Theistic Evol vs ID vs Hindu religion

[Scott J]

YEers like to pretend that there is scant difference between their opinion and those of IDers.

Really? That is quite a generalization.

The answer is that IDer's and YEer's accept the same philosophical starting points. One being that naturalism does not equal science. Another being that a powerful, intelligent creator was not required to stand on the sideline and let nature run its course.

Evolutionists/naturalists limit where the scientific evidence can take them. By default, evolution must be true regardless of whether it provides the best explanation of the evidence or not, regardless of whether the explanations are likely or not,... and regardless of whether it requires events with no known natural conditions conducive to their occurrence. ie, abiogenesis.

IDer's and YEer's and all in between may differ on where the evidence points... but not that it can point to both natural and extra/super natural cause.

 

[BobRyan]

I still do not know what you are talking about. I have stated this several times and you merely repeat yourself. There is nothing to highlight for you because I see nowhere in which you come close to answering what I want.

Some sentences sound like you strongly disagree with ID. Some sound like you strongly agree with ID. I still don't know what your full opinion of ID is.

Try this. Try saying "Hey Bob I have no clue what the relationship is between superset and subset so when you show that as the perfect illustration of how Bible believing Christians would relate to ID I have no clue as to what it means -- still. Please dumb this down further for me".

Or Try this. Try saying "Hey Bob I have no clue what the difference is beetween a believer and an unbeliever, between a pagan and a Bible believing Christian. So when you claim that there is a BARE MINIMUM level of truth that EVEN an unbeliever EVEN a pagan should be able to "get" -- I have no clue whether a Bible believing Christian would need to REJECT minimum truth as BEING true - or not".

Try this "Hey Bob I am so befuddled I can't tell the difference between an atheist evolutionists and a ID evolutionist and I am suprised that Bible believing Christians CAN".

---Instead of continuously repeating yourself with posts full of random quote marks and capitalizations,

Do you think the IDers are the greatest thing since sliced bread? Are they fatally flawed? Something in between.

The "pagan" level of "truth" stated clearly for us In Romans 1 "SEEING the invisible ID ATTRIBUTES of God through WHAT HAS BEEN MADE" is not "rejected" by Paul as "let us all now go and REJECT the INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES of God that ARE CLEARLY SEEN by pagans in WHAT HAS BEEN MADE" --

obvously.

Paul ALSO does not say "LET us all dumb down to the level of PAGANS so that we ONLY see what the Pagan sees".

Obviously.

The fact that you need to "pretend" not to get this in your every post is highly entertaining UTEOTW!

I SHOW where ID is useful and I also SHOW where ID would still be a huge step BACKWARDS for Bible believing Christians since ID is STILL evolutionism!

In my OP I imply the close relationship between ID and TE when I ask those who BELIEVE in TE whether they BELIEVE in ID since clearly ID is also a valid subset for TE.

How these explicit - oft-repeated details keep going over your head is truly amazing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

THis is what Dembski says.

More significantly for the educational curriculum, however, is that intelligent design has no stake in living things coming together suddenly in their present form. To be sure, intelligent design leaves that as a possibility. But intelligent design is also fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as "common descent" (i.e., the full genealogical interconnectedness of all organisms). If our best science tells us that living things came together gradually over a long evolutionary history and that all living things are related by common descent, then so be it. Intelligent design can live with this result and indeed live with it cheerfully.

From "Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When?" by William Dembski. Available on ARN.

 

[UTEOTW]

And this was posted by Dembski's "blog czar," their term, on Dembski's own web site on January 31 of this year under the name DaveScot.

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn't get the issue framed around science it's going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I'd ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.

You certainly don't have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I'm going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It's simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor. What we are fighting is the idea that the modification was unguided. ID can fight that without ever leaving the battleground of plain scientific conclusions. If we try to argue against anything else we're are (sic) going to lose. Plain and simple. No buts about it. There's only one gaping vulnerability in the commonly accepted evolutionary narrative we can exploit su

 

[BobRyan]

atheist darwinists want to claim that ID IS the Genesis account! How totally rediculous!

The blatant fact is that ID attacks the HEART of the atheist darwinist view. It gets to the point of the fool's argument that says "There is NO God" without actually debunking evolutionism! In fact ID is so "minimalist" it does not insist on the Genesis account and does not contain enough detail to omit evolutionism - it is as perfect for the Hindu evolutionist as it is for any other objective thinking evolutionist that does not "NEED" to deny the existence of God.

