Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 Americans still hold creationist views

BrandtMichaels: "The ‘goalposts’ you just erected were passed with flying colors by the GW scientists - right up until the hundreds of emails were posted on the internet from East Anglia University."

There are a huge number of recognized scientists who have never bought into the Anthropogenic (meaning man-made) Global Warming hoax -- certainly not as presented by Al Gore and other such political figures.
These scientists publish in scientific journals and appear in the popular media.
That's the reason there are plenty of quotes and data available for people who wish to make the case against AGW.

A similar core of recognized scientists does not exist to dispute the basics of evolution theory.

BrandtMichaels: "See creationscience.com for someone w/ credentials.
Dr Walt Brown Ph.D M.I.T, an engineer who worked exstensively as an evolutionary scientist, separates what is logical and true from what can not be proven in this online book (part 1)."

I understand that Brown is a "known commodity" with a long history and active career of speaking and debating in anti-evolution circles.
Over the years he's tangled with not only scientific groups, such as The National Center for Science Education, but also other Creationists, such as Answers in Genesis, Answers in Creation, and The Christian American Scientific Affiliation.

Some of these groups, and others too, have made serious efforts to analyze, criticize and even debunk Brown's ideas.
Others have offered him opportunities to debate, which Brown has turned down.

My view is that the world is chock full of crackpots who will tell you most anything (i.e., the earth is flat, moon made of green cheese) if you are willing to believe it.
So, seems to me that enough people have already taken Brown on -- in terms of both science and religion -- that I don't need to duplicate their previous efforts.

BrandtMichaels: "Interesting that you bring up Hitler. He was a big believer in evolution.
Also Jehovah’s Witness is a religous cult ~ not Biblical literalists."

I'd be pretty sure that, if you asked most any Jehovah's Witness, they'd tell you they believe the Bible, as written, and accept Christ as their savior.

But you ducked my question, pal: which of those groups of Christian martyrs and saints -- the Catholic clergy, Protestant ministers and Jehovah's Witnesses -- would be challenged at the Gates of Heaven because of their belief, or not-belief, in evolution?

I doubt if any would.
I'm pretty sure they are all welcomed to eternal bliss.

BrandtMichaels: "Also I accept truth most often where the Bible and science agree. Where they differ I accept the Bible on blind faith."

And I have no problem with that whatever -- as long as you don't go around calling your blind faith "science".

editor-surveyor: "The “pope” to which you refer was not a Christian by Biblical definition: i.e. he was not one of the saved.
Thus he was not a “fellow Christian.”"

You know, there are about a billion Catholics who are going to be very surprised to learn that.
Did you ever try to tell them?
What did they say back to you?

;-)

There is every reason for me to duck this question ~ none of my business. The Bible says only God knows the condition of each one’s heart therefore only God is qualified to judge us.

"There is every reason for me to duck this question ~ none of my business. The Bible says only God knows the condition of each one’s heart therefore only God is qualified to judge us."

Of course. But the point of my question is: there's no way to argue that the theory of evolution can affect a Christian's acceptance or rejection at the Gates of Heaven.

In this particular example we have martyrs and saints from the Catholic clergy (theistic evolutionists), Protestants (likely scientific naturalists) and Jehovah's Witnesses (biblical literalists).
All accepted Christ as their savior, and all were martyred for their beliefs.

Since acceptance or non-acceptance of the Theory of Evolution could have no bearing one way or another on their admittance to Heaven, I'm saying it's not necessarily even a religious matter.

So, if you chose not to agree with Evolution, that's fine.
I'm only saying that virtually all arguments against Evolution are grounded in religious beliefs, not science.

Ha - you have ignored all the science I presented. It is you trying to paint this picture of ‘sole reasons to reject evolution’ not me.

I think evolution falls completely apart on its own merits.

BrandtMichaels: "Ha - you have ignored all the science I presented. It is you trying to paint this picture of ‘sole reasons to reject evolution’ not me. I think evolution falls completely apart on its own merits."

