To : Arthur Biele Subj: Evolution Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to John

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 13:10 To : Arthur Biele Subj: Evolution Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to John Musselwhite: >JH> life has evolved from inorganic matter, name the source. Not a >JH> theory of how it might happen, a source that it has been observed >JH> to be done. JM> Although we aren't at that point yet, the Miller/Urey experiments JM> have taken us a lot further than creationists ever expected. AB> Quite true, John. Miller/Urey demonstrated the tremendous AB> difficulties in realizing life produced from non-life. Perhaps, but nature has a four billion year head start on us. AB> From what we AB> know today, the theory of life arising from chemicals by natural AB> laws alone would be considered falsified if evolution was not so AB> dogmatically accepted as a fact, which it is on philosophical and AB> sociological grounds only. False. Evolution does not address biopoesis. Fallacy #1: You predicate a strawman. JM> Since we are here, and all the evidence so far indicates we JM> evolved and were not specially created as an intact species, your JM> argument IS specious! AB> Whew! John. That's a tall order. All evidence so far, indicates AB> that we evolved, AND that we were not specially created. John, I'm AB> knew to this conference. Would you be willing to share some of this AB> evidence that supports evolution? I will reply as to why Dr. AB> Leipzig is wrong. Perhaps you do not know that I have returned from Central Asia, so that you may address me directly on these points and I will show you your errors. JM> "Biopoesis, or the origination of life on Earth. As evidenced by JM> abundant evidence, from the fossil record, geology and AB> This is an assertion, he offers no support that their is abundant AB> evidence in the fossil record for evolution. Well, I thought that if you really did have an interest in evolution and evolutionary theory, you would venture out to a museum or a library. Inasmuch as you seem only intent on trying, however delusively and fallaciously, to discredit evolution; I'll note that the earliest life forms on Earth were simple unicellular organisms. Later in time, life forms are considerably more complex and multicellular. Exactly what evolutionary fact states: that life, over the span of geological time has progressed from the simple to the more complex. Fact. JM> laboratory experiments (Urey and Miller, etc.), amino acids and JM> nucleotide bases, the building blocks of proteins and nucleic JM> acids, form by natural chemistry under a variety of simulated JM> primordial Earth conditions. AB> These experiments help disprove the notion that life can arise from AB> non-life via natural processes. Dr. Leipzig demonstrates here that he AB> does not have a grasp on this topic, but rather, has bought into AB> popular misconceptions. No, it instead demonstrates your fury in developing strawmen to knock down. Evolution does not address biopoesis; regardless of you insistence that it does, that is indeed why that particular branch of science is called PRE-evolutionary protobiogenesis. JM> What has yet to be determined is JM> the exact chemical processes by which these essential organic JM> ingredients were developed into the first molecules capable of JM> self-replication, AT WHICH POINT NATURAL SELECTION OR ORGANIC JM> EVOLUTION COULD BEGIN. (So much for your objection to the fact JM> that evolution says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about origins and your JM> continual harping about origins and evolution.) AB> This part is pointless despite his 'na-na na-na-na'! He flatly admits AB> the problem of abiogenesis is unsolved. You have a keen grasp of the obvious. But, again you posit a strawman. Nothing in natural science is proven (save that for vodka and mathematics). Science is not static, but, dare I say, an evolving body of knowledge. Certainly, the precise mechanism of abiogenesis is still unsolved, but that does not preclude scientists and science to address that question in order to examine the literally tons of hard cold physical evidence and developing theories to explain those groups of facts. However, evolution still has exactly zero to say regarding origins. Art, that's how science works. Perhaps if you took the time to research the modes and methods of science, you would not be so confused. JM> The early atmosphere of the Earth was quite different than that JM> today. It was enriched in nitrogen, water vapor, hydrogen and JM> carbon dioxide (purely geological information here, Ronzo the JM> Obtuse, read the rocks). There was no free oxygen, as oxygen JM> was a by-product of early cellular respiration. Life cannot JM> form today because it would be immediately destroyed by JM> oxidation. AB> Well John, I kind of regret writing the following since Dr. Leipzig is AB> not on this conference, and I doubt you could defend what he wrote, AB> but since you posted it and it looks scientific enough to fool some AB> people, I will