ID evols - vs - Bible believing Christians is the WORST case for debating between YEc and Evols because every time the YeC argument points to an atheist evolutionist icon exposing some OBVIOUS BLUNDER in evol history the ID evol can simply say "yeah - I agree with that - what an obvious stupid blunder that was just like the atheist evol said it was". While ID does not say "GOD did this" IT does say "Something INTELLIGENT DELIBERATELY created/directed this" and that is "more than enough" challenge to the distinctively ATHEIST model (atheist darwinian evolutionism) to send atheist darwinist "believers" through the ceiling!!

It is precisely because of that - that the ID evol case is what also so totally "exposes" the perfidity of those who claim some level of Christianity and yet cling to the atheist evol model "instead" - in their attacks on ID evolutionists . Only the distinctively Atheist POV confuses the ID evol solution with "Genesis" because from the ATHEIST POV any HINT of "intelligence" in creation means veiled reference to God "EXISTING" and therefore violates their prime directive "There IS NO GOD" - and might as well BE Genesis--- to THEM!! To them it is "pure religion" because FOR the atheist evol "THERE IS NO GOD" is the FIRST rule of their own religion - their pseudoscience accepted in place of actual science! For THEM - "facts" must be carefully spun and stories strategically constructed so as not to "hint" that God may have left some fingerprint such that "the invisible attributes of God ARE CLEARLY SEEN in what has been MADE" Romans 1. ID goes around saying "look there is a fingerprint" but does not say "that is GOD's fingerprint" or "The Christian Bible is true" - it admits only to the lowest level of obvious fact -- which is enough to stir the rage of athiest darwinist believers. Believers in that cult are those that reject the Romans 1 statement by God about the facts clearly SEEN by "ALL MANKIND".

(Hint: for UTEOTW asking for this to be dumbed down - I made this same point in our old Evol vs Christianity threads)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

The answer is that IDer's and YEer's accept the same philosophical starting points. One being that naturalism does not equal science. Another being that a powerful, intelligent creator was not required to stand on the sideline and let nature run its course.

If you look at what I said, then you should include TE in with ID. I allow for intervention by God, just like ID, but unlike ID, I have yet to find a credible case where it was required. Does not mean that I think that it never happened, just that I do not see any particular result that must have been directed. It is inevitable that the direction was shaped along the way because it would not be possible to set the set of initial conditions exactly such that what you see today would be the exact outcome every time. It is like asking whether God could make a rock too big for Him to lift. The laws He set to govern this universe would not allow that degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions.

But do you really think that ID and YE share the same philosophy?

Behe says that he finds common descent "convincing."

Dembski sayd that ID is "fully compatible" with common descent and that ID would accept common descent "cheerfully."

Dembski's own "web czar" on Dembski's own web site posted that he was going to start "clamping down" on anyone who posted anyhting against common descent.

You can say that these people share your philosophy but that TE does not? Are you not just drawing an arbitrary line between two ideas that in reality have very little difference between them?

 

[UTEOTW]

In my OP I imply the close relationship between ID and TE when I ask those who BELIEVE in TE whether they BELIEVE in ID since clearly ID is also a valid subset for TE.

"So," can I TAKE "this" to mean "THAT YOU" do NOT "accept THE "main" tenets of ID YOURSELF?

So WHY "exactly" did YOU "need" to "know" if I "ACCEPTED" ID?

For that "matter," ARE "there" ANY reactions to the ID "quotes."

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW -
I allow for intervention by God, just like ID, but unlike ID, I have yet to find a credible case

A good statement for an agnostic - I agree.

The Bible says that ALL MANKIND (particularly unblievers) can "CLEARLY SEE" the invisible attributes of God SEEN in what has been made.

YOU claim "I have not found ONE CASE where a pagan could actuall SEE the intelligent attribute of God IN what has been made".

Surely the Atheist would oppose Romans 1 as you do and surely the agnostic would do so as well.

That is just "the obvious".

 

[UTEOTW]

You are committing a fallacy there, Bob. Equivocation to be specific.

Way back in my first post on this thread, I told you where I see the design of the universe.

In the specific claims of ID, I say that I have not yet seen a problem that ID has identified that does not have a possible solution under the laws God set up for this universe.

You cannot equivocate different parts of my statements to try and make it seem like what you want it to be.

 

[BobRyan]

You are glossing over the details that expose the flaws in your argument.

#1. What you paint as "a possible solution" includes totally IMPOSSIBLE problems like abiogenesis that have only "statements of faith" from atheist darwinists to prop them up. In other words "possible solution" in that context includes "pure story telling".

#2. The ID argument for design is specifically directed to the "invisible attribute" of intelligence. "Clearly Seen in what has been made". Your argument is "oh no it is not -- not even one single case for that".

I really don't see how you can avoid these facts or even gloss over them and be successful.

 

[UTEOTW]

Ob Bob, you must not be too up on the literature if you think that abiogenesis is "impossible." This is a rich field of research with many promising avenues with experimental support.

But I cannot see how you can keep glossing over the statements from the IDists themselves.

Dembski:

More significantly for the educational curriculum, however, is that intelligent design has no stake in living things coming together suddenly in their present form. To be sure, intelligent design leaves that as a possibility. But intelligent design is also fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as "common descent" (i.e., the full genealogical interconnectedness of all organisms). If our best science tells us that living things came together gradually over a long evolutionary history and that all living things are related by common descent, then so be it. Intelligent design can live with this result and indeed live with it cheerfully.

 

[UTEOTW]

Behe:

I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. ...Although Darwin’s mechanism - natural selection working on variation - might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.

Behe seems to find common descent, including humans, "convincing."

 

[UTEOTW]

Dembski's own "web czar."

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn't get the issue framed around science it's going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I'd ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.

You certainly don't have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I'm going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It's simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor. What we are fighting is the idea that the modification was unguided. ID can fight that without ever leaving the battleground of plain scientific conclusions. If we try to argue against anything else we're are (sic) going to lose. Plain and simple. No buts about it.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's add a new one.

Wells:

If you look at a 1953 Corvette and compare it to the latest model, only the most general resemblances are evident, but if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people.

Evolution by Design By Jonathan Wells

emphasis in original.

Wells says that you are "unreasonable" for rejecting common descent. THe evidence is "owerwhelmingly obvious."

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW

Ob Bob, you must not be too up on the literature if you think that abiogenesis is "impossible." This is a rich field of research with many promising avenues with experimental support.

What a great "story" for the true believers in the cult of atheist darwinism to keep "telling themselves". But as we see from your fact-absent post - there is nothing to the story! Your "reasonable solution" gloss-over includes "pure stories" about "solutions" that CAN NOT happen EVEN in the lab!! When it comes to abiogenesis you keep hoping that "Miracle experiment goes here" will suffice to "complete the story"!!

How sad that "story telling" is all it takes to turn you away from the Bible.

Romans 1 states that UNBLIEVERS "CLEARLY SEE the attributes of God SEEN IN the things that HAVE BEEN MADE".

You keep insisting "Oh NO! Not even ONCE!" And what is you "reason" -- Because the atheists have STORIES they tell when they run into those instances!

How "instructive"

How exposed your position.

You object to ID on the VERY GROUNDS where it is in AGREEMENt with the pagan unbelievers in Romans 1 who are ALL claimed (by God) to have SEEN CLEARLY the invisible ATTRIBUTES OF GOD - IN the things that HAVE been MADE

Your every post exposes you on this point UTEOTW!

 

[BobRyan]

Now to UTEOTW's credit we have to observe one objective intelligent tactic in his efforts to divert AWAY from his exposed objection to ID where IT AGREES with Romans 1.

UTEOTW is "trying" to wrap himself in the arguments of ID evolutionists that are held in common with atheist darwinists AS IF he can spin this thread OFF of the ID distinctive that he so opposes and that is so clearly IN HARMONY with Romans 1.

Aint gonna happen sir.

If you had paid attention you would note that I never claimed that ID "evolutionism" was a good substitute for the truth of God's Word in Genesis or Exodus 20:8-11. If you had paid attention you would note that I stated it's "benefit" as simply being to the degree in which it agrees with Romans 1 and "raises the bar for atheists".

This is THE VERY point in ID where you object -- by your own confessions so far.

And though one might readily understand why atheist darwinists like Richard Dawkins would object on that point -- it is not so clear why a true believer in atheist darwinism would JOIN the atheist darwinists in going --- that Far, without having the same MOTIVATION that the atheist has to instantly reject any hint of intelligence.

 

[UTEOTW]

Now to UTEOTW's credit we have to observe one objective intelligent tactic in his efforts to divert AWAY from his exposed objection to ID where IT AGREES with Romans 1.

And I told you in my first post where I agree, also.

So why are you not calling all the leaders of id "atheists darwinists" for accepting common descent? You brought up ID in your very first question in the OP. Are you now saying that you disagree with them yourself? SO why ask me about them.

What a great "story" for the true believers in the cult of atheist darwinism to keep "telling themselves". But as we see from your fact-absent post - there is nothing to the story!

Sorry about that, I did not realize you were interested in facts.

When you get a chance, here is some light reading that should help you learn as much as anyone else on how that happened.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&li st_uids=15556408&query_hl=1
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/20/12733
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages...up_of_RNA.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&li st_uids=15217990&query_hl=4

That will get you started. Next, you might want to go to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Here are the results you get if you search with "origin of life". I got 153 hits. The second one was

Shelley D. Copley, Eric Smith, and Harold J. Morowitz, A mechanism for the association of amino acids with their codons and the origin of the genetic code, PNAS 2005 102: 4442-4447.

That one sounds intruiging. I am sure you can find other keywords to search under that will yield more information of how they think it all got started.

Once through with that, I have some more papers for you to look up and go through. I'll organize them by topic for you.

A) Composition of the early atmosphere

Genda, Hidenori & Abe, Yutaka
2003 “Survival of a proto-atmosphere through the stage of giant impacts: the mechanical
aspects” Icarus 164, 149-162 (2003).

Holland, Heinrich D.
1984 The Chemical Evolution of the Atmoshphere and Oceans, Princeton Series in
Geochemistry Princeton University Press

Holland, Heinrich D.
1999 “When did the Earth’s atmosphere become oxic? A Reply.” The Geochemical
News #100: 20-22 (see Ohmoto 1997 )

Kasting, J. F., J. L. Siefert,
2002 “Life and the Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere” Science 296:1066

Pepin, R. O.
1997 Evolution of Earth's Noble Gases: Consequences of Assuming Hydrodynamic Loss
Driven by Giant Impact Icarus 126, 148-156 (1997).

Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei
2003 U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma
oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, online 6 December 03

B) Formation of the first organic molecules

Amend, J. P. , E. L. Shock
1998 “Energetics of Amino Acid Synthesis in Hydrothermal Ecosystems” Science
Volume 281, number 5383, Issue of 11 Sep , pp. 1659-1662.

Blank, J.G. Gregory H. Miller, Michael J. Ahrens, Randall E. Winans
2001 “Experimental shock chemistry of aqueous amino acid solutions and the cometary
delivery of prebiotic compounds” Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere
31(1-2):15-51, Feb-Apr

Chyba, Christopher F., Paul J. Thomas, Leigh Brookshaw, Carl Sagan
1990 "Cometary Delivery of Organic Molecules to the Early Earth" Science Vol.
249:366-373

Engel, Michael H., Bartholomew Nagy,
1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison
Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838.

Matthews CN.
1992 Hydrogen cyanide polymerization: a preferred cosmochemical pathway. J. Br.
Interplanet Soc. 45(1):43-8

Schoonen, Martin A. A., Yong Xu
2001 “Nitrogen Reduction Under Hydrothrmal Vent Conditions: Implications for the
Prebiotic Synthesis of C-H-O-N Compounds” Astrobiology 1:133-142

Miller, Stanley L.,
1953 “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science
vol. 117:528-529

Miller, Stanley, Harold C. Urey
1959 “Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth” Science vol 139 Num 3370:
254-251

Weber AL.
1997 Prebiotic amino acid thioester synthesis: thiol-dependent amino acid synthesis from
formose substrates (formaldehyde and glycolaldehyde) and ammonia. Origins of Life and
Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 259-270.

Cooper, George, Novelle Kimmich, Warren Belisle, Josh Sarinana, Katrina Brabham,
Laurence Garrel
2001 Carbonaceous meteorites as a source of sugar-related organic compounds for the
early Earth Nature 414, 879 - 883 (20 Dec 2001) Letters to Nature

Cody, George D., Nabil Z. Boctor, Timothy R. Filley, Robert M. Hazen, James H. Scott,
Anurag Sharma, Hatten S. Yoder Jr.
2000 “Primordial Carbonylated Iron-Sulfur Compounds and the Synthesis of Pyruvate”
Science v.289 : 1337-1340

Sephton, Mark A.
2001 Meteoritics: Life's sweet beginnings? Nature 414, 857 - 858 (20 Dec ) News and
Views

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.
2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia)

Lazcano, Antonio, Stanley L. Miller
1996 “The Origin and Early Evolution of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, the Pre-RNA World,
and Time” Cell vol 85:793-798

Nelson, K. E., M. Levy, S. L. Miller
2000 “Peptide nucleic acids rather than RNA may have been the first genetic molecule”
PNAS-USA v.97, 3868-3871

Fuller, W. D., Sanchez, R. A. & Orgel, L. E. Studies in prebiotic synthesis. VI. Synthesis
of purine nucleosides. J. Mol. Biol. 67, 25-33 (1972).

Robertson, MP, Miller SL.
1995 An efficient prebiotic synthesis of cytosine and uracil. Nature 375, 772 - 774 ()

Nelson K.E., Robertson M.P., Levy M, Miller S.L.
2001 Concentration by evaporation and the prebiotic synthesis of cytosine. Orig Life
Evol Biosph Jun;31(3):221-229

Deamer, D. W., and Pashley, R. M.
1989. Amphiphilic components of carbonaceous meteorites. Orig. Life Evol. Biosphere
19:21-33.

Krishnamurthy, R., Pitsch, S. & Arrhenius, G. 1999 Mineral induced formation of
pentose-2,4-bisphosphates. Origins Life Evol. Biosph. 29, 139-152 ().

Dworkin, Jason P., David W. Deamer, Scott A. Sandford, and Louis J. Allamandola
2001 “Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated
interstellar/precometary ices” PNAS 98: 815-819

Pizzarello, Sandra, Yongsong Huang, Luann Becker, Robert J. Poreda, Ronald A.
Nieman, George Cooper, Michael Williams
2001 “The Organic Content of the Tagish Lake Meteorite” Science, Vol. 293, Issue 5538,
2236-2239, September 21, 2001

Segre' D., Ben-Eli D. Deamer D. and Lancet D.
2001 “The Lipid World” Origins Life Evol. Biosphere 31, 119-145.

 

[UTEOTW]

And more reading for you.

C) More complex molecules / proto-life

Martin M. Hanczyc, Shelly M. Fujikawa, and Jack W. Szostak
2003 Experimental Models of Primitive Cellular Compartments: Encapsulation, Growth,
and Division Science October 24; 302: 618-622. (in Reports)

D.W. Deamer
1997 "The First Living Systems - A Bioenergetic Perspective", ; Microbiology and
Molecular Biology Reviews, 61(2): 239; June

Chakrabarti, A.C., R.R. Breaker, G.F. Joyce, & D.W. Deamer
1994 Production of RNA by a Polymerase Protein Encapsulated within Phospho-Lipid
Vesicles Journal of Molecular Evolution 39(6): 555-559 ( December)

Khvorova A, Kwak YG, Tamkun M, Majerfeld I, Yarus M.
1999. RNAs that bind and change the permeability of phospholipid membranes.
Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences USA 96:10649-10654.

Yarus M.
1999. Boundaries for an RNA world. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 3:260-267.

Walter P, Keenan R, Scmitz U.
2000. SRP-Where the RNA and membrane worlds meet. Science 287:1212-1213.

Cronin, J. R. & Pizzarello, S.,
1999. Amino acid enantomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances
in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.

Service, RF,
1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.

Antonio Chrysostomou, T. M. Gledhill,1 François Ménard, J. H. Hough, Motohide
Tamura and Jeremy Bailey
2000 "Polarimetry of young stellar objects -III. Circular polarimetry of OMC-1" Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Volume 312 Issue 1 Page 103 - February

Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy,
1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison
Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838.

Jeremy Bailey, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart
Clark, François Ménard, and Motohide Tamura
1998 Circular Polarization in Star- Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular
Homochirality Science 1998 July 31; 281: 672-674. (in Reports)

Chyba, Christopher F.
1997 Origins of life: A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389, 234- 235 (18 Sep 1997)

Engel, M. H., S. A. Macko
1997 Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison
meteorite. Nature 389, 265 - 268 (18 Sep) Letters to Nature

Schmidt, J. G., Nielsen, P. E. & Orgel, L. E. 1997 Enantiomeric cross-inhibition in the
synthesis of oligonucleotides on a nonchiral template. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 1494-1495

Saghatelion A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K,
Ghadiri MR,
2001"A chiroselective peptide replicator",
Nature 409: 797-51, Feb

Singleton, D A,& Vo, L K,
2002 “Enantioselective Synthsis without Discrete Optically Active Additives” J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 124, 10010-10011

Yao Shao, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, Chmielewski J.
1998 Selective amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system.
Nature. Dec 3;396(6710):447-50.

Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley, and G.A. Goodfriend.
2001. Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for
biochemical homochirality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(May
8):5487.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.
2004 "Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose" Science January 9; 303: 196 (in Brevia)

Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber
2004 Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts Science Vol 303, Issue 5661:
1151, 20 February 2004

Ferris JP, Hill AR Jr, Liu R, and Orgel LE. (1996 May 2). Synthesis of long prebiotic
oligomers on mineral surfaces [see comments] Nature, 381, 59-61.

Lee DH, Granja JR, Martinez JA, Severin K, Ghadri MR.
1996 “A self-replicating peptide.” Nature Aug 8;382(6591):525-8

A.C. Chakrabarti, R.R. Breaker, G.F. Joyce, & D.W. Deamer
1994 Production of RNA by a Polymerase Protein Encapsulated within Phospho-Lipid
Vesicles Journal of Molecular Evolution 39(6): 555-559 (1994 December)

Smith, J.V.
Biochemical evolution. I. Polymerization on internal, organophilic silica surfaces of
dealuminated zeolites and feldspars Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 95(7): 3370-3375; March 31, 1998

Smith, J.V., Arnold, F.P., Parsons, I., Lee, M.R.
Biochemical evolution III: Polymerization on organophilic silica-rich surfaces, crystal-
hemical modeling, formation of first cells, and geological clues Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96(7): 3479-3485; March
30, 1999

Blochl, Elisabeth, Martin Keller, Gunter Wächtershäuser , Karl Otto Stetter
1992 “Reactions depending on iron sulfide and linking geochemistry with biochemistry”
PNAS-USA v.89: 8117-8120

Dyall, Sabrina D., Patricia J. Johnson
2000 “Origins of hydrogenosomes and mitochondria: evolution and organelle biogensis.”
Current Opinion in Microbiology 3:404-411

Huber, Claudia, Gunter Wächtershäuser
1998 “Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces:
Implications for the Origin of Life” Science v.281: 670-672

Imai, E., Honda, H., Hatori, K., Brack, A. and Matsuno, K.
1999 “Elongation of oligopeptides in a simulated submarine hydrothermal system“
Science 283(5403):831–833.

Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR,
1997 Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self- replication through a hypercyclic network.
Nature, 390: 591-4

 

[UTEOTW]

Now when you have read all of that and can tell us what is wrong with them in specific and scientific terms, get back with us. How a non-expert will do that better than the experts who wrote the material, I don' know.

You might also want to contact the authors directly and tell them what you know that they do not. Or at least offer your services to the editors of the journals.

 

[BobRyan]

Though atheist darwinists need to "spin the story" of abiogenesis as a required "fact' in their story telling they have not been able to SHOW abiogenesis itself!

That fact "remains'.

If they had ONE example of a cell 'forming' from non-living matter they would be joyously touting their "creator" abilities and discrediting the claims of Christians everywhere.

That obvious fact "remains".

UTEOTW's obfuscation of the simple facts so glaringly obvious to all - have repeatedly failed and one notes that NOT ONE of his masters listed above SHOW the actual process of abiogenesis to have been fabricated even artificially - in the lab! Not one!

And that is just another "example" of where UTEOTW willingly substitutes "story telling" in place of "what is obviously SEEN IN NATURE even by UNBELIEVERS" as to the "INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD".

UTEOTW DENIES that even ONE SUCH example exists in his exposed argument that rejects the "Intelligence" declared in ID!!

What a bold denial of Romans 1!!