I'm sorry. Are you offended that I associated the word "stupid" with a belief in evolution?

An honest question.



Not true. Your conclusion is based on several false premise.

There are very few who actually study "evolution". It is rarely a career unto itself.

Those who set out to find "evidence" do so with motives. These motives become apparent when they draw vastly assumptive and downright ridiculous "conclusions" from a tooth or a single leg bone. Both have actually happened.

Their self-proclaimed "discoveries" are claimed to belong to "the missing link" and win them fame and fortune, including book contracts, lecture tours, and all of the prideful gratification a person could hope for.

Unfortunately, there is a conflict of interest here.

Example.

I just had my car examined to find out how much had to be fixed to get a $20 vehicle inspection. The estimate came to $2000+.

I then had a friend check out all of the "necessary" repairs. Turns out that none of the repairs was actually necessary.

You see Linear, there is a lesson in human nature here.

The mechanic has a motive to find as much wrong with the car as possible. Armed with the power to remove my current registration and thus my "right" to drive without the threat of a $130 ticket, the mechanic has strong motive to "fix" as much as possible.

This is called a conflict of interest.

This conflict of interest is rampant in all fields of science, and it is used to generate the booty then used to "encourage" (steer or dictate) the overall direction of the religion of evolution.

Yes, just as the Bible says: Bribes corrupt right judgement.



Strawman alert!

This is not what I claimed.

The vast majority of scientists don't have any frailty in relation to their faith in evolution. They are simply taught it in school and they believe it... By faith.

They then go to work into their field, which has nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution. They work within the scope of their job, whatever it may be.

There is no frailty in this. Most of them have simply not challenged the myth and hence, just accept it by default... By faith.

This is how it works. This is what scientists and evolutionists have themselves said.

This is identical to the amalgam fillings issue with dentists.

Most of them are just told that mercury in the filling isn't harmful. They just believe it without ever challenging the issue. When the issue is challenged, it is found wanting, to put it conservatively.

Of course, in the case of the dentist, it is in their best interest not to challenge the exiting belief.

The same is true of evolutionists. Challenging the status-quo could mean losing your job or being socially isolated.



The word pleasing was used to demonstrate how softening a word to fit your emotional scope dilutes it's integrity.

I'm trying to be considerate.

I prefer to call things just as they are.

The evolution religion is many things. Stupid is one of them.

I'm not saying that people who believe it are stupid. I'm stating that the religion itself is.

Most people who believe in evolution are not dumb. So there is a lesson to learn about human nature here.

The level of intelligence (as we currently measure it) is not linearly related to the level of common sense. Often, the opposite is true.



OK. In fact, I'll do one better.

I'll provide a new forum just for debunking the outrageous claims and deceptive word games used on the talk origins website.



Fine, but until you provide some initial piece of evidence showing that amino acids self-assemble into proteins, I'll continue to call your belief exactly what it is:

Faith.



I take Kenyon's word over yours because he is experienced in the field and appears to have no ulterior motives.

I take Kenyon's word over others because he has worked directly in the field dealing with this subject. Most biologists don't. They do things in their work that provide no evidence for or against evolution.

Additionally, you have yet to provide one piece of evidence for your faith about self-assembling amino acids.



I could not care less about his man-given title.

His experience, integrity, and common sense are more important in this context.



Instead of being concerned about why I believe what I do, why not provide your reasons for believing what you do?

Instead, you just continue with the mantra "everybody who is qualified believes it."

Do you fail to see that this mindset has been the underpinning of the tomato effect, the safety of dental amalgams, the safety of foot x-rays to determine shoe size, and a myriad of other baseless (and often harmful) beliefs.

Did you believe the $750 "bailout bill" was beneficial?

If not, why do all the people behind Obama believe it is? How could so many people be deceived?

If so, you haven't been keeping up with current events.

Do you believe the just-passed trillion-dollar stimulus bill is intended to help our economy?

If so, why is all the non-economic Orwellian stuff in their?

If not, why are there so many people supporting it?

To believe that a majority cannot be deceived is fantastically naive.



Not sure where you're coming from here.

I did read your quote and simply am asking (again) for the first piece of evidence that you base your belief in. I have yet to see it.



I'm completely open to listening to your theory about how amino acids self-assemble into proteins.



Those complex molecules were assembled by intelligent beings through intelligently-guided artificial processes.

There is no analogy here.



So, are you implying that amino acids self-assemble into proteins on the sun?

No, I know you aren't. So what are you saying the conditions are for this amazingly complex transformation to take place?

Remember, we're talking about molecules, not atoms.

Secondly, my position is that chemical reactions follow known physical laws and that no physical laws exist that facilitate the formation of symmetrical, sexual human bodies, or that facilitate the self-assembly of amino acids into proteins.

If you would like to give us an example of how you believe such bodies could have formed through natural processes, please go ahead, but until now, we have not a single example of how you believe either of these processes could happen.

Not one.



Why don't you just provide us with an example of what you believe; Why you are right?

Explain to us how these symmetrical, sexual human bodies could have formed through known natural chemical processes, or that amino acids self-assemble into proteins.

That's all.

You don't have to know anything about what Kenyon believes. We're asking you about what you believe.



Sure, that's all fine and good, but the same random external natural forces that facilitate a reaction also break reactions down.

So the real question becomes:

How could such a long, perfect sequence of events occur in a natural environment that would facilitate the building of this level of complexity, symmetry, and sexuality?

If any such amino acids did happen to combine under just the right conditions to facilitate the production of a protein, then what? Don't you think that protein would break down under the same random natural changing conditions that facilitated it?

Do you really believe that such a mind-bogglingly long sequence of perfectly orchestrated conditions could arise to facilitate the production of a cell, without fatally destructive conditions intervening?

Think probability here.

The only such string of continuously perfect conditions that could possibly occur without intervening destructive conditions would have to be intelligently guided, much like a crane being used to assemble a skyscraper, assembling the right pieces in just the right order.

To believe such a sequence of perfect events could occur through natural processes is, well:

Mathematically Absurd: Positively Ridiculous



More compelling (for now) would be your explanation of how you believe amino acids would self-assemble.