Posted by: FLPatriot | March 4, 2009

Short but sweet.


Isn’t it amazing how simplified his statement is and yet how large of a doubt in the theory of chemical evolution, and there fore in the theory of the decent of all living things from a single ancestor?


Responses

  1. Nice blog. I responded to both of your comments btw.

  2. After watching the video I think the problem lies with his logic behind the experiment and the misconception that amino acids created cells. It is a misconception that this is the case.

    Amino acids gave birth to mitochondria, a part of a cell. Over time, these mitochondria were altered and changed as the environment was and eventually gave birth to cells.

  3. So you subscribe to the story that living cells can be created from non-living chemicals?

    Is there empirical evidence that convinces you of this or do you take it on blind faith?

  4. As for empirical evidence for living cells arising from chemicals…as a matter of fact it’s being worked on just now, and really amazing strides are being made in understanding how that happened.
    BUT, let’s be clear…ABIOGENESIS is not the same thing as EVOLUTION. I know you have trouble understanding the difference.

    For a better grip, though, on how complex molecules arise from simple ones – with nothing but time and lots of accidents going for them – see Murray Gell-Mann. You know who that is, right?
    Quick…Jebus! To the Googlemobile!

  5. tisak, said…”Amino acids gave birth to mitochondria”

    Observations of mitochondria show it originated from other mitochondria which has it’s own DNA like bacteria does with transcriptional and translational machinery. It’s way more complex than RNA which is the current hypothesis that evolutionists are trying to prove (how dead chemicals create living ones) rather than trying to prove the origins of DNA or the mitochondria approach which you have taken.

  6. We are all MADE OUT OF “dead” chemicals. even candles metabolize!

    How’s them apples? Besides:

    Don’t insult me anymore Mcoville. if you had taken the time to watch, you wouldn’t even have had to bother writting this blog post.

  7. Well Rickr0ll, I did watch your cartoon video and loved the evolutionists fairy tale, I love the fact that cdk just states it all as fact with nothing to back it up, great stuff.

    I also looked at an interview with Dr. Szostak and was impressed how his team was able to intelligently design a cell to work in kind of the same way he imagines early cells would have to work in order for this to be true.

    But is there any experiment that you can point to that shows a complete living cell being produced by non-living chemicals?

    If not, do you consider wishing and hoping that science will come up with one some day a rational answer?

  8. wow, you [dummy].

    The video expressly states that these things occured on the bottom of the ocean, likely near hydrothernal vents. No one was around 4.3 BILLION YEARS AGO to “design” these cells!

    IF you want a complete living cell as proof, then you are an idiot. It’s like the “Show me half an eye” argument. IT is a fundamental dodge of the more basic idea that it happens IN DEGREES OF CHANGE- EVOLUTION, not spontaneous transmutation you dip!

    Are you really so stupid as to believe in Spontaneous generation?!!

    Besides, there are more than a few good hypotheses of abiogenesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    “just states it all as fact” I hope you meet a geologist, cosmologist, biologist, or chemist someday with a really itchy trigger finger. You have insulted every single science that is involved with the question of abiogenesis, and also of course all your fellow Xians studying “God’s creation”.
    /applause

    I take it cells aren’t coated in effecient phospholipid bilayers? Or have protien ion gates?

    Or that fatty acids coagulate into spherical vescicles? or that there ARE hundreds of different nucleotides? OR that the specific example of phosphorimidate DNA Doesn’t, in fact, self-polymerize? What is doubted and under what scientific pedegree do you stake your basis of doubt? OR are you too much of an intellectual and spiritual coward to confront the matters of fact?

    OK maybe you think monomers’ behavior is different that that proposed? what physical basis is there for your complaint? Is it that you don’t understand the chemistry involved? you could always take molecular biology classes.

  9. Rickr0ll: the most intelligent thing you have ever said, “No one was around 4.3 BILLION YEARS AGO”, but to state it correctly you should have said that “nothing was around”.

