You want to shoot me WHERE??
Posted on 01/07/2011 6:02:35 PM PST by SunkenCiv
> Okay. You have a theory, and some evidence to support it.
> If it’s OK for you to state that theory as fact, without > having to explicity explain that it is just an uproven
> theory, then we’ll make that the accepted standard.
That *IS* the accepted standard for Evolutionism and Anthropomorphic Global Warmism.
I admit up front that what I have is a THEORY.
And I submit that the THEORY that I propose has a more plausible answer for the otherwise unexplicable than the outright silly twaddle paraded as fact by Evolutionism and Anthropomorphic Global Warmism.
Unless, of course, you are a committed atheist, whereupon no supernatural explanation can be accepted for any reason ever at all.
If the chronology of the thread is accurate, you stated it as fact “up front”, and then explained it was just a theory later.
> If the chronology of the thread is accurate, you stated
> it as fact “up front”, and then explained it was just a
> theory later.
What I stated as a fact is that there is no known physical, elctrical, or chemical process that would cause these molecules to behave in this manner.
That remains a fact.
My explanation was that life is a Supernatural Process, not a Natural one, and that the Natural process takes over when you die.
You seem to be projecting onto me what the looney junk sciences of Evolutionism and Anthropomorphic Global Warmism have been doing since their inception.
This is a very Leftist thing to do.
Will you be calling me a “denier” next?
These things are either self-aware and acting on purpose, which is preposterous, or something is directing them.
That is, to my understanding, a simple statement of fact. I took that statement at face value without adding or removing anything from it. Please explain what it is you found dishonest or unacceptable about doing that.
Thanks AdmSmith!
WB sez:
These things are either self-aware and acting on purpose, which is preposterous, or something is directing them.
TL responds:
That is, to my understanding, a simple statement of fact. I took that statement at face value without adding or removing anything from it. Please explain what it is you found dishonest or unacceptable about doing that.
Ah, yes.
Forgive me for taking this liberty, however microscopic.
It is a liberty that is orders of magnitude less than the fantastic flights of fancy posited by Evolutionism.
What possible explanation can you raise for the behaviors of the vast array of myriad molecules that must work together in perfect synchronization, all of which must be present in the same place at the same time for the “simplest” life forms to function?
Virtually all the physical, electrical, and chemical forces acting at the molecular level have been discovered. IIRC, all the phenomenal advances in technology have been made by employing laws explaining such forces that were discovered at least 50 years ago, and most of these were discovered at least 100 years ago.
While Evolutionism must employ constructs such as “Hopeful Monsters” and “Punctured Equilibrium” to explain the gaping holes in their narrative, Creationism relies on supernatural explanations for the holes in theirs.
Nevertheless, Evolutionism has *NO* explanation for the behaviors of these molecules, since their behaviors defy naturalistic explanation.
While you may think a Supernatural explanation is risible, the existence of Code nevertheless implies an Author, and design nevertheless implies a Designer. Naturalistic forces cannot account for such an amazing phenomenon, and I submit they never will.
Now imagine the irony of seeing a scientist sometime in the future standing before the cameras at a press conference and saying, “After tens of thousands of man-years of intense research, by thousands of the most brilliant minds in science, in laboratories all over the world, using billions of dollars of the most advanced scientific equipment available, we have been able to produce this primitive life form, proving once and for all that no intelligence is necessary to create life.”
How these chiral molcules can be observed in polarized light is fascinating.
I cannot fathom the arrogance of making that assumption given the historical accuracy of statements based on it.
> I cannot fathom the arrogance of making that assumption
> given the historical accuracy of statements based on it.
Of course, the assumptions and ad hominems emitted from the Evolutionist/AGW camps are not arrogant.
I must say, that of all the evolutionists I’ve encountered, you are among the most kind, willing at least to engage in a discussion rather than a schoolyard spitting contest.
I am anxious, then, to see what physical, chemical, and/or electrical laws Evolutionism can devise to explain the behavior of molecules such as tRNA mediating between mRNA and the ribosomes assembing a chain of amino acids. The copying, conveying, and translating of genetic code sequences leading to the assembly of specific protiens for a specific purpose, all at just the right time, is a marvel, a wonder, whose discovery and observation required a vast amount of applied intelligence and directed efforts with very expensive and intricate equipment.
I’m not aware of any plausible naturalistic explanation for such things. If such an explanation exists, I should hope it’s better than the one I was given for the “evolution” of the eye.
Having already decided that will never happen, why would you be anxious to see it?
> Having already decided that will never happen, why would
> you be anxious to see it?
Just to see what they come up with this time.
Do you have the derisions ready to copy and paste?
> Do you have the derisions ready to copy and paste?
I hope that I would not sink to the level of the typical smarmy, sneering receptions I’ve received at the hands of Evolutionist and AGW advocates, though I’ll confess that I have responded in kind on occasion.
However, I am really curious how such matters should be explained by Evolutionism.
What did you find “smarmy and sneering” in the article?
Please read my previous response again. It did not mention the article at all.
Your first post, directed at post 1, the article base, seemed dismissive of the article and derisive of the research. If you only do that when replying "in kind", there must have been something in the article you found to be the same.
You want to shoot me WHERE??
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.