Free Republic

"Enough cutting and pasting. Enough quoting of assertion from supposed "authorities." I want arguments backed up with facts and logic, which you seem unable to supply."



On what basis do you assert that the posted assertions are from scientists with dubious credentials or crackpots?

"The quotes you supplied were merely assertions without any supporting arguments or fact. I don't accept anyone's unsupported assertions. I don't care what their credentials are."

Your not caring what their credentials are has nothing to do with you stating with no basis that their credentials are dubious.

As far as arguments go, been there done that. If you want to go some more rounds on the same arguments or something new, let's hear it.

Cut and paste? You betcha! Saves time.

"Regarding all your quotes, they're just assertions with no supporting evidence by people with dubious credentials. Frankly, I don't have time to carefully study what every crackpot has to say. Give me a real argument, and then I'll see what you have to say. And please, don't just cut and paste from a creationist website."

Before I cut and paste some more, let me say this: Someone with dubious credentials might be someone like yourself. On what basis do you assert that the posted assertions are from scientists with dubious credentials or crackpots? How can you just make a blanket statement like that? Just stop and listen to yourself. There are an ever increasing number of scientists speaking out against evolution. The truth of the matter is that you don't know jack about their credentials!
DARWINS BLACK BOX: THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION
by Michael J. Behe

If Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring it, misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favor of the widespread suspicion that Darwinism today functions more as an ideology than as a scientific theory.

Peter van Inwagen
Professor of Philosophy, Notre Dame University

Ok. At what point did God step aside to let evolution take over?
"God never stepped aside. He is continuously guiding the process of evolution. What seem to us to be random mutations and changes in the environment are not radom from God's perspective."

Is that example of the scientific method? Many evolutionist would dismiss your statement because it clearly isnn't!

"And, BTW, the assertions in the book you quote are simply wrong."

Now see that what scares me, that my kids might one day have a science teacher as close minded as yourself and who will blindly dismiss other scientists even other evolutionists because they don't fit your indoctrinated interpretation of the data!!

„Ï Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested. EVOLUTION IS RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE
- IMPACT No. 107 May 1982
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.228




A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, said that "belief in the theory of evolution" was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation", with evolution merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature". 2 G.W. Harper calls it a "metaphysical belief". 3G.W. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolutiotism", School Scince Review (V. 51 Sep. 1979), p 16.
two leading evolutionary biologists have described modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training". 1Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, Nature, Apr. 22, 1967, p. 352.
The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following conclusion.
In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. 8H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin (V. 31, n.d. 1980).

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth". 10 In another address he called evolution "story-telling". 11Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth". 10 In another address he called evolution "story-telling". 11

OUR KIDS HAVE A RIGHT TO THIS INFORMATION WITHOUT CENSORSHIP!!

All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system.b
b . Behe, pp. 77–97.

Yeah, ok

http://www.ntskeptics.org/programs/2003/2003june/BehesBlackBox.pdf#search='Behe's%20black%20box'

Try it again! It's there! If I could copy and paste the info. I would but it won't let me.

1. Go to Yahoo Search
2. Type in "Chemical Evolution
3. Read

Now please, you're distracting me.

THE CORRECT CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT WOULD NOT EXIST

Chemical compounds would not have been rich enough.

"It is commonly assumed today that life arose in the oceans . . But even if this soup contained a goodly concentration of amino acids, the chances of their forming spontaneously into long chains would seem remote. Other things being equal, a diluted hot soup would seem a most unlikely place for the first polypeptides to appear. The chances of forming tripeptides would be about one-hundredth that of forming dipeptides, and the probability of forming a polypeptide of only ten amino acid units would be something like 1 / 1020. The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all [mathematical] probability."—H.F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 158.

"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such material has been found anywhere on earth . . There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment."—*J. Broks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.

Enzyme inhibitors would surely have been present and would quickly have destroyed that which had been produced.

"It is clear that enzymes were not present in the primordial soup. Even if they were formed, they would not have lasted long since the primeval soup was, by definition, a conglomeration of nearly every conceivable chemical substance. There would have been innumerable enzyme inhibitors present to inhibit an enzyme as soon as it appeared. Thus, such molecules could not have formed; however, even with the assumption that they had formed, they could not have remained."—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.

Rapid fluid loss would not have occurred.

"One well-known problem in the formation of polymerized proteins in water is that water loss is necessary for this process. Living organisms solve this problem with the presence of enzymes and the molecule ATP. It is clear the enzymes were not present in the primordial soup."—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.

"Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

If oxygen were present, the required chemicals would quickly decompose.

"First of all, we saw that the present atmosphere, with its ozone screen and highly oxidizing conditions, is not a suitable guide for gas-phase simulation experiments."—*A. Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, p. 118.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley Miller and *Leslie Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 33.

"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

Just producing the needed proteins would be an impossible task.

"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is fatal to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."—*D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," in Nature, 186 (1960), pp. 693-694.

"In other words, the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

"In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested, the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution [atomic self-destruction process] is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis [accidental put-together process] . . The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: Each night she undid the weaving of the preceding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of the year or a century."—*G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 17.

Not even the scientists know how to produce the required fatty acids. Yet sand and seawater are said to have figured out the process.

"No satisfactory synthesis of fatty acids is at present available. The action of electric discharges on methane and water gives fairly good yields of acetic and propionic acids, but only small yields of the higher fatty acids. Furthermore, the small quantities of the higher fatty acids that are found are highly branched."—*S. Miller and *L. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 98.

A reducing atmosphere (one without oxygen) would be required, yet it would produce peroxides, which are lethal to living creatures.

"The hypothesis of an early methane-ammonia atmosphere is found to be without solid foundation and indeed is contradicted."—*P. Abelson, "Some Aspects of Paleobiochemistry," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69 (1957), p. 275.

A continuous supply of energy would, from the very first, be required.

"To keep a reaction going according to the law of mass action, there must be a continuous supply of energy and of selected matter (molecules) and a continuous process of elimination of the reaction products."—*P. Mora, "The Folly of Probability," in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed, S.W. Fox (1965), p. 43.

FWIW I've published twice the number of papers he has. I posted a link to a (soon to be updated) version of my CV.

Without knowing whether or not the info on Gish's publications has been updated. We cant' make that conclusion.

Secondly, Gish is one of numerous scientist who don't believe in evolution. I only named the first 10 in my post. No doubt several surpass you.

Regardless of whether or not it is a criticism of Behe's book is irrelevant. As I stated Behe himself isn't a creationist. The point is on the page that I indicated it does support the statements on chemistry that I posted earlier. Evolutionist are constantly contradicting other evolutionist. That's a given. That's what makes the whole theory so hard to swallow!

If the primitive earth atmosphere contained a significant quantity of oxygen, however, an evolutionary origin of life would have been thermodynamically impossible, since all substances would have been oxidized to carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen, and other oxidized products, leaving no organic chemical compounds to serve as precursors for biochemical evolution. Evolutionists are thus forced to assume, a priori, that the primitive earth atmosphere contained no oxygen, but rather contained hydrogen, and that carbon existed mainly in the form of methane and/or carbon monoxide.IMPACT No. 31 January 1976
by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.**

1Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California (Berkeley). He spent a total of 18 years in biochemical research; with Cornell University Medical College (NYC), with the Virus Laboratory, U of Cal-Berkley and and on the research staff of the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company (Michigan). He has published approximately 40 articles in scientific journals.

As stated he has debated with top evolutionist all over the word with thousands in attendance.

Now state your accomplishments professor. I bet you don't even hold a candle to this guy. Who are you to critize his accomplishments?

It is a well-known axiom in debate that if you feel that you have a strong case, you should build it; if you feel your case is weak, it is better to attack the opposition relentlessly while ignoring your own position. One thus hopes to gain victory by revealing the weaknesses of the opposing position rather than by systematically building a positive case for your own position.

Please provide information with your link.

Not organic evolution. I mean chemical evolution

How did proteins come about then?

What then is organic evolution?


„Ï The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity¡Xomnipotent chance."¡X*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102

www.ntskeptics.org/programs/2003/2003june/BehesBlackBox.pdf pg. 24 (for starters)

The probabilites are cited by the creationist but they come from the evolutionist. Get it straight before you go making any more ridiculous analogies!

"No, you are wrong. Absolutely wrong."
„Ï Cytochrome-C is one of the most important proteins that make oxygen respiration possible. It is vital for survival. It is impossible for this protein, which has an extremely complex design, to form by chance. One of the foremost defenders of evolution in Turkey, Professor Ali Demirsoy states in his book Inheritance and Evolution that the probability of the coincidental formation of Cytochrome-C is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes."8

"Gish hasn't published since 1976. Why?"

What was that you said about posting falsehoods!!!!!!


Duane T. Gish, 1979, Evolution? The Fossils Say No!,Creation-Life Publishers

Duane T. Gish, 1995, Evolution? The Fossils Still Say No!,Institute for Creation Research

--He's also been busy debating!

Dr Duane Gish and Dr Kenneth Cumming, two world-renowned scientists from the Institute for Creation Research in the USA are authorities on biochemistry and paleontology. They demonstrated with substantial proof that the theory of evolution has no validity whatsoever. During the conference, one of the most esteemed Turkish scientists today, Dr Cevat Babuna illustrated the miracles in each phase of a human being's creation with a slide show that shook the "coincidence hypothesis" of evolution to its roots.
The second international conference in the same series was held three months after the first on July 5, 1998 in Cemal Resit Rey Conference Hall again in Istanbul. The speakers-six Americans and one Turk-gave talks demonstrating how Darwinism had been invalidated by modern science. Cemal Resit Rey Conference Hall, with a seating capacity of a thousand, was filled to overflowing by an audience of rapt listeners.

The Racine debate marked at least the 90th debate that Dr. Gish and/or Dr. Henry Morris have had since 1972—most of them on university campuses—involving at least 140 evolutionary scientists. Although this reviewer is familiar with almost all of these debates, it is difficult to remember one in which less positive evidence for evolution, was presented than was presented by Dr. D'Orazio. Instead, he devoted almost all of his time to challenging the credentials and the integrity of creationist scientists as well as the quality of their work. Not only did Gish comment on the obvious lack of scientific evidence presented by D'Orazio, but also one of the questions from the audience during the question period was directed to D'Orazio asking him why he chose to handle his portion of the debate in that fashion.
It is a well-known axiom in debate that if you feel that you have a strong case, you should build it; if you feel your case is weak, it is better to attack the opposition relentlessly while ignoring your own position. One thus hopes to gain victory by revealing the weaknesses of the opposing position rather than by systematically building a positive case for your own position. Since the question to be debated was: "Does scientific evidence adequately support the theory of evolution?," D'Orazio's reason for using this technique remains a mystery. Yet, his failure to present rigorous evidence for his position did not go unnoticed by the audience.

DNA is not a stable chemical molecule

"DNA has been recovered from material tens and hundreds of thousands of years old. In special cases, it has been recovered from specimens with ages in the tens of millions of years. "

"Please stop posting outright falsehoods."
The information I quoted in #323 by McCombs is legite!

If you feel your credentials surpass his. Please state them.

How was it debunked? Be speciffic in your answers! Don't send me a page from your guide with different topics!

You won't get RightWing and I to fight over evolution. We both understand it

How about the relevence of chemistry to the theory of evolution. (THE RELEVENCE OF CHEMISTRY TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION)