|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 644
Elite Member
|
if it is not fear of retribution that stops them from speaking up, then why do they still support the theory of evolution? For some it is a very real fear. For most (you misquoted me, by the way), it's this: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century]. Do you feel that this British writer speaks for 95% of scientists? What indications, besides their disagreement with you concerning evolution, has your research uncovered that they follow this belief that Huxley wrote about? This is an especially odd pronouncement about all these scientists since more than 50% of them profess a belief in God. Scientists are people too. You greatly underestimate the power of human desire. You are a person also. Perhaps you underestimate your desire to be the one who is right. Obviously organic chemistry is a real mystery to you. Everything that happens in a cell is simply chemistry. The right conditions result in the right molecules being formed. Could the conditions exist outside the cell to form some proteins? Possibly. Well, this guy thinks differently: http://urlbam.com/ha/M0029How many times am I supposed to watch this, before you believe that I don't find anything compelling about the part of the argument presented there? Your resounding endorsement aside, what particular argument do you find especially compelling, from the full video? Present his argument here and we can discuss it. The snippet you have posted does not go into enough detail for me to make any conclusions beyond Dr. Kenyon's contention there is not a strong case for abiogenesis. What information does he have that is evidence for his conviction? I would be quite interested "simply chemistry" you say, but are these processes simple?
Are you saying that you believe that the processes that occur in a cell are simple? No...I am saying that some of the individual chemical reactions are simple and would occur given the write conditions regardless of where those conditions occurred. Because all he said is that he was convinced that amino acids could not have formed proteins by themselves. It's nice that he is convinced but I am not convinced by his saying that he is. Just as I would not be convinced that the Holocaust was faked just because a Jewish man said so. If you ever feel brave and are willing to confront the vast intelligent evidence against evolution, I would strongly suggest getting this video: http://www.go2rpi.com/prodinfo.asp?number=2392It clearly demonstrates how silly evolution is. I will buy the video, thank you. If you ever feel brave maybe you could present the most compelling argument from that video (since you already own it) on this forum. Then maybe we could discuss it. Let's see who gets brave first. Not "by itself" but through a long series of chemical reactions that occurred because the right conditions existed at particular times. No it would not be fair to say that. I have expressed what I believe in the past and will not go into that here. "The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."
—P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6. Googled the name but there's not a whole lot on him. Who is he and why should I care what he said in a French Encyclopedia in 1937?
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
