How old is the earth

[BobRyan]

"Adding energy to a system causes the system to move toward disorder more quickly. If the energy is not harnessed and directed the system will deteriorate."

Why do you find this important? Even in a living cell, does not the utilization of energy come about in a purely natural manner? The law of thermodynamics dictate how energy can be used. Living cells are merely following chemistry. Even the genetic code is merely chemistry in action. Local decreases in entropy happen spontaneously according to the rules of our physical universe. What you are asserting is insufficient. You must show where some step along the way actually violates the rules of thermodynamics. But you can't.

This is totally bogus. IT is like claiming that a jet uses energy in a "totally natural manner". The fact is no amount of sunshine produces a jet and no amount of sunshine produces DNA or a living cell.

Abiogenesis does not work. Every lab experiment done "Shows" this to be the case. Entropy works - every lab experiement "shows this".

Intelligently DIRECTED energy in the lab CAN produces chemical reactions that generate amino acids but they do NOT develop chains that CAN or DO produce viable proteins for living cells.

The "it all just happens in sunshine" argument is totally bogus.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

I do not understand your objection to evolution here. You are objecting to abiogenesis. We are talking about evolution. Nowhere do you show how evolution violates any laws of thermodynamics. Because it does not.

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Bob

I do not understand your objection to evolution here. You are objecting to abiogenesis. We are talking about evolution. Nowhere do you show how evolution violates any laws of thermodynamics. Because it does not.

THERMODYNAMICS AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Part I)*
- IMPACT No. 57 March 1978
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.**

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-057.htm


THERMODYNAMICS AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Part II)*
- IMPACT No. 58 April 1978
by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.**

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-057.htm

 

[LarryN]

Deuteronomy 7:9

1 Chronicles 16:15

Psalms 105:8


Forgive me if this has been brought up already- I haven't read thru the entire thread.

The three references provided above refer to God keeping his covenant to a thousand generations. Given that the generally accepted Biblical definition of a generation is 40 years, would this be indicating at least 40,000 years of human history? For those who would limit the overall age of the earth to 6,000-10,000 years, how would such a young Earth be reconciled to these verses? Is there anyone who would say that this number of generations is simply figurative?

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by LarryN:
Deuteronomy 7:9

1 Chronicles 16:15

Psalms 105:8


Forgive me if this has been brought up already- I haven't read thru the entire thread.

The three references provided above refer to God keeping his covenant to a thousand generations. Given that the generally accepted Biblical definition of a generation is 40 years, would this be indicating at least 40,000 years of human history? For those who would limit the overall age of the earth to 6,000-10,000 years, how would such a young Earth be reconciled to these verses? Is there anyone who would say that this number of generations is simply figurative?

Who said it had to be past generations?

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by John3v36:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
Deuteronomy 7:9

1 Chronicles 16:15

Psalms 105:8


Forgive me if this has been brought up already- I haven't read thru the entire thread.

The three references provided above refer to God keeping his covenant to a thousand generations. Given that the generally accepted Biblical definition of a generation is 40 years, would this be indicating at least 40,000 years of human history? For those who would limit the overall age of the earth to 6,000-10,000 years, how would such a young Earth be reconciled to these verses? Is there anyone who would say that this number of generations is simply figurative?

Who said it had to be past generations? </font>[/QUOTE]I had the same thought- I wanted to see if anyone else thought the same.

To a proponant of YEC (Earth = no more than 10,000 years old), the math says that we must be no more than 250 generations removed from Adam. [10,000/40 = 250.] For the real young-Earthers, the number of generations removed is even fewer. [6,000/40 = 150.]

Since the verses mentioned refer to God's promise to a thousand generations, what then are some thoughts on the implications of these verses?

 

[BobRyan]

#1. This was spoken about 3000 years after creation - the text does not say that the Lord had already kept his covenant (being made then and there) for 1000's of generations.

#2. We do not have then end of all human life yet - so it would be hard to argue that God is "through keeping His covenant" with generations of humans.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by John3v36:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Bob

I do not understand your objection to evolution here. You are objecting to abiogenesis. We are talking about evolution. Nowhere do you show how evolution violates any laws of thermodynamics. Because it does not.

