Denying Climate Science

[Eddie_T]

Perhaps is a pretty big assumption, but evolutionists fall for it every time.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

Perhaps is a pretty big assumption, but evolutionists fall for it every time.

That's why they are called HYPOTHESES, not THEORIES. Evolution is demonstrably true. Mutations have been observed to have been propagated; mutations that offer a significant advantage have been observed to propagate at greater rates than those that offer no significant advantage. The propagation of these traits has resulted in creatures who can trace their lineage back to a common ancestor, but who can no longer reliably reproduce with eachother.

These are all facts.

Creationism is a hypothesis. Creationism does not compete with evolution, but with the various abiogenesis hypotheses that have been suggested by scientists. These abiogenesis hypotheses ARE testable. Had Urey and Miller discovered no amino acids from their experiments, or had science run into insurmountable roadblocks at every turn in their studies, it would be a different story, but scientists haven't found such roadblocks.

Creationism competes with the "aliens did it" hypothesis as well.

The "god-did-it" form of creationism is untestable, non-falsifiable, and thus outside the realm of science. Believe it if you must, but there is nothing scientific about it.

[Eddie_T]

The Miller experiment used intelligence to create what was ?perhaps? a simulated primordial soup, so it?s based upon initial conjecture. Next, they provided high energy sparks to hydrogen-rich gases ?thought? to exist on primal earth, another big assumption. The experiment did yield some amino acids and though heralded as a victory it may be the opposite as it yielded a few right and left handed amino acids. Life?s proteins require left handed amino acids and left handed only, even one right handed amino acid would render the protein inoperable. Miller?s experiment had no element of randomness it made several perhaps and assumptive decisions and was controlled by the intelligence of the experimenter. According to wikianswers, ?A typical protein contains 200-300 amino acids but some are much smaller (the smallest are often called peptides) and some much larger (the largest to date is titin a protein found in skeletal and cardiac muscle; it contains 26,926 amino acids in a single chain!).?

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

The Miller experiment used intelligence to create what was “perhaps” a simulated primordial soup, so it’s based upon initial conjecture. Next, they provided high energy sparks to hydrogen-rich gases “thought” to exist on primal earth, another big assumption. The experiment did yield some amino acids and though heralded as a victory it may be the opposite as it yielded a few right and left handed amino acids. Life’s proteins require left handed amino acids and left handed only, even one right handed amino acid would render the protein inoperable. Miller’s experiment had no element of randomness it made several perhaps and assumptive decisions and was controlled by the intelligence of the experimenter. According to wikianswers, “A typical protein contains 200-300 amino acids but some are much smaller (the smallest are often called peptides) and some much larger (the largest to date is titin a protein found in skeletal and cardiac muscle; it contains 26,926 amino acids in a single chain!).”

The Urey-Miller experiment didn't attempt to prove that life developed spontaneously. That is NOT an appropriate conclusion to draw from that experiment.

The test confirmed that a pre-existing biological process was not needed to assemble the component molecules into amino acids.

Many other experiments have confirmed Urey-Miller's conclusions. Many have expanded upon those experiments, adjusting the parameters, adjusting the assumptions you've presented. Taken all together, it becomes quite obvious that there are a LOT of environment where amino acids will spontaneously form. And yes, there are some environments that are utterly hostile to amino acid formation.

Does that prove abiogenesis and disprove "god-did-it" creationism? Of course not. It DOES disprove the notion that life had to exist before amino acids could be synthesized, which is one of the things that can falsify abiogenesis.


Everything you've mentioned is normal, natural, and appropriate skepticism that presents new questions and demands new answers. The difference between science and theism is whether or not a final conclusion is made before those questions are answered.

But again - NONE of this challenges evolutionary theory any more than relativity challenges the idea that objects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Regardless of whether life developed spontaneously, was transplanted here by mindless processes or alien intervention, or was created by a divine entity, evolution occurred.

[blucher]

Bachmann, not so much.

Perry's executive order is backed by scientific data. The CDC says all girls reaching 12 years of age should have the vaccine. There is no treatment with good results for the 45,000 cases of neck and head cancer adults may develop.
35 million have been vaccinated. 19,000 of those 35 million reported side effects. The vast majority of those was soreness or itching at the vaccination site.

Most adults go undiagnosed too long because the symptoms could be as mundane as a sore throat or an earache.

I've found life can often be reduced to simple odds. I suck at math but if there are 1000 thousands in a million and 35 thousand thousands versus 19,000 (minus the sore vaccination spot issues) means the odds are incontestantly massively in support of getting this vaccine.

Bachmann made a big deal of attackung Perry on this in the last debate, In a later interview she claimed to have met a woman whose daughter became retarded from this injection.

Turns out either the woman lied to Bachmann or the more likely case that she was the liar looking for poll numbers. There is absolutely no correlation between MR and the vaccine.