Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Death Knell for Life from an RNA world

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The RNA world hypothesis, to be true, has to overcome  major hurdles:

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life#3414

1. Life uses only right-handed RNA and DNA. The homochirality problem is unsolved. This is an “intractable problem” for chemical evolution
2. RNA has been called a “prebiotic chemist’s nightmare” because of its combination of large size, carbohydrate building blocks, bonds that are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsic instability. Many bonds in RNA are thermodynamically unstable with respect to hydrolysis in water, creating a “water problem”. Finally, some bonds in RNA appear to be “impossible” to form under any conditions considered plausible for early Earth.   In chemistry, when free energy is applied to organic matter without Darwinian evolution, the matter devolves to become more and more “asphaltic”, as the atoms in the mixture are rearranged to give ever more molecular species. In the resulting “asphaltization”, what was life comes to display fewer and fewer characteristics of life.
3. Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software and vice versa.
4. A certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded
5. RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes
6. In order a molecule to be a self-replicator, it has to be a homopolymer, of which the backbone must have the same repetitive units; they must be identical. In the prebiotic world, the generation of a homopolymer was however impossible.
7. Not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10^24) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences.  
8. Over time, organic molecules break apart as fast as they form
9. How could and would random events attach a phosphate group to the right position of a ribose molecule to provide the necessary chemical activity? And how would non-guided random events be able to attach the nucleic bases to the ribose?  The coupling of ribose with a nucleotide is the first step to form RNA, and even those engrossed in prebiotic research have difficulty envisioning that process, especially for purines and pyrimidines.”
10. L. E. Orgel:  The myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist’s view of RNA’s catalytic potential.
11. Macromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules
125. The transition from RNA to DNA is an unsolved problem. 
13. To go from a self-replicating RNA molecule to a self-replicating cell is like to go from a house building block to a fully built house. 
14. Arguably one of the most outstanding problems in understanding the progress of early life is the transition from the RNA world to the modern protein-based world. 31
15. It is thought that the boron minerals needed to form RNA from pre-biotic soups were not available on early Earth in sufficient quantity, and the molybdenum minerals were not available in the correct chemical form. 33
16. Given the apparent limitation of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) genomes to about 30 kb, together with the complexity of DNA synthesis, it appears dif¢cult for a dsRNA genome to encode all the information required before the transition from an RNA to a DNA genome. Ribonucleotide reductase itself, which synthesizes deoxyribonucleotides from ribonucleotides, requires complex protein radical chemistry, and RNA world genomes may have reached their limits of coding capacity well before such complex enzymes had evolved.

Comments
PM1, I have really enjoyed your comments on this and other threads. You have a knack for being able to cut through ideological rhetoric and put things in perspective. Marx and Darwin’s ideas are no more responsible for Stalin’s and Mao’s acts, eugenics and racism, than Jesus’s ideas were responsible for the crusades, witch trials, indigenous genocides or other atrocities of colonialism. Anyone who makes such claims is either ignorant or disingenuous. Or both.Ford Prefect
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
F/N, I think this text, quoted from Paul at Mars Hill, is quite relevant:
Ac 17: 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;4 as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’5
KFkairosfocus
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
PMI “And if that’s right, then “ideas have consequences” is false — by your own admission.” Are you saying ALL ideas do not have consequences or that some do and some don’t? Vividvividbleau
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1 @60,
If bad people will always exploit an idea to rationalize their bad choices, then it’s hard to see how the content of that idea makes any difference.
I agree with you that regardless of Marx or Jesus. The institutionalization of their teachings often bear little or no resemblance to their teachings. The institutionalization of Marx's ideas resulted in the deaths of at least 150,000,000 humans. The institutionalization of Christianity produced results OPPOSITE of what Jesus taught. This led to Frederick Douglass writing the following:
I find, since reading over the foregoing Narrative, that I have, in several instances, spoken in such a tone and manner, respecting religion, as may possibly lead those unacquainted with my religious views to suppose me an opponent of all religion. To remove the liability of such misapprehension, I deem it proper to append the following brief explanation. What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference — so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. – Appendix to Life of an American Slave, Frederick Douglass, 1845
But Yeshua ha Mashiach foresaw what would happen, and here's how he warned his followers:
“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. . . . Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire . . . “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ – Jesus, Matthew :15-16a, 21-23 NASB
What does this tell you about institutionalization in general? What does it tell you about the concentration of POWER: political, economic, social, religious, academic, artistic, news media, medical, agricultural, pharmaceutical, and so on? Let me suggest that in human society, POWER always tends to concentrate and there's very little that redistributes POWER. Even the violent overthrow of oppressive forces or economic collapse of a wildly top-heavy and corrupt ruling class as we see in most countries and all empires, the United States more and more obviously included, merely sets oppression back a few years as a new crop of rulers and warlords happily take over.
Jesus answered [Pilate], “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews [Judean elite]; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” - Jesus, John 18:36 NASB
-QQuerius
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1 @62, Your point is taken. First of all, it's important to understand your paraphrase in context. So, let me offer you the OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN the actual quote by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Messianic believers in Galatia (now a part of modern-day Turkey):
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise. – Apostle Paul, Galatians 3:27-28 NASB ~49 AD
Note that the cultures and classes within the cultures at that time were profoundly polarized and misogyny was pervasive and rampant in Jewish, Greek, and Roman societies. -QQuerius
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Seversky at 65, Anyone among your relatives that served in the military? Charged with crimes? Not just against 'preferred' persons. Lately, if black people, for example, kill black people that's not as bad as white man kills black man. Or did you grow up among 'perfect people' who cannot be accused of anything?relatd
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Seversky at 66, We - The Left - are the self-appointed and self-proclaimed heroes of the marginalized. We will tell you what to believe, what to focus on and what to ignore. We are the new dictatorship. Say a word against us and our goals and we will look through all your Twitter posts for evidence of "crimes" against us and CENSOR you. But since we are also also champions of Free Speech, we can't use the word censor. We picked CANCEL to confuse everyone. Open up your Bible for truths worth knowing. Drop ALL the beloved, script-reading actors on TV posing as 'real commentators.'relatd
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Relatd/64
And we see the list of the Preferred Peoples emerge. Marxists Homosexuals Indigenous people
Not "Preferred" but not marginalized and oppressed either.
To all reading, there are truths worth knowing.
Such as? Please enlighten us.Seversky
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1/56
I would also say that any numbers about comparing genocides should also take into account total and local populations at the time, as well as levels of technology — it’s much easier to kill lots of people with machine guns than with swords. But technology is not the only issue — I believe the Rwanda genocide was mostly carried out with machetes.
I would say that comparing casualty rates is a distraction from the real issue, which is that Christians, who claim to hold themselves to much higher moral standards, should not be killing other people at all let alone in large numbers.Seversky
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
And we see the list of the Preferred Peoples emerge. Marxists Homosexuals Indigenous people To all reading, there are truths worth knowing.relatd
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
"he good thought “all humans are one in Christ” easily lends itself to the bad thought “anyone who rejects Christ is not really human”. PM1, I don't know that it easily does. Your suggested interpretation is a pretty far stretch. Centralization is not quite as poetic. Centralization can include more specific mental suggestions about control. Andrewasauber
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
@61
Maybe the content makes their exploitation easier. For example: “Gee Whiz, it would be nice to centralize, so it’s more efficient”… Great idea! wink wink
By the same token, the good thought "all humans are one in Christ" easily lends itself to the bad thought "anyone who rejects Christ is not really human". (Regardless of the fact that centralized planning is not really all that important to what Marx talked about. In fact he was very clear that describing what would replace capitalism was not something he was interested in.)PyrrhoManiac1
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
"it’s hard to see how the content of that idea makes any difference" Maybe the content makes their exploitation easier. For example: "Gee Whiz, it would be nice to centralize, so it's more efficient"... Great idea! wink wink Andrewasauber
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
@59
“ideas have consequences” is true because a lot of times good ideas enable bad actors. So the Great Idea is only as good as the person who acts on it. People will ALWAYS attempt to exploit circumstances to one degree or another for selfish purposes.
If bad people will always exploit an idea to rationalize their bad choices, then it's hard to see how the content of that idea makes any difference. And if that's right, then "ideas have consequences" is false -- by your own admission.PyrrhoManiac1
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
"ideas have consequences” is true because a lot of times good ideas enable bad actors. So the Great Idea is only as good as the person who acts on it. People will ALWAYS attempt to exploit circumstances to one degree or another for selfish purposes. The "correct" interpretation of Marxism is kind of irrelevant to this more important point. Andrewasauber
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
@57
But is subjugation of un-Christian cultures what Jesus actually taught?, or is it directly at odds with what Jesus taught? Without even quoting scripture, I hold that it is common knowledge that Christ instructs Christians to endure persecution, and Christ definitely does not instruct his followers to inflict persecution on those who are not Christian.
Oh, I completely agree. Then again, I had been arguing that the state terrorism by self-described "Communist" states was directly at odds with what Marx and Engels said. Those arguments were routinely mocked, especially with the phrase "ideas have consequences". If "ideas have consequences" traces a direct link from Marx to Stalinism regardless of the fact that Stalin's actions directly oppose Marx's theories, then why doesn't "ideas have consequences" trace a direct link from Jesus to the conquistadors regardless of the fact that the conquistadors' actions directly oppose Jesus's teachings? To be clear, I don't think that either attempt to trace a link is successful, and I also think (much more generally) "ideas have consequences" was always a terrible idea.PyrrhoManiac1
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
"the argument given by European theologians was that those people deserved what they got because they rejected Christ." But is subjugation of un-Christian cultures what Jesus actually taught?, or is it directly at odds with what Jesus taught? Without even quoting scripture, I hold that it is common knowledge that Christ instructs Christians to endure persecution, and Christ definitely does not instruct his followers to inflict persecution on those who are not Christian.bornagain77
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
@52
Indigenous people (thought to be subhuman for some reason): Unknown millions of people from tribes and people groups in Canada, United States, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Australia, western China, Africa, etc.
For the first few hundred years of colonialism, the argument given by European theologians was that those people deserved what they got because they rejected Christ. A priest would read out the Gospel (in Latin, of course) and demand those present to be converted or die (in Latin). This is not the whole story about how Europeans justified colonialism. John Locke gave wholly secular arguments for legitimizing slavery and genocide. I would also say that any numbers about comparing genocides should also take into account total and local populations at the time, as well as levels of technology -- it's much easier to kill lots of people with machine guns than with swords. But technology is not the only issue -- I believe the Rwanda genocide was mostly carried out with machetes.PyrrhoManiac1
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
A timely upload from Kirk Durston
Has Christianity been the best (or worst) thing ever for humanity? https://youtu.be/Ek0a97qT3YY?t=397 Kirk Durston: Michael Horner, a philosopher and apologist drops by to discuss his research on Christianity and its effects on history.
bornagain77
January 12, 2023
January
01
Jan
12
12
2023
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Querius @20 Nicely putram
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Q Don’t forget the 100s of millions. Now this , so sick https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-vote-against-bill-requiring-medical-care-babies-born-alive-abortion-attempt Vividvividbleau
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
JVL @46,
Over the last 2000 years which belief paradigm has been responsible for more times that one group of people has thought it fair game to oppress and marginalise another group? Not the number of people, the number of times it has happened. Which belief paradigm would that be . . .