THERMODYNAMICS AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Part I)*
- IMPACT No. 57 March 1978
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.**

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-057.htm


THERMODYNAMICS AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Part II)*
- IMPACT No. 58 April 1978
by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.**

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-057.htm </font>[/QUOTE]The first problem you run into is that this is still debating abiogenesis and NOT evolution. There is nothing in either of these papers to suggest a problem with evolution. (BTW, you mistakingly posted the same link twice. For those interested, the second link is http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-058.htm ) Now if you want to debate abiogenesis, please frame it as a debate about abiogenesis and not evolution. It is not possible to roll all of science into one ball and call it "evolution." I, personally, do not find abiogenesis a very interesting topic because, frankly, there is not anything to debate. There is no real possibility of finding actual physical or chemical evidence from the time in question to examine. So we are left proposing and debating various hypotheses. Not much fun without some hard data to support or contradict. Plus, as a Christian, weaknesses in abiogenesis do not interest me. God wanted life here, there is life here. The evidence still supports evolution and entropy poses no problems for evolution.

The second point is that this is a response to a THIRTY year old proposal on abiogenesis. I believe there are more recent ideas to debate if you wish to go down the abiogenesis road.

Third, and most importantly, the paper in question actually argues that entropy was a driving force TOWARDS the first life. You can read the paper HERE if you wish. One quote is as follows

What is the thermodynamic meaning of prebiological evolution? Darwin's principle of "survival of the fittest" through natural selection can only apply once pre biological evolution has led to the formation of some primitive living beings. A new evolutionary principle, proposed recently by Manfred Eigen, would replace Darwin's idea in the context of prebiotic evolution. It amounts to optimizing a quantity measuring the faithfulness, or quality, of the macromolecules in reproducing themselves via template action. We here propose an alternative description of prebiological evolution. The main idea is the possibility that a prebiological system may evolve through a whole succession of transitions leading to a hierarchy of more and more complex and organized states. Such transitions can only arise in nonlinear systems that are maintained far from equilibrium; that is, beyond a certain critical threshold the steady-state regime becomes unstable and the system evolves to a new configuration. As a result, if the system is to be able to evolve through successive instabilities, a mechanism must be developed whereby each new transition favors further evolution by increasing the nonlinearity and the distance from equilibrium. One obvious mechanism is that each transition enables the system to increase the entropy production.

A quote from a different source on the paper

Many reactions of this type have since been discovered experimentally in biological systems. Life processes work under nonequilibrium systems, and living matter consists of structures that exist in states that are far from equilibrium. Examples cited are the growth of an entire plant from a seed and the formation of amino acids from primordial soup. Nature is full of processes that spontaneously bring order from chaos and that thrive in seeming contempt of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1978/JASA9-78Albert.html

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by LarryN

Deuteronomy 7:9

1 Chronicles 16:15

Psalms 105:8


Forgive me if this has been brought up already- I haven't read thru the entire thread.

The three references provided above refer to God keeping his covenant to a thousand generations. Given that the generally accepted Biblical definition of a generation is 40 years, would this be indicating at least 40,000 years of human history? For those who would limit the overall age of the earth to 6,000-10,000 years, how would such a young Earth be reconciled to these verses? Is there anyone who would say that this number of generations is simply figurative?

Here are the verses from the New American Standard version:


Deut 7:8-9
but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

9 "Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;
NASU

1 Chron 16:15-16
5 Remember His covenant forever,
The word which He commanded to a thousand generations,
16 The covenant which He made with Abraham,
And His oath to Isaac.
NASU

Ps 105:8-9
8 He has remembered His covenant forever,
The word which He commanded to a thousand generations,
9 The covenant which He made with Abraham,
And His oath to Isaac.
NASU

Alas, I am afraid that these verses are easily understood as referring forwards in time instead of backwards. Thus, the most one could say would be they indicate that this world will see a thousand generations from the time of Abraham, which would perhaps postpone the 2nd coming for a longer period of time than we would normally be comfortable with.

That was an interesting thought, tho. Welcome to the evolution discussion!

