| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Aaron Kim" |
| Date: |
15 Oct 2007 06:47:48 PM |
| Object: |
Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
In sanity we are taught that fairy tales aren't reality, and that
people who believe that they are aren't sane.
Kenneth Poppe in his book "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" called
evolution a fairy tale for grownups. I doubt YOU are sane at all.
(excerpt from Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open container
developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a flask
sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only life
gives rise to life. And to be sure that the impressionable young reader
understands that superstitious theories cannot account for life, the author
is likely to close with the cell theory. This theory has three tenets:
1. The cell is the basic unit of life.
2. All organisms are made of cells.
3. All cells come from other cells.
The heart of the cell theory is the third statement, which says a new cell
can only come from a preexisting cell.
"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a
father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring
into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way."
(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged
by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.373)
To add on top of Louis Pasteur proven law that only life comes from life
meaning that spontaneous generation is false something the Prophet Joseph
Smith knew of even before Pasteur, we know that the first law of
thermodynamics says that matter and energy has always been in existence and
more cannot be created. The second law of thermodynamics also known as
entropy says that all matter and energy has a natural inclination to
disorganize itself. That's why people get old and die. That's why things
like cars and houses deteriorate unless you take constant care of it but
they are always in a ceaseless process of degeneration. So to claim as
Darwinists like yourself believe that lifeless atoms by a random process
over billions of years formed the first cell which scientists are
increasingly becoming appreciative of its amazingly complex molecular
structure is an absolute lie because it directly contradicts the 2nd law.
That's like saying water flows uphill not downhill. It would be easier for a
person to throw up a deck of cards into the air and land as a house of
cards. Or a tornado to blow through a junkyard and put together a Cadillac.
It's completely absurd.
36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being
from a random chance collision of molecules in a "primordial sea" or "soup"
and that these admittedly simple organisms "evolved"-a term coined by some
fat victorian naturalist-into more complex organisms by an equally random,
chance process.
37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the
fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which states
that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which
is usually less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs
downhill, not up).
38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy,
systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a
high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in
nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder
(I speak of random collisions of molecules).
39 A system which is organized has inherently more energy, not less than
one than one which is disorganized.
40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this
organization.
41 Random chance cannot explain the existence of such a monumentally
complex organization as that of the human body!
42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an
absurd proposition.
43 It takes more than I am capable of mustering.
44 A specific example of this absurdity, according to the laws of
mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or
else be labeled as false, which it is is this: suppose we take the random
arisal of not an organism, but just one protein molecule (of which there
must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different
proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its
complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to
put together).
45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein
molecule of about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some
proteins much longer than this in length).
46 According to the laws of mathematical probability, what are the chances
of this one specific protein which is necessary in the formation of an
enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just
for the sake of argument]?
47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any
elementary textbook on College Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have
access to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of
starch randomly arising in this primordial soup is one in 20^100!
48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!
49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.
50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, suppose we say that
we give evolutionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims
not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to
contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let's be generous and
give not only one earth, but ten "earths" upon which this one random chance
protein molecule is to arise.
51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total
number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
52 Now let us give each "earth" oceans the same size as the ones here which
are calculated by volume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So
the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the
"earths" in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the
69th power) molecules.
53 Now suppose for the sake of these poor evolutionists, we say that each
ocean is filled not with water, but amino acids, the building blocks of
protein.
54 This means that there are a total according to our mathematical
calculations which do not lie, of 1069 amino acids from which this one
protein needed for the digestion of starch to "evolve".
55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say
'poor' because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped
into believing their lies, for their eternities are effected), lets say
that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years
(both of which are absolutely impossible) but every second of every year in
the 10^10 years which is estimated by our brave brethren, the scientists,
to be the age of the universe, to form proteins all of them exactly 100
amino acids in length.
56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins exactly 100 amino
acids long would be formed.
57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 billions of years There are 10^8
seconds approximately, in a year (actually there are a little less than
that number).
58 This would mean that over all the space and time imaginable, there would
be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 10^85 chances for this one protein to come into
being!
59 But we said that the total number of combinations of amino acids 100 in
length which are possible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to
10^130.
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire
being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the
evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to one in
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for
all intents and purposes, zero.
Revelations of Jesus Christ section 14
(I thought this would be interesting to note that Joseph Smith and the early
Mormons knew of the first law of thermodynamics even before scientists
formulated it:)
You ask the learned doctors; why they say the world was made out of nothing;
and they will answer, "Doesn't the Bible say He created the world?" And they
infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing.
Now, the word create came from the word baurau which does not mean to create
out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize
materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to
organize the world out of chaos--chaotic matter, which is element, and in
which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had.
The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed;
they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no
beginning, and can have no end.