continue. Well, Art, pretty strong words of yours, completely lacking in evidence. Well, I'm here now, so lets see all your refuting evidence. AB> To his credit, he left out methane (an important ingredient in the AB> Miller/Urey experiment and to forming life itself) from his model of AB> the primitive atmosphere. However, there are further problems with this AB> model for the primitive atmosphere. AB> 1. The lack of free oxygen would leave the upper atmosphere without AB> an ozone layer to filter out the ultra-violet rays from the sun. AB> These rays will penetrate the ocean waters tens of meters deep, AB> destroying molecules necessary for life should any form in the AB> oceans. Ocean currents will circulate the ocean waters exposing AB> any such molecules to these destructive rays. The oceans are, and were, more than a few 10's of meters deep. AB> 2. The ultra-violet rays will convert surface minerals into AB> materials that will destroy organic molecules even more AB> effectively than oxygen. Evidence? This is a total fabrication. UV rays are in no way energetic enough to cause photologic changes in common minerals; the silicates that were the abundant mineral clan in the early days are quite stable and resistant to photodissociation. AB> 3. The ultra violet rays will break apart water vapor into hydrogen AB> and oxygen. In only a vanishingly small percentage of the hydrosphere; hardly enough to be worthy of mention; in fact, 10^-7 not worth mentioning. AB> Hydrogen, due to it's light weight will escape into AB> the upper atmosphere and space, leaving behind the much heavier AB> oxygen. See immediately above. AB> This mechanism for oxidizing the earth's atmosphere can be AB> a substantial source of of atmospheric oxygen, rivaling the AB> production produced by plant photosynthesis. Baloney. Patently false. Plant photosynthesis created the early oxygen atmosphere. Oxygen is very active chemically and would almost immediately be removed through oxidation or the development of monomers. AB> As Dr. Leipzig AB> correctly points out, this oxygen in the atmosphere will prevent AB> the formation of organic molecules needed for life. At least you got one point correct; and you needed my help at that. *.. "Creationist nonsense" is redundant. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 # BGQWK 1.0#38 #43 --- GTMail 1.001 * Origin: The Debate Garden - 713-556-9167 - Houston, TX (1:106/4015.0) Message #2167 [Holysmoke] [2166 <ÄÄ] [ÄÄ> 2170] From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 09:38 To : Arthur Biele Subj: Evolution Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to John Musselwhite: JM> You don't have much of a handle on what "science" says about JM> anything it seems... Rather than paraphrase, perhaps a quote from JM> a well-respected scientist might help... The following is courtesy JM> of Dr. Martin Leipzig, and was written to an Evangelical Christian JM> creationist named Ron Stringfellow, a man after your own heart. JM> Life is merely the product, derived from inorganic (non-life, JM> as you so pejoratively put it) components, over the span of JM> geologic time, of a step-by-step process, governed by the JM> natural laws of chemistry, with no particular amino acid JM> sequence required. The same holds true for nucleic acids. It JM> did not have to be comprised of any particular nucleotide JM> sequence, but only had to be SOME sequence, whose probability JM> of arising over a period of millions of years is unity. AB> Mathematicians consider anything with a probability as low as 10 to AB> the 50th power to one to have zero chance of ever occurring. You posit the logical fallacy of the "Grand Success". What next, the old "tornado through a junkyard" argument? Biopoetic theory does not claim that life arose, fully functioning, from the primordial soup in one step; as you so falsely claim. But rather, it followed a series of steps, constrained by the naturalistic laws of chemistry and physics. AB> There are 20 amino acids needed for life. These are called proteinous [specious numerical"argument" deleted] AB> for getting the x number of proteins needed for life. AB> I've only touched on the surface of the probability arguments against AB> life arising from non-living matter. From what I've written, it is AB> clear that Dr. Leipzig's probability of 1 for life arising over a few AB> million years via natural law and chance is absurdly wrong. Let's take a quick look at your "argument": 1. You rail on about biopoesis as an attack on evolution. Evolution, as it has been pointed out to you numerous times, does not deal with biopoesis. Strawman #1. 