hyzer

(having early lunch, eagerly awaiting replies)

Disciple:

Please address the questions.

How about starting with your definition of “kinds”?

Peez

Disciple,

If you are going to ignore our posts and just mindlessly copy and paste text from goofy sites such as God and Science, why should we bother to respond?

Peez

acidphos

You do realize that D-amino acids are used despite what your source tells you. While the extreme majority of proteins are composed of exclusivley L-amino acids, there are specific residues in a few protiens known to be D specific, such as Asp-58 and Asp-151 in alpha crystallin (Fujii, N., Satoh, K., Harada, K. and Ishibashi, Y.: 1994a, Simultaneous Stereoinversion and Isomerization at Specific Aspartic Acid Residues in Alpha A-crystallin from Aged Human Lens, J. Biochem. 116, 663–669.)

. Further D-amino acids are biologically active as monomers and peptide chains as neuropeptides and opioids...

What sugars would those be?

Writer@Large

<Admin Hat ON>

Disciple, you are CLEARLY lifting whole passages, word-for-word, from other websites. This is PLAGIARISM, and not allowed on the IIDB.

In the future, if you are going to cut and paste from websites, you MUST put a link to those sites in your posts, or write things in YOUR OWN WORDS.

--W@L

Jinto

You have 250,000 fingers on one hand? This I'd like to see.

1. Abiogenesis, for which corroborating evidence has been provided by the Miller-Urey experiment, is such an explanation.

2. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

3. It's nonliving chemicals, not dead chemicals. Please get your terminology correct.

4. What the hell is so complex about a self-replicating polymer?

Sez you.

As the farmer observes after overusing his pesticides that insects now seem to actually like the stuff.

Which has been done.

Fortunately, there are 29 of them.

Your statement has been modified for increased accuracy. Have a nice day.

Can you please describe to me how you came up with the idea that there are ONLY 10000000010 nanoseconds in 10010101000000101111100100000000000 years?

And if everything is a process of non-random change over time, like evolution, then our thoughts are not random events and discussion of evolution is meaningful.

MrDarwin

*sigh* it's so discouraging that so many people have this misunderstanding about science. If science could only deal with events or processes that can be reproduced over and over in a laboratory setting, it would come to a grinding halt. In fact, it is the methodology that must be repeatable. Papers dealing with evolution do not have a special exemption from the "materials and methods" section.

Oolon Colluphid

Holy shit! This whole thread turns up while I'm typing two posts?!

< Gets peanuts, heads for gallery... >

ps418

Sure there are. The question is not do they exist; the question is, why do creationists continue to ignore them when the evidence that they exist is overwhelming?

No, that's obviously factually wrong. At least its obvious to anyone who knows squat about paleontology, which of course excludes most creationists. Some examples are discussed on the following pages. Whether you agree or disagree with the assessment, as I said it is nonetheless obviously factually wrong (wishful thinking) that "the number of fossils evolutionists are today seriously putting forward as intermediate forms"can be counted on one hand. Next time, plagiarize from a site that does not so quickly destroy your credibility.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

Species and Genus Level Evolution in the Fossil Record

Patrick

Spenser

It always seems to be the case that if creationist can't destroy the FACT that there IS overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred, ignore it:

LOL. I guess if you believe what the bible tells you simply because it tells you then I suppose you could believe what a Xian website tells you simply because it tells you.

Now I have heard the same proposed to me seeing as how I get much of my information from websites such as this, however, I do not see the same bias in such a website as I do in most Xian websites. Essays taken from sites like these seem to have complete bibliographies and are buried in facts that are accepted by not just atheists, but by the majority of the scientific community. They are given as factually based documents or philosophical arguments not as propaganda.

If you defend using a Xian website as source material, then shouldn't a Hindu or Muslim website be just as reliable? How about this one?

LandOverBaptist

It does no good to assert that a Xian website tells you that science has found nothing that supports evolution when the scientific community's consensus disagree. And then to avoid peoples responses to you here and in your other 'evolution just doesn't feel right' lend little credibility to your arguments. Why not think about what people here are telling you rather than dismissing it and compare it to what your websites tell, then try and figure out which is propaganda...

NumberTenOx

Jinto,

Come on, you know it's 10E26 nanoseconds ( 10E9 (nanoseconds/second) * ~3E7 (seconds/year) * 2E10 years ~= 10E26 nanoseconds). Of course, I thought the Earth was only about 4.5 billion years old, but oh well.

And 10E141 / 10E26 is about 10E115.

Of course, it's the old 747 - tornado argument.