Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
I’m sure it says they’re all very nice and competent scientists.
Edward Peltzer, University fo California, San Diego, (Scripps Institute)
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
Posted by Robert Crowther on September 2, 2008 3:16 PM | Permalink
August 11, 2008
Posted by Robert Crowther on August 11, 2008 7:29 AM | Permalink
www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists
“You still don't seem to understand that light isn't instantaneous : (” [excerpt]If you have a jar that is emitting a continuous stream of chocolate chip cookies intermixed with oatmeal cookies traveling at (
C × 0.9), it doesn't matter when you measure the chocolate chip/oatmeal ratio.“Then quit wasting time on FR and get a job.” [excerpt]Are you offering me job?
“From your questions you seem to sometimes be ignorant of that fact. Specifically when I ask you 'When' something occurs.” [excerpt]When does a continuous stream happen?
The two body example is a good one.“Where you go wrong is in assuming that there is no difference between the Earth spinning in place or the sun orbiting the earth.”“Not if you are using the Earth as your frame of reference. We already went though this with a two body example.” [excerpt]
“ For the purposes of this example, there is no difference between the Earth orbiting the Sun or the Sun orbiting the earth. You don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of frames of reference very well.” [excerpt]Wrong.
“Sadly I fear that you will never know how wrong you are. Your almost complete and utter failure to answer my questions and look at the concept from a different perspective indicates a closed and fixed mindset.” [excerpt]If I'm wrong, I don't think even Nasa knows it.
Good job.
You still have no earthly idea what they did. They compared the DNA sequence (and the resulting Amino Acid sequence) of eleven different species. DNA methylation based repair has nothing to do with it because both sides of Badger DNA for p53 have complimentary sequences. But when you compare Badger DNA to Rat DNA for p53 you find that most of the changes will NOT be in the DNA binding domain of the protein, and they did this to see just how useful evolutionary comparison can be.
Gene activity doesn't mean mutation.
Constraint of expression doesn't mean constraint of mutation.
Gibsoning a quote is a rather shoddy tactic.
I’m just happy to know people now realize the lie that all scientists are darwinists has been debunked myself.
Where did you get the idea that everybody ever believed that in the first place? I’m certain the scientists themselves knew better.
I have absoluty no doubt that they did consult the Old Testament to carry out the "punishment"!
I have absoluty no doubt that they did consult the Old Testament to carry out the "punishment"!
By defining a two body example, you have introduced the moving body's influence on the stationary one thus you can not make your conclusion with knowing more about the two-body interaction.
“By defining a two body example, you have introduced the moving body's influence on the stationary one thus you can not make your conclusion with knowing more about the two-body interaction.”In this particular hypothetical two body system, one of the bodies is perfectly motionless.(infinity heavy)
Does he have some insight into New Testament scripture?
Why yes he does. He learned first hand that disagreeing with the scriptures and Christians (specifically the Pope) results in a rather gruesome death by burning at the stake.
My response remains the same. You are incorrect.
What is the difference?
Before I leave for the night, I will hand out your homework assignment:
1. Study two-body orbits
2. Study the difference betweed light and gravity.
Tomorrow you should be more prepared as we discuss the errors in your previous posts related to the above items.
Good Luck.
“Why yes he does. He learned first hand that disagreeing with the scriptures and Christians (specifically the Pope) results in a rather gruesome death by burning at the stake.”Thats what happens when you assume 'Christians' included Catholics.
Because the sun is continuously 'emitting' light and gravity, it doesn't matter when you measure the two.
Allow me to use your cookie analogy. Let us say that you are looking straight up at the Sun and it is raining chocolate chip cookies at the speed of light. Now let us also say that at the exact instant that you look up, the Sun starts emitting oatmeal cookies. So the question becomes how long will it be before you start seeing oatmeal cookies and how far will the earth have rotated in that time? The answer is that it will take about 8.3 minutes before you start seeing oatmeal cookies and the earth will have rotated a little over 2 degrees in that time frame. In other words from your perspective (when and where you see the Sun) there is an 8.3 minute lag and because you are standing on a moving earth you are seeing the Sun not where it actually is but where it was 8.3 minutes ago. If you stopped the Earth from rotating or started flying West as fast as the earth rotates then the apparent position and actual position of the Sun would be the same.
Are you offering me job?
What kind of skills do you have?
When does a continuous stream happen?
Hmm, let me give you another example that may help. Let us be riding on two separate rockets in outer space. The rockets are accelerating at identical acceleration so that we are staying perpendicular to each other. Now lets say that you pull out a hose and aim a continuous stream of water directly at me. Will I ever get wet?
The two body example is a good one. If one is completely stationary, its optical image will be aligned with is gravitation pull.
Viewing the orbiting planet from the stationary planet will cause the optical image of the orbiting planet to lag its gravitational pull.
You have yet to provide a scientific source that says otherwise.
Why should I? I agree.
There is a difference between orbiting and being orbited.
By definition of course there is a difference, but it is the same difference between accelerating at one G or being in the Earths gravitational field. The result is the same, it is a distinction without a difference.
When people mean Catholics, they should say Catholics.
Excuse me : ) All Christians look the same to me.
I'm not Catholic. But I am a Christian.
The Catholics of course would argue with me on that. (And if I lived back in the day, I would probably wind up on a stake.)
Yes that would make you a heretic. Would you be willing to die for that belief? That Catholics aren't Christians?
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.