Debby in Philly
Active Member
Sure it's a religion - and it takes more "blind" faith than creationism!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can Evolution be Described as a Religion?
- Thread starter Gup20
- Start date
There are a lot of questions out there you are avoiding. I know YE has no answers when it comes to the facts, but you could at least try. At least try a defense of why it is acceptable for the YE leaders to resort to lying to prop up their interpretations. I don't really expect an answer to the questions of the genetic links between humans and the other apes or for why dolphins were given useless genes for a sense of smell but were denied the genes useful in the water. But you could try. If you are really so sure then you must have examined these things and know how they are false.
"But He gave one to man--this is your interpretation of what?
Are you getting this from the Book of Genesis?"
Yes. Where do you get the idea that man has a soul? In my Bible it is specified in chapter 2 and hinted at in chapter 1.
"But He gave one to man--this is your interpretation of what?
Are you getting this from the Book of Genesis?"
Yes. Where do you get the idea that man has a soul? In my Bible it is specified in chapter 2 and hinted at in chapter 1.
Feel free to answer the questions the others are ignoring (or cannot answer). There are links lying all around and additional information right in the thread. Try the one where dolphins have deactvated genes from their land dwelling ancestors for a sense of smell. Or any of the others.
Debby in Philly
Active Member
See "Case for a Creator" by Lee Stroebel.
If you think that something from that book applies to the various threads at hand, feel free to relay that information to us. For copyright reasons, that would necessitate paraphrasing. Some citations to back up any assertions would be nice also. Otherwise...
Well, we still don't have any answers to any of these, do we.
Did Stroebel address the dolphin pseudogenes for a sense of smell in there somewhere?
Well, we still don't have any answers to any of these, do we.
Did Stroebel address the dolphin pseudogenes for a sense of smell in there somewhere?
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Lee Stroebel's book presents many evidences for a creator that depend on an old earth/ old universe to be valid. In reading his work, I saw nothing that would contradict evolution that was directed by a Creator.
Since UTE and I believe in a creator, what's the point of citing Lee Stroebel's book?
Since UTE and I believe in a creator, what's the point of citing Lee Stroebel's book?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
These are good points. The fact-challenges system of evolutionism relies primarily on the debunked and discredited tactics of junk science so it really has no answers.
Hence you should not expect your very significant Bible-based question to get a direct response.
The problem with the religion of evolutionism is that its version of the creator, the creation of mankind, the fall of mankind and the sin problem is very different.
In that religion the story "starts" with carnage, death, disease, starvation, extinction and ruthless predatory "rules" that govern nature. Nature (the goddess nature for some) then uses this blessed and holy instrument of evolutionism to eventiually evolve highly competitive monkey-brain-eating monkey-skull bashing hominids.
Now "introduce" a few "Christian ideas", and presto! You have the marriage of the Christian religion with the atheists evolutionism!
See? It is easy!
And all you have to do is ignore the damage that does to the Word of God and the Gospel and our concept of the creator and our trust in His Word such that when HE SAYS "And God SAID... and evening and morning where the 5th day" we need not "actuallyl BELIEVE it".
After all, if we DID believe it - what would our atheist evolutionist friends say??
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The PUBLISHED Horse Series as hopefully fact-
Archaeopteryx as hopefully NOT a TRUE BIRD
Abiogenesis as hopefully true.
Entropy as hopefully NOT working in the case of human biology.
These are all the "hopeful monsters" of the fact-challenged religion we know today as "evolutionism".
In Christ,
Bob
"The PUBLISHED Horse Series as hopefully fact-
"
Please tell us something that you find wrong with the horse series without resulting to quotes that amount to nothing more than lies.
As part of your response, you will need to address why, if the horse series is such a fraud, that the following genetic data confirms the series.
"Use of mitochondrial DNA sequences to test the Ceratomorpha (Perissodactyla:Mammalia) hypothesis," C. Pitra and J. Veits, Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, Volume 38 Issue 2 Page 65 - June 2000.
Not that I expect you to ever respond directly to a question.
"Archaeopteryx as hopefully NOT a TRUE BIRD"
Bob, I presented to you above several lines of evidence to say that this is not a true statement. Most importantly, the many features that archy shares with the theropod dinosaurs but with no extant birds. Like the lack of a beak! Why don't you give us your best empirical and logical reasoning why archy is only a bird. Without quote mining.
While you are at it, do you remember the first time you posted the following.
Not that I expect you to ever respond directly to a question.
"Abiogenesis as hopefully true."
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution and your claims of chiral problems have been shown to be addressable through simple and common catalyst that select one stereo isomer.
"Entropy as hopefully NOT working in the case of human biology."
Again, prove it. So far your only attempt at this requires you to edit out the part where your "expert" disagrees with your conclusion. Again, here is how a thermo text states the second law.
Not that I expect you to ever respond directly to a question.
"
Please tell us something that you find wrong with the horse series without resulting to quotes that amount to nothing more than lies.
