevertheless, I don't wish to be treated as one.
I feel that the scientific literautre takes a much more skeptical view of the problems I've mentioned than your view, but I don't have any time right now. Exams are next week, and I've got two presentations this week, so I don't have much time. See you later, and it was a pleasure.
-Chase
Upvote
0
Chase,
To make things simple for you, I will ask you this one question for right now.
What is the one piece or body of evidence or argument that you find most compelling against evolution? You don't need to provide references to start with if you need them (aka I'm not familiar with the argument) I'll ask for them. Okay.
To make things simple for you, I will ask you this one question for right now.
What is the one piece or body of evidence or argument that you find most compelling against evolution? You don't need to provide references to start with if you need them (aka I'm not familiar with the argument) I'll ask for them. Okay.
Upvote
0
Hey SLPx,
Good to see you again. My position may be slightly modified from what mine was then, but I would enjoy picking it up. However, as I've stated time and again, I will not personally 'take on' a whole group. With my discussion with Quetzal, three people suddenly came in towards the end, and I just can't take the time to respond to a whole bunch of people. Quetzal wasn't the best for my mood, either. I prefer a friendly scientific discussion, not 'you're too young and stupid for this Chase, go BACK to high school science'--and that is how I felt I was being treated, so i backed out. Nevertheless, I will continue, most likely after exams. I would be willing to discuss with you and Quetzal. However, I'm really pressed for time right now. Perhaps you could make the opening post somewhere?
-Chaser
Good to see you again. My position may be slightly modified from what mine was then, but I would enjoy picking it up. However, as I've stated time and again, I will not personally 'take on' a whole group. With my discussion with Quetzal, three people suddenly came in towards the end, and I just can't take the time to respond to a whole bunch of people. Quetzal wasn't the best for my mood, either. I prefer a friendly scientific discussion, not 'you're too young and stupid for this Chase, go BACK to high school science'--and that is how I felt I was being treated, so i backed out. Nevertheless, I will continue, most likely after exams. I would be willing to discuss with you and Quetzal. However, I'm really pressed for time right now. Perhaps you could make the opening post somewhere?
-Chaser
Upvote
0
Rufus,
Truly, I consider chemical evolution the weakest point, perhaps because that's what I enjoy studying the most. I believe it is inconceivable that life could have arisen, for various reasons. I do believe there are a great number solutions possible, however. But even at that, when I read of solutions, papers throw out 5 completely different solutions at one time, hinting to me that it's completely speculative. For example, Joyce gives quite a number of solutions to the same problem in the paper I .. didn't... read...
I really don't know whether the author is unsure, or simply doesn't know which solution is best, or want to pile them up.
Anyway, REALLY should go now, haha, I look forward to posting here again. I thank you very much for always being kind to me, despite my ignorance at times.
-Chase
Truly, I consider chemical evolution the weakest point, perhaps because that's what I enjoy studying the most. I believe it is inconceivable that life could have arisen, for various reasons. I do believe there are a great number solutions possible, however. But even at that, when I read of solutions, papers throw out 5 completely different solutions at one time, hinting to me that it's completely speculative. For example, Joyce gives quite a number of solutions to the same problem in the paper I .. didn't... read...
I really don't know whether the author is unsure, or simply doesn't know which solution is best, or want to pile them up.
Anyway, REALLY should go now, haha, I look forward to posting here again. I thank you very much for always being kind to me, despite my ignorance at times.
-Chase
Upvote
0
Chase,
You do realize that there is no such thing as "chemical" evolution, or at least things that people might want to call "chemical" evolution are not part of biological evolution. You've made the classic creationist mistake of conflating abiogenesis, the origin of life, with (biological/organismal) evolution, the origin of the diversity of life. For evolution to occur an imperfect replicator needs to exist. Therefore, whatever processes that lead up to the appearence of the first imperfect replicator cannot be evolution. Please look at my signature to see what evolution is.
Now let me get a little more specific with my question.
What is the one piece or body of evidence or argument that you find most compelling against common descent with modification via mutation, migration, selection, genetic drift, and reproduction? Or more specifically, what evidence do you find most compelling aginst man having a common ancestor with beasts?
You do realize that there is no such thing as "chemical" evolution, or at least things that people might want to call "chemical" evolution are not part of biological evolution. You've made the classic creationist mistake of conflating abiogenesis, the origin of life, with (biological/organismal) evolution, the origin of the diversity of life. For evolution to occur an imperfect replicator needs to exist. Therefore, whatever processes that lead up to the appearence of the first imperfect replicator cannot be evolution. Please look at my signature to see what evolution is.
Now let me get a little more specific with my question.
What is the one piece or body of evidence or argument that you find most compelling against common descent with modification via mutation, migration, selection, genetic drift, and reproduction? Or more specifically, what evidence do you find most compelling aginst man having a common ancestor with beasts?
Upvote
0
Originally posted by Outspoken
Yup, evolutionist crowning acheivement.."where did it come from..Umm..I don't know"
Outspoken, do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just trolling? If you want to be constructive, how about also answering my question?
But if that is the type of logic you prefer to use . . .
Yup, Christian crowing acheivement:
Q: "What did God say to Mohammad?"
A: "Umm...I don't know?"
R: "Since you don't know, Christianity is obviously false."
Upvote
0
"A: "Umm...I don't know?""
Ruf, if you're going to do something get it right bro. the A: nothing
I'm commenting on the topic thanks, I think its funny how evolutionists don't want to start at the beginning but jump in half way.
Ruf, if you're going to do something get it right bro. the A: nothing
I'm commenting on the topic thanks, I think its funny how evolutionists don't want to start at the beginning but jump in half way.
Upvote
0
I'd appreciate your comments to be in context though. How about answering the same question I possed to Chase? He--a teenager-- is willing to have a dialog. Why are you, an adult, only willing to offer up quips?
We do start at the beginning, the beginning of evolution. Why do creationists, like yourself, keep insisting that evolution must account for things that don't involve evolution? It's like faulting physics because gravity doesn't explain why the sky is blue. Or complaining that a course on contempory english literature doesn't cover Chaucer. If the only way you have to complain against evolution is to use strawmen, then I pity you. Argumentum ex ignoratia is a losing strategy.
Upvote
0
"Why are you, an adult, only willing to offer up quips?"
*ahem* MESSAGEBOARD. I left a message.
"We do start at the beginning, the beginning of evolution. "
yeah, that's not the actual beginning though. I just find it funny that pretty much all evolutionists are unread on this topic...considering most people view it as a more "important" thing.
"Why do creationists, like yourself, keep insisting that evolution must account for things that don't involve evolution? "
LOL, ruff, you're putting words where they don't belong, please don't do so again
/me hands ruff back the words he unkindly shoved into his mouth
I know what evolution is thanks. Micro true, macro not so true
*ahem* MESSAGEBOARD.
I left a message."We do start at the beginning, the beginning of evolution. "
yeah, that's not the actual beginning though. I just find it funny that pretty much all evolutionists are unread on this topic...considering most people view it as a more "important" thing.
"Why do creationists, like yourself, keep insisting that evolution must account for things that don't involve evolution? "
LOL, ruff, you're putting words where they don't belong, please don't do so again
/me hands ruff back the words he unkindly shoved into his mouth
I know what evolution is thanks. Micro true, macro not so true
Upvote
0
outspoken, I love the fact that you've charged rufus with being unread on abiogenesis - i'd bet ten dollars he knows more about chemical evolution than you
Upvote
0
Originally posted by Outspoken
"Why are you, an adult, only willing to offer up quips?"
*ahem* MESSAGEBOARD.
I guess the concept to staying within the context of a thread is foreign to you. It's sad that a kid nearly half your age can converse so much more maturely than you.It's the actual beginning of evolution. Where else would you have evolutionists start? It's like complaining that English teachers aren't interested in Proto-Germanic. English afterall isn't the beginning of our language. Just because "goddidit" can answer anything and everything and thus explain nothing, doesn't mean that your opponent must also be able to produce one answer that fits all.
If all you creationists were so well read on this "most important" thing, then why do y'all still keep making the same mistakes. Why, if it's the orgin of life that is important to you, do you complain about evolution? Argumentum ex ignoratia is like invading russia in winter.
So when you said that evolutionists must account for the origin of life, on a thread entitled "why evolution doesn't work," you never intended to say that evolution must account for thing that it doesn't cover? Right. . . .
I know what evolution is thanks. Micro true, macro not so true
If you already know what evolution is, how about answering my question and starting a dialog? Why are you avoiding it?
Proloquim ex ignoratia is like bringing a rubber chicken to a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] fight.
Upvote
0
"outspoken, I love the fact that you've charged rufus with being unread on abiogenesis "
If he is, which from his past stated creditals he should be, that is an exception IN MY EXPERIENCE.
"I guess the concept to staying within the context of a thread is foreign to you. It's sad that a kid nearly half your age can converse so much more maturely than you."
Per your usual manner you can't handle people not willing to sink to your level upon getting insulted. Sorry, I don't have, nor am I willing to commit the time to talk to you about something you accept regardless even if I did show you evidience to the contrary. I won't waist my time, nor yours, thus why I made a passing COMMENT. I thought you'd take that hint, I guess not.
"It's like complaining that English teachers aren't interested in Proto-Germanic."
No, its like a mechanic not caring about where he gets his parts..they are all the same..right..lol.
"you never intended to say that evolution must account for thing that it doesn't cover? Right. . . ."
/me again hands ruff back the words he unkindly shoved into his mouth
I ate today thanks.
"how about answering my question and starting a dialog?"
See above. I have no patience for it. I've done my research and found the theory lacking, for me that is enough, I guess you feel the need to prove it to others, well have fun undertaking your great commision.
If he is, which from his past stated creditals he should be, that is an exception IN MY EXPERIENCE.
"I guess the concept to staying within the context of a thread is foreign to you. It's sad that a kid nearly half your age can converse so much more maturely than you."
Per your usual manner you can't handle people not willing to sink to your level upon getting insulted. Sorry, I don't have, nor am I willing to commit the time to talk to you about something you accept regardless even if I did show you evidience to the contrary. I won't waist my time, nor yours, thus why I made a passing COMMENT. I thought you'd take that hint, I guess not.
"It's like complaining that English teachers aren't interested in Proto-Germanic."
No, its like a mechanic not caring about where he gets his parts..they are all the same..right..lol.
"you never intended to say that evolution must account for thing that it doesn't cover? Right. . . ."
/me again hands ruff back the words he unkindly shoved into his mouth
I ate today thanks.
"how about answering my question and starting a dialog?"
See above. I have no patience for it. I've done my research and found the theory lacking, for me that is enough, I guess you feel the need to prove it to others, well have fun undertaking your great commision.
Upvote
0
why do people who don't know what they're talking about like to insist that evolution requires abiogenesis
evolution would be unnaffected whether god put the first cell there, or whether it came about due to natural processes - abiogenesis has no bearing on the theory of evolution
oh well rufus, at least outspoken has run out of "patience" (read evidence) to continue his futile line of argument
evolution would be unnaffected whether god put the first cell there, or whether it came about due to natural processes - abiogenesis has no bearing on the theory of evolution
oh well rufus, at least outspoken has run out of "patience" (read evidence) to continue his futile line of argument
Upvote
0
"oh well rufus, at least outspoken has run out of "patience" (read evidence) to continue his futile line of argument"
I find it kinda funny that you didn't read my post at all. I know that evolution has NOTHING to do with the start of life. If you'd paid any attention to any of the posts I typed, you'd see that. typical..oh well.
I find it kinda funny that you didn't read my post at all. I know that evolution has NOTHING to do with the start of life. If you'd paid any attention to any of the posts I typed, you'd see that. typical..oh well.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
