Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube

Expand Messages
  • Laurie Appleton
    ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 4:08 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Artificial enzyme created by evolution in a
    Message 1 of 59 , Feb 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 4:08 AM
      Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube

      > For a more complete explanation of why genetic algorithms fail to provide support for Darwinian theory, see:
      > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/new_peer-review059041.html
      > Jim in Missouri

      David Williams: Genetic algorithm research is inspired by the theory of evolution and is very useful. Has there been any research inspired by ID that is as useful?

      LA> What IS "inspiring" is to realise that various evolutionists have admitted at various times and
      in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in a decade of hundreds of open, public debates on the scientific questions. For example a leading evolutionist wrote the following;


      "Creationists travel all over the United States,
      visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
      biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
      creationists nearly always win."

      "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
      converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
      have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
      awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
      Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
      onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific

      "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
      relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
      geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
      the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
      intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
      their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
      than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
      bewildered state of incoherence."

      (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
      (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
      debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)


      LA> With admissions such as that from evolutionary experts themselves, it becomes evident that evolutionism is a complete failure as science! Clearly you must have been misled and misinformed.


      "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
      (Niles Eldredge, leading evolutionist, 1995)


      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6126 - Release Date: 02/23/13

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • D R Lindberg
      Message 59 of 59 , Mar 14, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, will brooks <wilson_brooks2003@...> wrote:
        > From Will Brooks Thursday 14th March 11.10AM GMT
        > in response to DR Lindberg
        > Will: I asked you to tell us what you do believe and you posted the following:
        > > Â D R Lindberg: "Compare that with this direct clear unambiguous
        > statement: 'Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of
        > the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly
        > in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.
        > Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes
        > of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution
        > occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its
        > occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically
        > irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited
        > to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of
        > our nation's public schools.' "
        > Will: Thank you. As that is what you posted I accept that is what you believe. The above, in a nutshell, is the belief in - molecules to Man. A shared Common Ancestry. I should like to discuss this further but before doing so please, so that we can avoid any future misunderstandings, tell me a) do you believe undirected chemicals formed by chance to produce living organisms and b) do you believe in a Big-Bang model as an explanation for how the Universe started or do you believe something different. If something different please let us know and then we can move forward.
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.