Posted on 01/15/2005 2:06:00 PM PST by Happy2BMe
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
"Gish hasn't published since 1976. Why?"
What was that you said about posting falsehoods!!!!!!
Duane T. Gish, 1979, Evolution? The Fossils Say No!,Creation-Life Publishers
Duane T. Gish, 1995, Evolution? The Fossils Still Say No!,Institute for Creation Research
--He's also been busy debating!
Dr Duane Gish and Dr Kenneth Cumming, two world-renowned scientists from the Institute for Creation Research in the USA are authorities on biochemistry and paleontology. They demonstrated with substantial proof that the theory of evolution has no validity whatsoever. During the conference, one of the most esteemed Turkish scientists today, Dr Cevat Babuna illustrated the miracles in each phase of a human being's creation with a slide show that shook the "coincidence hypothesis" of evolution to its roots.
The second international conference in the same series was held three months after the first on July 5, 1998 in Cemal Resit Rey Conference Hall again in Istanbul. The speakers-six Americans and one Turk-gave talks demonstrating how Darwinism had been invalidated by modern science. Cemal Resit Rey Conference Hall, with a seating capacity of a thousand, was filled to overflowing by an audience of rapt listeners.
The Racine debate marked at least the 90th debate that Dr. Gish and/or Dr. Henry Morris have had since 1972—most of them on university campuses—involving at least 140 evolutionary scientists. Although this reviewer is familiar with almost all of these debates, it is difficult to remember one in which less positive evidence for evolution, was presented than was presented by Dr. D'Orazio. Instead, he devoted almost all of his time to challenging the credentials and the integrity of creationist scientists as well as the quality of their work. Not only did Gish comment on the obvious lack of scientific evidence presented by D'Orazio, but also one of the questions from the audience during the question period was directed to D'Orazio asking him why he chose to handle his portion of the debate in that fashion.
It is a well-known axiom in debate that if you feel that you have a strong case, you should build it; if you feel your case is weak, it is better to attack the opposition relentlessly while ignoring your own position. One thus hopes to gain victory by revealing the weaknesses of the opposing position rather than by systematically building a positive case for your own position. Since the question to be debated was: "Does scientific evidence adequately support the theory of evolution?," D'Orazio's reason for using this technique remains a mystery. Yet, his failure to present rigorous evidence for his position did not go unnoticed by the audience.
The probabilites are cited by the creationist but they come from the evolutionist. Get it straight before you go making any more ridiculous analogies!
"No, you are wrong. Absolutely wrong."
„Ï Cytochrome-C is one of the most important proteins that make oxygen respiration possible. It is vital for survival. It is impossible for this protein, which has an extremely complex design, to form by chance. One of the foremost defenders of evolution in Turkey, Professor Ali Demirsoy states in his book Inheritance and Evolution that the probability of the coincidental formation of Cytochrome-C is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes."8
You are citing an irrelevant source. No biologist believes proteins form by chance. This has nothing to do with evolution. It doesn't even have anything to do with ID.
www.ntskeptics.org/programs/2003/2003june/BehesBlackBox.pdf pg. 24 (for starters)
How did proteins come about then?
What then is organic evolution?
„Ï The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity¡Xomnipotent chance."¡X*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102
Not organic evolution. I mean chemical evolution
You answer some of my questions first.
Remember, you are supposed to show peer reviewed scientific papers and evidence refuting evolution. I have given you all the explanations needed for any reasonable person to reach the conclusion that creationism is a fraud and Behe in particular has no argument.
Non-peer reviewed, fundamentalist-press junk doesn't count as a publication in the scientific world.
Please quote specifically that which you claim justifies your ridiculous statements. A link I can't even get to download properly isn't an argument.
Please provide information with your link.
1Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California (Berkeley). He spent a total of 18 years in biochemical research; with Cornell University Medical College (NYC), with the Virus Laboratory, U of Cal-Berkley and and on the research staff of the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company (Michigan). He has published approximately 40 articles in scientific journals.
As stated he has debated with top evolutionist all over the word with thousands in attendance.
Now state your accomplishments professor. I bet you don't even hold a candle to this guy. Who are you to critize his accomplishments?
It is a well-known axiom in debate that if you feel that you have a strong case, you should build it; if you feel your case is weak, it is better to attack the opposition relentlessly while ignoring your own position. One thus hopes to gain victory by revealing the weaknesses of the opposing position rather than by systematically building a positive case for your own position.
FWIW I've published twice the number of papers he has. I posted a link to a (soon to be updated) version of my CV.
Gish was a fairly mediocre biological chemist. Now he's a religious charlatan, as he has been for a third of a century.
Did negritochulo simply not understand that what he was posting was directly contrary to what he himself was asserting?
Regardless of whether or not it is a criticism of Behe's book is irrelevant. As I stated Behe himself isn't a creationist. The point is on the page that I indicated it does support the statements on chemistry that I posted earlier. Evolutionist are constantly contradicting other evolutionist. That's a given. That's what makes the whole theory so hard to swallow!
If the primitive earth atmosphere contained a significant quantity of oxygen, however, an evolutionary origin of life would have been thermodynamically impossible, since all substances would have been oxidized to carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen, and other oxidized products, leaving no organic chemical compounds to serve as precursors for biochemical evolution. Evolutionists are thus forced to assume, a priori, that the primitive earth atmosphere contained no oxygen, but rather contained hydrogen, and that carbon existed mainly in the form of methane and/or carbon monoxide.IMPACT No. 31 January 1976
by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.**
FWIW I've published twice the number of papers he has. I posted a link to a (soon to be updated) version of my CV.
Without knowing whether or not the info on Gish's publications has been updated. We cant' make that conclusion.
Secondly, Gish is one of numerous scientist who don't believe in evolution. I only named the first 10 in my post. No doubt several surpass you.
The link you posted in post number 364 doesn't refer to chemistry at all. It says
The Real Black Box Nature limits what can happen. Changes in systems must follow natural laws. This is a limitation of evolution through natural selection.
Intelligent design allows the laws of nature to be broken. Magical things can happen. •This is magic. •This is Behe’s Black Box
I'm convinced now you're a very childish kind of liar, one who doesn't realize that what he claims will be checked. Just so I can keep count, do you consider yourself a Christian?
I can. I checked in SciFinder, a scientific search engine.
THE CORRECT CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT WOULD NOT EXIST
Chemical compounds would not have been rich enough.
"It is commonly assumed today that life arose in the oceans . . But even if this soup contained a goodly concentration of amino acids, the chances of their forming spontaneously into long chains would seem remote. Other things being equal, a diluted hot soup would seem a most unlikely place for the first polypeptides to appear. The chances of forming tripeptides would be about one-hundredth that of forming dipeptides, and the probability of forming a polypeptide of only ten amino acid units would be something like 1 / 1020. The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all [mathematical] probability."—H.F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 158.
"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such material has been found anywhere on earth . . There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment."—*J. Broks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.
Enzyme inhibitors would surely have been present and would quickly have destroyed that which had been produced.
"It is clear that enzymes were not present in the primordial soup. Even if they were formed, they would not have lasted long since the primeval soup was, by definition, a conglomeration of nearly every conceivable chemical substance. There would have been innumerable enzyme inhibitors present to inhibit an enzyme as soon as it appeared. Thus, such molecules could not have formed; however, even with the assumption that they had formed, they could not have remained."—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.
Rapid fluid loss would not have occurred.
"One well-known problem in the formation of polymerized proteins in water is that water loss is necessary for this process. Living organisms solve this problem with the presence of enzymes and the molecule ATP. It is clear the enzymes were not present in the primordial soup."—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.
"Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
If oxygen were present, the required chemicals would quickly decompose.
"First of all, we saw that the present atmosphere, with its ozone screen and highly oxidizing conditions, is not a suitable guide for gas-phase simulation experiments."—*A. Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, p. 118.
"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley Miller and *Leslie Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 33.
"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
Just producing the needed proteins would be an impossible task.
"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is fatal to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."—*D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," in Nature, 186 (1960), pp. 693-694.
"In other words, the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
"In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested, the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution [atomic self-destruction process] is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis [accidental put-together process] . . The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: Each night she undid the weaving of the preceding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of the year or a century."—*G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 17.
Not even the scientists know how to produce the required fatty acids. Yet sand and seawater are said to have figured out the process.
"No satisfactory synthesis of fatty acids is at present available. The action of electric discharges on methane and water gives fairly good yields of acetic and propionic acids, but only small yields of the higher fatty acids. Furthermore, the small quantities of the higher fatty acids that are found are highly branched."—*S. Miller and *L. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 98.
A reducing atmosphere (one without oxygen) would be required, yet it would produce peroxides, which are lethal to living creatures.
"The hypothesis of an early methane-ammonia atmosphere is found to be without solid foundation and indeed is contradicted."—*P. Abelson, "Some Aspects of Paleobiochemistry," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69 (1957), p. 275.
A continuous supply of energy would, from the very first, be required.
"To keep a reaction going according to the law of mass action, there must be a continuous supply of energy and of selected matter (molecules) and a continuous process of elimination of the reaction products."—*P. Mora, "The Folly of Probability," in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed, S.W. Fox (1965), p. 43.
Chemical evolution has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Proteins are built by living organisms. Evolution describes how living things change over time.
There really isn't much point getting steamed up about chemical evolution, because there isn't a theory yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.