As part of your response, you will need to address why, if the horse series is such a fraud, that the following genetic data confirms the series.
"Use of mitochondrial DNA sequences to test the Ceratomorpha (Perissodactyla:Mammalia) hypothesis," C. Pitra and J. Veits, Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, Volume 38 Issue 2 Page 65 - June 2000.
Not that I expect you to ever respond directly to a question.
"Archaeopteryx as hopefully NOT a TRUE BIRD"
Bob, I presented to you above several lines of evidence to say that this is not a true statement. Most importantly, the many features that archy shares with the theropod dinosaurs but with no extant birds. Like the lack of a beak! Why don't you give us your best empirical and logical reasoning why archy is only a bird. Without quote mining.
While you are at it, do you remember the first time you posted the following.
I remember. You may remember that I responded by showing you that these two guys actually presented data at the conference to show that archy was a transitional. If you look above, you will see I have done the same thing for the other presenters. I have asked you repeatedly to justify this claim with a citation fro mthe conference. You have steadfastly refused yet have seen fit to continue to make the same claim over and over despite all the evidence to the contrary. Do you ever plan to justify your claims or do you prefer to argue dishonestly?
Not that I expect you to ever respond directly to a question.
"Abiogenesis as hopefully true."
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution and your claims of chiral problems have been shown to be addressable through simple and common catalyst that select one stereo isomer.
"Entropy as hopefully NOT working in the case of human biology."
Again, prove it. So far your only attempt at this requires you to edit out the part where your "expert" disagrees with your conclusion. Again, here is how a thermo text states the second law.
Please explain in detail what step along the way to a human from its common ancestor with the other apes is prevented by the above. If you cannot do this, then you do not have a point.
Not that I expect you to ever respond directly to a question.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The PUBLISHED Horse Series as hopefully fact-
"
Just the "actual fact" that atheist evolutionists deny that horses evolved that way today.
Just the "actual fact" that enthusiasm to SHOW a highly speculative guess AS IF it were fact is the only defense possible for the PUBLISHED and discredited horse series.
Just the "actual fact" that SIMPSON is the one that published it and SIMPSON is the one that then repudiates it.
Just the "Actual fact" that though ALL of this has been pointed out repeatedly - you seem to be glued to the idea of pretending not to understand the point -- rather than making a serious counter point.
Your tactic is more befitting a faithful devotee to a doctrine that is under strong criticism than an objective researcher interested in fact.
And "hence" the title of this thread.
You have done well in serving as a "case in point".
In Christ,
Bob
"
Just the "Actual fact" that it does not occur in the geologic column in that order.
Just the "actual fact" that atheist evolutionists deny that horses evolved that way today.
Just the "actual fact" that enthusiasm to SHOW a highly speculative guess AS IF it were fact is the only defense possible for the PUBLISHED and discredited horse series.
Just the "actual fact" that SIMPSON is the one that published it and SIMPSON is the one that then repudiates it.
Just the "Actual fact" that though ALL of this has been pointed out repeatedly - you seem to be glued to the idea of pretending not to understand the point -- rather than making a serious counter point.
Your tactic is more befitting a faithful devotee to a doctrine that is under strong criticism than an objective researcher interested in fact.
And "hence" the title of this thread.
You have done well in serving as a "case in point".
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
EVolutionist believing and hoping that one day "Abiogenesis will be hopefully true."
But since you seem to enjoy having this embarrassing little problem in your views exposed over and over and over again..
#1. You never pointed out ANY case of abiogenesis succeeding. NO CASE of mono-chiral amino acids forming the proteins needed for a single cell. NO CASE of ANY bio-chemistry that gives the needed result for builing even one single cell.
#2. Your "best" effort resulted only in showing that SOME amino acid chains could be formed yielding corrupt results better than 50-50 corrupt results. But nothing that "actually works" for building cells.
#3. You yourself admitted that you would need entirely new laws of biochemistry to get your beliefs to pan out here.
#4. The atheist Evolutionist Richard Dawkings HISMELS declares that the claims of evolutionism START WITH NOTHING and explain life at every step - NOTHING else needed. You pretend that "this is not true" - but in fact this IS the claim of atheist evolutionism - and we know how they set the standard for Christian evolutionists. (After all - if this point was really unrelated to evolutionisms doctrines and myths you would be more able to control yourself when the weaknesses for this theory are exposed).
But like a true believer in this religion of evolutionism - you can not restrain your enthusiasm even when the facts of science are all against you. I applaud your sincerity and effort faithfulness to your belief system.
In Christ,
Bob
Your statement above is patently false and the posts on this board have shown that repeatedly.
But since you seem to enjoy having this embarrassing little problem in your views exposed over and over and over again..
#1. You never pointed out ANY case of abiogenesis succeeding. NO CASE of mono-chiral amino acids forming the proteins needed for a single cell. NO CASE of ANY bio-chemistry that gives the needed result for builing even one single cell.
