Wouldn't you believe that any argument today that claimed the Earth was flat was sill, stupid, and based in some kind misinformation?
Yes, but I wouldn't say that to a flat Earth believer if I were discussing the evidence that contradicts his beliefs. You seem to revel in it.
The stupidity of evolution is a fact, not an emotional argument.
It is not a fact if there are so many scientists that spend most of their careers researching it. Since they have the intelligence to get advanced degrees in biology (PHD's and the like), I think they are in a better position to determine the "stupidity" of evolution than you are. Since you have yet to provide anything other than your claim of human frailty as a reason for 99% of all PHD biologists accepting evolution, I find your assessment of it rather wanting.
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.
Interesting Freudian. I assume you didn't mean "pleasing". Maybe "honest" or "viable". Frankly, truth is not interested in being "pleasing"...you have said so yourself.
Are you claiming that there is something wrong with loving truth?
Of course not. You just haven't established that you actually know the truth, regardless of how much you "love" it.
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.
I did provide evidence that your claim of deceptive tactics was simply an assertion. You want to talk about it then do it in that thread.
"...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.
Whoopie!!! The fact is, all Dr. Kenyon did in that snippet of a video is say he didn't think that proteins could not self assemble from amino acids. He said he thinks it's too complicated. I don't care what he believes unless he can provide evidence to show how it won't work.
You do believe this, against all evidence.
WHAT EVIDENCE!!!!! Just because Dr. Kenyon says it can't happen?!! There are more scientists in his exact field of study that say it can happen and they are running experiments to determine if it can. Is Dr. Kenyon running experiments to show that it can't happen? If I am supposed to just take the word of a biologist, why should I take Dr. Kenyon's word over the others?
BTW: He has a PHD, so show him some respect and use his title.
I don't have the DVD yet and you do. So, could you provide some part of the evidence he presents in the full video so I can see what makes you believe him so stridently?
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.
Yet they do just that inside a cell. Careful your lack of chemistry knowledge is showing.
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?
Way to not read what I posted even though you quoted it. You seem to be saying that molecules degrade to their simplest stable state regardless of the conditions they are in. That simply doesn't make sense because there are obviously complex molecules in everything around you. Complex molecules that didn't exist before but are there now. Polymers that make up your computer's case. Helium in the Sun that didn't exist a second ago. If Helium is a more stable state than Hydrogen, why is it not forming from Hydrogen right here in our atmosphere? It's happening on the sun right now so, by your assertion, it must be the more stable state. Why is nature letting all this Hydrogen on the Earth remain Hydrogen when clearly it should be forming the more stable Helium?
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.
Then don't use an analogy that doesn't apply.
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.
You haven't said why he is right except that he says so. Not very compelling.
Besides, how can I show how he is wrong when I have no idea what evidence he has that led him to his conclusions? I have ordered the video but they say it could be six weeks until I get it. Are we supposed to wait that long because you won't provide a bit of information?
I believe that molecules chemically combine into proteins in the right conditions.
What conditions?
It depends on the reaction. Different proteins require different reactions in their building process. Some conditions would require other reactions taking place that remove byproducts of or provide a continuous influx of source chemicals for the first reaction. That way the reaction process won't be stressed away from the protein building. Changes in the chemical concentration in a solution will change the direction of a reaction.
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?
Because Dr. Kenyon doesn't say anything other than "I'm a biochemist, I have investigated the formation of proteins and I don't think it can happen." [my paraphrase]. Perhaps if he provided some support for what he says, I would find it more compelling.
