Posted on 04/17/2008 4:07:06 PM PDT by Aristotelian
I confess that when the producers of Ben Stein’s new documentary “Expelled” called, offering me a private screening, I was less than excited.
It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay “rights.” Abortion “rights.” On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism’s power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension.
Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles. An entire documentary to state the obvious? You can see my reluctance to view it.
I went into the screening bored. I came out of it stunned.
Ben Stein’s extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.
Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics – experts all -- who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves “expelled” from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University).
That’s disturbing enough, but what Stein does next is truly shocking. He allows the principal advocates of Darwinism to speak their minds.
(Excerpt) Read more at mrc.org ...
LOL The priceless waif continues with it`s nothings.Yawn... You realize I'm refuting your mental diarrhea right? You're the one conflating the electricity experiments(which successfully generated amino acids) and prebiotic protein evolution.AA`s come in 3D chains.MIT biochemists already tackled this.The odds remain.Calculated odds of finding a folded protein are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power.
NOW , when will the atheist/darwinists prove a single protein arose unaided.
You are at once, priceless yet worthless.
Darwin's 1859 book is titled “On the origin of species”. I have read it and prepared to discuss it with you. The first living thing must have a species allocation or it never was alive. If it is a species it must have an origin. Darwin in his book was clearly concerned he was wrong and he states so many places in his book. Further he believed that the fossil record would prove him correct or incorrect. On the basis of the fossil record since his book he is loosing the battle.You're unfamiliar with Gould and Eldredge? Or you're being intentionally dishonest?
Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap.
Successful people who have worked all their lives should pay whatever the government needs.
This is the kind of tripe you can always find in the scumbag Democrat New York Times!
” You’re the one conflating the electricity experiments(which successfully generated amino acids) and prebiotic protein evolution. “
No one is as naive as that? Miller/Urey, Using purified water/dumping in ampicillin/super heating to80C/centrifuging/adding reagents/SEEDING/non-conclusive “potentials for sequentional evolution” ! ?
LOL
Of all the possible bonds of AA`s ,all have to form peptide bonds,the natural thing is for the reverse to take place(Sarfati, J.D., 1998. Origin of life: the polymerization problem).THEN,the P must contain only LH AA`s and exclude RH AA`s making it a 50/50 chance .Then it must be in the correct sequence.Now add to that the fact that one cell requires 75 “helper molecules”,working together to make one protein(rgroup) as told by one dna base,translated by enzymes with special slots holding other modules,each one having 5 slots,,2 chem,2 nonchem,one atp.The cell needs 20,one for each R-group/code name (amino acid/tRNA).The whole set is USELESS without ribosomes to crack the code into three-letter code ,USELESS without constant atp and would VANISH if translases wore out,but actually renew.
Cassette mutagenesis experiments suggest that the probability of attaining (at random) the correct sequencing for a short protein 100 amino acids long is about 1 in 10 to the 65 power.
Just walk away junoir.
Abiogenesis is not field of science, it is a supposed phenomenon. Real science deals with observable phenomena, which, of course, does not apply to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a faith.
You bias is that you seem to not mind lies if you think they serve your interests.
“Don't have any details”? ANY? That is such a lie or reveals such ignorance that it boggles the mind.
I’ve noticed there is a concerted effort here on FR to discredit this movie before anybody sees it.
Yes, the one that we call “history”.
As in, what happened way back when that we can’t observe or repeat.
If schools didn’t insist on teaching speculative history as science, there wouldn’t be much argument against evolution, which at it’s core is a simple theory whose mechanisms, if not it’s results, can be replicated.
No one is as naive as that? Miller/Urey, Using purified water/dumping in ampicillin/super heating to80C/centrifuging/adding reagents/SEEDING/non-conclusive “potentials for sequentional evolution” ! ?Uuuuuuuuuuum... you realize we're talking about *your* assertion that evolutionists believe that fully formed proteins come from lightning. So you agree you were lying/ignorant? The above spew is beside the point, other than showing that you were either a. completely dishonest or b. ignorant and googled some information on the subject.LOL
Of all the possible bonds of AA`s ,all have to form peptide bonds,the natural thing is for the reverse to take place(Sarfati, J.D., 1998. Origin of life: the polymerization problem).THEN,the P must contain only LH AA`s and exclude RH AA`s making it a 50/50 chance .Then it must be in the correct sequence.Now add to that the fact that one cell requires 75 “helper molecules”,working together to make one protein(rgroup) as told by one dna base,translated by enzymes with special slots holding other modules,each one having 5 slots,,2 chem,2 nonchem,one atp.The cell needs 20,one for each R-group/code name (amino acid/tRNA).The whole set is USELESS without ribosomes to crack the code into three-letter code ,USELESS without constant atp and would VANISH if translases wore out,but actually renew.
Cassette mutagenesis experiments suggest that the probability of attaining (at random) the correct sequencing for a short protein 100 amino acids long is about 1 in 10 to the 65 power.
Just walk away junoir.
abiogenesis.
a-bio-genesis.
a way that biologists try to explain away genesis.
Yawn... creationists really don’t understand science at all. Empiricism, snoogums, empiricism.
That’s what science has named the process. What’s the field of science that studies that called?
I saw 'The Empire Strikes Back' - - does that count?
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.