I've responded to every argument posted to me, whether I considered them serious or not.
And you've presented no serious "science" that was not long ago reviewed and debunked by capable people.
Really, there's no particular reason for me to replicate their efforts.

Plus, you have yourself more than once posted that you reject any science which disagrees with your religious views.

I'm simply saying: I have no problem with that, as long as you don't pretend your religious views are "science". They're not.

[[The wholesale rejection of God that comes from the atheistic mindset which has hijacked science is destroying us.]]

Narrow is the gate, and few who will pass through- let the masses do as they will- their bitterness knows much company, the road to the gate is apaprently too steep and difficult for them. On judgement day, it will be revealed to them how their bitterness has led them to destruction, and how they have taken down a good many along with them. Stay true to God and God will always stay true to us- let htose who gnash their teeth at the very htought of God rail on about us- bitter is their end

[[.
Rubbish!

The universe is very much a closed system, and the ‘closed system’ parameter was injected to allow a proof sequence, and has little bearing on the overall factual nature of the laws]]

Not to mention that an open system is infact even worse for the second law when it comes to thermodynamics- somethign that most intelectually honest scientists admit, but whom, sadly, a few dishonest ones still cling to and claim defeats the creationist arguments- which of course, when one takes an intellectually honest look at the facts, will discover only further works to strengthen the creationsit’s argument.. Those makign hte claims that the second law doesn’t apply to life on earth can ONLY point to exaples where static mechanical objects, manipulated by man, seemingly temporarily violate the swecond law

[[The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)

While many highly qualified scientists who number themselves in the camp of evolutionism are candid enough to acknowledge this problem, the propagandists of evolution prefer to claim the only “problem” is that creationists “misunderstand” real thermodynamics.]]

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

The essence of Classical Thermodynamics concerns itself with the relationship between:

heat
mechanical energy (or work-ready energy)
and
the conversion of either of these into the other
All matters of physics, chemistry, and biological processes known to man, are universally subject—without exception—to the first and second laws of thermodynamics —hereafter, simply “the first law” and “the second law”.
While the properties of heat and useable energy may not seem particularly significant in a debate concerning origins, the first and second laws (which govern those properties and their transformations) speak profoundly to the nature of matter, energy, and therefore the universe itself. Within the realm of science, these are among the most immovable, universal laws of science, as the following scientific authorities testify:

“[A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of it basic concepts will never be overthrown.”
[Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, “Thermodynamics in Einstein’s Universe”, in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509 and in Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 76.]
“No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles.”
[Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 119.]

“If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.”
[Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.]

“The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigations without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy.”
[G.N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.]

“There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.”
[A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.]

“Although it is true that the amount of matter in the universe is perpetually changing, the change appears to be mainly in one direction—toward dissolution . The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere the cosmos heart is turning to cold; matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space.

“The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves only one way.”
[Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.]

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics....”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

Having had a glimpse at the significance and respect afforded the laws of thermodynamics within the scientific community, let’s now examine what these laws say, and to what they apply.

Open vs. Closed Systems
The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.

The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.

But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

Hmmmmmm- the second law ‘applies equally well for open as for closed systems’

Again, intellectually honest opponents of creationism will at least admit the obvious- that the second law does indeed apply to life on earth, and that it is devestating to the arguments for evolution, but intellectually DISHONEST opponents of creationism still cling to the long refuted arguments that the second law does not apply to life in an open system. Those who insist on making that argument really aren’t worth arguing with, because if they can LIE through their teeth about something as important and devestating to their argument asd the second law, then they will LIE about just about anything in order to ‘make their point’- which of course they don’t, further revealign their ignorance of science

[[Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event’s occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability.

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1010123. The phrase “extremely unlikely” is inadequate to describe this possibility.

THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM

10000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
10 00000000000000000000000000000000

Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose’s answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it’s called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means “zero probability”. Penrose’s number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose’s number tells us that the ‘accidental” or “coincidental” creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:]]

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

[[The Science of Chemical Evolution (short)
In an attempt to explain the origin of life, scientists propose a two-stage process of natural chemical evolution:
1) formation of organic molecules, which combine to make larger biomolecules;
2) self-organization of these molecules into a living organism.
For each stage, scientists are learning that what is required for life seems to be much greater than what is possible by natural process. This huge difference has motivated scientists to creatively construct new theories for reducing requirements and enhancing possibilities, but none of these ideas has progressed from speculation to plausibility.
The simplest “living system” we can imagine, involving hundreds of components interacting in an organized way to achieve energy production and self-replication, would be extremely difficult to assemble by undirected natural process. And all of this self-organization would have to occur before natural selection (which depends on self-replication) was available.
]]

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/chemical-cr.htm

Currently, however, this optimism is based more on assumption than evidence; and the major reasons to doubt the possibility of chemical evolution come from what we do know about chemistry and life, not from our lack of knowledge.

[[If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means. ]]

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

“If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.

Introduction
biogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions. Evidence for a large number of transitional forms to bridge the stages of this process is critical to prove the abiogenesis theory, especially during the early stages of the process. The view of how life originally developed from non-life to an organism capable of independent life and reproduction presented by the mass media is very similar to the following widely publicized account:

Four and a half billion years ago the young planet Earth... was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas. Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together. And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began... The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan [a one-celled animal]. Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas. These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea-water world. They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms... From these one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth (from the Emmy award winning PBS NOVA film The Miracle of Life quoted in Hanegraaff, 1998, p. 70, emphasis in original).
Science textbook authors Wynn and Wiggins describe the abiogenesis process currently accepted by Darwinists:

Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology’s Theory of Evolution (1997, p. 105).
The question on which this paper focuses is “How much evidence exists for this view of life’s origin?” When Darwinists discuss “missing links” they often imply that relatively few links are missing in what is a rather complete chain which connects the putative chemical precursors of life that is theorized to have existed an estimated 3.5 billion years ago to all life forms existing today. Standen noted a half century ago that the term “missing link” is misleading because it suggests that only one link is missing whereas it is more accurate to state that so many links are missing that it is not evident whether there was ever a chain (Standen, 1950, p. 106). This assertion now has been well documented by many creationists and others (see Bergman, 1998; Gish, 1995; Lubenow, 1994, 1992; Rodabaugh, 1976; and Moore, 1976).

Scientists not only have been unable to find a single undisputed link that clearly connects two of the hundreds of major family groups, but they have not even been able to produce a plausible starting point for their hypothetical evolutionary chain (Shapiro, 1986). The first links— actually the first hundreds of thousands or more links that are required to produce life—still are missing (Behe, 1996, pp. 154–156)! Horgan concluded that if he were a creationist today he would focus on the origin of life because this

...is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer’s dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion (1996, p. 138).
The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include (a) evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules, (b) evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules, (c) evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules, (d) eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and (e) eventually evolution into the first cells. This process requires multimillions of links, all which either are missing or controversial. Scientists even lack plausible just-so stories for most of evolution. Furthermore the parts required to provide life clearly have specifications that rule out most substitutions.

In the entire realm of science no class of molecule is currently known which can remotely compete with proteins. It seems increasingly unlikely that the abilities of proteins could be realized to the same degree in any other material form. Proteins are not only unique, but give every impression of being ideally adapted for their role as the universal constructor devices of the cell ... Again, we have an example in which the only feasible candidate for a particular biological role gives every impression of being supremely fit for that role (Denton, 1998, p. 188, emphasis in original).
The logical order in which life developed is hypothesized to include the following basic major stages:

Certain simple molecules underwent spontaneous, random chemical reactions until after about half-a-billion years complex organic molecules were produced.
Molecules that could replicate eventually were formed (the most common guess is nucleic acid molecules), along with enzymes and nutrient molecules that were surrounded by membraned cells.
Cells eventually somehow “learned” how to reproduce by copying a DNA molecule (which contains a complete set of instructions for building a next generation of cells). During the reproduction process, the mutations changed the DNA code and produced cells that differed from the originals.
The variety of cells generated by this process eventually developed the machinery required to do all that was necessary to survive, reproduce, and create the next generation of cells in their likeness. Those cells that were better able to survive became more numerous in the population (adapted from Wynn and Wiggins, 1997, p. 172).
The problem of the early evolution of life and the unfounded optimism of scientists was well put by Dawkins. He concluded that Earth’s chemistry was different on our early, lifeless, planet, and that at this time there existed

...no life, no biology, only physics and chemistry, and the details of the Earth’s chemistry were very different. Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea. Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator. This may seem like a big stroke of luck... Freakish or not, this kind of luck does happen... [and] it had to happen only once... What is more, as far as we know, it may have happened on only one planet out of a billion billion planets in the universe. Of course many people think that it actually happened on lots and lots of planets, but we only have evidence that it happened on one planet, after a lapse of half a billion to a billion years. So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet—because here we are talking about it (Dawkins, 1996, pp. 282–283, emphasis in original).
The Evidence for the Early Steps of Evolution
The first step in evolution was the development of simple self-copying molecules consisting of carbon dioxide, water and other inorganic compounds. No one has proven that a simple self-copying molecule can self-generate a compound such as DNA. Nor has anyone been able to create one in a laboratory or even on paper. The hypothetical weak “primeval soup” was not like soups experienced by humans but was highly diluted, likely close to pure water. The process is described as life having originated

spontaneously from organic compounds in the oceans of the primitive Earth. The proposal assumes that primitive oceans contained large quantities of simple organic compounds that reacted to form structures of greater and greater complexity, until there arose a structure that we would call living. In other words, the first living organism developed by means of a series of nonbiological steps, none of which would be highly improbably on the basis of what is know today. This theory, [was] first set forth clearly by A.I. Oparin (1938) ... (Newman, 1967, p. 662).
An astounding number of speculations, models, theories and controversies still surround every aspect of the origin of life problem (Lahav 1999). Although some early scientists proposed that “organic life ... is eternal,” most realized it must have come “into existence at a certain period in the past” (Haeckel, 1905, p. 339). It now is acknowledged that the first living organism could not have arisen directly from inorganic matter (water, carbon dioxide, and other inorganic nutrients) even as a result of some extraordinary event. Before the explosive growth of our knowledge of the cell during the last 30 years, it was known that “the simplest bacteria are extremely complex, and the chances of their arising directly from inorganic materials, with no steps in between, are too remote to consider seriously.” (Newman, 1967, p. 662). Most major discoveries about cell biology and molecular biology have been made since then. “

It appears that the field of molecular biology will falsify Darwinism. An estimated 100,000 different proteins are used to construct humans alone. Furthermore, one million species are known, and as many as 10 million may exist. Although many proteins are used in most life forms, as many as 100 million or more protein variations may exist in all plant and animal life. According to Asimov:

Now, almost each of all the thousands of reactions in the body is catalyzed by a specific enzyme ... a different one in each case ... and every enzyme is a protein, a different protein. The human body is not alone in having thousands of different enzymes—so does every other species of creature. Many of the reactions that take place in human cells also happen in the cells of other creatures. Some of the reactions, indeed, are universal, in that they take place in all cells of every type. This means that an enzyme capable of catalyzing a particular reaction may be present in the cells of wolves, octopi, moss, and bacteria, as well as in our own cells. And yet each of these enzymes, capable though it is of catalyzing one particular reaction, is characteristic of its own species. They may all be distinguished from one another. It follows that every species of creature has thousands of enzymes and that all those enzymes may be different. Since there are over a million different species on earth, it may be possible—judging from the enzymes alone—that different proteins exist by the millions! (Asimov, 1962, pp. 27–28).
Even using an unrealistically low estimate of 1,000 steps required to “evolve” the average protein (if this were possible) implies that many trillions of links were needed to evolve the proteins that once existed or that exist today. And not one clear transitional protein that is morphologically and chemically in between the ancient and modern form of the protein has been convincingly demonstrated. The same problem exists with fats, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and the other compounds that are produced by, and necessary for, life.

Scientists have yet to discover a single molecule that has “learned to make copies of itself” (Simpson, 1999, p. 26). Many scientists seem to be oblivious of this fact because

Articles appearing regularly in scientific journals claim to have generated self-replicating peptides or RNA strands, but they fail to provide a natural source for their compounds or an explanation for what fuels them... this top-down approach... [is like] a caveman coming across a modern car and trying to figure out how to make it. “It would be like taking the engine out of the car, starting it up, and trying to see how that engine works” (Simpson, 1999, p.26).
Some bacteria, specifically phototrophs and lithotrophs, contain all the metabolic machinery necessary to construct most of their growth factors (amino acids, vitamins, purines and pyrimidines) from raw materials (usually O2, light, a carbon source, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur and a dozen or so trace minerals). They can live in an environment with few needs but first must possess the complex functional metabolic machinery necessary to produce the compounds needed to live from a few types of raw materials. This requires more metabolic machinery in order to manufacture the many needed organic compounds necessary for life. Evolution was much more plausible when life was believed to be a relatively simple material similar to, in Haeckel’s words, the “transparent viscous albumin that surrounds the yolk in the hen’s egg” which evolved into all life today. Haeckel taught the process occurred as follows:

By far the greater part of the plasm that comes under investigation as active living matter in organisms is metaplasm, or secondary plasm, the originally homogeneous substance of which has acquired definite structures by phyletic differentiations in the course of millions of years (1905, p.126).
Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.

-—Nope- Warm primordial soup is unfortunately not enough to overcome the impossibilities of biological evolution- Dirty Chemicals can NOT account for the presence of clean chemicals found in biological life, nor for their complex arangements which needed intelligence to construct, assemble, arrange, and cohenrrently maintain- blind purely natural processes were NOT capable of creating happy aCcidents capable of susstaining life I’m afraid

If the people offering the “closed system” diversion were intellectually, or otherwise honest, they would have to admit that they haven’t the slightest idea what the difference could be. (or they just wouldn’t have posted anything at all)

I’ve been waiting for my very own Lear Jet to assemble itself out of the various bits of equipment laying around here, and every time the wind blows I get my hopes up.

those hwo attempt to argue closed versus open, usually, after, I’ve psoted links showing the fallicy of such arguments, continue arguing for awhile, but eventually just give up, wishing they hadn’t ventured in to the argument because the science simply does not support their arguments- however, they usually don’t give up without first attacking the character of the scientists who refute their claims, or attcking my character first- or both., but htis just goes to show that they really aren’t interested in learnin g science, and are just interested in partisan politics that parade around as science.

>> “ however, they usually don’t give up without first attacking the character of the scientists who refute their claims” <<

.
Standard liberal ‘debating’ tactic.
.

The truth which can stand on its own
Gods are an extraterrestrial race of beings.

Genius of the Few by Barbara Joy O’Brien
Barbara Joy O’Brien - Co-author of ‘Genius of the Few’
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/videoBJOB.php

http://www.squidoo.com/ufo-coverups
UFO Quotes from Presidents, Astronauts, Senior Military and more. UFO Cover Up? These people say YES.

People need to get out of species adolescence and become eager and ready for alien society because it’s plain to see they( Jesus,Enki,EA plan to keep their promise of return to be our savior from the comming destruction.

Once you understand Gods are an extraterrestrial race of beings and get past the primitive concept of “God” and understand why the Gods left all those carvings in stone was for those of us who are enlightened enough to read and understand them, as they cannot be altered, unlike the Bible.

Yet there are those who still swear by the Bible, in any of its myriad versions, as the revealed word of their “God” have to ignore or deny the clear fact that the Old Testament was a skewed and forged theo-political rewrite of a far more ancient document, the Enuma Elish, dating from at least Sumeria, which was not theological at all.

>> “Gods are an extraterrestrial race of beings.” <<

.
No, gods are an extraterrestrial race of beings. (the angels, or ‘watchers’ which are themselves created, immortal non-reproducing beings)

There is only one God.

The only real, everlasting knowledge on Earth is that which is contained in the Bible; all else will fail.