2. Continuing in this vein, you build upon that strawman by some numerical blather showing how statistically life could have not arisen naturally. You posit the "Grand Success" fallacy, which I've already destroyed. AB> The AB> probability for the existence of life is indeed 1, since life does AB> exist, but the scientific evidence shows that bio-chemical evolution is AB> extremely implausible. The correct answer, there is a Creator who AB> created life. 3. And since I wasn't here last Tuesday, I MUST have been golfing on Mars. Finally, you strike up the bland for the old "False Dilemma". "It's either that life arose naturally OR God did it". A or B. Black or white. Completely fallacious. It COULD be that the Earth was seeded by incredibly advanced extraterrestrials in a manner that just mimics evolution. Possible? Sure. Probable? Nahhh...But at least it's better than your "Divine fiat creation" as it requires exactly less than one miracle and absolutely no supernatural intervention. JM> There is a question of the mode of this assembly (believe it or JM> else, Ronzo, science doesn't profess to have all the answers.... JM> yet.) JM> Theories include those built on protobiogenesis experiments JM> carried out by Sid Fox at the U of Florida (proteinoid JM> microspheres...want a few references to check this out?), Graham JM> Cairns-Smith argues for clay mineralogy providing the template JM> for self-replicating forms (want some references?), B. McKean JM> argues that abiogenesis may have occurred near deep sea vents JM> (want some...oh, never mind). Tom Cech and Sid Altman note that JM> RNA (ribonucleic acid) can act as an enzyme, and as such was JM> probably the link between prebiotic synthesis and the first JM> living cells. AB> There are also the bubble theory and the life from out of space AB> theory. Whoa. A self-debunking fundy. What next? Rather puts paid to your "Evolution or Creation" only argument, doesn't it, Art? AB> The fact that there are so many diverse theories being pursued AB> to explain biochemical evolution tells us that no one is even close to AB> telling us how life could have evolved from non-living chemicals. "These mysteries are not for the eyes of men!" Not sound thinking in ancient days, Art, why should it be sound thinking today? You criticize science and scientists for doing science, yet you counter-offer with the old "we don't yet know, so God must have done" it "argument". Such inquiry. Such utter codswallop. Intellectually, the ground you're on is as solid as quicksand; and like that material, you're in way over your head. *.. And to think, he's the product of 3,800,000,000 years of evolution. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 # BGQWK 1.0#38 #43 --- GTMail 1.001 * Origin: The Debate Garden - 713-556-9167 - Houston, TX (1:106/4015.0) Message #2168 [Holysmoke] From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 11:41 To : Arthur Biele Subj: Evolution 1/2 Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to John Musselwhite: JM> JH> I am disputing the possibility that a cell JM> JH> should evolve from inorganic building blocks. JM> a well-respected scientist might help... The following is courtesy JM> of Dr. Martin Leipzig, and was written to an Evangelical Christian JM> creationist named Ron Stringfellow, a man after your own heart. JM> The early atmosphere of the Earth was quite different than that JM> today. It was enriched in nitrogen, water vapor, hydrogen and JM> carbon dioxide (purely geological information here, Ronzo the JM> Obtuse, read the rocks). There was no free oxygen, as oxygen JM> was a by-product of early cellular respiration. Life cannot JM> form today because it would be immediately destroyed by JM> oxidation. AB> As can be seen from what I posted thus far, Dr. Leipzig's primitive AB> earth is already plagued with problems that threaten the destruction AB> of any organic chemicals that might form, and this from ultra-violet AB> radiation. Wrong. UV is not all that terribly active [deference to Conwell's "You can get seriously mutated by standing in the sun for 5 hours"] in reference to other energy forms of the time (lightning, cosmic rays, etc.), and marine waters are quite an effective filter. Further, what activation UV does provide could have been one of the driving mechanisms in preevolutionary protobiogenesis. You take that UV is deleterious to todays life; the situation was NOT the same on the prebiotic Earth. AB> 'But', Dr. Leipzig might object, 'if ultra-violet radiation breaks AB> down water vapor into hydrogen and oxygen, thus oxygenizing the AB> atmosphere, Photodissociation did not oxygenate the early atmosphere. You are wrong. The stratigraphic succession of reduced pre-biotic rocks evidence your error. In fact, as noted in Levine, Augustsson and Natarajan (1982), "Photochemical calculations indicate that the total oxygen column density of the prebiological paleoatmosphere did not exceed 10^-7 of the present level." Your cosmic photolysis and abundant prebiotic oxygen "argument" is summarily debunked. AB> why do the 'old' rocks indicate that the primitive earth AB> atmosphere was free of oxygen.' After all, Dr. Leipzig did allege that AB> scientific evidence has been ascertained demonstrating that the AB> primitive atmosphere contained nitrogen, hydrogen, water vapor, and AB> carbon dioxide, and no free oxygen. 'Purely geological information AB> here, Ronzo the Obtuse, read the rocks.' Exactly, there are vanishingly few (read: no) pre-biotic oxidized sediments. Look at the post-biotic sediments: thousands of meters of banded iron formations. Why? Because life itself is responsible for the Earth's O2-rich atmosphere. Before life, there was a reducing atmosphere. It was not until the origin, evolution and proliferation of photosynthetic organisms that oxygen became an important atmospheric gas. The evidence is there if you care to examine it yourself, rather than on relying on your gurus of the ICR to misinterpret it for you. AB> Do the rocks confirm Dr. Leipzig's model of earth's primitive AB> atmosphere? NO! It most certainly doesn't. Wrong again, Art. Take a look at the Hadean and Early Archean rock record. You are in error yet again. AB> So who's obtuse? You do have a mirror, don't you? AB> We now AB> have a demonstration of how the dogmatism of evolution has greatly AB> distorted science, as it often does! It is you who are distorting the argument in your insistence that evolution HAS ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with biopoesis. Your argument is flawed from its basic premise and yet you continue to try to build upon that failed foundation. AB> To begin with, elements contained in the primitive atmosphere of the AB> earth was not determined from the rocks. Absolute 100% USDA bullshit. You are either lying or know not of what you speak. Which is it, Art? AB> Evolutionary scientists first AB> determined what the atmosphere on earth ought to be in order to be AB> able to produce organic compounds. From what evidence or data? Hand waving and ass-grabbing like you're attempting? Wrong yet again, Art, but geological evidence was THE basis for early studies in biopoesis. "From geological evidence are we only able to reach conclusions regarding the composition, structure and content of the pre-biotic paleoatmosphere. The geochemical composition and mineralogy of these rocks enable us to reconstruct that which life itself inevitably altered." (From Walker, Derins and Levine, 1987). AB> Scientists like A.I. Oparin and AB> J.B.S. Haldane proposed a sequence for life's origins in the 1920's, AB> from complicated molecules in an oily liquid called coacervate AB> droplets, to the first protocell, to enzymes, to finally genes. Yes, and we have expanded and revised that version in the intervening 60 years. Or, haven't you heard? AB> To get AB> the complicated 'organic' molecules needed for life, it was determined AB> what chemicals the primitive atmosphere needed to have (the original AB> list contained Methane, but evidence tells us that we never had any AB> significant quantities of methane in the early earth atmosphere) and AB> also that oxygen must not be present. A.I. Oparin determined the earth AB> needed to have a strongly reducing atmosphere as organic compounds AB> will be destroyed by oxygen. A lovely piece of deductive logic on Oparin's part. One that perhaps you should try to emulate, if possible. AB> But what about 'pure geologic information' from Dr. Leipzig's 'rocks'. AB> John, you quote, as you put it: a 'well respected scientist', Dr. AB> Martin Leipzig. Well, I've presented it and you seem unable to comprehend it due to your pet preconceived notions. Oh, well, do not ascribe your shortcomings in understanding to someone else. AB> Obviously this respect is not for his work in the AB> origin of life from non-living matter. Hardly. I am a quite successful petroleum geologist; this origins business is only because some benighted creatures, such as yourself, seem to think that it has something to do with evolution. Of course, as I and other have pointed out, it does not, yet, I cannot sit idly by and let your sort of disinformation go unchallenged. AB> takes us back to 3.2 billion years ago. Before that, the evidence AB> is too sparse, because too few suitable rocks are available to AB> us." Yep, the record get more tenuous the further back in geological time you go. The Earth is a dynamic and evolving planet, Art, not the static mudball you caricature it as. AB> What happened is that a few evolutionary scientists, wishing to be AB> among the first to confirm Oparin's hypothesis, fervently looked for AB> old sedimentary rocks with little or no oxygen, and they found some. In AB> their fervor they proclaimed 'fait accompli', and evolutionists, AB> hungry for confirmation of evolution, accepted and passed on this AB> erroneous evidence in support of their system of belief. HA! Quick! Alert the global scientific conspiracy! There's data we must suppress! Sorry, Art. Science is self-policing and self-correcting. Such deceptions are merely a fanciful fabrication on you or your master's part in trying to obfuscate reality. AB> Since then, a AB> more objective review of the old sedimentary rocks indicate that on AB> average, they are similar to very recently laid down sedimentary layers AB> of rock. You're way out in left field here, Art. You are completely and totally 100% wrong. Recent sedimentary rocks are shot through with biogenic structures, materials (glauconite, fecal pellets, globiginera ooze; some of the most pervasive recent sediments) and signs of life. Early rocks are devoid of all these attributes, and their mineralogy and petrology are considerably different. AB> suggesting that the early atmosphere is very much like it is AB> today. Wrong. The lack of oxidized sediments in early rocks say you are lying. " early atmosphere of CO2 and N2 is favored by photochemical as well as GEOLOGICAL AND GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS." (Levine, Augustsson and Natarajan, 1982) Sorry, Art. Debunked yet again. AB> But as can be seen by Dr. Leipzig's post, any faulty evidence AB> (in this case, the 'pure geological evidence read from the rocks') for AB> evolution dies a very slow death, such is the dogmatic evolutionist's AB> need to Now the ad hominem. Oh, well, Art, you want to denigrate this to that level, I suppose I oblige. You are ignorant, Art; and you knowingly profess lies, misinterpretations and selective filtering to shore up your shaky fundamentalist beliefs. Oh, well. Have at it Art, more evidence that you know not of what you claim and your insistence on deliberate misinformation. *.. Taglines: your chance to piss someone off. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 # BGQWK 1.0#38 #43 --- GTMail 1.001 * Origin: The Debate Garden - 713-556-9167 - Houston, TX (1:106/4015.0) Message #2169 [Holysmoke] From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 12:02 To : Arthur Biele Subj: Evolution 2/2 Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to John Musselwhite: AB> (Continued from previous message) AB> scientifically support his world view, his belief system, his AB> religion. My world view is that there is too much inculcated ignorance under the guise of religion. You support that contention quite nicely. I have no belief system nor religion; but rather investigate the facts of the Earth, analyze them and interpret them in a purely naturalistic and mechanistic manner. I leave chasing Gods, supplicating to deux et machina, and invoking the supernatural with those, like yourself, so immersed in pseudoscience and illogic to try, however in otiose and vainly, to wrangle and mangle fact into something that seemingly, at least to the benighted clans from which you hail, into supporting your strawmen, fallacies and illogic. *.. Science does not deny God. It just makes him unnecessary. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 # BGQWK 1.0#38 #43 --- GTMail 1.001 * Origin: The Debate Garden - 713-556-9167 - Houston, TX (1:106/4015.0) Message #2170 [Holysmoke] [2167 <ÄÄ] [ÄÄ> 2223] From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 19:21 To : Arthur Biele Subj: Evolution Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to John Musselwhite: >>> Continued from previous message JM> All the evidence supports the view that the precursors of life JM> arose quite naturally (no god or gods necessary), and that JM> life's emergence, given millions of years and the whole Earth as JM> a laboratory was a probable, if not inevitable, event." AB> Well Dr. Leipzig, so dogmatic, so wrong. Not at all. The evidence supports exactly 100% of what I wrote; your wailings and gnashing of teeth notwithstanding. JM> JH> how it did? So you answer me: evolution is a fact, so the JM> JH> unlikelihood of it happening is irrelevant. How do you know that it JM> JH> is a fact? I ask. You answer me, as if it was the only explanation Evolution is both fact and theory. How unfortunate you cannot even grasp this simple explanation. AB> Jesse is more accurate on this matter than Dr. Leipzig was, and Dr. AB> Leipzig is a scientist? - how sad. How sad that someone as woefully uninformed as you still makes such ignorant and ridiculous accusations. How sad that you cannot see the logical fallacy form which you proceed and that you compound this egregious error by heaping more and more fallacies upon your flawed basic premise. One does not have to be a scientist to discern your errors, but a scientist can show exactly how you are wrong, and dishonest. AB> I'll close with a summary from a scientist who is an acknowledged AB> authority on evolution and the origin of life: AB> "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the AB> fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better AB> perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on AB> Earth rather than to it's solution. Yep. It's a knotty problem, and one not yet solved. So lets all fall upon our knees and praise God for creating life. You, sir, are a joke of the highest caliber; and a charlatan of the lowest form. AB> At present all discussions on AB> principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a AB> stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." AB> Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1988, 13(4) 348. Exactly. Science admits that science is not perfect. Nor are scientists perfect. Nor do we claim to have all the answers. So? You would rather have us all forego all scientific inquiry into a fascinating field of study because we do not yet have the answer and raise hosannas to God instead? At least we admit our ignorance, Art, and try to reduce it through inquiry and investigation; instead of, like you, reveling and wallowing in your ignorance. *.. Faith is no excuse for ignorance! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 # BGQWK 1.0#38 #43 --- GTMail 1.001 * Origin: The Debate Garden - 713-556-9167 - Houston, TX (1:106/4015.0) Message #2171 [Holysmoke] From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 09:33 To : Arthur Biele Subj: from Dr. Leipzig Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to Robert Curry: RC>Quoting Marty Leipzig's May 10th, 1994, response to Mark Fox's >pseudo-scientific claptrap: AB> Hello Mr. Curry AB> Pleased to meet you! AB> I wish to direct your attention to my reply to John Musselwhite's AB> posting of Dr. Leipzig's 'psuedo-scientific claptrap'. As I stated earlier, Art. No need to hide behind someone else, come forward and have your head handed to you by the author of what you tried, so nesciently, to debunk. *.. Prayer: A request for annullment of the laws of the universe. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 # BGQWK 1.0#38 #43 --- GTMail 1.001 * Origin: The Debate Garden - 713-556-9167 - Houston, TX (1:106/4015.0) Message #2172 [Holysmoke] From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 12:44 To : All And A. Biele Subj: Here's how Art is wrong. If you prefer to forego the illogic and misrepresentation of our very own latest entry into the Fundy-of-the-month club (one Arthur Biele); I hereby for your edification and amusement present the distilled synoptic version of Art's "arguments" (if one can so unwholesomely denigrate the term); noting how Art proceeds from a false assumption and builds his shaky house of cards on a nonexistent foundation. Viz: 1. His first premise is one based on a false assumption and faulty logic. He believes that by falsifying evolution (as if he was capable), he automatically proves creation. Unfortunately, that is not the methods of science, logic nor debate. Does he provide evidence to support his contention that "Special Creation" is valid? No. Absolutely not, for it is impossible; none exists. Failing that, he sees his only recourse available is to try and shoot holes in the opposition, thereby somehow strengthening his claims. 2. As had been noted previously in this forum (perhaps hundreds of times) by numerous individuals, evolution (fact and theory) does NOT address the concept of the ultimate origin of life (biopoesis or PRE-evolutionary protobiognesis), it instead kicks in immediately after the development of life. Many, many fundys rail against this (as Art has in his last 4 posts) and fail to note or fail to comprehend that they attack a strawman. But, then again, if they did recognize that fact, they'd have absolutely nothing to say. 3. Art posits the old statistical "Grand Success" numerical argument. He claims that even the simplest protein molecule, containing just the right sequence of amino acids, it too complex to have arisen by chance. He fails to note, however, that NO scientist claims that such a molecule could have somehow arisen full blown (can we say "strawman"?). It was rather a product, over geological time, of a step-by-step process, governed by the naturalistic and mechanistic laws of physics and chemistry; with no particular sequence required. The same holds true for nucleic acids. The first nucleic acid did not have to be composed of any PARTICULAR nucleotide sequence - the statistical probability of one PARTICULAR sequence arising would most certainly be low - but had only to be composed of SOME sequence, the probability of SOME sequence arising, over a period of hundreds of millions of years, being very high indeed. 4. Art is also guilty of the fallacy of the false dilemma; i.e., that there is only two possible choices or courses possible in a situation (e.g., evolution OR creation). As noted by F. Ayala "In science it is impossible ever to say there are only two models or theories. Everything is always open, there are never only two possibilities." Unfortunately, those which are unevidenced (the presence or absence of a God(s), a Creator(s), Intelligent Designer(s), etc.) or require the suspension of natural law (miracles) are discarded as they do not belong to the realm of reality (but rather the supernatural), therefore are not matters of science; and are ultimately non-scientific; or worse, pseudoscientific. So, I have disposed of the "fundamental" foundation of Art's "arguments" and shown how he further piles on illogic and fallacy in an effort to bolster his unsupportable claims. As I have much better things to do with my time than dispose of specious claims, ignorant ravings and other assorted ICR claptrap; until such time Art abandons his realm of fantasy and fallacy and raises some legitimate questions; this dialogue will suddenly become a monologue. *.. Fundamentalism: The only industry where ignorance is encouraged. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 # BGQWK 1.0#38 #43 --- GTMail 1.001 * Origin: The Debate Garden - 713-556-9167 - Houston, TX (1:106/4015.0)


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank