Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Origin-of-Life Expert Jokes about Becoming a Creationist
Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 11/05/2004 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

Posted on 11/07/2004 12:50:19 PM PST by bondserv

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: bondserv
Genetic takeovers:  He chided those whose models invoke genetic takeovers: i.e., starting with another sugar then switching to ribose, starting with another informational macromolecule then switching to DNA, etc.  For instance, some flippantly suggest to get DNA’s sugar, “just add an OH to ribose....”  The professor got animated.  That adds a charge to the molecule, he exclaimed, and what is more important to the behavior of a molecule than its electrostatic charge?  You can’t just add a charge to a molecule and expect it to keep behaving like it did before.

This is nonsense. You replace a H on DNA with an OH, you don't change the charge. Either the seminar-giver, or the reporter, doesn't know what he's talking about. I strongly suspect it's the latter.

I did a search at the JPL website for a seminar held on Novmber 5 2004 that fits this description. I couldn't find one. Perhaps someone else might have better luck?

21 posted on 11/07/2004 2:37:29 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

Polar Protic Solvents
Let's start with the meaning of the adjective protic. In the context used here, protic refers to a hydrogen atom attached to an electronegative atom. For our purposes that electronegative atom is almost exclusively oxygen. In other words, polar protic solvents are compounds that can be represented by the general formula ROH. The polarity of the polar protic solvents stems from the bond dipole of the O-H bond. The large difference in electronegativities of the oxygen and the hydrogen atom, combined with the small size of the hydrogen atom, warrant separating molecules that contain an OH group from those polar compounds that do not. Examples of polar protic solvents are water (HOH), methanol (CH3OH), and acetic acid (CH3CO2H).


22 posted on 11/07/2004 2:49:02 PM PST by AndrewC (New Senate rule -- Must vote on all Presidential appointments period certain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"If evolution took place, should we not expect in the fossil record to see hundreds of thousands of well defined transiant forms?
This post (#65), by a freeper named VadeRetro, gives you what you're looking for:"

Thanks. But I was not seeking the answer. I was presenting a very abreviated statment for others to consider.

As I write this I peer up and one of my libary shelves that contain many books on creation verse evolution etc., biology, chemistry, books etc..
I have written hundreds of thousands of lines of well thought out arguments to many folks over the years, based on the extremely complexities of living organisms, the many well exhusted early earth models, which each expert tears apart the others theory, with scientific facts, on and on.
It is clear in my mind as to the possiblities of living things ever had somehow come from raw materials. And what I don't want to get into, but let readers that are interested seek the knowledge, things like large areas of mountain tops that could never had just somehow been inverted etc., by various geoforces, to contain Cambrian fossile beds that sit on top of "much latter" beds that contain fossils of Cenozoic Era, etc.. In other words, how can miles and miles of mountain tops have much earlier simple forms sitting on top of much more modern forms.
The lists go on and on. Two much would be required to
even start addressing the huge holes in all levels of evolutionary thought. Not to mention the cosmological models etc.. Where where the thirty or more feet of moon dust (particles over billions of years landing on the moon surface), that all the scientist where so worried about when our first moon vehicle landed on the moon. Neal sure did not sink into what was advertised by all to be a problem. The lists of things one can question just go on and on. Super suspect radiological dating systems. Measure one sample from a site to be lets say 500,000 years old, move five feet to same site, sample another identical piece of some mineral and find it to be perhaps a thousand years old. BUT still make it clear to the folks that watch Nova, whatever, that some "early representative" of man, lived at that spots some 500,000 years ago.
The information is out there, for those that seek it. One only listen to like level geologist, bio-chemist etc., and see how much that is touted as fact is not fact at all.
But do be carefull. There are bad guys on both sides of the isle. And yes some things that sound real good for the creationist can be proven to be a bunch of baloney. It is a two edged sword. That is why I threw out the original things about all the missing fossils intermediatory forms.
It is too hard for any evolultionist to make their case, based on the non-existence of those transitory forms.
But thanks for your feedback.


23 posted on 11/07/2004 2:54:46 PM PST by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I did a search at the JPL website for a seminar held on Novmber 5 2004 that fits this description. I couldn't find one.

Me either. Must be my close-mindedness. Better than being so "open-minded" as to accept something merely because it reinforces one's previous beliefs, I suppose....

24 posted on 11/07/2004 3:09:19 PM PST by general_re (Drive offensively - the life you save may be your own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: general_re

I'm wondering if it was of those 'gedanken seminars'.


25 posted on 11/07/2004 3:15:40 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
...or rather one of those gedanken seminars.
26 posted on 11/07/2004 3:16:32 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

placemarker


27 posted on 11/07/2004 3:16:40 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Maybe this article is kind of like those old Emergency Broadcast System tests - "If this had been an actual seminar...."


28 posted on 11/07/2004 3:23:05 PM PST by general_re (Drive offensively - the life you save may be your own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: general_re
"If this had been an actual seminar...."

This seminar occurred. The institution, date, and subject matter of the seminar have been changed to further protect the identity of the speaker.

29 posted on 11/07/2004 5:21:37 PM PST by VadeRetro (A self-reliant conservative citizenry is a better bet than the subjects of an overbearing state. -MS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
It is clear in my mind as to the possiblities of living things ever had somehow come from raw materials. And what I don't want to get into, but let readers that are interested seek the knowledge, things like large areas of mountain tops that could never had just somehow been inverted etc., by various geoforces, to contain Cambrian fossile beds that sit on top of "much latter" beds that contain fossils of Cenozoic Era, etc.. In other words, how can miles and miles of mountain tops have much earlier simple forms sitting on top of much more modern forms.

This is overly vague. To the extent that it is a spectacular claim, it is false. To the extent that it describes prosaic inversions and/or the known persistence of ancient and simple life forms into modern times, it is unspectacular.

30 posted on 11/07/2004 5:24:23 PM PST by VadeRetro (A self-reliant conservative citizenry is a better bet than the subjects of an overbearing state. -MS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

"This is overly vague. To the extent that it is a spectacular claim, it is false. To the extent that it describes prosaic inversions and/or the known persistence of ancient and simple life forms into modern times, it is unspectacular."

Believe whatever you choose to believe. I never should have started in on this.


31 posted on 11/07/2004 6:14:08 PM PST by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

Thanks for the ping!


32 posted on 11/07/2004 9:04:12 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

read later


33 posted on 11/07/2004 9:08:30 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

Je suis la, voila!


34 posted on 11/07/2004 9:54:18 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom; snarks_when_bored
In other words, I agree that there are some questions that can only be answered "because." - but a scientist should always be looking to see if there is further knowledge to be gleaned before the final "because."

He has created an awesome universe in which we can satiate our curiosity.

35 posted on 11/07/2004 10:24:47 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical! †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Selkie
Fascinating stuff !

I agree. It is good to know there are good scientists still searching.

36 posted on 11/07/2004 10:29:33 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical! †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Great place to work. :-)

I have to remind myself: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors workplace.

How have you been neighbor? :^)

37 posted on 11/07/2004 10:34:49 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical! †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Thanks for your input. This scientist sounds like he is fairly reasonable. I am impressed with his attitude toward the questions. Often times these experts try to slip the questions by conveying the idea that without "proper schooling" you wouldn't understand.

I will only believe a person that understands their subject enough to be able to convey it to the non-expert. One who can overcome the "without ten years of specialized schooling you are incapable of staying with me". It reminds me of Muslims always saying, "If Arabic is not your first language, you cannot understand the Koran".


38 posted on 11/07/2004 10:50:58 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical! †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
It reminds me of Muslims always saying, "If Arabic is not your first language, you cannot understand the Koran".

Excellent analogy!

39 posted on 11/08/2004 7:34:25 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1270959/posts?page=97#97



See THIS yet??


40 posted on 11/08/2004 11:15:20 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson