Posted on 01/07/2005 7:55:13 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical-chemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination. Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of "sense" in any strand. "Sense" means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic--that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ...
I can in no way claim to have all the answers, but if you want to approach the ToE from a totally scientifically point of view, it holds about as much clout as saying that the Theory of Creation is also a scientific matter. Both take a certain degree of FAITH in order to be believed, period. You do not have to have a degree in physics or chemistry to determine that.
The ToE has stepped on, possibly over the borderline from science into theology/religion, because it doesn't take math to figure it out.
It is not a complex question of planetary rotation;
nor a question of why does an apple fall from a tree;
or why can't man invent perpetual motion...
These three are TRUE scientific calculatory theorems, but evolution just doesn't fit in that category. It falls more in line with biology/theology/religion. Because of all of the gaps that seem to be commonplace with the ToE, yet millions of fossils have been found, none have been found to fill the gaps.
You want to discard the items found that steadily uphold stories found in religious material, simply because different religions exist?
What kind of an argument is that?
That only reiterates the proof of thier existance before discovery, not by one claim, but by several.
Anything unproven anywhere takes faith to keep seeking for it's existence; and for the existence of it's "one critical" missing piece.
For those who whole heartedly believe in the ToE:
They will keep the faith...
And so will those of us who believe in the Theory of Creation, but remember, no matter which one you believe in;
Each one requires faith.
What gaps are you talking about?
Creationism, which has been saying since 1859 that no further gaps will be filled, should be considered the "theory" with egg on its face in 2005.
That's because her kind always run around with half-smart guys, never smart ones.
Absolutely. The existence of Troy, all 7+ of them, proves beyond doubt that the Iliad is true history, the Greek gods exist and should be taught in school as an alternative to Christianity.
I suppose a date with her would have been an Agnes day.
What are the odds?
Science regards explanations as "theories" when they make successful predictions. The ToE has a huge number of successful predictions under its belt. As such it takes less faith to accept it than an essentially unsubstantiated religious assertion that makes no predictions that can be tested. The more successful predictions come in, the less faith is required. The numerous succesful predictions place ToE on the same sound scientific footing as other scientific theories that most people accept. Some religious fundamentalists choose to interpret ToE as religion because they perceive in it an attack on their beliefs. That is a problem with their religious beliefs, not with the ToE.
Further, since 1977 there is clear evidence of a universal "force" that the Jedi Masters can control. This also needs to be explained as an alternative to established science and religion in public schools.
Well, Chandler was describing Los Angeles as he knew it. (One of the biographies of Chandler that I read pointed out how corrupt the LA police force was in the 1930s. Perhaps the studios had their own security for that reason.)
The original version (seen on satellite at times) explains who killed the chauffeur.
I just finished re-reading the Chandler novels; now I'm doing Hammett. (Next summer, I'll do the Perry Masons and some others.)
Did they find any musical instruments surrounding one of the collapsed citadels?
The version without all the reshoots and re-edits to boost Bacall's career? It's on the flip side of the DVD.
No it doesn't. It consists of a boatload of inferences and conjecture based on a historic record. Evolutionists shun predictions as far as the process itself is concerned, just like they shun the subject of abiogensis.
Possibly. There's also a pre-release version.
Both the "current" versions are pretty good. The remake with Michum was terrible, I thought.
I think that's the one I'm talking about. The movie was finished in early 45 but release was held up for nearly a year, originally so the remaining war films could be released before they were too dated. Then Bacall's second movie, something with Charles Boyer, bombed and her agent lobbied to reshoot some of Big Sleep to shine up her star quality.
The new version is nice, highlighting the Bogart-Bacall chemistry, but a lot of good stuff hit the cutting room floor to make room for the changes. The lost scenes generally helped the plot make some sense. Some actors who thought they were getting a few minutes of screen time were suddenly out of the film altogether.
Mitchum played Marlowe a couple of times in the seventies, I think. I liked one with Charlotte Rampling, but not enough to remember which one that was. Overall, color was nice but Mitchum was no Bogie.
I've never watched her rample.
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.