    All there is are hypothesis and inferences to how this happened and if anyone not preaching evolution made those kind of statements you would call them irrational and then dismiss their ideas. This is more proof that you will only believe what you want to believe.

    I do not disagree with the science behind the experiments, I am sure it works as he says it does. But is there evidence that this happened anywhere out side of a test tube?

    By the way, I know a Chemist with an itchy trigger finger and she is a registered member of the NRA and an active member of her local church.

  10. “But to state it correctly you should have said that “nothing was around”.

    ever heard of Wmap you idiot? WATCH THE DAMN VIDEOS!!!!

    Why YEC’s Must DENY Gravity- 5 parts. watch them.

    Yeah, the experiment happend under conditions they believe existed in the Early earth.

    Did God EVER OCCUR, Anywhere? Why not here and now…. Oh that’s right, he’s a COWARD.

    I mean a bio or organic chemist, obviously she is neither. Well actually, she may very well believe in evolution and abiogenesis may fascinate her as to HOW God formed life in the early earth- just like god could have used evolution as a mutating algorithm that acheived completion with the development of an external memory device- written language, in human beings.

    Way to be open-minded.

  11. You said it all when you said “Yeah, the experiment happend under conditions they believe existed in the Early earth.”

    You follow the beliefs of those that agree with your world view. It doesn’t matter if they are wrong or write, you will believe them as long as you get to continue with your idea of the way things are. This is true in a way for Christians also I will admit.

    Why do you get so worked up over something you believe has no chance of existing? Does it hurt your feelings so much that some people may not believe the same as you? Are you scared that you may be wrong and that atheist scientists have been twisting the evidence to tell their story and that the ‘facts’ of science are always changing because they have to evolve in order to keep up the appearance of being true?

    Now take a deep breath. In your nose and out your mouth. You need to lower your heart rate and relax a little. Ok, feel better now? Go ahead and comment with a little lower blood pressure and you may find that you will get your point across better when you have less hostility in your tone.

  12. thank you so much for ignoring everything but the part you misinterpreted. My error for writing it in such a provacative manner, but all the geological evidense fits, from the earth and out in the solar system.

    Oh that’s right, there IS no universe. Only the earth exists for Real, everything else is just a backdrop for your existance.
    /sarcasm

    Who is really afriad of thier own insignificance? Not i, i will die and be forgotten, as shall all men. In fact, it’s highly likely our species will go extict.

    What is disgusting is that you crave that.
    I should hope that you are wrong, becasue it would be so much more proper for your kind to go out with a wimper instead of a bang. Not that Xianity Is growing- at least not in the educated parts of the world. Imagine that.

    Matthew Alper, The “God” Part of the Brain. read it and learn. Read any nueroscientific literature, read a damn intro science course in biology.

    Heredity, netural selection, and that’s about all there is to evolution. Organisms adapt or die. They can adapt too much, so when a climate shifts, they die slowly and may exist on the fringes of the global population. Often though, what works once is recreated over and over again, or never dies. Like the “mirrors” behind cats, dogs, and other mamals eyes. They spring up more than once, becasue they are apparently easy to fashion out of parts available, and a good adaption for night hunting. You think intelligence is unique? There are birds that use tools! There are all manner of cepholopods that have comparable brain capacity to primates! You think all herbavores aren’t predators? Then why are there thorns and poisens in plants to protect themselves? No one lived without death on this planet for any length of time. And all those “geneologies” are made up crap. Prove that Anyone could have lived for more than a century 5000 years ago you twit.

    But you don’t have any facts. You just have a long list of contradictory, stolen mythos.

    And i don’t see why i should be calm when you are just being an idiot. “Better to be Socrates disatisfied than a pig satisfied.”

    “Getting my point across.” like getting nerf to penetrate a concrete bunker

  13. Rickr0ll, you like to attack and never defend. Evolutionists can not explain the beginning of life without using words like “Possibly”, “May have”, “some how” or “could have”. If you truly read between the lines of any evolutionists idea of how life began…. it has no authority.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: