"Semper LibčrŽ" <nopolicestates????!?Hje77@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message
news:o_5qj.5824$cc3.5064@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Bill M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:tKNpj.66207$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.... 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
> to this example, of course, is the fact the creation of a universe and
> 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?
>
> That is overwhelming evidence of an intelligent creator.
That's nothing more than a pile of BULL ****!
There are absolutely NO standards for terms like "complex" and
"organized".
Thre are no MEASUREMENTS for them either!
They are OPINION/RELATIVE words that have little or no scientific meaning.
They are as "fact based" as tall, short, fat or thin .... etc.
You CANNOT, honestly, claim them as foundational facts since there are not
based on any foundation other than unsup****ted opinion.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
Quote mining is nothing more than another fraudulent attempt to muddy the
waters with NON-facts.
For every (questionable) quote that favors anti-evolutionists - there are
hundreds of thousands of FACTUALLY SUP****TED quotes that SUP****T
evolution.
>
> "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically
> designed for us." - Stephen Hawking
"seem to have been". Even HAWKINGS knows this is NOT a scientific
statement - only the hhbiased opinion of one person.
>
>
> "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
One of those quotes/men you can only find in anti-science web sites.
Evolution is such a LONG TERM process - to try to re-create it in a lab
is,
at its face value, useless.
Maybe if he had tried for 400,000 years ............
>
>
>
> "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
Scientists admittedly do NOT know, exactly, how life first formed on this
planet.
To point out a possible failed experiment as evidence of
evolution/abiogenesis failure is, again, nothing more than fraud.
>
>
>
> "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)
"No agreement" only means wht I just said ... scientists do NOT yet,
absolutely, know how life first began on this planet.
That does NOT dispute the fact that it happened!
>
>
> "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"
"SEEMS", again!
Evolutionary scientists have already explained how the eye could have
EASILY
formed in an evolutionary manner.
>
>
>
> "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
One, NON-BIOLOGISTS OPINION - without ONE shred of sup****tive evidence.
Nothing new for the rabid anti-scientists.
>
>
>
> "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
That was long before REAL scientists FOUND the evidence you so
conventiently
ignore!
|