#2. Your "best" effort resulted only in showing that SOME amino acid chains could be formed yielding corrupt results better than 50-50 corrupt results. But nothing that "actually works" for building cells.
#3. You yourself admitted that you would need entirely new laws of biochemistry to get your beliefs to pan out here.
#4. The atheist Evolutionist Richard Dawkings HISMELS declares that the claims of evolutionism START WITH NOTHING and explain life at every step - NOTHING else needed. You pretend that "this is not true" - but in fact this IS the claim of atheist evolutionism - and we know how they set the standard for Christian evolutionists. (After all - if this point was really unrelated to evolutionisms doctrines and myths you would be more able to control yourself when the weaknesses for this theory are exposed).
But like a true believer in this religion of evolutionism - you can not restrain your enthusiasm even when the facts of science are all against you. I applaud your sincerity and effort faithfulness to your belief system.
In Christ,
Bob
Stand up and be counted!
Is there some way to unite those who believe that God created the cosmos "suddenly"?
Public Radio has been broadcasting a "science" series that has an "evolutionary" bias which is quite flagrant.
Maybe all of this will pass.
I don't think so.
What do we do?
Selah,
Bro. James
Is there some way to unite those who believe that God created the cosmos "suddenly"?
Public Radio has been broadcasting a "science" series that has an "evolutionary" bias which is quite flagrant.
Maybe all of this will pass.
I don't think so.
What do we do?
Selah,
Bro. James
"Just the "Actual fact" that it does not occur in the geologic column in that order."
False. Do oyu have something to cite to p[rove this?
The genera do overlap. But, as has been pointed out to you many times before, just because a part of a population evolves into another species, it does not mean that the rest of the species dies out immediately. I am here and so are my parents!
"Just the "actual fact" that atheist evolutionists deny that horses evolved that way today."
False. Give me a citation for this.
All your claims along these lines thus far have been shown to be lies about what the scientists actually said.
"Just the "actual fact" that enthusiasm to SHOW a highly speculative guess AS IF it were fact is the only defense possible for the PUBLISHED and discredited horse series."
False. Even the incomplete series was correct as far as it went. It had the right things in the right order. It just did not have all those other examples that had not been discovered up until that point. Once they were discovered, a much richer and complete history was unveiled.
If you are going to complain that something cannot be correct because there was once incomplete data, then I suppose we should abandon ALL research.
"Just the "actual fact" that SIMPSON is the one that published it and SIMPSON is the one that then repudiates it."
False. Your out of context quoting lies about Simpson's opinion. And he was not speaking about hte modern sequence but the incomplete, older sequence. See above.
"Just the "Actual fact" that though ALL of this has been pointed out repeatedly - you seem to be glued to the idea of pretending not to understand the point -- rather than making a serious counter point."
Bob, pointing out that you have quoted incorrectly as your only means to a point is sufficient. YOu have yet to make a fact based argument.
Do you yet have a citation for your claims about the archy conference? Please just admit that you were wrong so I don't have to ask you about it in every post."
False. Do oyu have something to cite to p[rove this?
The genera do overlap. But, as has been pointed out to you many times before, just because a part of a population evolves into another species, it does not mean that the rest of the species dies out immediately. I am here and so are my parents!
"Just the "actual fact" that atheist evolutionists deny that horses evolved that way today."
False. Give me a citation for this.
All your claims along these lines thus far have been shown to be lies about what the scientists actually said.
"Just the "actual fact" that enthusiasm to SHOW a highly speculative guess AS IF it were fact is the only defense possible for the PUBLISHED and discredited horse series."
False. Even the incomplete series was correct as far as it went. It had the right things in the right order. It just did not have all those other examples that had not been discovered up until that point. Once they were discovered, a much richer and complete history was unveiled.
If you are going to complain that something cannot be correct because there was once incomplete data, then I suppose we should abandon ALL research.
"Just the "actual fact" that SIMPSON is the one that published it and SIMPSON is the one that then repudiates it."
False. Your out of context quoting lies about Simpson's opinion. And he was not speaking about hte modern sequence but the incomplete, older sequence. See above.
"Just the "Actual fact" that though ALL of this has been pointed out repeatedly - you seem to be glued to the idea of pretending not to understand the point -- rather than making a serious counter point."
Bob, pointing out that you have quoted incorrectly as your only means to a point is sufficient. YOu have yet to make a fact based argument.
Do you yet have a citation for your claims about the archy conference? Please just admit that you were wrong so I don't have to ask you about it in every post."
"#1. You never pointed out ANY case of abiogenesis succeeding. NO CASE of mono-chiral amino acids forming the proteins needed for a single cell. NO CASE of ANY bio-chemistry that gives the needed result for builing even one single cell. "
I have repeatedly pointed out lab verifiable steps to the correct proteins for you. You have not shown problems with those steps.
"#2. Your "best" effort resulted only in showing that SOME amino acid chains could be formed yielding corrupt results better than 50-50 corrupt results. But nothing that "actually works" for building cells."
Nope. I have shown that 100% left handed RNA can be made by a common catalyst. I have shown that RNA can perfrom all the functions that proteins perform. RNA can then be used to form the correct DNA and proteins later.
"#3. You yourself admitted that you would need entirely new laws of biochemistry to get your beliefs to pan out here."
Uh...Where? I have shown that RNA still performs some of these functions in extant life.
"#4. The atheist Evolutionist Richard Dawkings HISMELS declares that the claims of evolutionism START WITH NOTHING and explain life at every step - NOTHING else needed. "
Uh...No. I think you are the one that quotes him as an expert on this and then says that he is wrong. He says that there are not any problems. I agree. You disagree. Pay attention.
Please give us a citation for your claims about the archy conference. You continue to make the claim despite all the evidence shown that the claim is wrong. It really hurts your credibility.
I have repeatedly pointed out lab verifiable steps to the correct proteins for you. You have not shown problems with those steps.
"#2. Your "best" effort resulted only in showing that SOME amino acid chains could be formed yielding corrupt results better than 50-50 corrupt results. But nothing that "actually works" for building cells."
Nope. I have shown that 100% left handed RNA can be made by a common catalyst. I have shown that RNA can perfrom all the functions that proteins perform. RNA can then be used to form the correct DNA and proteins later.
"#3. You yourself admitted that you would need entirely new laws of biochemistry to get your beliefs to pan out here."
Uh...Where? I have shown that RNA still performs some of these functions in extant life.
"#4. The atheist Evolutionist Richard Dawkings HISMELS declares that the claims of evolutionism START WITH NOTHING and explain life at every step - NOTHING else needed. "
Uh...No. I think you are the one that quotes him as an expert on this and then says that he is wrong. He says that there are not any problems. I agree. You disagree. Pay attention.
Please give us a citation for your claims about the archy conference. You continue to make the claim despite all the evidence shown that the claim is wrong. It really hurts your credibility.
Here is some information I previously posted on Bob's chiral problem.
-------------------
Did you know that under certain conditions, chemical reactions that yield amino acids and other organic compounds no longer produce racemic yields?
First example. Organic molecules from space tend to have an abundance of left handed isomers. Why? Well it has been found that circularly polarized light will tend to push reactions to favor the left handed variety of the organic isomer. The products need not be racemic.
But there is a far more important effect to be seen. Catalyst. There are a number of possible pathways. Let's examine a few, shall we.
Please take a look at the following paper.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109082709/HTMLSTART
If you read it, you will find that amino acids themselves can catalyze the formation of more lefthanded amino acids. An amino acid acts as a catalyst to produce a enantiomeric excess of an isomer. As this happens, the reaction is in effect making more of the catalyst. It leads to an autoinductive process which becomes autocatalytic.
Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber. 2004 Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts Science Vol 303, Issue 5661, 1151, 20 February 2004
This one shows how the lefthanded amino acids autocatalyze the formation of the right handed sugars found
in DNA and RNA.
Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196
THis paper shows how borate will catalyze the formation of right handed sugars, also.
Which leads into my other cataylst. Minerals.
As shown by the above paper, minerals that have catalytic properties can also lead to an enantiomeric excess of a particular isomer.
You should now see that racemic mixtures need not be hypothesized. Circularly polarized light, organic catalysts and inorganic catalysts can all lead to reactions that favor one isomer. So your claims that lab experiments always lead to a racemic mixture are false. Even better,the organic catalyst make more of themselves giving higher and higher yields.
-------------------------------------
I have more to add. I previously gave you a reference to the following.
Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196
Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation. The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.
If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.
But there is another important aspect of the clay. Fatty acids are delived to earth from space and are also made on earth, hydrothermal vents being an example location. This same clay that will catalyze the formation of RNA will also lead to a spontaneous process in which small vesicles are formed with the fatty acid making a wall and trapping water and the RNA molecules inside.
So we see that two ubiquitous substances such as borate and clay can catalyze the reactions and processes that lead towards something resembling a cell. But there is one more key peice to this puzzle.
In the 1980s it was discovered that RNA could act as something more than a messenger. RNA can perform biological functions similar to proteins. (The first such discovery came when Tetrahymena, a single celled organism, was found to use some RNA as enzymes.) RNA can both replicate itself and perform protein-like functions such as acting like an enzyme. In these forms, they are known as ribozymes. The RNA can store genetic information, copy that information, and carryout protein-like cellular functions. So once we have the RNA inside the fatty acid walls, it is possible that they could perform life functions without the need for DNA and proteins. In this scenario, they would evolve later.
So you see that there is a solution, with lab support and evidence in extant life, that shows your racemized amino acids "problem" to not be a problem. So why don't you accept the evidence.
---------------------------------
Your assertion is that amino acids are formed in racemized mixtures and therefore proteins could not be formed that were using solely one isomer. Yet I have given you references that show you how catalyst can result in an enantioselective reaction. Here is another. "Physical and Chemical Rationalization for Asymmetric Amplification in Autocatalytic Reactions," Angew. Chemie, in press (with F.G. Buono and H. Iwamura). So, if catalyst can give us reactions that favor a given isomer, then you no longer have a racemic mixture. YOur problem goes away.
---------------------------------
I think I have already shown you why your supposed problems are not problems. YOu say "In fact I show that NO experiment in the lab has as its products - ONLY mono-chiral amino acids that are then used to form viable proteins as building blocks for a living system." Now, what I have shown you is that we can make all right handed ribose sugars that can then be polymerized into RNA all of the appropriate isomer. That sounds pretty close to the mark to me. Further, I have shown that these RNA strands can perform all of the processes needed for simple life such as storing genetic information and catalyzing reactions. Now you see, here is where you get into trouble. I have shown you repeatedly that catalyst are capable of making one isomer. I have shown you that RNA can act as a catalyst and still does in extant life. I think you already know about RNA's role in making proteins. Put it all together and you have RNA catalyzing the correct amino acids and then putting it together into working proteins. What? You do not take my word for it? Well...
Bailey, JM 1998 “RNA-directed amino acid homochirality” FASEB Journal 12:503-507
How about one more catalyst to throw in the mix? This time another very common material: calcite.
Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA, 2001, "Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality" PNAS 98:5487-5490
-------------------
Did you know that under certain conditions, chemical reactions that yield amino acids and other organic compounds no longer produce racemic yields?
First example. Organic molecules from space tend to have an abundance of left handed isomers. Why? Well it has been found that circularly polarized light will tend to push reactions to favor the left handed variety of the organic isomer. The products need not be racemic.
But there is a far more important effect to be seen. Catalyst. There are a number of possible pathways. Let's examine a few, shall we.
Please take a look at the following paper.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109082709/HTMLSTART
If you read it, you will find that amino acids themselves can catalyze the formation of more lefthanded amino acids. An amino acid acts as a catalyst to produce a enantiomeric excess of an isomer. As this happens, the reaction is in effect making more of the catalyst. It leads to an autoinductive process which becomes autocatalytic.
You might want to look up the following papers
Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber. 2004 Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts Science Vol 303, Issue 5661, 1151, 20 February 2004
This one shows how the lefthanded amino acids autocatalyze the formation of the right handed sugars found
in DNA and RNA.
Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196
THis paper shows how borate will catalyze the formation of right handed sugars, also.
Which leads into my other cataylst. Minerals.
As shown by the above paper, minerals that have catalytic properties can also lead to an enantiomeric excess of a particular isomer.
You should now see that racemic mixtures need not be hypothesized. Circularly polarized light, organic catalysts and inorganic catalysts can all lead to reactions that favor one isomer. So your claims that lab experiments always lead to a racemic mixture are false. Even better,the organic catalyst make more of themselves giving higher and higher yields.
-------------------------------------
I have more to add. I previously gave you a reference to the following.
Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196
Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation. The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.
If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.
But there is another important aspect of the clay. Fatty acids are delived to earth from space and are also made on earth, hydrothermal vents being an example location. This same clay that will catalyze the formation of RNA will also lead to a spontaneous process in which small vesicles are formed with the fatty acid making a wall and trapping water and the RNA molecules inside.
So we see that two ubiquitous substances such as borate and clay can catalyze the reactions and processes that lead towards something resembling a cell. But there is one more key peice to this puzzle.
In the 1980s it was discovered that RNA could act as something more than a messenger. RNA can perform biological functions similar to proteins. (The first such discovery came when Tetrahymena, a single celled organism, was found to use some RNA as enzymes.) RNA can both replicate itself and perform protein-like functions such as acting like an enzyme. In these forms, they are known as ribozymes. The RNA can store genetic information, copy that information, and carryout protein-like cellular functions. So once we have the RNA inside the fatty acid walls, it is possible that they could perform life functions without the need for DNA and proteins. In this scenario, they would evolve later.
So you see that there is a solution, with lab support and evidence in extant life, that shows your racemized amino acids "problem" to not be a problem. So why don't you accept the evidence.
---------------------------------
Your assertion is that amino acids are formed in racemized mixtures and therefore proteins could not be formed that were using solely one isomer. Yet I have given you references that show you how catalyst can result in an enantioselective reaction. Here is another. "Physical and Chemical Rationalization for Asymmetric Amplification in Autocatalytic Reactions," Angew. Chemie, in press (with F.G. Buono and H. Iwamura). So, if catalyst can give us reactions that favor a given isomer, then you no longer have a racemic mixture. YOur problem goes away.
---------------------------------
I think I have already shown you why your supposed problems are not problems. YOu say "In fact I show that NO experiment in the lab has as its products - ONLY mono-chiral amino acids that are then used to form viable proteins as building blocks for a living system." Now, what I have shown you is that we can make all right handed ribose sugars that can then be polymerized into RNA all of the appropriate isomer. That sounds pretty close to the mark to me. Further, I have shown that these RNA strands can perform all of the processes needed for simple life such as storing genetic information and catalyzing reactions. Now you see, here is where you get into trouble. I have shown you repeatedly that catalyst are capable of making one isomer. I have shown you that RNA can act as a catalyst and still does in extant life. I think you already know about RNA's role in making proteins. Put it all together and you have RNA catalyzing the correct amino acids and then putting it together into working proteins. What? You do not take my word for it? Well...
Bailey, JM 1998 “RNA-directed amino acid homochirality” FASEB Journal 12:503-507
Remember how we talked about the surfaces of borax and clays acting as catalyst. Well they found that RNA makes the left handed proteins even from a mixture of amino acids when on such a surface. SO that gives us three possible cases. The catalysts make the left handed amino acids. The catalyst makes the right handed ribose which then makes RNA which then serves as a catalyst for the left handed amino acids and puts them into proteins. Or RNA on a catalyst makes proteins using only lefthanded amino acids from a mix of amino acids.
How about one more catalyst to throw in the mix? This time another very common material: calcite.
Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA, 2001, "Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality" PNAS 98:5487-5490
You might want to study up on the general concepts of that one. How catalyst can arrange molecules in specific ways on their surfaces such that two things can happen. Either reactants that would normally make a racemic mixture can come together in such a way that only one isomer will be made. Or, if you have a randon mix of isomers, that one one will fit on the surface in the right way for a reaction to take place and therefore you can selectively pick out one isomer from a mix.
Any justification for the fraudulent claims by the YE leadership?
"Maybe all of this will pass.
I don't think so.
What do we do?"
This will no more pass than the claims of Copernicus against the same sort of resistance. For the claims you oppose are true and we must integrate them with what we believe if we are to claim that we have the truth.
"Maybe all of this will pass.
I don't think so.
What do we do?"
This will no more pass than the claims of Copernicus against the same sort of resistance. For the claims you oppose are true and we must integrate them with what we believe if we are to claim that we have the truth.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Indeed you dodge the point entirely hoping to "declare victory" as a form of "proof" rather than supporting your claims with compelling fact.
How sad.
How sad that you choose to project the blunders of your own tactics and tricks onto me "as if" I ever used such methods. These are entirely your means for dealing with the glaring defects in evolutionism. And it is has been shown over and over again with the case of entropy and Isaac Asimov's clear and frank statements.
You love to claim that these exact quotes are "in error" because they fail to maintain your own religious fervor for the doctrines of evolutionism.
But I always point out that Asimov IS the most holy atheist evolutionist that you so adore. I never claim he gives up evolutionism or atheism over this clear and obvious problem for evolution when it comes to entropy and molecule-to-human-brain myths promoted by evolutionists.
Well first of all - don't think that I don't appreciate your religious zeal inspite of the horrendous blunder exposed in the evolutionist camp by the Asimov quote I have provided.
Also - don't think that your tactic of "talking around the point" instead of addressing it - is somehow confusing the point enough for me or any objective reader to conclude that you have actually addressed the point.
The clear fact remains - Asimov starts by admitting to the SAME every day ubiquitous emperically proven INCREASE in human biological systems - that Creationist AND all scientists SEE in the lab.
Then Asimov ADMITS that evolutionism NEEDS to SEE a "massive DECREASE in entropy" in those same systems just observed - in order for its molecule-to-mind myths to have an ounce of support.
Sadly - you love to talk "Around that point" and then "declare victory over yourself" as if you actually did something to address the argument.
Entertaining. Devoted religious fervor - but not objective compelling debate.
Thus making the point of your religious fervor in supporing the doctrines of evolutionism.
Here is the smoking gun that utterly devastates your argument. You continually respond with the tired old observation that Asimov IS STILL an atheist and STILL an atheist evolutionist EVEN though he starts with the confessed problem of the OBSERVED INCREASE in entropy at the VERY LEVEL that he claims that we need to observe DECREASED Entropy!!
(you know - at the level of human biological systems).
You claim that Asimov' faith in evolutionism in spite of the facts of the OBSERVED entropy - should in some way "satisify" the objective thinking mind that clearly SEES the problem!
What religious fervor! What faith UTEOTW! What zeal for your beliefs IN SPITE of the facts so clearly admitted to by Asimov! What exhaustive efforts to "talk AROUND the problem" rather than dealing with it!!
And as I have repeatedly pointed out - I am using a level of objectivity in quoting ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST clear statements - that is far beyond anything you have been able to master so far.
This all seems to be going over your head UTEOTW - is that just the religious fervor that stops you from seeing the point?
