[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 09:07:06 -0700 (PDT)

But we do not believe in what the evolutionary geologists cite, except when we 
want to use it to refute them. Oh what a tangled web we weave, er wave, weive

Misses the point ...their own data conflicts with their own 
conclustions.....regaurdless of what other model(s) are constructed........ the 
difference is why and how one can be considered more scientific even though it 
is not supported by the very observations that pretened to uphold it inspite of 
LOE.

----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 6:52:42 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution


But geologists continue to unearth rock layers dated (by evolutionary 
geologists) to the Archaean system back to the Azoic era that show the Earth's 
atmosphere was a fully oxidizing atmosphere well before life was alleged to 
begin. Earth with an oxidizing atmosphere is admitted on all sides to be the 
death knell for abiogenesis. Guess what: you can hear that bell ring -- unless, 
of course, you've got your fingers planted deep into your ears. 


Martin
 
But we do not believe in what the evolutionary geologists cite, except when we 
want to use it to refute them. Oh what a tangled web we weave, er wave, weive.. 
 hmm..  but a good reply  Martin   Phil
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Martin G. Selbrede 
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 2:20 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution




On Sep 21, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Paul Deema wrote:


What I found was that the refutation was written by M Behe. Essentially, it's 
simply him stating that what he had said originally was correct. 


No, Paul, it is not reassertion. It is appeal to the paper that Doolittle 
misquotes. Behe snagged these guys on propagating an error (even the 
misspelling of plasminogen is propagated along with the error) -- they 
misrepresented the results of knocking out parts of the genetic code of the 
mouse, declaring them to be benign. But if the females invariably die in 
pregnancy (as the actual paper stated), how do you send those genes to the next 
generation?  There can be no line of descent: nature can't select what isn't 
there. 



Further, let me understand what you seem to be saying.  Behe wrote Article X.  
Doolittle and others rebut Behe. But Behe is disallowed a counter-rebuttal -- 
you will not accept a counter-rebuttal from the person who was rebutted.  You 
want the rebuttal of Doolittle to come from someone other than Behe.  Behe is 
disqualified as a defender of his own position against clearly falsified 
criticisms against it.  I'm unaware of this new gag rule you think should be 
imposed.  If you say, "Well, there were three critics," that's untrue, because 
the other two quoted Doolittle unthinkingly, even failing to correct the 
spelling of plasminogen.  You got Doolittle, who misquoted the research on the 
mouse, and several others who repeated Doolittle's error. This is not a 
"consensus of experts," it's a scientific embarrassment.  How, precisely, is it 
then fair game to say any counter-rebuttal by Behe is disallowed?  Behe is 
simply right: Doolittle misquoted the paper. 
 Doolittle is appealed to under the "ad verecundiam" fallacy (erroneous appeal 
to authority). Doolittle simply didn't read the paper that he was quoting very 
carefully. He was flippant, and erred.  Behe read the paper.  It's letter 
simple.  For you to side with the contingent that is propagating nonsensical 
error about what happens to the mice under the given circumstance is beyond my 
ability to comprehend. This is really a simple question: did the mice in the 
experiment die?  Yes they did. Doolittle said they didn't. The experimenters 
have mouse corpses on their hands. Do you believe the experimenters 
peer-reviewed journal article, or Doolittle's gross misquotation of it?  For 
someone who talks about the value of experimental science and confirmed 
results, you're standing on the wrong side of the fence on this one, Paul.


As to abiogenesis, one of the better go-to sources on this is the 1984 book, 
"The Mystery of Life's Origin," written by three scientists each with earned 
Ph.D.s (Thaxton and Olsons are in chemistry, while Bradley's is in mechanical 
engineering and physical processes). The book requires the reader to have a 
college-level understanding of physical chemistry to understand its argument. 
It is rife with chemical reactions expressed in terms of the Gibbs Free Energy 
that enables the reaction to go forward. There is an energy threshold below 
which a reaction CAN NOT GO FORWARD. If these energy barriers exist in the 
alleged chain to get to any critical "life molecules," their natural synthesis 
is rendered impossible. These are issues in Physical Chemistry, and rotate 
around one issue: Gibbs Free Energy. If you don't have enough, you're dead in 
the water. Or, rather, you're non-living in the water. You don't have a 
prebiotic soup but an abiotic soup. I gather
 from the Amazon reviews that nobody (friend or foe) grasped the key challenge 
this book puts forth. It was compelling enough for Dean Kenyon, chairman of the 
biology department at the Universsity of California at San Francisco, to write 
the foreword to the volume. But as I said, the commentators didn't even get it. 
When Thaxton, Bradley and Olson say that you can't get there from here, they 
don't merely assert it, they prove it with the laws of chemical reactions.  
This is an open and shut case. The book is available "used" on Amazon. Note the 
idiotic review on Amazon by Tom Sullivan, who didn't even read the book (he 
thinks it's a film he's reviewing!  What a meatball! No critique of the book 
that fails to engage its fundamental discussion of Gibbs Free Energy has any 
value, since THAT is the central fatal point being made throughout its 
chapters.)


http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Lifes-Origin-Reassessing-Theories/dp/0802224466/ref=sr_1_1/002-9877777-4121665?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190390175&sr=1-1


If that weren't bad enough, even the advocates of abiogenesis teach that the 
Earth had to have a reducing atmosphere for their alleged phenomenon to get off 
the ground. But geologists continue to unearth rock layers dated (by 
evolutionary geologists) to the Archaean system back to the Azoic era that show 
the Earth's atmosphere was a fully oxidizing atmosphere well before life was 
alleged to begin. Earth with an oxidizing atmosphere is admitted on all sides 
to be the death knell for abiogenesis. Guess what: you can hear that bell ring 
-- unless, of course, you've got your fingers planted deep into your ears.


Martin







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 20/09/2007 
12:07 PM

Other related posts: