On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:07:00 GMT, "Semper LibčrŽ"
<nopolicestates????!?Hje77@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"Bill M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of
the
>> world is proof of God.
>
>Complex AND purposefully organized....
Where did you demonstrate "purposefully", moron?
> That is observable evidence in the
>same way that any fool can recognize a complex and organized computer
>program as having an intelligent and purposeful creator/programmer.
Adding
Bull****. If you had demonstrated your hypothetical creator the same
way programmers are, you might have had a point.
But you didn't and you haven't.
>to this example, of course, is the fact the creation of a universe and
Learn what a fact is.
>subsequent resultant consciousness and intelligence, balanced systems for
>sustaining life, etc.. is many billions of times more complex than our
>computer program example. So can you understand logical reason?
You obviously don't.
Complexity does not equate to design.
>That is overwhelming evidence of an intelligent creator.
Your stupidity is evidence of an intelligent creator?
>---------------------------------
>
>"The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically
>designed for us." - Stephen Hawking
Do you understand the difference between "seem to have been" and
"was"?
Or are you just being dishonest?
Why didn't you quote the surrounding material?
Darwin, Hawkins and others say things like that and then explain why
it only SEEMS that way.
But then if you had any integrity you would have read it in context
and realised this instead of mining out of context quotes.
>"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for
more
>than 40 years have completely failed." - N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and
>evolutionist
When did he say this? Because university students in the relevant
fields do it in lab exercises using fruit flies.
>"Under slightly reducing conditions, the Miller-Urey action does not
produce
>amino acids, nor does it produce the chemicals that may serve as the
>predecessors of other im****tant biopolymer building blocks. Thus, by
>challenging the assumption of a reducing atmosphere, we challenge the
very
>existence of the "prebiotic soup", with its richness of biologically
>im****tant organic compounds. Moreover, so far, no geochemical evidence
for
>the existence of a prebiotic soup has been published. Indeed, a number of
>scientists have challenged the prebiotic soup concept, noting that even
if
>it existed, the concentration of organic building blocks in it would have
>been too small to be meaningful for prebiotic evolution." Noam Lahav
(1999)
>Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins Oxford University Press, 1999,
>p138-139
So what?
That is just one experiment that has produced the precursors of life
in the lab. It has been done under such a wide variety of conditions
that it would seem to be inevitable.
>"There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop
>independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in
>known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can
organize
>spontaneously -- and every reason to believe that they cannot. The
problem
>of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on
the
>surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of
>reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is
>negligible." Orgel, Leslie (1998) "The origin of life -- a review of
facts
>and speculations," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 23 (Dec 1998):
491-495.
>(pp. 494-495)
So what?
He is just saying it didn't happen spontaneously. The only people who
pretend it did, are stupid, lying creationists projecting their "poof,
it all happened at once" idiocy onto people who know it didn't.
>"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting
>the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of
light
>and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have
>been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
>highest degree." - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter
"Difficulties"
Another dishonest out of context quote.
If you had the integrity to read it in context instead of getting it
from a book of mined "quotes", you would have seen him answer this in
the very next paragraph. All sorts of intermediates are known, from
simple light sensitive cells - ever noticed how plants tend to grow in
the direction of a light source? To fully fledged eyes.
>"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the
only
>acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
>physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that
we
>do not like if the experimental evidence sup****ts it." - H. Lipson, "A
>Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138
Then he was being stupid. As well as lying.
>"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove
>that a single species has been changed." - Charles Darwin, My Life &
Letters
What was in the "..."?
Because Darwin certainly didn't think that.
Why don't you get an education before posting such rank stupidity?
There are FAQs on the talk.origins web site which give plenty of
examples of observed speciation.
|