 

[BobRyan]

This is a favorite dodge of evolutionists -- that Evolution is not actually trying to "explain everything" as "IF" it was claiming that you start "from nothing" and then every step of the way is "explained" by evolutionism's mythologies.

Notice how UTEOTW phrases it...

The first problem you run into is that this is still debating abiogenesis and NOT evolution.

Now if you want to debate abiogenesis, please frame it as a debate about abiogenesis and not evolution.

Notice how prominent evolutionist make THE VERY CLAIM that evolution IS in place to explain EVERYTHING?? Here we see Richard Dawkings doing it.

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

Yet by direct contrast UTEOTW claims that evolution CAN NOT encompass the whole story - starting "from nothing" either in this world - or with life on this world - or the entire universe.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW --
It is not possible to roll all of science into one ball and call it "evolution."

Well we have to agree with UTEOTW on this one thing - it is NOT possible to take all the myths and fables of evolutionism and "call it science" or call it "all of science" -- it is pure fiction.

Science on the other hand is a beautiful thing and well worth the time to study.

Now in a moment of "confession" UTEOTW admits that his blue-sky speculation on "LIVING systems" that were composed of amino acids having random chiral distribution - was in fact a fairytale. He had no evidence at all that it ever worked in all of time.

UTEOTW

I, personally, do not find abiogenesis a very interesting topic because, frankly, there is not anything to debate. There is no real possibility of finding actual physical or chemical evidence from the time in question to examine. So we are left proposing and debating various hypotheses.

By "contrast" we DO have actual evidence in the lab today that the ONLY WAY living cells work is with left-handed chiral orientation (as unlikely as that is from an abiogenesis scenario).

So evolution as NO hard data - and Creationist have ALL the HARD DATA when it comes to SEEING the chiral distriubtion of living cells day after day after day - AND being able to conduct experiments with it.

So how much "fun" is it for evolutionists to have NO HARD DATA supporting random chiral distrubtions in living systems (as would be needed for abiogensis scenarios??)

UTEOTW
Not much fun without some hard data to support

Here we get an ounce of truth from UTEOTW on this subject - if only for a microsecond.

A small ray of light has been allowed into the myths and speculations of evolutionism.

I applaud the progress.

UTEOTW Plus, as a Christian, weaknesses in abiogenesis do not interest me.

Why of course they don't interest you. Why should you be interested in the flaws of the doctrines and myths consituting the premise for evolutionism "explaining the whole thing starting from NOTHING"?? That would only serve to support the literal text of the Word of God --- and we "can't have that" now can we??

UTEOTW
The evidence still supports evolution and entropy poses no problems for evolution.

AS long as you keep AWAY from science and stick with the myths and speculations of evolutionism - I guess you could say that.

I "guess" you could "keep believing" it too - if you ignored Isaac Asimov AND you agreed to abandon critical thinking...

I "guess" you could "keep believing that" as long as you ignored the abovious fact that a "massive DECREASE in entropy" is "needed" by the myth called evolutionism to work its magic from molecule-to-man (even Asimov admits this) but what we OBSERVE in those systems in is consistent INCREASE by contrast.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:


By "contrast" we DO have actual evidence in the lab today that the ONLY WAY living cells work is with left-handed chiral orientation (as unlikely as that is from an abiogenesis scenario).

So evolution as NO hard data - and Creationist have ALL the HARD DATA when it comes to SEEING the chiral distriubtion of living cells day after day after day - AND being able to conduct experiments with it.

So how much "fun" is it for evolutionists to have NO HARD DATA supporting random chiral distrubtions in living systems (as would be needed for abiogensis scenarios??)

You know, BR, there simply are no model t cars out there on the race tracks today. Why? Because they would be blown away by any modern car. In the same way, the way living cells are now is not an indication that earlier cells were always that efficient and well designed.

Internal working chemistry never fossilizes so we cannot get evidence of the origins of life, whether they came from early simple chemicals or were directly created.

Evolutionism, as such, does not deal with how life came about, but how life evolved after there was life. See - Evolution = evolving life. Very simple definition.

. . . Why should you be interested in the flaws of the doctrines and myths consituting the premise for evolutionism "explaining the whole thing starting from NOTHING"?? That would only serve to support the literal text of the Word of God --- and we "can't have that" now can we??

I know this is a hard thing for you, Bob Ryan, because you never get it. But perhaps after hearing it a hundred times or so you will get it.

Evolution = what happens after life gets here
Abiogeneis = how life gets here.

We have good understanding of the process of evolution. We have less than complete understanding of abiogenesis.

(talking about entropy) I "guess" you could "keep believing" it too - if you ignored Isaac Asimov AND you agreed to abandon critical thinking...

I "guess" you could "keep believing that" as long as you ignored the abovious fact that a "massive DECREASE in entropy" is "needed" by the myth called evolutionism to work its magic from molecule-to-man (even Asimov admits this) but what we OBSERVE in those systems in is consistent INCREASE by contrast.

More failure to learn on BobRyan's part. The second law of thermodynamics infers that in all processes there is a net increase in entropy. But nowhere does it say that there cannot be a lowering of entropy in a particular localized place - because that CAN happen, provided there is an increase in entropy somewhere else to make up for it.

BobRyan was once a little fertilized egg. He became a full grown human being somehow - and this involved taking widespread, diffused nutrients and bringing them together into a highly organized, tightly constrained body.

Does BobRyan claim that because this involved a local decrease of entropy that he does not exist?

If Isaac Asimov, the well known science fiction writer, is such an authority on entropy that he deserves to have his opinion on entropy respected, as BobRyan believes, why does BobRyan feel free to toss out Isaac Asimov's own conclusion that life evolving is not in opposition to entropy?

( ) Because Isaac Asimov stupidly neglected to note the contradiction required to do so

( ) Because BobRyan misunderstands the nature of entropy

I leave it to the reader to select the more likely option.

 

[eschatologist]

You're trying to suck the oceans dry with a straw! There are way more factors invoved here which our mortal minds may not be able to conceive. I believe it is far older than 6,000 years, but just how that corresponds with the Genesis creation of the world maybe far too complex and a debateable issue that can only confuse christians into disbelief. We shall know when it comes time.

 

[BobRyan]

"Six Days you shall labor and do all your work... FOR IN SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and ALL that are in them". Exodus 20:8-11.

This is the direct Language God used - but mankind has sought to obfuscate and redirect the plain and clear statements of God - from the fall of man onward.

It is no surprise today that some look at this direct statement of God and claim that they are confused about what it means -- as they look for every opportunity to bend it around to a way more pleasing to their bias.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:


By "contrast" we DO have actual evidence in the lab today that the ONLY WAY living cells work is with left-handed chiral orientation (as unlikely as that is from an abiogenesis scenario).

So evolution as NO hard data - and Creationist have ALL the HARD DATA when it comes to SEEING the chiral distriubtion of living cells day after day after day - AND being able to conduct experiments with it.

So how much "fun" is it for evolutionists to have NO HARD DATA supporting random chiral distrubtions in living systems (as would be needed for abiogensis scenarios??)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul of Eugene
You know, BR, there simply are no model t cars out there on the race tracks today. Why? Because they would be blown away by any modern car.

In the same way, the way living cells are now is not an indication that earlier cells were always that efficient and well designed.

A wonderfully imaginative speculation about what we DON't SEE in science.

Clearly we DO find evidence of Model-T's in history AND knowing the difference between that an a modern car we can MANUFACTURE one by using the KNOWN and RELIABLY TRUE differences.

By "contrast" evolutionism is pure blue-sky mythology so "for all the pretending" evolutionists CAN't show in the LAB how amonia seas and a reducing atmosphere gave birth to living cells having random chiral orientations.

Don't get me wrong - they CAN create a reducing atomosphere and amonia solutions in the LAB - but they CAN't make any of their stories "come true" even in the controlled and contrived environments of the lab.

But .... thats the "Science" of it - and evolutionism lives in the realm of blue-sky speculation about the impossible or at BEST - the obscure.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here are the well known "claims" of evolutionists --

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable"[/b] -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

Notice that it goes right down to "Starting from nothing"??

Paul of Eugene said "by contrast" --

Evolutionism, as such, does not deal with how life came about, but how life evolved after there was life. See - Evolution = evolving life. Very simple definition.


And yet we just read the "claim" of evolutionism for evolutionism BY a well recognized icon for evolutionism...

The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable"[/b] -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in.

But evolutionists here -- ignore Isaac Asimov, and ignore Dawkings claims about the myths of evolutionism "When it suits them".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Quoting Dawkins on religious matters is the informal fallacy of an appeal to authority. Dawkins has no special religious expertise that makes him any more of a source than the man on the street.

BTW, if evolution is actually "pure blue-sky mythology" then why do you not start showing us some of the "myths" in the list I posted on the other thread. Here is the URL.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2710/12.html

There are quite a number of issues over there you have not even attempted to address.

If you want to stay on this thread, there are two good ones I forgot to put on the list. Tell us where the chalk deposits and limestone deposits came from.

I also see you are still holding to your uniformitarian believes on chiral compounds. Quite an unusual stance for you. (Well not really. When have you ever let a lack of evidnce stand in your way?) And you still have not told us what exactly entropy stops from happening. Yes I have seen your "massive" decrease in entropy posts. Now, how about some "critical thinking?" Apply your "massive" required decrease in entropy and tell us the effects. For I fear there are no effects. Especially since the decrease is less than what is required to grow that oak tree in my front yard. Yep, it is still there. Local decreases happen. Or did you miss that part of the Asimov quote you keep bandying about? You know, the part where he points out that work can be done such that the universal trend towards entropy can still allow local decreases in entropy. And here we can go back to G = H - TS which shows us that local decreases can be spontaneous and favored thermodynamically. Or the paper brought up by your side for some reason yesterday that shows how entropy is a driving force for life and not against it.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] Bob

Quoting Dawkins on religious matters

I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. So I don't.

I suppose I could go ask "HEy what does Richard Dawkings think about Baptism? What does he say it is claiming?"

totally out of place -

But rather than "making that up" why not just stick with the facts?

Dawkings IS the person to go to about the claims of EVOLUTIONISM.

Now that means what you "really" mean is "Quite quoting Dawkings about the CLAIMS of Evolutionism it causes trouble for us evolutionists here trying to marry evolutionISM to the Gospel".

And of course - I see your "need" to avoid that trouble spot.

Your misdirection here is in the form of pretending that Dawkings claims about evolutionism IS ACTUALLY a claim to teach Bible doctrine. Obiously he intends no such thing.

BTW, if evolution is actually "pure blue-sky mythology" then why do you not start showing us some of the "myths"

I DID!!!

I SHOW that you YOURSELF admit that your wishful thinking about living cells composed of amino acids with random chiral distributions (so counter-intuitive to the DATA we have today in the LAB) is (by your own confession) based on pure blue sky speculation.

How much clearer can it be UTEOTW - YOU are the source of the quote!!

I could not have made this any easier for you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

No, Bob, you have shown nothing to contradict my assertion that the current chiral distribution is the result of the long ago development of an efficient enzyme that made that singlular use of left handed amino acids favorable.

Just like you have yet to tell us what the actual effect on evolution is for your "massive" decrease in entropy that is required. (Which happens to be less than the decrease needed to grow that oak tree in my front yard. But it grew!)

Just like you have yet to tell us just how the chalk and limestone deposits came to be.

Just like you have failed to addres ANY of the long list of issues I have presented to you on the other thread. Or any thread for that matter.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW said --
I also see you are still holding to your uniformitarian believes on chiral compounds.
...
(Well not really. When have you ever let a lack of evidnce stand in your way?)

Wow! I "believe" all chiral orientations IN Living Cells are left-handed and SURE ENOUGH we SEE that this is exactly what science SHOWS.

You "believe" that in the easter-bunny unverifiable passtttt --- hopefully maybe possibly random chiral distributions were "viable" IN LIVING CELLS then though IMPOSSIBLE now. You admit you have no SCIENCE showing this to be the case - but you "believe it anyway" - and this you label as a case of ME having no "Data" for my beliefs!!!

This gets us back to the error in traditions thread - that is exactly how error is created.

In Christ,

Bob