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 350-352; DHC 6:309)
"There is not a hint in all the Bible that God created this or any other
world out of nothing. The work of creation was to take the materials that
existed from all eternity, that never were [28] created or made out of
nothing, to take these self-existent materials and organize them into a
world. This is called creation." (Apostle and scientist Orson Pratt, JD
16:315)
President Brigham Young:
If I were a sectarian, I would say, according to their philosophy, as I have
heard many of them say hundreds of times, "God created all things out of
nothing; in six days he created the world out of nothing." You may be
assured the Latter-day Saints do not believe any such thing. They believe
God brought forth material out of which he formed this little terra firma
upon which we roam. How long had this material been in existence? Forever
and forever, in some shape, in some conditions. We need not refer at all to
those who were with God, and who assisted him in this work. (JD 18:232)
--
www.artbulla.com
Our Blog: http://www.artbulla.com/zion/blog/rjc.html
Listen to Zion Redemption Radio hosted by Art Bulla and Aaron Kim on Sunday
from 3 to 4 (pst). Just go to
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?host_id=3513 All are invited to
call in live, email at art@artbulla.com, or by MSM artbulla@hotmail.com.
This show is dedicated to the redemption of Zion, revelations of Jesus
Christ, authority, Priesthood, Kingdom of God, doctrine discussed pertaining
to the salvation of Ephraim and Manasseh. During non broadcast hours you can
also listen to archived shows.
My Testimony of a Living Prophet:
http://www.artbulla.com/zion/Aaron's%20Page.html
26 Even so, come unto me and learn of my ways, and I will give unto you,
even as many as shall come, that peace which surpasseth understanding, and
if ye shall inquire of me concerning these things, will I the Lord manifest
by the influence and power of the Holy Ghost that these things are verily
true and are of me, saith the Lord.
Revelations of Jesus Christ sec. 6:26
Aaron Kim
.
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
15 Oct 2007 10:36:25 PM |
|
|
*yaaaawn*
Same old, same old, same old. And all those who have seen a classroom from
the inside point and laugh.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 08:15:17 AM |
|
|
If the inmates are running the asylum, most definitely yes.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
15 Oct 2007 09:16:23 PM |
|
|
In article <5nichcFi95jfU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
{...}
36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being
from a random chance collision of molecules in a "primordial sea" or "soup"
and that these admittedly simple organisms "evolved"-a term coined by some
fat victorian naturalist-into more complex organisms by an equally random,
chance process.
This "fat Victorian" must have been very long lived then, since the
word was in usage two centuries earlier.
37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the
fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which states
that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which
is usually less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs
downhill, not up).
Congratulations, you've just disproven the Gibb's Free Energy equation.
Tens of thousands of Physical Chemists are quite impressed, I'm sure.
38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy,
systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a
high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in
nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder
(I speak of random collisions of molecules).
39 A system which is organized has inherently more energy, not less than
one than one which is disorganized.
And now you've proven that water does not form ice when you cool it.
Is there no end to your (his) talents?
40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this
organization.
41 Random chance cannot explain the existence of such a monumentally
complex organization as that of the human body!
42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an
absurd proposition.
43 It takes more than I am capable of mustering.
44 A specific example of this absurdity, according to the laws of
mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or
else be labeled as false, which it is is this: suppose we take the random
arisal of not an organism, but just one protein molecule (of which there
must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different
proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its
complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to
put together).
45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein
molecule of about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some
proteins much longer than this in length).
46 According to the laws of mathematical probability, what are the chances
of this one specific protein which is necessary in the formation of an
enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just
for the sake of argument]?
47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any
elementary textbook on College Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have
access to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of
starch randomly arising in this primordial soup is one in 20^100!
48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!
49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.
50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, suppose we say that
we give evolutionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims
not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to
contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let's be generous and
give not only one earth, but ten "earths" upon which this one random chance
protein molecule is to arise.
51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total
number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
52 Now let us give each "earth" oceans the same size as the ones here which
are calculated by volume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So
the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the
"earths" in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the
69th power) molecules.
53 Now suppose for the sake of these poor evolutionists, we say that each
ocean is filled not with water, but amino acids, the building blocks of
protein.
54 This means that there are a total according to our mathematical
calculations which do not lie, of 1069 amino acids from which this one
protein needed for the digestion of starch to "evolve".
55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say
'poor' because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped
into believing their lies, for their eternities are effected), lets say
that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years
(both of which are absolutely impossible) but every second of every year in
the 10^10 years which is estimated by our brave brethren, the scientists,
to be the age of the universe, to form proteins all of them exactly 100
amino acids in length.
56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins exactly 100 amino
acids long would be formed.
57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 billions of years There are 10^8
seconds approximately, in a year (actually there are a little less than
that number).
58 This would mean that over all the space and time imaginable, there would
be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 10^85 chances for this one protein to come into
being!
59 But we said that the total number of combinations of amino acids 100 in
length which are possible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to
10^130.
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire
being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the
evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to one in
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for
all intents and purposes, zero.
I just saw a license plate reading "1035-DRC". Since the odds of
my having seen that exact plate by chance are only 1 in 175,760,000,
clearly some kind of Divine intervention was involved.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
15 Oct 2007 10:53:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:16:23 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
In article <5nichcFi95jfU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
{...}
36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being
from a random chance collision of molecules in a "primordial sea" or "soup"
and that these admittedly simple organisms "evolved"-a term coined by some
fat victorian naturalist-into more complex organisms by an equally random,
chance process.
This "fat Victorian" must have been very long lived then, since the
word was in usage two centuries earlier.
37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the
fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which states
that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which
is usually less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs
downhill, not up).
Congratulations, you've just disproven the Gibb's Free Energy equation.
Tens of thousands of Physical Chemists are quite impressed, I'm sure.
38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy,
systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a
high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in
nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder
(I speak of random collisions of molecules).
39 A system which is organized has inherently more energy, not less than
one than one which is disorganized.
And now you've proven that water does not form ice when you cool it.
Is there no end to your (his) talents?
40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this
organization.
41 Random chance cannot explain the existence of such a monumentally
complex organization as that of the human body!
42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an
absurd proposition.
43 It takes more than I am capable of mustering.
44 A specific example of this absurdity, according to the laws of
mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or
else be labeled as false, which it is is this: suppose we take the random
arisal of not an organism, but just one protein molecule (of which there
must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different
proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its
complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to
put together).
45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein
molecule of about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some
proteins much longer than this in length).
46 According to the laws of mathematical probability, what are the chances
of this one specific protein which is necessary in the formation of an
enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just
for the sake of argument]?
47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any
elementary textbook on College Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have
access to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of
starch randomly arising in this primordial soup is one in 20^100!
48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!
49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.
50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, suppose we say that
we give evolutionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims
not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to
contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let's be generous and
give not only one earth, but ten "earths" upon which this one random chance
protein molecule is to arise.
51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total
number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
52 Now let us give each "earth" oceans the same size as the ones here which
are calculated by volume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So
the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the
"earths" in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the
69th power) molecules.
53 Now suppose for the sake of these poor evolutionists, we say that each
ocean is filled not with water, but amino acids, the building blocks of
protein.
54 This means that there are a total according to our mathematical
calculations which do not lie, of 1069 amino acids from which this one
protein needed for the digestion of starch to "evolve".
55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say
'poor' because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped
into believing their lies, for their eternities are effected), lets say
that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years
(both of which are absolutely impossible) but every second of every year in
the 10^10 years which is estimated by our brave brethren, the scientists,
to be the age of the universe, to form proteins all of them exactly 100
amino acids in length.
56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins exactly 100 amino
acids long would be formed.
57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 billions of years There are 10^8
seconds approximately, in a year (actually there are a little less than
that number).
58 This would mean that over all the space and time imaginable, there would
be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 10^85 chances for this one protein to come into
being!
59 But we said that the total number of combinations of amino acids 100 in
length which are possible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to
10^130.
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire
being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the
evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to one in
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for
all intents and purposes, zero.
I just saw a license plate reading "1035-DRC". Since the odds of
my having seen that exact plate by chance are only 1 in 175,760,000,
clearly some kind of Divine intervention was involved.
-- cary
Consider the odds that any particular human came into being. Each ejaculate has
5E8 sperm. Woman has 4E4 ova, there are over 5E9 people on this planet.
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 01:59:37 PM |
|
|
Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com>
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:16:23 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
In article <5nichcFi95jfU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
{...}
36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being
from a random chance collision of molecules in a "primordial sea" or "soup"
and that these admittedly simple organisms "evolved"-a term coined by some
fat victorian naturalist-into more complex organisms by an equally random,
chance process.
This "fat Victorian" must have been very long lived then, since the
word was in usage two centuries earlier.
37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the
fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which states
that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which
is usually less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs
downhill, not up).
Congratulations, you've just disproven the Gibb's Free Energy equation.
Tens of thousands of Physical Chemists are quite impressed, I'm sure.
38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy,
systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a
high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in
nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder
(I speak of random collisions of molecules).
39 A system which is organized has inherently more energy, not less than
one than one which is disorganized.
And now you've proven that water does not form ice when you cool it.
Is there no end to your (his) talents?
40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this
organization.
41 Random chance cannot explain the existence of such a monumentally
complex organization as that of the human body!
42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an
absurd proposition.
43 It takes more than I am capable of mustering.
44 A specific example of this absurdity, according to the laws of
mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or
else be labeled as false, which it is is this: suppose we take the random
arisal of not an organism, but just one protein molecule (of which there
must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different
proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its
complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to
put together).
45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein
molecule of about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some
proteins much longer than this in length).
46 According to the laws of mathematical probability, what are the chances
of this one specific protein which is necessary in the formation of an
enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just
for the sake of argument]?
47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any
elementary textbook on College Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have
access to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of
starch randomly arising in this primordial soup is one in 20^100!
48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!
49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.
50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, suppose we say that
we give evolutionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims
not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to
contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let's be generous and
give not only one earth, but ten "earths" upon which this one random chance
protein molecule is to arise.
51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total
number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
52 Now let us give each "earth" oceans the same size as the ones here which
are calculated by volume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So
the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the
"earths" in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the
69th power) molecules.
53 Now suppose for the sake of these poor evolutionists, we say that each
ocean is filled not with water, but amino acids, the building blocks of
protein.
54 This means that there are a total according to our mathematical
calculations which do not lie, of 1069 amino acids from which this one
protein needed for the digestion of starch to "evolve".
55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say
'poor' because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped
into believing their lies, for their eternities are effected), lets say
that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years
(both of which are absolutely impossible) but every second of every year in
the 10^10 years which is estimated by our brave brethren, the scientists,
to be the age of the universe, to form proteins all of them exactly 100
amino acids in length.
56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins exactly 100 amino
acids long would be formed.
57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 billions of years There are 10^8
seconds approximately, in a year (actually there are a little less than
that number).
58 This would mean that over all the space and time imaginable, there would
be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 10^85 chances for this one protein to come into
being!
59 But we said that the total number of combinations of amino acids 100 in
length which are possible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to
10^130.
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire
being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the
evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to one in
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for
all intents and purposes, zero.
I just saw a license plate reading "1035-DRC". Since the odds of
my having seen that exact plate by chance are only 1 in 175,760,000,
clearly some kind of Divine intervention was involved.
-- cary
Consider the odds that any particular human came into being. Each ejaculate has
5E8 sperm. Woman has 4E4 ova, there are over 5E9 people on this planet.
Ben
Or, similarly, what are the odds of throwing together 3 billion base
pairs, with four choices per slot, and ending up with exactly me?
Obviously, I do not exist.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "AtheistMainstream" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 08:50:20 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff31mp$42c$1@onion.ccit.
Or, similarly, what are the odds of throwing together 3 billion base
pairs, with four choices per slot, and ending up with exactly me?
Obviously, I do not exist.
Damn! And you were such a nice guy, too...!
:-)
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 11:41:56 PM |
|
|
"AtheistMainstream" <AtheistMainstream@Niche.com> wrote in message
news:wTdRi.4771$qv1.4273@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff31mp$42c$1@onion.ccit.
Or, similarly, what are the odds of throwing together 3 billion base
pairs, with four choices per slot, and ending up with exactly me?
Obviously, I do not exist.
Damn! And you were such a nice guy, too...!
:-)
Neither do you..nor I.
Haven't you heard that atheism (and, therefore, atheists) cannot exist?
We must be like gods... nonexistent, but still able to make our presence
felt.
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
17 Oct 2007 02:02:52 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:41:56 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AtheistMainstream" <AtheistMainstream@Niche.com> wrote in message
news:wTdRi.4771$qv1.4273@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff31mp$42c$1@onion.ccit.
Or, similarly, what are the odds of throwing together 3 billion base
pairs, with four choices per slot, and ending up with exactly me?
Obviously, I do not exist.
Damn! And you were such a nice guy, too...!
:-)
Neither do you..nor I.
Haven't you heard that atheism (and, therefore, atheists) cannot exist?
We must be like gods... nonexistent, but still able to make our presence
felt.
Where is that swan?
Take me to your Leda!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
17 Oct 2007 05:57:41 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:trcbh3p5o06p7tk6dt19qv4rfolfa346nu@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:41:56 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"AtheistMainstream" <AtheistMainstream@Niche.com> wrote in message
news:wTdRi.4771$qv1.4273@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff31mp$42c$1@onion.ccit.
Or, similarly, what are the odds of throwing together 3 billion base
pairs, with four choices per slot, and ending up with exactly me?
Obviously, I do not exist.
Damn! And you were such a nice guy, too...!
:-)
Neither do you..nor I.
Haven't you heard that atheism (and, therefore, atheists) cannot exist?
We must be like gods... nonexistent, but still able to make our presence
felt.
Where is that swan?
Near Flanders.
Take me to your Leda!
It's a hippopotamus.
Mud, mud, glorious mud.......
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 02:15:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:53:27 -0400, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:16:23 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
In article <5nichcFi95jfU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire
being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the
evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to one in
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for
all intents and purposes, zero.
I just saw a license plate reading "1035-DRC". Since the odds of
my having seen that exact plate by chance are only 1 in 175,760,000,
clearly some kind of Divine intervention was involved.
Consider the odds that any particular human came into being. Each ejaculate has
5E8 sperm. Woman has 4E4 ova, there are over 5E9 people on this planet.
One in 10^43? Which would mean that the chance that "Aaron Kim"
actually exists is only 1 in 10^2 greater than the chance that life
arose without divine intervention. Which means that "Aaron Kim" can't
possibly exist.
(I'll wager any amount of any currency that you like that Aaron
doesn't have a clue what the fallacy in his claim is. Poppe, OTOH, is
probably just a fraud who DOES know what fallacy he's guilty of.)
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 10:02:06 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:15:33 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:53:27 -0400, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:16:23 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
In article <5nichcFi95jfU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire
being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the
evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to one in
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for
all intents and purposes, zero.
I just saw a license plate reading "1035-DRC". Since the odds of
my having seen that exact plate by chance are only 1 in 175,760,000,
clearly some kind of Divine intervention was involved.
Consider the odds that any particular human came into being. Each ejaculate has
5E8 sperm. Woman has 4E4 ova, there are over 5E9 people on this planet.
One in 10^43? Which would mean that the chance that "Aaron Kim"
actually exists is only 1 in 10^2 greater than the chance that life
arose without divine intervention. Which means that "Aaron Kim" can't
possibly exist.
(I'll wager any amount of any currency that you like that Aaron
doesn't have a clue what the fallacy in his claim is. Poppe, OTOH, is
probably just a fraud who DOES know what fallacy he's guilty of.)
Yes, it's hard to see the errors when one simply parrots what the high priest
says.
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
15 Oct 2007 09:07:14 PM |
|
|
In article <5nichcFi95jfU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
In sanity we are taught that fairy tales aren't reality, and that
people who believe that they are aren't sane.
Kenneth Poppe in his book "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" called
evolution a fairy tale for grownups. I doubt YOU are sane at all.
(excerpt from Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open container
developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a flask
sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only life
gives rise to life.
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
And to be sure that the impressionable young reader
understands that superstitious theories cannot account for life, the author
is likely to close with the cell theory. This theory has three tenets:
1. The cell is the basic unit of life.
Most life.
2. All organisms are made of cells.
Bacteriophages aren't.
3. All cells come from other cells.
Currently.
The heart of the cell theory is the third statement, which says a new cell
can only come from a preexisting cell.
"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a
father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring
into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way."
(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged
by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.373)
Thus proving that life has been around forever, and had no beginning.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron Kim" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
15 Oct 2007 09:56:28 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff16ci$2fs$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5nichcFi95jfU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
In sanity we are taught that fairy tales aren't reality, and that
people who believe that they are aren't sane.
Kenneth Poppe in his book "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" called
evolution a fairy tale for grownups. I doubt YOU are sane at all.
(excerpt from Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the
correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open
container
developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a
flask
sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only life
gives rise to life.
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never grow
bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
And to be sure that the impressionable young reader
understands that superstitious theories cannot account for life, the
author
is likely to close with the cell theory. This theory has three tenets:
1. The cell is the basic unit of life.
Most life.
2. All organisms are made of cells.
Bacteriophages aren't.
3. All cells come from other cells.
Currently.
The heart of the cell theory is the third statement, which says a new
cell
can only come from a preexisting cell.
"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a
father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring
into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way."
(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and
arranged
by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.373)
Thus proving that life has been around forever, and had no beginning.
Yes, but according to the Big Bangist: "The Big Bang Theory is the dominant
scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big
bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion
years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."
So life only extended no farther than 20 billion years ago. Even then you
had only sub atomic particles in a primordial soup on earth that had to
"evolve" over a another billions before any life existed at all.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 12:18:30 AM |
|
|
Aaron Kim wrote:
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never grow
bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
So...? What does that tell you other than it is a confirmation of germ
theory.
"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there
ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or
anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything
comes in this way." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph
Smith, selected and arranged
by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.373)
Thus proving that life has been around forever, and had no beginning.
Yes, but according to the Big Bangist: "The Big Bang Theory is the
dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.
According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between
10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that
hurled matter and in all directions."
Thus proving one thing: You are a scientific ignoramus. The "Big Bang" was
not an explosion. It was, and is, and expansion of space itself.
So life only extended no farther than 20 billion years ago. Even then
you had only sub atomic particles in a primordial soup on earth
Um...the Earth formed about 10 billion years after the Big Bang and there
were plenty of materials other than subatomic particles...many of which had
already been fused and farted out from the eldest stars, quasars, etc. of
the universe.
that had to "evolve" over a another billions before any life existed at
all.
Life likely began on Earth within a billion years of it's formation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron Kim" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
22 Oct 2007 12:44:39 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:9NidneVHb7It1InanZ2dnUVZ_rCtnZ2d@giganews.com...
Aaron Kim wrote:
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never grow
bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
So...? What does that tell you other than it is a confirmation of germ
theory.
"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there
ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or
anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything
comes in this way." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph
Smith, selected and arranged
by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.373)
Thus proving that life has been around forever, and had no beginning.
Yes, but according to the Big Bangist: "The Big Bang Theory is the
dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.
According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between
10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that
hurled matter and in all directions."
Thus proving one thing: You are a scientific ignoramus. The "Big Bang" was
not an explosion. It was, and is, and expansion of space itself.
So life only extended no farther than 20 billion years ago. Even then
you had only sub atomic particles in a primordial soup on earth
Um...the Earth formed about 10 billion years after the Big Bang and there
were plenty of materials other than subatomic particles...many of which
had already been fused and farted out from the eldest stars, quasars, etc.
of the universe.
that had to "evolve" over a another billions before any life existed at
all.
Life likely began on Earth within a billion years of it's formation.
Here is something the Big Bangists can and never will be able to answer
without resorting to lies. According to this theory, the universe is 13.7
billion years old. However scientists have observed through the Hubble Space
telescope that the observable radius of the universe to be 46.5 billion
light years ( a light year being the distance that light travels in one
year.) But how can this be ? Shouldn't the radius of the universe be 13.7
billion light years ? That means matter must have traveled faster than light
and we know nothing travels faster than light! So we know the Big Bang is
just a Big Bust.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 01:57:39 PM |
|
|
In article <5nioqhFih7k4U1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff16ci$2fs$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5nichcFi95jfU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
In sanity we are taught that fairy tales aren't reality, and that
people who believe that they are aren't sane.
Kenneth Poppe in his book "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" called
evolution a fairy tale for grownups. I doubt YOU are sane at all.
(excerpt from Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the
correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open
container
developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a
flask
sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only life
gives rise to life.
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never grow
bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
Correct. In fact, exactly what I said.
My obvious implication being: this proves exactly nothing about what
will happen given a planetary-wide range of environments and a
half-billion years to work with.
Your argument is like sitting outside for five seconds in Costa Rica,
then drawing the conclusion that it is impossible for it to
have snowed anywhere on the planet, at any time, ever.
And to be sure that the impressionable young reader
understands that superstitious theories cannot account for life, the
author
is likely to close with the cell theory. This theory has three tenets:
1. The cell is the basic unit of life.
Most life.
2. All organisms are made of cells.
Bacteriophages aren't.
3. All cells come from other cells.
Currently.
The heart of the cell theory is the third statement, which says a new
cell
can only come from a preexisting cell.
"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a
father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring
into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way."
(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and
arranged
by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.373)
Thus proving that life has been around forever, and had no beginning.
Yes, but according to the Big Bangist: "The Big Bang Theory is the dominant
scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big
bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion
years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."
So life only extended no farther than 20 billion years ago. Even then you
had only sub atomic particles in a primordial soup on earth that had to
"evolve" over a another billions before any life existed at all.
Oh, but you've clearly proven, since life can come only from pre-existing
life, that 1) clearly life has been around forever, and thus 2) not
only is abiogenesis impossible, so are both the Big Bang and
Biblical creation.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron Kim" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
22 Oct 2007 01:16:14 AM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff31j3$3rq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5nioqhFih7k4U1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff16ci$2fs$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5nichcFi95jfU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
In sanity we are taught that fairy tales aren't reality, and that
people who believe that they are aren't sane.
Kenneth Poppe in his book "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" called
evolution a fairy tale for grownups. I doubt YOU are sane at all.
(excerpt from Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the
correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in
a
flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open
container
developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a
flask
sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only
life
gives rise to life.
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never grow
bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
Correct. In fact, exactly what I said.
My obvious implication being: this proves exactly nothing about what
will happen given a planetary-wide range of environments and a
half-billion years to work with.
Your argument is like sitting outside for five seconds in Costa Rica,
then drawing the conclusion that it is impossible for it to
have snowed anywhere on the planet, at any time, ever.
The basic principle testified by Louis Pasteur is irrefutable. Cells come
only from other cells. Life only comes from life. The result of the
experiment of the sealed flask of beef broth is representative of the basic
nature of life just like 2+2=4 no matter when or where you are. Gravity is
the same wherever you are. You could be in New York or Timbuktu, Africa and
you can drop an apple to the ground and it will still fall. The Big Bang
theory says that houses, streets built themselves, cakes baked themselves,
book wrote themselve, etc.,etc. This theory is in contradiction of Louis
Pasteur's law of how life is produced since it is a form of spontaneous
generation that life just suddenly exploded out of nowhere. People used to
create out of wood, stone, or metal idols to worship because they would not
retain God in their minds as Paul wrote in Romans because they loved
darkness. Darwinism is merely a slick polished form of idolatry.
Paul saw the debauchery of the lifestyles of the Romans and wrote this:
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God
gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of
evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are
worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do
them.
(Rom 1:28-32)
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie:
(2 Thes 2:10-11)
And to be sure that the impressionable young reader
understands that superstitious theories cannot account for life, the
author
is likely to close with the cell theory. This theory has three tenets:
1. The cell is the basic unit of life.
Most life.
2. All organisms are made of cells.
Bacteriophages aren't.
3. All cells come from other cells.
Currently.
The heart of the cell theory is the third statement, which says a new
cell
can only come from a preexisting cell.
"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever
a
father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything
spring
into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this
way."
(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and
arranged
by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.373)
Thus proving that life has been around forever, and had no beginning.
Yes, but according to the Big Bangist: "The Big Bang Theory is the
dominant
scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big
bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion
years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all
directions."
So life only extended no farther than 20 billion years ago. Even then you
had only sub atomic particles in a primordial soup on earth that had to
"evolve" over a another billions before any life existed at all.
Oh, but you've clearly proven, since life can come only from pre-existing
life, that 1) clearly life has been around forever, and thus 2) not
only is abiogenesis impossible, so are both the Big Bang and
Biblical creation.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 02:33:15 PM |
|
|
On Oct 16, 2:57 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <5nioqhFih7k...@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" < > wrote in message
news:ff16ci$2fs$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5nichcFi95j...@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aa...@artbulla.com> writes:
In sanity we are taught that fairy tales aren't reality, and that
people who believe that they are aren't sane.
Kenneth Poppe in his book "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" called
evolution a fairy tale for grownups. I doubt YOU are sane at all.
(excerpt from Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the
correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open
container
developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a
flask
sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only life
gives rise to life.
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never grow
bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
Correct. In fact, exactly what I said.
My obvious implication being: this proves exactly nothing about what
will happen given a planetary-wide range of environments and a
half-billion years to work with.
Your argument is like sitting outside for five seconds in Costa Rica,
then drawing the conclusion that it is impossible for it to
have snowed anywhere on the planet, at any time, ever.
And moreover, yes it gets even more insane, that anyone who suggests
the Theory of Frozen Precipitation, as a dangerous lunatic that needs
to be put away in restraints.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 02:56:54 PM |
|
|
In article <1192563195.228005.133680@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> writes:
On Oct 16, 2:57 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <5nioqhFih7k...@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" < > wrote in message
news:ff16ci$2fs$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5nichcFi95j...@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aa...@artbulla.com> writes:
In sanity we are taught that fairy tales aren't reality, and that
people who believe that they are aren't sane.
Kenneth Poppe in his book "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" called
evolution a fairy tale for grownups. I doubt YOU are sane at all.
(excerpt from Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the
correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open
container
developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a
flask
sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only life
gives rise to life.
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never grow
bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
Correct. In fact, exactly what I said.
My obvious implication being: this proves exactly nothing about what
will happen given a planetary-wide range of environments and a
half-billion years to work with.
Your argument is like sitting outside for five seconds in Costa Rica,
then drawing the conclusion that it is impossible for it to
have snowed anywhere on the planet, at any time, ever.
And moreover, yes it gets even more insane, that anyone who suggests
the Theory of Frozen Precipitation, as a dangerous lunatic that needs
to be put away in restraints.
Hatter
Damn straight, pal!!! Uncounted trillions of so-called "snowflakes",
each different, each intricately complex and structured and symmetric --
and yet somehow "spontaneously" arising from chaotic water -- in a
CLEAR violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics...well, obviously
it takes just as much faith to be an evo-flako-atheist as it
does to believe in God.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RetroProphet" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 12:38:32 AM |
|
|
In article <5nioqhFih7k4U1@mid.individual.net>, Aaron Kim says...
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff16ci$2fs$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5nichcFi95jfU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
In sanity we are taught that fairy tales aren't reality, and that
people who believe that they are aren't sane.
Kenneth Poppe in his book "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" called
evolution a fairy tale for grownups. I doubt YOU are sane at all.
(excerpt from Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the
correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open
container
developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a
flask
sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only life
gives rise to life.
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never
grow bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
Looks like we've ruled out a boiling batch of broth
as the process by which life comes to be.
Surely you don't think that the result of this experiment
settled the question of what the process by which life
came to be *actually was*?
Settling this greater question scientifically is the only way
to prove that "life only comes from life" -- that conclusion
clearly cannot derive from Pasteur's experiment alone.
You are merely erroneously asserting that this is the case.
There's plenty of viable hypotheses yet to be explored.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 02:09:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:56:28 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com>
wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff16ci$2fs$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never grow
bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
Lucky for us, then, that the primordial soup wasn't beef broth, eh?
So life only extended no farther than 20 billion years ago.
Since not even the universe existed 20 billion years ago (in fact,
there WAS NO 20 billion years ago, since TIME only existed starting
around 17 billion years ago), no.
Even then you had only sub atomic particles in a primordial soup on earth
In the same way that we only have "sub atomic particles" now.
that had to "evolve" over a another billions before any life existed at all.
About half a billion. Which is just a TAD longer than "a few weeks".
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed
to ignore totally all the patient findings of thinking minds through all
the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant
people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking
among us who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all, who
would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us, who would invade
our schools and libraries and homes.
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 10:19:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:09:16 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:56:28 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com>
wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff16ci$2fs$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never grow
bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
Lucky for us, then, that the primordial soup wasn't beef broth, eh?
So life only extended no farther than 20 billion years ago.
Since not even the universe existed 20 billion years ago (in fact,
there WAS NO 20 billion years ago, since TIME only existed starting
around 17 billion years ago), no.
Even then you had only sub atomic particles in a primordial soup on earth
In the same way that we only have "sub atomic particles" now.
that had to "evolve" over a another billions before any life existed at all.
About half a billion. Which is just a TAD longer than "a few weeks".
He said "only sub atomic particles." What doe he think, the earth was around
at the time of the Big Bang?
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
17 Oct 2007 09:22:28 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:19:49 -0400, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:09:16 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:56:28 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com>
wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff16ci$2fs$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never grow
bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
Lucky for us, then, that the primordial soup wasn't beef broth, eh?
So life only extended no farther than 20 billion years ago.
Since not even the universe existed 20 billion years ago (in fact,
there WAS NO 20 billion years ago, since TIME only existed starting
around 17 billion years ago), no.
Even then you had only sub atomic particles in a primordial soup on earth
In the same way that we only have "sub atomic particles" now.
that had to "evolve" over a another billions before any life existed at all.
About half a billion. Which is just a TAD longer than "a few weeks".
He said "only sub atomic particles." What doe he think, the earth was around
at the time of the Big Bang?
Aaron doesn't think - he posts what Art tells him he thinks. You know
Art? Art Bullashit, the Moron escapee from the funny farm.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers,
and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
- Luke 14:26
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 11:12:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:19:49 -0400, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:09:16 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:56:28 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com>
wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff16ci$2fs$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
You don't understand. The sealed flask of boiled broth will never grow
bacteria even with a few weeks to work with.
Lucky for us, then, that the primordial soup wasn't beef broth, eh?
So life only extended no farther than 20 billion years ago.
Since not even the universe existed 20 billion years ago (in fact,
there WAS NO 20 billion years ago, since TIME only existed starting
around 17 billion years ago), no.
Even then you had only sub atomic particles in a primordial soup on earth
In the same way that we only have "sub atomic particles" now.
that had to "evolve" over a another billions before any life existed at all.
About half a billion. Which is just a TAD longer than "a few weeks".
He said "only sub atomic particles." What doe he think, the earth was around
at the time of the Big Bang?
Aaron? Think?
You are optimistic in the extreme!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Bulla" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
16 Oct 2007 10:39:40 PM |
|
|
You people are just a total mob. And here is your answer, fools and blind.
Truth is not determined by the votes and consesnsu of cowards and fools and
sodomites. Truth is independant in its own sphere and is objective, not
relative. The masses are asses, especially in this case.
--
Website: http://www.artbulla.com
5 And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the
truth; wherefore, no man will be angry at the words which I have written
save he shall be of the spirit of the devil.
6 I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath
redeemed my soul from hell.
(2 Nephi 33:5 - 6)
26 And ye have murmured because he hath been plain unto you. Ye say that
he hath used sharpness; ye say that he hath been angry with you; but behold,
his sharpness was the sharpness of the power of the word of God, which was
in him; and that which ye call anger was the truth, according to that which
is in God, which he could not restrain, manifesting boldly concerning your
iniquities.
27 And it must needs be that the power of God must be with him, even unto
his commanding you that ye must obey. But behold, it was not he, but it was
the Spirit of the Lord which was in him, which opened his mouth to utterance
that he could not shut it.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 1:26 - 27)
"What Joseph meant by being damned was that people will go into the spirit
world without the Priesthood, and consequently they are under the power of
Satan, and will have to be redeemed, or else they will be forever under his
power. That is all there is about that."
(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 17:, p.159)
"I am like a huge rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the
only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in
contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against
religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors,
suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed
by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women, all hell
knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus will I become a smooth
and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty." (Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 304.)
"I just tell em the truth, and they think it's hell." Harry Truman
THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS:
Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.
"Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than the disposition
of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they do not understand."
Dr.Samuel Johnson.
The Revelations of Jesus Christ:
<http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3>
Discourses of Brigham Young, Pg.68
As it has always been, and will be yet for some time, when the sons
of God assemble together Satan will be on hand as an accuser of the
brethren, to find fault with those who are trying to do good.
"But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call
down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are
indebted
to the faith of another people...does it remain for them to say how much God
has
spoken and how much He has not spoken?" Joseph Smith
"Every generation has flattered itself that it is a little better than the
one that preceded it. Every generation has prided itself in its knowledge
and great advancement in the arts and sciences and its superiority over
preceding generations; yet the power of the adversary and his hatred of
righteousness and truth are as great to-day as they ever were since the
creation of the earth." Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, Pg.228 - Pg.229,
George Q. Cannon, May 6, 1866
"Some men are natural born saints; whenever a principle is advanced they
understand it, and drink it in; * * * while there are others who do not
understand and oppose every principle that is not clear to their mind. This
can be accounted for, that we are not all pure blooded, for Ephraim became
foolish and mixed up with the gentiles. When we find the pure blood of
Ephraim, we find a natural born child of God and there is nothing in the
gospel that is objectionable to them, but the others have to exercise faith
in God and humble themselves before Him and live for it." (Deseret Weekly,
50:250-251)
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ff16ci$2fs$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <5nichcFi95jfU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aaron@artbulla.com> writes:
In sanity we are taught that fairy tales aren't reality, and that
people who believe that they are aren't sane.
Kenneth Poppe in his book "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" called
evolution a fairy tale for grownups. I doubt YOU are sane at all.
(excerpt from Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the
correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open
container
developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a
flask
sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only life
gives rise to life.
Thereby proving that life will not arise spontaneously given only the
ingredients found in beef broth and a few weeks to work in.
And to be sure that the impressionable young reader
understands that superstitious theories cannot account for life, the
author
is likely to close with the cell theory. This theory has three tenets:
1. The cell is the basic unit of life.
Most life.
2. All organisms are made of cells.
Bacteriophages aren't.
3. All cells come from other cells.
Currently.
The heart of the cell theory is the third statement, which says a new
cell
can only come from a preexisting cell.
"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a
father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring
into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way."
(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and
arranged
by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.373)
Thus proving that life has been around forever, and had no beginning.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Darwinists Be Strait Jacketed? |
| | | | |