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Here is a textbook example of the religious zeal and fevor - rather than attention to fact and detail that we find exhibited in UTEOTW's posts.
UTEOTW takes a complete failure to respond to an argument and "settles" for simply declaring victory over himself instead of showing a compelling response.
The scenario starts with James pointing out the obvious historic fact of evolutionists using hoaxes and frauds to prop up their religious fevor for evolutionism. In this case the historic fact of the Piltdown hoax exposes a historic example of the religious zeal and fervor of evolutionists to BELIEVE evolutionism and to envite hoaxes into their list of "proofs").
The list of historic hoaxes merely shows the "pattern" of evolutionists doing this over and over again. Though they face embarrassment and disgrace as good science eventually comes along to expose the fraud and blunders of junk-science.
It was GOOD science that eventually (as usual) exposed the junk science of evolutionism to such an extent that EVEN evolutionism's devotees had to conceed the point.
Thus an embarrassing hoax that even the most devoted evolutionists finally had to abandon.
Observe -
UTEOTW said --
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2897/5.html#000072
James' point clearly stands. He said it is a clear undeniable example of hoax and fraud perpetuated in the temples of evolutionism and UTEOTW in his response has to confess that yes it IS an example of a hoax - a fraud -- indeed - junk-science rampaging through the temple of evolutionism.
Having given that less than stellar "rebuttal" -- UTEOTW then "declares victory" over himself "as if" he has done something.
Note.
James declares this to be a hoax, a fraud foisted on science text books by devotees of evolutionism - and UTEOTW admits that this is the case.
Then UTEOTW says that James' point "did not hold up"!!
Having entirely failed to refute the point - UTEOTW simply "declares victory" after having "talked around the point"!
Only an evolutionist would have "bought that" junk-logic form of a response.
In Christ,
Bob
UTEOTW takes a complete failure to respond to an argument and "settles" for simply declaring victory over himself instead of showing a compelling response.
The scenario starts with James pointing out the obvious historic fact of evolutionists using hoaxes and frauds to prop up their religious fevor for evolutionism. In this case the historic fact of the Piltdown hoax exposes a historic example of the religious zeal and fervor of evolutionists to BELIEVE evolutionism and to envite hoaxes into their list of "proofs").
The list of historic hoaxes merely shows the "pattern" of evolutionists doing this over and over again. Though they face embarrassment and disgrace as good science eventually comes along to expose the fraud and blunders of junk-science.
UTEOTW can not deny this hoax "in fact" so he simply points out that the hoax was the most effective and the most well received by evolutionism's devotees in England than in evolutionisms congregations found elsewhere. (Though not actually rejected by those congregants until it was undeniably exposed so that they would be too embarrassed to cling to it any longer).
It was GOOD science that eventually (as usual) exposed the junk science of evolutionism to such an extent that EVEN evolutionism's devotees had to conceed the point.
Thus an embarrassing hoax that even the most devoted evolutionists finally had to abandon.
Observe -
UTEOTW said --
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2897/5.html#000072
Notice that he admits it was immediately incorporated into many text books as junk-science fact - but then adds the curious "low regard" spin "as if" he is solving the problem or the claim that it is a hoax.
James' point clearly stands. He said it is a clear undeniable example of hoax and fraud perpetuated in the temples of evolutionism and UTEOTW in his response has to confess that yes it IS an example of a hoax - a fraud -- indeed - junk-science rampaging through the temple of evolutionism.
Having given that less than stellar "rebuttal" -- UTEOTW then "declares victory" over himself "as if" he has done something.
Note.
So there you have it!
James declares this to be a hoax, a fraud foisted on science text books by devotees of evolutionism - and UTEOTW admits that this is the case.
Then UTEOTW says that James' point "did not hold up"!!
Having entirely failed to refute the point - UTEOTW simply "declares victory" after having "talked around the point"!
Only an evolutionist would have "bought that" junk-logic form of a response.
In Christ,
Bob
Bob, where are your citations supporting your claims about the archy conference?
"Indeed you dodge the point entirely hoping to "declare victory" as a form of "proof" rather than supporting your claims with compelling fact."
Pay very close attention. YOu keep accusing me of playing some "trick" by changing the subject and trying to dodge something. Think again! You first brought these subjects into this thread. ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2897/2.html#000016 ) And I have not sought to avoid any discussion of entropy. Your only argument requires taking your "expert" out of context by snipping the part of the quote that shows that he disagrees with your conclusion. Also look above. I have quoted the statement of the second law straight from a thermo text and asked you to apply it to evolution. You are obviously unable to do so because you did not attempt to do so. Until you can give us one specific step in the evolution of man from his common ancestor with the other apes, you have no point to be made. You have nothing but hot air. It is a claim full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
"How sad that you choose to project the blunders of your own tactics and tricks onto me "as if" I ever used such methods."
Of course your only tactic seems to be to misquote people, continue to misquote after the truth is revealed and to not answer any direct questions brought to you. Sad.
"And it is has been shown over and over again with the case of entropy and Isaac Asimov's clear and frank statements."
His statement shows you to be incorrect except when you selectively edit the quote in an attempt to make it sound like he is saying something else. Sad.
"You love to claim that these exact quotes are "in error" because they fail to maintain your own religious fervor for the doctrines of evolutionism."
The quotes are in error because you selectively edit them to make the author appear to say something that they would disagree with. You lie about what they think and say. Sad.
It is the same as if an atheist justified himself by quoting the Bible as saying "There is no God." Surely, if confronted by that, your first step would be to turn that around and give the full quote. "The fool has said in his heart, THere is no God." This is what I do to you. I reveal the deceit of your quoting by revealing the full quote. You cannot quote honestly.
"Here is the smoking gun that utterly devastates your argument. You continually respond with the tired old observation that Asimov IS STILL an atheist and STILL an atheist evolutionist EVEN though he starts with the confessed problem of the OBSERVED INCREASE in entropy at the VERY LEVEL that he claims that we need to observe DECREASED Entropy!!"
Pay attention. That is not my response. My response is that you have dishonestly quoted him in a manner. He, in the very quote you edit down, disagrees with your conclusion. Therefore you cannot use him as your expert. If you disagree with him, don't quote him. If you quote him as your own expert, then you cannot disagree with his conclusion. It really is fairly simple. Either you trust his opinion or you do not. You keep quoting him so you must agree. And he says there is no problem.
If you think there is a problem, take the actual statement of the second law. ("No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work...No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one...It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a system completely into work.") and tell us what step fails to follow. You cannot do so. So you resort to dishonest quoting instead. Sad.
"And as I have repeatedly pointed out - I am using a level of objectivity in quoting ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST clear statements - that is far beyond anything you have been able to master so far."
You have no objectivity. Otherwise you would present the full quote and let the reader decide. As is, you buthcer his words and disagree with your own experts conclusions. He is either right or wrong. Not both. Sad.
"Indeed you dodge the point entirely hoping to "declare victory" as a form of "proof" rather than supporting your claims with compelling fact."
Pay very close attention. YOu keep accusing me of playing some "trick" by changing the subject and trying to dodge something. Think again! You first brought these subjects into this thread. ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2897/2.html#000016 ) And I have not sought to avoid any discussion of entropy. Your only argument requires taking your "expert" out of context by snipping the part of the quote that shows that he disagrees with your conclusion. Also look above. I have quoted the statement of the second law straight from a thermo text and asked you to apply it to evolution. You are obviously unable to do so because you did not attempt to do so. Until you can give us one specific step in the evolution of man from his common ancestor with the other apes, you have no point to be made. You have nothing but hot air. It is a claim full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
"How sad that you choose to project the blunders of your own tactics and tricks onto me "as if" I ever used such methods."
Of course your only tactic seems to be to misquote people, continue to misquote after the truth is revealed and to not answer any direct questions brought to you. Sad.
"And it is has been shown over and over again with the case of entropy and Isaac Asimov's clear and frank statements."
His statement shows you to be incorrect except when you selectively edit the quote in an attempt to make it sound like he is saying something else. Sad.
"You love to claim that these exact quotes are "in error" because they fail to maintain your own religious fervor for the doctrines of evolutionism."
The quotes are in error because you selectively edit them to make the author appear to say something that they would disagree with. You lie about what they think and say. Sad.
It is the same as if an atheist justified himself by quoting the Bible as saying "There is no God." Surely, if confronted by that, your first step would be to turn that around and give the full quote. "The fool has said in his heart, THere is no God." This is what I do to you. I reveal the deceit of your quoting by revealing the full quote. You cannot quote honestly.
"Here is the smoking gun that utterly devastates your argument. You continually respond with the tired old observation that Asimov IS STILL an atheist and STILL an atheist evolutionist EVEN though he starts with the confessed problem of the OBSERVED INCREASE in entropy at the VERY LEVEL that he claims that we need to observe DECREASED Entropy!!"
Pay attention. That is not my response. My response is that you have dishonestly quoted him in a manner. He, in the very quote you edit down, disagrees with your conclusion. Therefore you cannot use him as your expert. If you disagree with him, don't quote him. If you quote him as your own expert, then you cannot disagree with his conclusion. It really is fairly simple. Either you trust his opinion or you do not. You keep quoting him so you must agree. And he says there is no problem.
If you think there is a problem, take the actual statement of the second law. ("No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work...No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one...It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a system completely into work.") and tell us what step fails to follow. You cannot do so. So you resort to dishonest quoting instead. Sad.
"And as I have repeatedly pointed out - I am using a level of objectivity in quoting ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST clear statements - that is far beyond anything you have been able to master so far."
You have no objectivity. Otherwise you would present the full quote and let the reader decide. As is, you buthcer his words and disagree with your own experts conclusions. He is either right or wrong. Not both. Sad.