What I know about you is you like telling people that their beliefs are silly, stupid, and deceptions. I would hardly consider that an unemotional assessment.
Unfortunately, you are misapplying logic in your assertion.
Wouldn't you believe that any argument today that claimed the Earth was flat was sill, stupid, and based in some kind misinformation?
The stupidity of evolution is a fact, not an emotional argument. I don't use the word stupid often because of the stigma associated with it, very rarely in fact, but to believe that elements self-assemble into cells or that cells "evolve" into highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual (separate parts having perfectly compatible reproductive parts), self-reproducing machines is just, well, not an intellectually pleasing belief.
See what I mean? Now I am not a logical person. Thanks for keeping the debate about the evidence.
I was just sharing some information about myself.
Are you claiming that there is something wrong with loving truth?If you have any evidence that my demonstration of the deceptive tactics used by the talk origins website is incorrect, I'll gladly review it.
"...entropy of an isolated system...". Isolated from what? Thermodynamic influences, perhaps?
Is the Earth's surface and sea an "isolated system", thermodynamically?
Look, Kenyon does not believe that amino acids self assemble. In fact, he says that there is no chance of it occurring. I don't believe they self assemble.
You do believe this, against all evidence.
This, my friend, is called faith.
You can use word-bytes (like above) to skirt the issue all you want, but the fact is, the likelihood of proteins self-assembling is
mathematically absurd; Positively ridiculous.
No, because the statement is true. However it is incomplete. The "simplest stable state" will change with the amount of energy in a system. Water becomes separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules in the presence of electricity. If they are then put in the same container and a spark is introduced, they give off a lot of energy and become water again.
The simplest stable state depends on the conditions: temperature, chemical concentrations, presence of solvents, magnetic fields, catalysts...etc.
That's all fine and good, but your confusing the issue.
You see, if molecules degrade into their simplest stable form, then how can DNA form?
I guess you've never seen a spring or an artesian well.
My point stands. And you're not dealing with the issues at hand.
To be deceptive, I would have to know it....that's part of the definition of deceptive. My asking this question was to get an idea of your knowledge level in chemistry. It might have been a bit mocking, but it was not deceptive.
No.
To be intentionally misleading is also a type of deception.
In your responses, you're not dealing with the issues. Only spewing word-bytes that take the conversation no where.
If you want to share some scientific insight about why you believe Kenyon is wrong are you are right, please. I'll read it.
Otherwise, we're still just going in circles here.
I believe that molecules chemically combine into proteins in the right conditions.
What conditions?
Yet I still respond with: I have viewed it and do not find his incredulity to be a compelling rebuttal to abiogenesis.
Care to share why?
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0029"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
