Evolutionists pray Biblical creationists do not understand chemistry!
George
light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
Evolutionists pray Biblical creationists do not understand chemistry!
Pr 21:30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the
LORD.
In 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they
viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof
that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance
natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey
combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and
passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate
lightning.
Lu 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from
heaven.
At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a
few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long
chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our
bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that
now proved life came from chemicals.
Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
We have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these
conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was
never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which
are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day,
there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a
life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming
that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and
that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him:
Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this
proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building
blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are
present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption
and has never been demonstrated.
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free.
Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are
necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the
building blocks of life.
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul.
I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to
construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor
vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle
from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino
acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned.
Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino
acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from
chemicals. Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or
does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator?
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold
thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the
people, for a light of the Gentiles; 7 To open the blind eyes, to
bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness
out of the prison house. 8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my
glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I
declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.
For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the
discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a
Pastor, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue
than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the
facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of
chirality.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise,
they became fools,
Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have
against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the
claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they
do not even want to discuss. Chirality is a chemical term that means
handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the
same elements and similar properties, they can still have different
structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures
differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are
said to have chirality.
Pr 7:4 Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy
kinswoman:
Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear
to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each
other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist
as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual
molecule is called an optical isomer.
Ps 95:4 In his hand are the deep places of the earth: the strength of
the hills is his also.
What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA
possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D
shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they
do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and
DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies
would not do their job.
Pr 8:5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an
understanding heart.
In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with
the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino
acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked
chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that
chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.
Ps 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.15 My
substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and
curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes did
see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members
were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there
was none of them. 17 � How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O
God! how great is the sum of them!
When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having
chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed
isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically
verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral
product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There
are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists
would even recognize as a problem.
Pr 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy,
and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. 14 Counsel is
mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a
problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life"
cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.
Job 13:5 O that ye would altogether hold your peace! and it should be
your wisdom.
Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of
amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the
"L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed
optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not
exist in natural proteins.
Job 15:8 Hast thou heard the secret of God? and dost thou restrain
wisdom to thyself?
The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical
molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as
the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides
can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA.
There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these
proteins and DNA with their unique chirality. If proteins and DNA were
formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a
50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers.
Job 12:12 With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days
understanding.
This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How
can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of
"L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R"
molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design?
Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would
only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know
anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were
compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two
magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process
was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural
process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism,
and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural
process.
Job 36:5 Behold, God is mighty, and despiseth not any: he is mighty in
strength and wisdom.
However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide
molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a
twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a
twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or
handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped
helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong
chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would
not function properly.
Pr 17:24 Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of
a fool are in the ends of the earth.
The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad
railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of
molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R"
configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible
for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely
would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at
the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality?
Ps 49:3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart
shall be of understanding.
If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with
chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of
opposite chirality? Chirality is not just a major problem for
evolution; it is a dilemma.
Ps 104:24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made
them all: the earth is full of thy riches.
According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over
long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot
be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the
dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or
chirality doesn't exist.
Pr 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth
understanding.
If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of
the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes
could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without
properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this
earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did
more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope
it will do the same for you.
Pr 2:10 When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is
pleasant unto thy soul;
I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's
supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that
everything must be explained by natural science and divine
intervention is not science.
Pr 3:19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding
hath he established the heavens.
I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws
of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality,
evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some
unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a
supernatural explanation?
Pr 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with
all thy getting get understanding.
Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly
are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes
you don't know chemistry.
Pr 15:33 The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before
honour is humility.
Boikat
<snip>
So, asside from religion endorsed ignorance, did you have some point?
(P.S. It's people like you that convinced me that most religions, if
not all religions, are nothing but crap served on a cracker.)
Boikat
RAM
Chirality has been discussed on TO and it didn't convert anyone to
Christianity, Islam or any religion. So what is the point of this
tedious post? Testifying? If so it needs work because its boring.
That includes both the biochemical presentation and the contextless
religious quotes.
heekster
wrote:
>On Dec 7, 9:12�pm, George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
<snip 277 lines>
>
>Chirality has been discussed on TO and it didn't convert anyone to
>Christianity, Islam or any religion. So what is the point of this
>tedious post? Testifying? If so it needs work because its boring.
>That includes both the biochemical presentation and the contextless
>religious quotes.
Did you really need to quote all 277 lines of George's gibberish, to
just add a five line response?
Davej
> In 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they
> viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof
> that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance
> natural processes.
So believe in Gawd then. Believe that Gawd created the universe and
then created life. Nobody is demanding that you become an atheist. We
simply ask that you accept the fact that some parts of the Bible are
PARABLES.
Dana Tweedy
> Eph 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the
> light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
>
> Evolutionists pray Biblical creationists do not understand chemistry!
One doesn't have to pray, as a rule, creationists do not understand
chemistry.
Apparently George's screed was plagiarized from an ICR article, with random
bible verses interspersed.
http://www.icr.org/article/105/
The "problem" of chirality of course has been addressed. See:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/chirality-of-li.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/abs/nature04780.html
In very simplistic terms, the chemistry of early life favored the dexter
forms of the molecules over the left handed forms.
It's not a major problem for abiogenesis. Nor is abiogenesis evolution
DJT
David Hare-Scott
Do you think that as a would-be preacher you are exempted from the need to
acknowledge sources which you quote at length verbatim?
Would the good Dr McCombs be happy for you to steal his work or would he say
it was another case of lying for Jesus?
http://www.icr.org/article/105/
In any case the argument is simply "god of the gaps". How do you feel about
your god being diminished with every scientific discovery?
While we do not have every step of the way mapped out there is evidence that
chiral compounds can arise in nature.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#homochirality
David
R. Baldwin
b3d333...@r1g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
> Eph 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the
> light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
>
> Evolutionists pray Biblical creationists do not understand chemistry!
>
[snip]
Actually, it would be quite nice if you really did understand chemistry,
because then you might leave off with some of the nonsense you've been
posting.
Try reading the Wikipedia article about abiogenesis, and look for the
subheading on homochirality.
By the way, is it really necessary to insert random scriptural citations?
They detract from what you are trying to say, rather then help.
Eric Root
>
(snip)
Our prayers are answered! Biblical creationists _don't_ understand
chemistry!
Hallelujah!
Eric Root
Garamond Lethe
> George wrote:
>> Eph 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the
>> light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
>>
>> Evolutionists pray Biblical creationists do not understand chemistry!
>
> One doesn't have to pray, as a rule, creationists do not understand
> chemistry.
>
> Apparently George's screed was plagiarized from an ICR article, with random
> bible verses interspersed.
>
> http://www.icr.org/article/105/
Nice catch.
<snip>
Ernest Major
<008a5b75-8723-4366...@r1g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
George <gbur...@twcny.rr.com> writes
>Evolutionists pray Biblical creationists do not understand chemistry!
1) Bible verses are not magical incantations. They don't suddenly make
your argument better.
2) You brought up amino acid chirality the previous time you started a
thread. Bringing it up again, and ignoring the responses you got the
first time, makes you look bad.
--
alias Ernest Major
bpuharic
<gbur...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a
>few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long
>chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our
>bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that
>now proved life came from chemicals.
>
>Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
>the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
>waters.
>
>We have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these
>conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was
>never formed in that experiment
?? that wasn't the purpose of the experiment. 'george' pretends he
understands the experimental basis of science. but the first step in
planning an experiment is to determine what you're testing.
so george, being a creationist, makes a leap into the abyss of
creationism, and crashes
.. The product was amino acids, which
>are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day,
>there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a
>life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming
>that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals.
what scientists claim is that the mechanism of abiogenesis is unknown.
what creatioinists claim is 'god of the gaps'...'god did it' in every
case where the scientific cause is unknown.
of course this has always been wrong....
>
> Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are
>necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the
>building blocks of life.
tell you what. you go find a life form that doesn't have proteins,
m'kay?
>
>Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino
>acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from
>chemicals. Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or
>does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator?
scientists could make amino acids based on natural processes.
creationists didn't even know amino acids existed. creationism is
useless.
>
>Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have
>against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the
>claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they
>do not even want to discuss. Chirality is a chemical term that means
>handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the
>same elements and similar properties, they can still have different
>structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures
>differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are
>said to have chirality.
more god of the gaps, it seems.
>
>If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with
>chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of
>opposite chirality? Chirality is not just a major problem for
>evolution; it is a dilemma.
evolution 'can't produce this' because the mechanism produced an event
3.5 billion years ago. since then, evolution has done other
things....organic molecules from 3.5B years ago don't fossilize
and creationism? no explanation at all for how things happen TODAY let
alone how they happened 3.5B years ago!
>
>Ps 104:24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made
>them all: the earth is full of thy riches.
>
>According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over
>long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot
>be explained by natural science in any amount of time.
and we can't cure the common cold, either. 150 years ago we couldn't
cure bacterial infections.
by the creationist mindset, this means bacteria don't exist.
a few weeks ago, this creationist was in here proclaiming that
proteins couldn't form in the presence of water. when i pointed out
that this happens in your body every day, he wisely skulked off with
his tail between his legs...
as he will do now
Friar Broccoli
> Apparently George's screed was plagiarized from an ICR article, with random
> bible verses interspersed.
>
> http://www.icr.org/article/105/
I don't have access to irc from work. But since this is typical
creationist behaviour I have no doubt you nailed it. Congratulations.
Friar Broccoli
[most snipped]
> At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a
> few amino acids.
Since you didn't write this I guess you cannot be held
responsible, but have you forgotten that Kermit has already
shown that other researches found something like 3 times as many
amino acids in the residue from the experiments as Miller and
Urey did?
I don't really understand why creationists think the fact that
cell machinery manufactures (most but not all) amino acids with
one direction of twist and proteins with the opposite is such a
big deal. That might demonstrate that life in the past was
different from life now, but we already know that from the
fossil record ... so what?
But, lets suppose the earliest life forms could not have existed
without the chirality we see today and that a miracle from God
was required to get life started 3.75 billion years ago.
- Does that show the fossil record is wrong?
- Does that show there were kangaroos and squirrels
300 million years ago?
- Does that make the DNA evidence which shows that
chimps are our closest living cousins wrong?
Come-on. Let's discuss the evidence we DO have.
I'll admit there are some things we don't know.
But not knowing some things, doesn't make everything
we do know false.
Dan Listermann
"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12289395-f31a-4a7b...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
In the bimodal mind of a conservative, yes it does.
.
TomS
<008a5b75-8723-4366...@r1g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, George
stated..."
[...snip...]
What is your alternative?
What sort of thing was created/designed? (Particular structures like
the vertebrate eye? Individual, entire living things? Groups of living
things?) What sort of thing was *not*? (Give examples.) What is the
difference?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Ernest Major
your post is about abiogenesis. Therefore your title would have been
better as
"Abiogeneticists pray Biblical creationists do not understand
chemistry!"
It would still be a falsehood, but at least it wouldn't be contradicting
your previously stated position.
--
alias Ernest Major
RAM
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:26:33 -0800 (PST), RAM <ramather...@gmail.com>
No. Sorry about that.
Jim
> ...... snip lengthy plagiarism.....
>
> Do you think that as a would-be preacher you are exempted from the need to
> acknowledge sources which you quote at length verbatim?
>
> Would the good Dr McCombs be happy for you to steal his work or would he say
> it was another case of lying for Jesus?
>
> http://www.icr.org/article/105/
>
It is altogether possible that our good friend George never understood
that thingy about intellectual honesty, and how plagiarism violates
the 'thou shalt not steal' bit, nor indeed how plagiarism makes him a
liar. This is a shame, since it seems to me that those who accept the
responsibility for the spiritual welfare of others ought to hold
themselves to the highest standards of moral behavior. Let's see how
George responds to this, as anything other than an apology and a
commitment to do the right thing henceforth will clearly indicate that
he really ought to resign his ministry.
Bob T.
>
> The "problem" of chirality of course has been addressed.
Chirality begins at home, I've heard.
- Bob T.
All-seeing-I
The evolutionist must stay away from home a lot
>
> - Bob T.
Jack Dominey
George <gbur...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's
>supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that
>everything must be explained by natural science and divine
>intervention is not science.
>
<snip>
>I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws
>of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality,
>evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some
>unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a
>supernatural explanation?
First of all, let me join the chorus of those reminding George that it
is dishonest, a lie, a sin by George's claimed religion, to take
someone else's work and claim it as your own.
Now I can go ahead and point out what should be painfully obvious. "We
don't know" is never a supernatural explanation, and is not in the
least equivalent to divine intervention. In this context, claims of
the supernatural are simply veiled attempts to assert that ignorance
is actually knowledge.
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
John Harshman
I see you're up to your usual tricks, starting another new thread after
abandoning all the old ones without reply. I have to conclude that you
are interested only in testifyin', and not in any sort of reasoned
discussion. Let me know if that changes.
gregwrld
And it isn't just George. Every street-preacher
I've ever debated used evo discussions for the
sole purpose of preaching. They know few
people are up on evolutionary science and try
to take advantage of them. Whenever they are
confronted by people who know what they're
talking about they quickly try to shift the
discussion away from evo. And contrary to
what Tony the Phony Pagano claims, every
one I've ever debated thought (like George here)
that the Bible can be used as a science text.
What people like George and Tony don't
realize is how poorly their dishonest tactics
reflect on their beliefs.
Unfortunately, as long as there poorly
informed people creos will have their
opportunities to deceive, hence the need
to support good science education.
gregwrld
Dave Oldridge
b3d333...@r1g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>Eph 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the
>light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
>
>Evolutionists pray Biblical creationists do not understand chemistry!
Actually, those of us who do pray ask that you be shown the need to
repent your chosen careers of lying in God's name
You can quote as many Bible verses as you like, but as long as you,
yourself, disobey the verses that say not to bear false witness, your
prayers, ecept for the prayer of repentance will go unanswered.
>Pr 21:30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the
>LORD.
So there is no wisdome nor understanding in the creationist movement,
which was started in sin and continues in sin.
>In 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they
>viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof
>that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance
>natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey
>combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and
>passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate
>lightning.
>
>Lu 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from
>heaven.
Relevance?
> At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a
>few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long
>chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our
>bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that
>now proved life came from chemicals.
>
>Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
>the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
>waters.
Relevance?
>We have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these
>conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was
>never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which
>are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day,
>there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a
>life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming
>that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals.
Nobody ever said that life WAS formed in that experiment. The second
part of your claim, though, is arguable, depending on just what you mean
by "life form." All life, however, comes from chemicals and IS
chemicals.
>Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and
>that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
>dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
>him, and for him:
>
> Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this
>proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building
>blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are
>present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption
>and has never been demonstrated.
No, but the production of complex organics by such means shows that a
pathway is possible. It has also been observed that relatively small )
under 200 atoms) molecules can and do self-replicate and evolve by
mutation and natural selection into better replicators over time.
>Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
>free.
>
> Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are
>necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the
>building blocks of life.
>Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
>breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
>soul.
You are confusing an ancient mythological allegory for a biology lesson.
Or you are making the mistake of most materialists and confusing the body
with the soul.
>
>I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to
>construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor
>vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle
>from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino
>acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.
>
>1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
>God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
>because they are spiritually discerned.
>
>Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino
>acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from
>chemicals. Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or
>does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator?
There are a fairly significant number of papers written annually on this
subject and an awful lot more testing than Urey-Miller has been done.
>
>Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold
>thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the
>people, for a light of the Gentiles; 7 To open the blind eyes, to
>bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness
>out of the prison house. 8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my
>glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
>9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I
>declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.
>
>For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the
>discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a
>Pastor, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue
>than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the
>facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of
>chirality.
And has. A lot of work has been done identifying the root cause of
chirality. No full theory has blossomed yet, but there is no lack of
hypotheses being tested. In fact, the "problem" is that there are so
many hypotheses and it is hard to say which is right.
>
>Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
>are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
>his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21
>Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
>neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
>their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise,
>they became fools,
>
>Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have
>against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the
Your just blathering now and displaying your abject ignorance of the
topic.
Your ignorance and your desire to display it in public connote neither
fear of the LORD or wisdom. In fact, they demonstrate the exact opposite
on both counts.
I would strongly suggest that you start getting your theology from more
traditional sources, that you throw out the bibliolatry and that you
learn something about any aspect of science you want to discuss before
displaying abject ignorance.
Of course, since you are already addicted to ignoring GOD, you will
probably find it very easy to just ignore me. There is always hope for
the sinner, though.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Tim DeLaney
>
> Do you think that as a would-be preacher you are exempted from the need to
> acknowledge sources which you quote at length verbatim?
>
> Would the good Dr McCombs be happy for you to steal his work or would he say
> it was another case of lying for Jesus?
>
> http://www.icr.org/article/105/
One might forgive plagiarism if the perpetrator simply
forgot (or neglected) to attribute the words to the true
author. We might, in a charitable moment, view this as
merely careless or absent-minded.
However, this is not the case here. In two places
George altered the text:
The original said:
"As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the
formation of amino acids under these conditions is
fascinating, but there is a major problem."
George changed this to:
"We have to admit that the formation of amino acids
under these conditions is fascinating, but there is
a major problem."
Obviously, his aim clearly was to disguise the identity
of the author. Later in the original:
"Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist,
I always wondered why there are more debates on this
issue than discussion of the facts."
George changed this to read:
"Call it professional curiosity, but as a Pastor,
I always wondered why there are more debates on this
issue than discussion of the facts."
Above, George is obviously representing the work of the
original author as his own. His changes to the original
text are deliberate falsehoods; they cannot be passed
off as mere carelessness.
<snip>
Tim
Moist Lipwig
news:dbcf3438-6294-43c3...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bet he doesn't respond. ...any takers?
Regards,
John Stockwell
Well, George, first of all, are you aware that plagiarism is
both immoral and illegal? When you quote other people,
even creationist propagadists, you need to provide references.
We would like it if creationists would become the following:
1) honest. Out of context quoting, failure to cite sources
and general creationist argumentation are dishonest.
2) interested in learning science. We live in an age of science
and technology. It is a crime that people who are supposed
to be religious leaders are anti science.
3) ask questions. There are two kinds of questions, those
that are intended for learning and illumination, and the
kind that are asked to be argumentative and for purposes
of obfuscation. Needless to say, the average creationist
waltzs in here, tosses around out of context quoted material
with no citations
4) listen to the answers. Scientists are neither fools nor are
we liars. Our discipline is a fact finding and error correcting
one. We are interested in the right answers. We are also
competent.
Regarding the Miller-Urey experiments.
These experiments represent a class of experiments that
broke down the notion that "organic" materials required biological
systems to be produced. Since 1953, variations on this type
of experiment have shown that, not just any amino acids
as well as other "organic" chemicals, such as formaldehyde and
simple sugars can form in hostile environments, including
in nebula of the variety that stellar systems coalesce from.
Now of all of the hundreds of types of amino acids that could
have formed, the ones that did just happen that the 20 that
we see in biology are the ones that form the easiest. And,
yes, amino acids are the building blogs of life.
The Miller-Urey experiments were not an attempt to
create life in a bottle, but to provide a means of studying
the chemistry of models of atmospheres, some of which
are candidates for the early earth.
As to your discussion of "chirality", this is the prime
example of how creationism makes a person fail to ask
intelligent questions. The amino acids in some of
the Miller-Urey experiments were more or less distributed
equally between right and left-handed, leading to the
question of how it is possible that we have only one
handedness of amino acid in earth biochemistry. When
creationists quote this, they operate from the assumption
that there is no selecting mechanism that will preferentially
preserve one handedness over another.
One mechanism for selecting one handedness of amino
acid is exposure to polarized light. Observations of
the Orion nebula
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000ASPC..213..359W
have shown that in nebulae such as the variety which
the solar system coalesced from, polarized ultraviolet
light of the right handedness is available.
-John
Mark Isaak
> Eph 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the
> light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
>
> Evolutionists pray Biblical creationists do not understand chemistry!
You do not understand chemistry. That is not a controversial statement.
But chemistry is the least of your problems.
Your argument (I assume you mean to make it yours after stealing it from
the ICR) has the form, "I don't understand how it could have happened,
therefore God did it." The problem with that argument is that one's
ignorance is evidence of nothing except that one is ignorant. A
conclusion of a lack of mechanism is possible only if you may claim
knowledge of the full panoply of mechanisms -- conceivable and
inconceivable, possible and impossible. You can do that only if you are
omniscient. So, by making your argument, you are claiming to be
omniscient. You are claiming to be a god yourself.
It is obvious that you plaster Bible verses over your posts to cover up
for your fundamental lack of faith. You are scared to death that the god
you have been raised to believe in does not exist -- and for good reason,
since he demonstrably does not. I submit that you will be happier in the
long run if you reject the religion that has you tied in knots now, and
start over from scratch.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
David Hare-Scott
I am not taking this bet. As Tim demonstartes a little downthread George
knew what he was doing.
David
heekster
wrote:
>On Dec 7, 9:50�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> The "problem" of chirality of course has been addressed.
>
>Chirality begins at home, I've heard.
>
>
That must be where the Kelvinator is.
VoiceOfReason
You could have just stopped at "evolutionists pray" and you would have
been somewhat accurate. Many, if not most, evolutionists are theists
of one flavor or another.
George
> On Dec 8, 1:07�am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > ...... snip lengthy plagiarism.....
>
> > Do you think that as a would-be preacher you are exempted from the need to
> > acknowledge sources which you quote at length verbatim?
>
> > Would the good Dr McCombs be happy for you to steal his work or would he say
> > it was another case of lying for Jesus?
>
> >http://www.icr.org/article/105/
>
> One might forgive plagiarism if the perpetrator simply
> forgot (or neglected) to attribute the words to the true
> merely careless or absent-minded.
>
> However, this is not the case here. �In two places
> George altered the text:
>
> The original said:
>
> "As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the
> formation of amino acids under these conditions is
> fascinating, but there is a major problem."
>
> George changed this to:
>
> "We have to admit that the formation of amino acids
> under these conditions is fascinating, but there is
> a major problem."
>
> Obviously, his aim clearly was to disguise the identity
>
> "Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist,
> I always wondered why there are more debates on this
> issue than discussion of the facts."
>
> George changed this to read:
>
> "Call it professional curiosity, but as a Pastor,
> I always wondered why there are more debates on this
> issue than discussion of the facts."
>
> Above, George is obviously representing the work of the
> text are deliberate falsehoods; they cannot be passed
> off as mere carelessness.
>
> <snip>
>
> Tim
No I don�t think so! This is a talk website not a pear journal or
anything with the important or gravity that requires one to be
concerned with plagiarism. Are you ever taken with yourself!
Ps 10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be
taken in the devices that they have imagined.
If you wish to imagine this to be more than simple conversation then
by all means watch your conduct keep it professional but for me this
is nothing more than one on one discussions.
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a
child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away
childish things.
Desperate people who cannot win arguments on fact and opinion often
wish to defeat the argument with such child like conduct. I gave my
personal understanding of chirality first. It was challenged with
hyperlinks as many are prone to borrowing another�s brain rather than
using their brain. So I to borrow another�s brain and gave the
evidence again in different wording. Bottom line for the present
knowledge there is no possible evolution!
Ps 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to
God a ransom for him: 8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious,
and it ceaseth for ever:)
Nothing to win or lose hear but ones soul and that is conditioned on a
personal relationship and understanding of God as revealed in his
word!
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved.
Got Jesus?
George
> "Jim" <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dbcf3438-6294-43c3...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 1:07 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> ...... snip lengthy plagiarism.....
>
> >> Do you think that as a would-be preacher you are exempted from the need
> >> to
> >> acknowledge sources which you quote at length verbatim?
>
> >> Would the good Dr McCombs be happy for you to steal his work or would he
> >> say
> >> it was another case of lying for Jesus?
>
> >>http://www.icr.org/article/105/
>
> > <snip>
>
> > It is altogether possible that our good friend George never understood
> > that thingy about intellectual honesty, and how plagiarism violates
> > the 'thou shalt not steal' bit, nor indeed how plagiarism makes him a
> > responsibility for the spiritual welfare of others ought to hold
> > George responds to this, as anything other than an apology and a
> > commitment to do the right thing henceforth will clearly indicate that
> > he really ought to resign his ministry.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Regards,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Friar Broccoli
[snip]
> Bottom line for the present
> knowledge there is no possible evolution!
The chirality argument has the commonly used creationist form:
Evolutionists do NOT know X
therefore evolution is false.
If you do NOT know how your television works
that does not prove that electromagnetic radiation does not exist.
No argument of the form
I don't know X therefore Y is true is ever valid.
(unless Y = "I don't know X")
Further, even if the Chirality argument were valid
(which it is not) all it would do is show that God
created bacteria at some time in the past and then
let evolution go from there.
The fossil record, the morphologic evidence and the
DNA similarity evidence are all clear messages from
God that He used evolution to create present day
lifeforms.
Note this is from what we DO know.
Free Lunch
George <gbur...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in
<f21e3c2f-8a42-4ffb...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
>On Dec 8, 4:40�pm, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
>> "Jim" <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:dbcf3438-6294-43c3...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 8, 1:07 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> ...... snip lengthy plagiarism.....
>>
>> >> Do you think that as a would-be preacher you are exempted from the need
>> >> to
>> >> acknowledge sources which you quote at length verbatim?
>>
>> >> Would the good Dr McCombs be happy for you to steal his work or would he
>> >> say
>> >> it was another case of lying for Jesus?
>>
>> >>http://www.icr.org/article/105/
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> > It is altogether possible that our good friend George never understood
>> > that thingy about intellectual honesty, and how plagiarism violates
>> > the 'thou shalt not steal' bit, nor indeed how plagiarism makes him a
>> > responsibility for the spiritual welfare of others ought to hold
>> > George responds to this, as anything other than an apology and a
>> > commitment to do the right thing henceforth will clearly indicate that
>> > he really ought to resign his ministry.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Regards,- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
>anything with the important or gravity that requires one to be
>concerned with plagiarism. Are you ever taken with yourself!
>
> Ps 10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be
>taken in the devices that they have imagined.
>
> If you wish to imagine this to be more than simple conversation then
>by all means watch your conduct keep it professional but for me this
>is nothing more than one on one discussions.
>
>1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a
>child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away
>childish things.
>
>Desperate people who cannot win arguments on fact and opinion often
>wish to defeat the argument with such child like conduct. I gave my
>personal understanding of chirality first. It was challenged with
>using their brain. So I to borrow another�s brain and gave the
>evidence again in different wording. Bottom line for the present
>knowledge there is no possible evolution!
>
> Ps 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to
>God a ransom for him: 8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious,
>and it ceaseth for ever:)
>
>Nothing to win or lose hear but ones soul and that is conditioned on a
>personal relationship and understanding of God as revealed in his
>word!
>
>Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
>saved.
>
>Got Jesus?
You seem to like mocking God.
John Stockwell
Plagiarism is unethical under all circumstances. You obviously cut
and pasted materials from another source without giving credit to that
source.
>
> �Ps 10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be
> taken in the devices that they have imagined.
>
> � � � � If you wish to imagine this to be more than simple conversation then
> by all means watch your conduct keep it professional but for me this
> is nothing more than one on one discussions.
Apparently honesty is not high on your list.
>
> 1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a
> child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away
> childish things.
>
> Desperate people who cannot win arguments on fact and opinion often
> wish to defeat the argument with such child like conduct. I gave my
> personal understanding of chirality first. It was challenged with
> hyperlinks as many are prone to borrowing another�s brain rather than
> using their brain. So I to borrow another�s brain and gave the
> evidence again in different wording. Bottom line for the present
> knowledge there is no possible evolution!
You stole. You did not borrow.
>
> �Ps 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to
> God a ransom for him: 8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious,
> and it ceaseth for ever:)
>
> Nothing to win or lose hear but ones soul and that is conditioned on a
> personal relationship and understanding of God as revealed in his
> word!
We were talking about prebiotic chemistry.... You don't seem to have
any replies.
Free Lunch
John Stockwell <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in
<62098500-cb9e-471d...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
>On Dec 9, 7:30�am, George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 4:40�pm, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Jim" <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:dbcf3438-6294-43c3...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > On Dec 8, 1:07 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > >> ...... snip lengthy plagiarism.....
>>
>> > >> Do you think that as a would-be preacher you are exempted from the need
>> > >> to
>> > >> acknowledge sources which you quote at length verbatim?
>>
>> > >> Would the good Dr McCombs be happy for you to steal his work or would he
>> > >> say
>> > >> it was another case of lying for Jesus?
>>
>> > >>http://www.icr.org/article/105/
>>
>> > > <snip>
>>
>> > > It is altogether possible that our good friend George never understood
>> > > that thingy about intellectual honesty, and how plagiarism violates
>> > > the 'thou shalt not steal' bit, nor indeed how plagiarism makes him a
>> > > responsibility for the spiritual welfare of others ought to hold
>> > > George responds to this, as anything other than an apology and a
>> > > commitment to do the right thing henceforth will clearly indicate that
>> > > he really ought to resign his ministry.
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> > Regards,- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
>>
>> anything with the important or gravity that requires one to be
>> concerned with plagiarism. Are you ever taken with yourself!
>
>Plagiarism is unethical under all circumstances. You obviously cut
>and pasted materials from another source without giving credit to that
>source.
>
you look dishonest and stupid.
...
Jack Dominey
<59bb23b7-5aca-43da...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
George <gbur...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
[Responding to others pointing out his plagiarism]
>No I don�t think so! This is a talk website not a pear journal or
>anything with the important or gravity that requires one to be
>concerned with plagiarism. Are you ever taken with yourself!
<snip>
> If you wish to imagine this to be more than simple conversation then
>by all means watch your conduct keep it professional but for me this
>is nothing more than one on one discussions.
<snip>
>I gave my
>personal understanding of chirality first. It was challenged with
>hyperlinks as many are prone to borrowing another�s brain rather than
>using their brain. So I to borrow another�s brain and gave the
>evidence again in different wording.
And this is the answer you would give if the author asked why you took
his work and claimed it, in public, as your own?
Bob T.
Plagiarism is immoral and illegal, whether the topic is pears, apples,
or lemons.
>
> � � � � If you wish to imagine this to be more than simple conversation then
> by all means watch your conduct keep it professional but for me this
> is nothing more than one on one discussions.
If you wish to be respected by your fellow posters, learn to attribute
other peoples' words in your posts.
>
>
> Desperate people who cannot win arguments on fact and opinion often
> wish to defeat the argument with such child like conduct. I gave my
> personal understanding of chirality first. It was challenged with
> hyperlinks as many are prone to borrowing another�s brain rather than
> using their brain.
In other words, people proved you wrong and you resent it.
> So I to borrow another�s brain and gave the
> evidence again in different wording. Bottom line for the present
> knowledge there is no possible evolution!
Bottom line, you are either lying or deluded.
>
>
> Nothing to win or lose hear but ones soul and that is conditioned on a
> personal relationship and understanding of God as revealed in his word!
You think that acknowleding the real word we live in conflicts with
God's word. How sad.
- Bob T.
TomS
<f6add05a-f4f1-4dfa...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Bob T.
stated..."
[...snip...]
>If you wish to be respected by your fellow posters, learn to attribute
>other peoples' words in your posts.
And if his only concern is smugness, then he will show that by
refusing to make an effort to communicate.
Mark Isaak
> On Dec 8, 4:40�pm, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
>> "Jim" <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:dbcf3438-6294-43c3...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Dec 8, 1:07 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> ...... snip lengthy plagiarism.....
>>
>> >> Do you think that as a would-be preacher you are exempted from the
>> >> need to
>> >> acknowledge sources which you quote at length verbatim?
>>
>> >> Would the good Dr McCombs be happy for you to steal his work or
>> >> would he say it was another case of lying for Jesus?
>>
>> >>http://www.icr.org/article/105/
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> > It is altogether possible that our good friend George never
>> > understood that thingy about intellectual honesty, and how plagiarism
>> > violates the 'thou shalt not steal' bit, nor indeed how plagiarism
>> > makes him a liar. �This is a shame, since it seems to me that those
>> > who accept the responsibility for the spiritual welfare of others
>> > ought to hold themselves to the highest standards of moral behavior.
>> > �Let's see how George responds to this, as anything other than an
>> > apology and a commitment to do the right thing henceforth will
>> > clearly indicate that he really ought to resign his ministry.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Bet he doesn't respond. �...any takers?
>>
>
> No I don't think so! This is a talk website not a pear journal or
> anything with the important or gravity that requires one to be concerned
> with plagiarism. Are you ever taken with yourself!
You mean, sort of like it's okay to steal as long as you're stealing less
than a million dollars?
>[...]
> Desperate people who cannot win arguments on fact and opinion often wish
> to defeat the argument with such child like conduct. I gave my personal
> understanding of chirality first. It was challenged with hyperlinks as
> many are prone to borrowing another's brain rather than using their
> brain. So I to borrow another's brain and gave the evidence again in
> different wording. Bottom line for the present knowledge there is no
> possible evolution!
The chirality question (it was never an obstacle to evolution) has been
answered. The universe itself favors a significant excess in
right-handed chemicals, and any slight excess gets turned into near
unanimity in many chemical environments.
Face it: At some level you already know that evolution is unassailable,
but your lack of faith prevents you from admitting it. You can't admit
to yourself that God does not do as *you* command.
> Nothing to win or lose hear but ones soul and that is conditioned on a
> personal relationship and understanding of God as revealed in his word!
Something you obviously don't have.
> Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
> saved.
>
> Got Jesus?
Perhaps you should try following his example rather than just throwing
his name around and perhaps occasionally eating him. I know, it will
be hard turning your life around so completely, but try it anyway.
Tim DeLaney
<snip extended rationalizing>
You were caught red-handed stealing the intellectual property
of another and representing it as your own. Plagiarism is wrong
no matter where or how you do it. You would get an "F" if you
plagiarized for a high school term paper and got caught. Do you
suppose that merely broadcasting your plagiarism to the entire
world is acceptable? If so, I suggest you consult an attorney to
get a second opinion.
You are just another hypocrite with a Bible in hand. What's new?
Tim
hersheyh
What is more, if evolutionists do indeed pray that Biblical
creationists not understand, those prayers have regularly been
answered. Thus, we may infer that our prayer receiving entity is
actually more powerful than theirs.
Frank F. Smith
> On Dec 9, 9:31 am, George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 4:19 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 8, 1:07 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> ...... snip lengthy plagiarism.....
>>>> Do you think that as a would-be preacher you are exempted from the need to
>>>> acknowledge sources which you quote at length verbatim?
>>>> Would the good Dr McCombs be happy for you to steal his work or would he say
>>>> it was another case of lying for Jesus?
>>>> http://www.icr.org/article/105/
>>> One might forgive plagiarism if the perpetrator simply
>>> forgot (or neglected) to attribute the words to the true
>>> merely careless or absent-minded.
>>> However, this is not the case here. In two places
>>> George altered the text:
>>> The original said:
>>> "As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the
>>> formation of amino acids under these conditions is
>>> fascinating, but there is a major problem."
>>> George changed this to:
>>> "We have to admit that the formation of amino acids
>>> under these conditions is fascinating, but there is
>>> a major problem."
>>> Obviously, his aim clearly was to disguise the identity
>>> "Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist,
>>> I always wondered why there are more debates on this
>>> issue than discussion of the facts."
>>> George changed this to read:
>>> "Call it professional curiosity, but as a Pastor,
>>> I always wondered why there are more debates on this
>>> issue than discussion of the facts."
>>> Above, George is obviously representing the work of the
>>> text are deliberate falsehoods; they cannot be passed
>>> off as mere carelessness.
>>> <snip>
>>> Tim
>> No I don�t think so! This is a talk website not a pear journal or
>> anything with the important or gravity that requires one to be
>> concerned with plagiarism. Are you ever taken with yourself!
So stealing and lying is OK?
>
> <snip extended rationalizing>
<Reinserting a bit...>
>> Nothing to win or lose hear but ones soul and that is conditioned
>> on a personal relationship and understanding of God as revealed
>> in his word!
So George's understanding of God and "his word" are that stealing and
lying are acceptable? Perhaps even virtuous? Does his congregation know
his opinion on the matter?
>
> You were caught red-handed stealing the intellectual property
> of another and representing it as your own. Plagiarism is wrong
> no matter where or how you do it. You would get an "F" if you
> plagiarized for a high school term paper and got caught.
Worse than that. At my local high school, plagiarism results in
(1) A grade of 0, not just an "F"
(2) No opportunity to amend the paper and improve the grade. (In other
cases, students are often allowed revision, followed by re-grading;
final grade is averaged.)
(3) Referral to the administration for disciplinary action.
hersheyh
Or, alternatively, that we were merely praying for that which would
have happened in any case. That is the problem with correlation.
Guess we will have to test that by praying that creationists actually
do understand.
bpuharic
>
>Desperate people who cannot win arguments on fact and opinion often
>wish to defeat the argument with such child like conduct. I gave my
>personal understanding of chirality first. It was challenged with
>using their brain. So I to borrow another�s brain and gave the
>evidence again in different wording. Bottom line for the present
>knowledge there is no possible evolution!
uh no. i'm a chemist. chirality has no bearing on evolution at all.
none. it doesn't matter that we don't understand chirality. darwin
didn't either. reproduction and variation do not depend on chirality
in addition you came in here a few weeks ago with bullshit from the
same website saying that proteins can not POSSIBLY form in the
presence of water.
when i pointed out that happens every day in your own body, you ran
away like a frightened puppy
>
> Ps 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to
>God a ransom for him: 8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious,
>and it ceaseth for ever:)
believe it or not most of us have read the bible. you dont need to
clutter up your incoherent posts with biblical quotes
>
>Got Jesus?
got milk?
David Hare-Scott
> On Dec 8, 4:40 pm, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
>> "Jim" <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:dbcf3438-6294-43c3...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 8, 1:07 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> ...... snip lengthy plagiarism.....
>>
>>>> Do you think that as a would-be preacher you are exempted from the
>>>> need to
>>>> acknowledge sources which you quote at length verbatim?
>>
>>>> Would the good Dr McCombs be happy for you to steal his work or
>>>> would he say
>>>> it was another case of lying for Jesus?
>>
>>>> http://www.icr.org/article/105/
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> It is altogether possible that our good friend George never
>>> understood that thingy about intellectual honesty, and how
>>> plagiarism violates the 'thou shalt not steal' bit, nor indeed how
>>> that those who accept the responsibility for the spiritual welfare
>>> of others ought to hold themselves to the highest standards of
>>> other than an apology and a commitment to do the right thing
>>> henceforth will clearly indicate that he really ought to resign his
>>> ministry.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Regards,- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> anything with the important or gravity that requires one to be
> concerned with plagiarism. Are you ever taken with yourself!
>
If it was such a good article why NOT give credit to the author? Because it
was trivial? You thought it important enough to do a considerable amount of
editing, including going to trouble of trying to conceal the true author.
Because it slipped your mind? No, you just hoped to get away with it.
Well now we know what kind of christian you are. One that can rationalise
theft and deceit as long as it is for a god cause.
David
Kermit
> Eph 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the
> light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
>
> Evolutionists pray Biblical creationists do not understand chemistry!
Some of us hope that a few of you will learn to learn. The theists
among us probably pray for your honesty or their patience, in turn.
<all verses snipped>
>
> In 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they
> viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof
> that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance
> natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey
> combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and
> passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate
> lightning.
<bark>
> �At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a
> few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long
> chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our
> bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that
> now proved life came from chemicals.
No, it only proved (established beyond reasonable doubt) that
precursors to life could be created under early Earth conditions. What
doe sit say about your faith that you must repeat lies to seem (to the
ignorant) to make a point? Honest and/or intelligent youth and young
adults leave your flocks of lies for good.
<bark>
>
> We have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these
> conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was
> never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which
> are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day,
> there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a
> life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming
> that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals.
They didn't expect to form life. The processes leading to life was
complex - more than a single step.
<bark>
> �Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this
> proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building
> blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are
> present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption
> and has never been demonstrated.
More than their mere presence is required, yes.
<bark>
> I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to
> construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor
> vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle
> from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino
> acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.
You should tell this to the biochemists. They have never thought of
this.
<rolls eyes>
<bark>
> Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino
> acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from
> chemicals. Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or
> does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator?
False dichotomy. And it was an experiment on one step of abiogenesis,
not evolution.
<bark>
>
> For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the
> discussion ends in debate.
There's been a lot of science done in 50 years.
> Call it professional curiosity, but as a
> Pastor, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue
> than discussion of the facts.
It's because you only go to churches, which are not generally
interested in learning, and never to science classes. Churches
vigorously debate strawmen and win. Researchers vigorously pursue
knowledge, and learn. If you went to school you would not think so
many silly thoughts.
> Then I realized that a discussion of the
> facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of
> chirality.
Hahahahahhaha!
No you didn't.
<snip rest of unattributed quotes>
See
http://leedsunited.informe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=256&
<bark>
Kermit
Dick C.
news:f21e3c2f-8a42-4ffb...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 8, 4:40�pm, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
>> "Jim" <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:dbcf3438-6294-43c3...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>> > It is altogether possible that our good friend George never
>> > understood that thingy about intellectual honesty, and how
>> > plagiarism violates the 'thou shalt not steal' bit, nor indeed how
>> > plagiarism makes him a liar. �This is a shame, since it seems to me
>> > that those who accept the responsibility for the spiritual welfare
>> > of others ought to hold themselves to the highest standards of
>> > moral behavior. �Let's see how George responds to this, as anything
>> > other than an apology and a commitment to do the right thing
>> > henceforth will clearly indicate that he really ought to resign his
>> > ministry.
>
>
> No I don�t think so! This is a talk website not a pear journal or
> anything with the important or gravity that requires one to be
> concerned with plagiarism. Are you ever taken with yourself!
It is called honesty. Seems to be a foreign concept to you. It seems
that you think that morals only apply in some areas, or situations,
and not in others. It seems to me, that if you are honest, you are
almost always honest, not just when you think it matters. As a matter
of fact, you need to be honest in your personal interactions, as that
leads to honesty in all other fields.
In the case in question, someone put his work on the internet, work that
he spent some time doing. The author deserves at the least the respect to
acknowledge that he is the person who put the effort and labor into it.
You do not seem to have either the respect for the author, or the
honesty, either personal or intellectual, to give him his due.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
hersheyh
> > anything with the important or gravity that requires one to be
> > concerned with plagiarism. Are you ever taken with yourself!
>
> was trivial? �You thought it important enough to do a considerable amount of
> editing, including going to trouble of trying to conceal the true author.
>
> Well now we know what kind of christian you are. �One that can rationalise
> theft and deceit as long as it is for a god cause.
>
> David
Now, now. Let's be honest. If creationists had to put up something
that involved original thought, we would have to effectively shut t.o.
down. They cannot be bothered with tiny details like correct citation
when their just ends more than justifies their means. And, so long as
the plagerism is for that end, even the authors would be unlikely to
complain. OTOH, if someone tries to counter their argument by
presenting part of a sermon against evolution on, say, U-tube, with a
detailed rejoinder, then they will scream about unfair use and get it
pulled off.
Stephen
>
>
> No I don�t think so! This is a talk website not a pear journal ...
>
--
Ye Old One
<gbur...@twcny.rr.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>This is a talk website not a pear journal
This is not now, never has been, and never will be a website.
This is a newsgroup.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 06:30:54 -0800 (PST), George
><gbur...@twcny.rr.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>This is a talk website not a pear journal
>
>This is not now, never has been, and never will be a website.
>
>This is a newsgroup.
He says potato, you say nightshade.
They're practically the same.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:37:46 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in
>talk.origins:
>
>>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 06:30:54 -0800 (PST), George
>><gbur...@twcny.rr.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>This is a talk website not a pear journal
>>
>>This is not now, never has been, and never will be a website.
>>
>>This is a newsgroup.
>
>He says potato, you say nightshade.
>
>They're practically the same.
Not even close :)
--
Bob.
heekster
<snip the early Georgian mental detritus>
>
>No I don�t think so!
Obviously.
>This is a talk website not a pear journal or
>anything with the important or gravity that requires one to be
>concerned with plagiarism
No, sunshine, this is a usenet newsgroup, not a website.
It is also not a piece of fruit. What you should concern yourself
with, is assuring that your posts are intelligible, and truthful.
>. Are you ever taken with yourself!
Pot, kettle, black.
Kent Paul Dolan
> In the category "Fruitful Discussions" ...
>> No I don�t think so! This is a talk website not a
>> pear journal ...
This, on the other hand, _is_ a pear journal,
one written entirely in mime:
These pear journals use more traditional languages:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pear+journal
xanthian.
Jack Dominey
<foo.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
Since someone else in the thread identified George as a Baptist
preacher, I've suspected that he was treating the piece he plaigarized
as a sermon.
Preachers are wont to rather freely borrow phrases, stories, and other
elements from other preachers, and I suspect that among clergy with
less formal education, this leads to a careless regard for
intellectual property. I have never heard (or heard of) a preacher
lifting an entire sermon either with or without attribution, but
that's approximately equivalent to what George did.
This in no way excuses George's action nor lessens the offense, but I
think it goes a way to explain how it might not occur to him that he
was doing something wrong.
Tim DeLaney
wrote:
> In <Xns9CDDA1F5C1A5dickcrmotzare...@188.40.43.213>, "Dick C."
>
>
>
>
>
> <foo.dic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in
> >news:f21e3c2f-8a42-4ffb...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On Dec 8, 4:40�pm, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
> >>> "Jim" <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:dbcf3438-6294-43c3...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
> >>> > It is altogether possible that our good friend George never
> >>> > understood that thingy about intellectual honesty, and how
> >>> > plagiarism violates the 'thou shalt not steal' bit, nor indeed how
> >>> > that those who accept the responsibility for the spiritual welfare
> >>> > of others ought to hold themselves to the highest standards of
> >>> > other than an apology and a commitment to do the right thing
> >>> > henceforth will clearly indicate that he really ought to resign his
> >>> > ministry.
>
> >> anything with the important or gravity that requires one to be
> >> concerned with plagiarism. Are you ever taken with yourself!
>
> >It is called honesty. Seems to be a foreign concept to you. It seems
> >that you think that morals only apply in some areas, or situations,
> >and not in others. It seems to me, that if you are honest, you are
> >almost always honest, not just when you think it matters. As a matter
> >of fact, you need to be honest in your personal interactions, as that
> >leads to honesty in all other fields.
> >In the case in question, someone put his work on the internet, work that
> >he spent some time doing. The author deserves at the least the respect to
> >acknowledge that he is the person who put the effort and labor into it.
> >You do not seem to have either the respect for the author, or the
> >honesty, either personal or intellectual, to give him his due.
>
> Since someone else in the thread identified George as a Baptist
> preacher, I've suspected that he was treating the piece he plaigarized
>
> Preachers are wont to rather freely borrow phrases, stories, and other
> elements from other preachers, and I suspect that among clergy with
> less formal education, this leads to a careless regard for
> lifting an entire sermon either with or without attribution, but
> that's approximately equivalent to what George did.
>
> This in no way excuses George's action nor lessens the offense, but I
> think it goes a way to explain how it might not occur to him that he
> was doing something wrong.
> --
> Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/
> Jack Dominey
>
> - Show quoted text -
I described the action to a lawyer friend of mine
a couple days ago. He said that a civil finding of
plagiarism would be a slam dunk in any court.
Tim
Dick C.
news:236fi5pab6uf9r7mk...@4ax.com:
> Since someone else in the thread identified George as a Baptist
> preacher, I've suspected that he was treating the piece he plaigarized
> as a sermon.
>
> Preachers are wont to rather freely borrow phrases, stories, and other
> elements from other preachers, and I suspect that among clergy with
> less formal education, this leads to a careless regard for
> intellectual property. I have never heard (or heard of) a preacher
> lifting an entire sermon either with or without attribution, but
> that's approximately equivalent to what George did.
>
> This in no way excuses George's action nor lessens the offense, but I
> think it goes a way to explain how it might not occur to him that he
> was doing something wrong.
I see he seems to have disappeared. Perhaps because he realized that
people here have more morals than most preachers do?
He seems to think that plagiarism is fine as long as the article is used
for what he wants.