Let's put these horrors into perspective, but I'll leave the counting and addition up to you: Political Genocides (approximate) Mao Zedong: 70,000,000 Joseph Stalin: 20,000,000 Adolph Hitler: 17,000,000 Chinese Nationalists: 9,000,000 Imperial Japan: 9,000,000 Leopold II Belgium: 9,000,000 (Congolese) Ranavalona I: 2,500,000 (Madagascar) Khmer Rouge: 2,000,000 Ottomans: 2,000,000 (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians) North Korea: 2,000,000 Hutu in Rwanda: 600,000 (Tutsi and moderates) Indigenous people (thought to be subhuman for some reason): Unknown millions of people from tribes and people groups in Canada, United States, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Australia, western China, Africa, etc. Eugenicists believed they needed to be humanely eliminated. "Christian" Religious Genocides Louis XIV: 5,000-30,000 (French Huguenots) Henry VIII, Elizabeth I: 20,000 (Catholics) Spanish Inquisition: 5,000 (latest estimates) Accused witches in the American colonies: 24 I'd say that the most murderous belief paradigm responsible was the large number of Communist revolutions and the purges that followed. -QQuerius
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Whatever JVL, I've got better things to do. I'm satisfied to let my answers stand as stated. I am sure unbiased readers can judge for themselves.bornagain77
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
JVL, Okay. First, we start with "who has the highest body count"? Atheist Russia? Atheist China? How about Pol Pot in Cambodia? Let's start at the Year Zero? And then we go to "progressive" which translates as "Only what Leftists and Atheists want." "Enlightened" has the same definition. And NO ONE is enlightened or compassionate if he does not accept homosexuals? And then you have the nerve to make fictional accusations/assumptions? Is that rational? "Will any of you say he’s not a good Christian because he refuses to condone or accept homosexuals? No, you won’t. Because you can’t call each other out. Because you can’t agree on what Christianity actually says about homosexuals. Which means it can’t be trusted to be in charge in a modern world. It doesn’t know what it really says." You have just failed Christianity 101. YOU, yes you, have joined the ranks of the Official Accusers whose job it is to accuse everybody. Is that your purpose? Your mission here? ARE YOU PERFECT? WITHOUT FAULT? It seems to me that all Official Accusers are self-appointed and hold the belief that they are More Perfect/Better than Others. Is that you? And then you offer The Official Accuser Challenge. Among many more to come. What would Jesus say about homosexuals? He would say what He said about all men. Matthew 13:15 "For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ "heal them" from what? Sin. Romans 3:10 "as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;' "Which means it can’t be trusted to be in charge in a modern world. It doesn’t know what it really says." Here is the plan as I see it and it is documented. Infiltrate the media and all places of power. Infiltrate churches as much as possible and convince them of certain things at odds with Biblical truths. So you, and other fallible men, because of your self-perceived special status, can be trusted? You decide what is good and right. You decide the ways you can phrase things so as to confuse and convince the people. Then, when the numbers go up, you can claim victory for those on your list of Preferred Peoples. I hope you don't think people are ignoring the falsehoods and distortions. "modern world"? You mean - Not two months ago? It is clear to me that the definition of "modern world" among Official Accusers is a statement that reads: "We're going to change everything to what we want and like whether people want it or not." So, the Official Accusers are the New Oppressors who only want power so as to get their way. Jesus wanted everyone to come to Him. To learn from Him and to be healed from sin.relatd
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: Unlike Darwinism for which there is no rigid falsification criteria, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can falsify ID by showing that unguided material processes are capable of creating a code. I wasn't talking about ID, I was talking about Christianity. Which is based on personally held beliefs and convictions but no scientific evidence. In laughing off the list of Christian founders of modern science it seems that you forgot to notice that there is not one single atheist on that entire list of founders of all the major branches of science. If you had a speck of honesty within yourself, you would rightly ask yourself “why are no atheists are on that list?” But alas, honesty is not to be found in JVL’s reasoning. There are duplicates on the list. That is true. And who's to say if some of those people might not have been atheists if they had lived during a time when it was acceptable. When people were persecuted and, sometimes, put to death for disagreeing with the church who can blame them for toeing the party line? Then JVL resorts to the “well Christianity, over its entire history, is ALMOST as bad as atheism has been in its 100 years of dominance” line of reasoning. That I would even have to point out the fallacious logic behind that entire line of reasoning is a sad testimony to just how biased JVL is against Christianity. Let me get this straight . . . are you denying the fact that over hundreds and hundreds of years Christian leaders and countries persecuted non-believers? That's not a bias, that's just a fact. And if you can't acknowledge that fact then you are delusional. The very least you can do is to acknowledge the hideous acts carried out in the name of God in the past. The pages of history are full of them; to refuse to acknowledge them is not only ignorant, it's lying. It's intentionally perpetrating a falsehood. Is that what you want to do? Let's take a particular example . . . do you think the streets of Jerusalem were running with blood from the people the Crusaders killed according to contemporary reports? Did that happen?JVL
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
"Oh dear. Considering you own personal beliefs are completely untestable don’t you think you should refrain from pointing fingers, especially when you don’t understand the mathematics and the science?" You are, as usual, completely wrong again. Unlike Darwinism for which there is no rigid falsification criteria, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can falsify ID by showing that unguided material processes are capable of creating a code.
Where did the information come from? An answer will trigger a quantum leap in Artificial Intelligence. This may be as big as the transistor or the discovery of DNA itself. A new $10 million prize seeks a definitive answer.,,, What You Must Do to Win The Prize You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without "cheating." The diagram below describes the system. Without explicitly designing the system, your experiment must generate an encoder that sends digital code to a decoder. Your system needs to transmit at least five bits of information. (In other words it has to be able to represent 32 states. The genetic code supports 64.) You have to be able to draw an encoding and decoding table and determine whether or not the data has been transmitted successfully. So, for example, an RNA based origin of life experiment will be considered successful if it contains an encoder, message and decoder as described above. To our knowledge, this has never been done. https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
As to: "hahahahahah. You do realise that some of the people on your list are listed twice? And calling Da Vinci a scientists is really going a bit far don’t you think? And Euler? A scientist? And Gauss? Seriously? Too funny." In laughing off the list of Christian founders of modern science it seems that JVL forgot to notice that there is not one single atheist on that entire list of founders of all the major branches of science. If JVL had a speck of honesty within himself, he would rightly ask himself "why are no atheists are on that list?" But alas, honesty is not to be found in JVL's reasoning. Then JVL resorts to the "well Christianity, over its entire history, is ALMOST as bad as atheism has been in its 100 years of dominance" line of reasoning. That I would even have to point out the fallacious logic behind that entire line of reasoning is a sad testimony to just how biased JVL is against Christianity.bornagain77
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Relatd: The clear connection between what Darwin wrote and the Nazi state and Communism shows that this atheist idea served the thinking of certain men as they used it to organize their countries. Like it or not, the common people were taught to believe it. Ideas like racial purity and ways of organizing society were then adopted as reasons for killing certain people. And that never, ever happened when Christianity was the dominate paradigm? Really? So the pogroms against the Jews in Europe don't count? So the Crusades against the Muslims don't count? So the Waldensian and Albigensian crusades don't count? So the fact that good, God-fearing Christians supported slavery for centuries doesn't count? And woman were not allowed to vote or hold property or participate in most athletics events by good Christians doesn't count? Look at history. Really look at history. For the first 1900 years of the existence of Christianity there were few to no atheistic states. But there was lots and lots of oppression and marginalisation of people thought to be unworthy or less than human. By good Christians. For hundreds and hundreds of years. And some Christians are still trying to stop some people whose life-style or ethos they disagree with from having a say or sharing the same rights that they enjoy. Not atheists, Christians are the ones who are saying homosexuals can't get married, shouldn't have equal protection under the law, etc. Look at history. The vast majority of the times that someone or a group of people have been treated badly was by people of faith. Over hundreds and hundreds of years. Some of you are better now. But not all of you. Kairosfocus won't even discuss homosexuality. He calls it a perversion. And that's being enlightened? That's being compassionate? That's being progressive? Will any of you say he's not a good Christian because he refuses to condone or accept homosexuals? No, you won't. Because you can't call each other out. Because you can't agree on what Christianity actually says about homosexuals. Which means it can't be trusted to be in charge in a modern world. It doesn't know what it really says. Here's a challenge: what would Jesus say about homosexuals? Can Christians agree about that?JVL
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: Yes please, indeed, let’s be abundantly clear, Darwin’s theory is not now, nor has it ever been, a testable scientific theory, but has always been a pseudo-scientific theory that is almost wholly, if not wholly, reliant on the unrestrained imagination of ‘just-so story telling’ . Oh dear. Considering you own personal beliefs are completely untestable don't you think you should refrain from pointing fingers, especially when you don't understand the mathematics and the science? And in so far as Darwin ‘changed the scientific landscape’. let’s also be abundantly clear that Charles Darwin dragged science from the Christian pedestal from which it was born into the sewer of atheistic materialism. hahahahahah. You do realise that some of the people on your list are listed twice? And calling Da Vinci a scientists is really going a bit far don't you think? And Euler? A scientist? And Gauss? Seriously? Too funny. Science owes nothing to Charles Darwin but the utmost contempt for his pseudo-scientific theory that has wrought so much death and destruction on human societies. Uh huh. And Christianity has a clean slate in that regard? It has never, ever incited people to kill or conquer in its name. Seriously? Over the last 2000 years which belief paradigm has been responsible for more times that one group of people has thought it fair game to oppress and marginalise another group? Not the number of people, the number of times it has happened. Which belief paradigm would that be . . .JVL
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Ba77, The clear connection between what Darwin wrote and the Nazi state and Communism shows that this atheist idea served the thinking of certain men as they used it to organize their countries. Like it or not, the common people were taught to believe it. Ideas like racial purity and ways of organizing society were then adopted as reasons for killing certain people. Fast forward to today, and read what the National Academy of Science has to say. Again, we see another example of people promoting Darwin's ideas and facing some resistance. https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion This has propaganda value for the ongoing promotion of atheism. After all, human beings are just evolutionary accidents. So we see in the present, an ongoing attempt to devalue human beings. To distort our true identity to the idea that nothing made us. Therefore, there is no higher being involved. No God. The leaders of the former Soviet Union would be proud. Let's look at the practical results of such an idea being heavily promoted in the West, including here. You are just another organism who can be manipulated by men. The focus is what man can write in books, or who appear on TV or who head certain secular organizations. You are trained to not look beyond them. Man defines man and uses men for profit and other reasons. Yet there is a higher power. He has an identity. He made us. Science can't acknowledge Him and neither should you. You need to worship MAN. He will guide you and mislead you, use you for good or abuse you for gain. Fallible man is the golden calf. MAN, with all his faults, is incapable of the perfect good that is God, though we should strive for holiness. So God and religion are mocked. If you are religious, make sure to keep your beliefs to yourself or in your Church. Don't talk about God. Worship science or politics or people on TV. Put your trust in fallible man. Not God. Who is perfect. THIS is the primary issue here. A conflict between atheists and Judeo-Christians. That needs to be understood.relatd
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
"And, let’s be clear: Darwin changed the scientific landscape. Dr Tour hasn’t come close to that." Yes please, indeed, let's be abundantly clear, Darwin's theory is not now, nor has it ever been, a testable scientific theory, but has always been a pseudo-scientific theory that is almost wholly, if not wholly, reliant on the unrestrained imagination of 'just-so story telling' .
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530
And in so far as Darwin 'changed the scientific landscape'. let's also be abundantly clear that Charles Darwin dragged science from the Christian pedestal from which it was born into the sewer of atheistic materialism.
Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in God - Tihomir Dimitrov - (pg. 235) Scientific Disciplines – Bible-believing Scientists 1. Analytical Geometry – Rene Descartes – (1596-1650) 2. Anesthesiology – James Simpson – (1811-1870) 3. Antiseptic Surgery – Joseph Lister – (1827-1912) 4. Astronautics – Hermann Oberth – (1894-1989) – Wernher Von Braun – (1912-1977) 5. Atomic Physics – Joseph J. Thomson – (1856-1940) 6. Bacteriology – Louis Pasteur – (1822-1895) 7. Biology – John Ray – (1627-1705) 8. Calculus – Isaac Newton – (1642-1727) – Gottfried Leibniz – (1646-1716) 9. Cardiology – William Harvey – (1578-1657) 10. Celestial Mechanics – Johannes Kepler – (1571-1630) 11. Chemistry – Robert Boyle – (1627-1691) 12. Comparative Anatomy – Georges Cuvier – (1769-1832) 13. Computer Science – Charles Babbage – (1791-1871) 14. Cryology – Lord Kelvin – (1824-1907) 15. Differential Geometry – Carl Friedrich Gauss – (1777-1855) 16. Dimensional Analysis – Lord Rayleigh – (1842-1919) 17. Dynamics – Isaac Newton – (1642-1727) 18. Electrodynamics – James Clerk Maxwell – (1831-1879) Andre-marie Ampere – (1775-1836) 19. Electro-magnetics – Michael Faraday – (1791-1867) 20. Electronics – John Ambrose Fleming – (1849-1945) Michael Faraday – (1791-1867) 21. Electrophysiology – John Eccles – (1903-1997) 22. Embriology – William Harvey – (1578-1657) 23. Energetics – Lord Kelvin – (1824-1907) 24. Entomology Of Living Insects – Henri Fabre – (1823-1915) 25. Experimental Physics – Galileo Galilei – (1564-1642) 26. Field Theory – Michael Faraday – (1791-1867) 27. Fluid Mechanics – George Stokes – (1819-1903) 28. Galactic Astronomy – William Herschel – (1738-1822) 29. Gas Dynamics – Robert Boyle – (1627-1691) 30. Genetics – Gregor Mendel – (1822-1884) 31. Geology – Nicolaus Steno – (1638-1686) 32. Glacial Geology – Louis Agassiz – (1807-1873) 33. Gynecology – James Simpson – (1811-1870) 34. Heliocentric Cosmology – Nicolaus Copernicus – (1473-1543) 35. Hydraulics – Leonardo Da Vinci – (1452-1519) 36. Hydrodynamics – Blaise Pascal – (1623-1662) 37. Hydrography – Matthew Maury – (1806-1873) 38. Hydrostatics – Blaise Pascal – (1623-1662) 39. Ichthyology – Louis Agassiz -(1807-1873) 40. Immunology – Louis Pasteur – (1822-1895) 41. Isotopic Chemistry – William Ramsay – (1852-1916) 42. Laser Science – Charles Townes – (1915-2015) – Arthur Schawlow – (1921-1999) 43. Mathematical Analysis – Leonhard Euler – (1707-1783) 44. Microbiology – Louis Pasteur – (1822-1895) 45. Mineralogy – Georgius Agricola – (1494-1555) 46. Model Analysis – Lord Rayleigh – (1842-1919) 47. Modern Medicine – William Harvey – (1578-1657) 48. Nanotechnology – Richard Smalley – (1943-2005) 49. Natural History – John Ray – (1627-1705) 50. Non-euclidean Geometry – Bernhard Riemann – (1826-1866) 51. Number Theory – Carl Friedrich Gauss – (1777-1855) 52. Oceanography – Matthew Maury – (1806-1873) 53. Optical Mineralogy – David Brewster – (1781-1868) 54. Optics – Johannes Kepler – (1571-1630) 55. Paleontology – John Woodward – (1665-1728) – Georges Cuvier – (1769-1832) 56. Pathology – Rudolph Virchow – (1821-1902) 57. Physical Astronomy – Johannes Kepler – (1571-1630) 58. Physical Chemistry – Mikhail Lomonosov – (1711-1765) 59. Physiology – William Harvey – (1578-1657) 60. Quantum Mechanics – Max Planck – (1858-1947) – Werner Heisenberg – (1901-1976) 61. Reversible Thermodynamics – James Joule – (1818-1889) 62. Statistical Thermodynamics – James Clerk Maxwell – (1831-1879) 63. Stratigraphy – Nicolaus Steno – (1638-1686) 64. Systematic Biology – Carolus Linnaeus – (1707-1778) 65. Taxonomy – John Ray – (1627-1705) 66. Thermodynamics – Lord Kelvin – (1824-1907) 67. Thermokinetics – Humphry Davy – (1778-1829) 68. Transplantology – Alexis Carrel – (1873-1944) – Joseph E. Murray – (1919-2012) 69. Vertebrate Paleontology – Georges Cuvier – (1769-1832) 70. Wave Mechanics – Erwin Schroedinger – (1887-1961) https://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal
Science owes nothing to Charles Darwin but the utmost contempt for his pseudo-scientific theory that has wrought so much death and destruction on human societies.
100 Years of Communism—and 100 Million Dead - Nov 6, 2017 The Bolshevik plague that began in Russia was the greatest catastrophe in human history Excerpt: In a 1920 speech to the Komsomol, Lenin said that communists subordinate morality to the class struggle. Good was anything that destroyed “the old exploiting society” and helped to build a “new communist society.” This approach separated guilt from responsibility. Martyn Latsis, an official of the Cheka, Lenin’s secret police, in a 1918 instruction to interrogators, wrote: “We are not waging war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. . . . Do not look for evidence that the accused acted in word or deed against Soviet power. The first question should be to what class does he belong. . . . It is this that should determine his fate.” Such convictions set the stage for decades of murder on an industrial scale. In total, no fewer than 20 million Soviet citizens were put to death by the regime or died as a direct result of its repressive policies. This does not include the millions who died in the wars, epidemics and famines that were predictable consequences of Bolshevik policies, if not directly caused by them. The victims include 200,000 killed during the Red Terror (1918-22); 11 million dead from famine and dekulakization; 700,000 executed during the Great Terror (1937-38); 400,000 more executed between 1929 and 1953; 1.6 million dead during forced population transfers; and a minimum 2.7 million dead in the Gulag, labor colonies and special settlements. To this list should be added nearly a million Gulag prisoners released during World War II into Red Army penal battalions, where they faced almost certain death; the partisans and civilians killed in the postwar revolts against Soviet rule in Ukraine and the Baltics; and dying Gulag inmates freed so that their deaths would not count in official statistics. If we add to this list the deaths caused by communist regimes that the Soviet Union created and supported—including those in Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia—the total number of victims is closer to 100 million. That makes communism the greatest catastrophe in human history. https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/100-years-of-communism-and-100-million-dead Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010 Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx – “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.” Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 – “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote – “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote – “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?” To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/ “V.I. Lenin, creator of the Soviet totalitarian state, kept a little statue on his desk—an ape sitting on a pile of books including mine [The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life], gazing at a human skull. And Mao Zedong, butcher of the tens of millions of his own countrymen, who regarded the German ‘Darwinismus’ writings as the foundation of Chinese ‘scientific socialism.’ This disciple mandated my works as reading material for the indoctrination phase of his lethal Great Leap Forward.” – Nickell John Romjue, I, Charles Darwin, p. 45 Stalin’s Brutal Faith Excerpt: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates: “I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said: “‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’ “I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before. “‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed. “‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said. “‘What book is that?’ I enquired. “‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me” 1 1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. ,,, http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/ Darwin and Mao: The Influence of Evolutionary Thought on Modern China – 2/13/2013 Excerpt: Mao and his fellow Communists, “found in Marxism what seemed to them the fittest faith on Earth to help China to survive.” He concludes his article thus: “This was not, of course, all Darwin’s doing, but Darwin was involved in it all. To believe in Marxism, one had to believe in inexorable forces pushing mankind, or at least the elect, to inevitable progress, through set stages (which could, however, be skipped). One had to believe that history was a violent, hereditary class struggle (almost a ‘racial’ struggle); that the individual must be severely subordinated to the group; that an enlightened group must lead the people for their own good; that the people must not be humane to their enemies; that the forces of history assured victory to those who were right and who struggled.” Who taught Chinese these things? Marx? Mao? No. Darwin. https://nonnobis.weebly.com/blog/darwin-and-mao-the-influence-of-evolutionary-thought-on-modern-china
bornagain77
January 11, 2023
January
01
Jan
11
11
2023
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply