Awake January 2015: How did life begin?

poopsiecakes

What a bunch of hypocritical beyotches.

Great job sending Dr Singh an email - I hope he responds!

BluesBrother

I do not disagree with a creation belief BUT the misquoting and distortion of other's work is just wrong.... This mag (2nd article) quotes :

Some scientists conclude that the odds of even one protein molecule forming spontaneously are extremely improbable. “Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins,” writes physicist Paul Davies, “it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone.”

The implication is that the other alternative is creation and Paul Davies supports this , but I found his work on line at

http://deenrc.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/originsoflife_ii.pdf

Page 12

Similarly, only a minute fraction of amino acid combinations makes biological sense. Clearly, the chances of hitting the right
combination of 100 amino acids by random molecular shuffling are infinitesimal. Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins, it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone, even if the entire volume of the observable universe were filled with primordial soup.

his conclusion?

A fully satisfactory account of the origin of biological information will probably have to await a better understanding of the nature and dynamics of information, and how it relates to matter. Thus a solution of the problem of biogenesis is likely to involve some
profound developments in the conceptual basis of physical science

I saw no mention of God or Creation, or Intelligent Design. The man clearly puts his faith in science and should not be used to support an argument for creation

stuckinarut2

Wow!

Great thread!

I had thought the org had learned its lesson re misquoting authors and professionals such as scientists! It seems that are still just as stupid!

I am keeping a close eye on this thread!

Good work OP!

steve2

The ease with which selective and/or partial quotes are used by media sources in general is sobering, more so when those sources are promoted as the sole channel of truth.

The late Christopher Hitchens, in the throes of the cancer that he knew would kill him, anticipated that religious believers of one shade or another would grab hold of anything he said in his dying days to create the very wrong impression he was having "second thoughts" about life after death and the redemptive power of Christ in particular.

Hitchens provided mind-boggling examples of Christian groups that had even then vigorously misquoted or partially quoted him in terms of evident "praise" of Christianity. He drolly noted that no doubt some group somewhere was on the watch for signs of his own encroaching death bed repentances.

He wanted it on record that ANY talk of his having a death bed repentance was false...but he noted, regrettably that would be too much for some believers to handle and they would find someway to quote something - anything - to be able to say, "Ha! Gotcha! Even Hitchens repented and, moments before his earthly death, found Christ!"

A belief system is in a truly sorry state that it needs to grab hold of partial quotes to bolster its fragile sense of relevance..and "truth". Dismal indeed.

Awake January 2015: How did life begin? - More misquotes

poopsiecakes

drwtsn32

disposable hero of hypocrisy

lurkernomore

BluesBrother

stuckinarut2

steve2

wifibandit

OneEyedJoe

Witness My Fury

Share this