by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Sam......
Nature is a British interdisciplinary scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869.[1] It was ranked the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports, is ascribed an impact factor of approximately 38.1, and is widely regarded as one of the few remaining academic journals that publishes original research across a wide range of scientific fields.[2]
Yes it's a credible source ;)
Soai didn't stop studying this topic after his successful experiment in 1995. He has published more papers on the link between autocatalysis and homochirality since then.
Here is a recent example from 2014...
Asymmetric Autocatalysis of Pyrimidyl Alkanol and Its Application to the Study on the Origin of Homochirality - Kenso Soai, Tsuneomi Kawasaki, and Arimasa Matsumoto
Abstract
Amplification of enantiomeric excess (ee) is a key feature for the chemical evolution of biological homochirality from the origin of chirality..
Soai goes on to describe that he started with a mixture where the difference between the two types of chiral molecule was 0.00005%. At the end of the autocatalytic reaction that difference had risen to more than 99.5%.
One type had been amplified 630,000 times while the other had increased by a factor of less than a thousand.
The source for this paper is also a highly credible journal - The American Chemical Society.
The test for a good scientific experiment is whether it can be replicated. Multiple examples by Soai and by other labs have confirmed the validity of his results over the past two decades.
Evolution - Bad
God - Good
There, that should settle the matter.
For those still wanting to debate, please take it up with these scientists below:
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."
(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."
(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
"When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it."
(John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, "Science Finds God," Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
"Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe."
(Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in physics, "Science Finds God," Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin."
(Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology")
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."
(Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."
(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, "It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.")
"Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels."
(Dr. William Fix, in his book, "The Bone Peddlers.")
"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology."
(Dr. Arthur Koestler)
"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation."
(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)
"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."
(Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)
"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written."
(Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)
"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."
(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
(Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
(Dr. George Wald Evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it."
(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."
(Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
(Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)
"The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."
(Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse of the University of Paris and past-president of the French Academy of Science)
"Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."
(Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel)
"It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but it is to be preferred over the evolutionary one."
(Dean H. Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco State University)
"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."
(Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means)
"I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
(Sir Julian Huxley, President of the United Nation's Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO).)
"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
For those still wanting to debate, please take it up with these scientists below:
Perry, have you considered ever not using outdated 60 year old sources to support your misogynistic, slaving, abortionist, thieving, genocidal rapist blood cult?
Good old cut n' paste Perry. Too bad you didn't bother to check your quotes. The very first one you made - the one you highlighted - was never said by Dr. George Wald.
Here's what he ACTUALLY had to say on the topic:
That, however, is not the end of the matter. Our present concept of the origin of life leads to the position that, in a universe composed as ours is, life inevitably arises wherever conditions permit. We look upon life as part of the order of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order; long ages must pass before [page 100 | page 101] it appears. Yet given enough time, it is an inevitable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I do not tend to make sentences containing the word God; but what do those persons mean who make such sentences? They mean a great many different things; indeed I would be happy to know what they mean much better than I have yet been able to discover. I have asked as opportunity offered, and intend to go on asking. What I have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of God with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a new idea; I think it is firmly grounded in the philosophy of Spinoza. When we as scientists say then that life originated inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are using different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that God created life. It is not only in science that great ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true in religion also; and man's concept of God changes as he changes.
-Dr. George Wald
Perry says ......
Evolution - Bad
God - Good
No Evolution is real within the laws of nature itself.
God(s) spiritualism is set solely in human imagination and fictional story telling and as with many of the gods envisioned throughout human history, the active mythical story telling god as expressed by the ancient Hebrews was evil, unloving and unjust therefore an evil fictional god.
Perry-" For those still wanting to debate, please take it up with these scientists below"
When are you going to man up and debate for yourself Perry, rather than hide behind other people's bullshit?
How many times are you going to put something on here just so that you can run away before your misinformation can be challenged? It doesn't inspire people to believe that you have much confidence in what you promote.
I think you're afraid of the answers.
Evolution - Bad...........God - Good...........Perry
Evolution - Provable........God - Questionable..
Sam......
Nature is a British interdisciplinary scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869.[1] It was ranked the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports, is ascribed animpact factor of approximately 38.1, and is widely regarded as one of the few remaining academic journals that publishes original research across a wide range of scientific fields.[2]
Yes it's a credible source
Angus,
Fair enough you said on the phone something to the effect of my credulity is unbalanced. The need for me to see a quote on the 1995 paper itself is also because I want to read the paper again. But obviously it's not available for free anymore and no one seem's to be able to get it without spending £40.
I do feel it's credible now, because you told me it is and I trust and respect you and I find you credible. I also checked the homepage of the journal this morning http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html. Which it didn't cross my mind to do yesterday, and I found some interesting credible looking articles and I even went to the job search. Sadly they don't advertise any type of analytical jobs or careers, mainly research related careers at universities. I don't have the experience or PhD qualifications to apply for any of them, they even have 2 posts at Liverpool university in the department I used to work in as a chemical analyst. It's quite annoying really because the researchers used to employ analysts to do their testing but with cutting costs they have to do the chemical analysis themselves now. http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/jobs?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Chemistry+research&where=Liverpool&commit=Find+Jobs
So cofty I apologise for not checking the credibility thoroughly before righting it off as not credible.
Viv, yes you're right I have no formal organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry or industrial qualifications. I am lying well done for catching me out.
Outlaw cool. But evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive.
Perry, I have you on my ignore setting. I didn't read your post. Every time I have asked you a question or sent you a PM you have ignored me. So there is no conversation. If you want me to read your post send me a PM.
Cofty I am posting my response to your challenge, Soai saying he solved the puzzle is not relevant to the challenge you assigned me.
- cantleave