Evolutionists do not understand OOL

[Juvenal]

I don't understand the origin of life, either.

I'm pretty sure it was a recursive process.

But I doubt it was turtles all the way down.

[rwatts]

Jorge DO YOU EVER consider doing something else?

We are Jorge's hobby.

[Jorge]

I've met Jim Tour and am very impressed by him. He is a kind, sincere, humble person who was raised Jewish before he became a Christian.

That's nice.

Tour is an old-earth creationist, similar to Hugh Ross, not a YEC like Jorge.

Then all I can say is that despite his 500+ research publications he has not yet learned certain crucial truths of his faith.

So in other contexts, Jorge would be calling him a "compromiser" and questioning his spirituality. But as Jorge says, "Tour simply follows the evidence to its logical conclusion"--and the evidence leads to OEC.

No, not necessarily. He may simply be unaware or misinformed about this or that. Without knowing more about Tour, his background and his beliefs I could not say either way. That's unlike many TWebbers of whom I have learned enough to know for certain that they are indeed compromisers.

(Yes, Tour is a synthetic chemist, not a biologist. But he has spoken with numerous leading biologists. I'm sure that understands the difference between macro-evolution and abiogenesis.)

Of course he does. Tour is simply pointing out several things (that I have written about on numerous occasions here on TWeb).

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge DO YOU EVER consider doing something else?

I'm involved in many things so, as usual, other than in
your prejudiced opinions you're not making any sense.

Jorge

[rwatts]

The FAITH of you people never ceases to impress me. I'm jealous!

Perhaps some day, when I grow up, my faith can be as great as yours.

The thing that sticks in my craw is how you people insist ad nauseum
that you are based on "pure science and logic" when the fact of the
matter is that you have the religious faith of a Bali Snake-God Worshiper.

Jorge

No matter what the theological faiths of the TEs and the atheists are Jorge, both groups think that nature exists, that natural processes occur, and that natural processes can cause things to happen.

And so we use those three "faiths" to set up experiments to show how it is that rain falls, and how it is that life began. On that second point, we don't really know. But we do have those experiments of ever increasing sophistication.


Other than ranting, and doing so in colour, what do you have?

[klaus54]

That's nice.



Then all I can say is that despite his 500+ research publications he has not yet learned certain crucial truths of his faith.




No, not necessarily. He may simply be unaware or misinformed about this or that. Without knowing more about Tour, his background and his beliefs I could not say either way. That's unlike many TWebbers of whom I have learned enough to know for certain that they are indeed compromisers.




Of course he does. Tour is simply pointing out several things (that I have written about on numerous occasions here on TWeb).

Jorge

Jorge demonstrates his version of Christian theology.

Christ died for our sins, and we have to trust Hank Morris that Earth and the Cosmos are 6,000 years old, and all the rocks and fossils were laid down in a 1 year Fludde.

Pretty consistent.

K54

[oxmixmudd]

No, not necessarily. He may simply be unaware or misinformed about this or that. Without knowing more about Tour, his background and his beliefs I could not say either way. That's unlike many TWebbers of whom I have learned enough to know for certain that they are indeed compromisers.

Or YOU might be misinformed about this or that. The sin of pride Jorge. You simply can't comprehend in your hubris that it is possible he (Tour) is correct on this and YOU are the one that is wrong.

This, in a nutshell, is the 'core' issue as it relates to YOUR position. You are a proud and arrogant man. Such a heart attitude is ALWAYS destructive to the person that wields it.

Far more so than missing some element in the origins debate.



Jim

[phank]

You can be absolutely certain, or you can be probably correct, but you can't be both.

[rwatts]

Or YOU might be misinformed about this or that.

Wash your mouth out with soap and water Jim. A hundred "hail marys" and don't you dare ever, ever, suggest such a thing again.

[rwatts]

Just for you Jorge:-

Mutation Rates and Evolution of Multiple Coding in RNA-based Protocells

The last line of the abstract is interesting:-

"Our results indicate that inherent properties of RNA molecules and their interactions allow the evolution of complexity even at high mutation rates."


It illustrates the point - while you do nothing more than rant, run, rant, run, and rant, run, these guys continue to test ideas to see if they can actually work it out. Who knows, one day they might, and you'll still rant then run.

[Jorge]

Or YOU might be misinformed about this or that. The sin of pride Jorge. You simply can't comprehend in your hubris that it is possible he (Tour) is correct on this and YOU are the one that is wrong.

Sure I could be "wrong". All I'd have to do is use "enlightened, Post-Modern, New Age Hermeneutics, New Age Exegesis and distort Scripture with no holds barred" and I would certainly be "wrong". You refuse to 'get it', don't you.

Barring doing the above, Biblical Creationism is the ONLY possible interpretation of the Holy Bible. Accept it and live with it. All your huffing and puffing won't change that fact.

This, in a nutshell, is the 'core' issue as it relates to YOUR position. You are a proud and arrogant man. Such a heart attitude is ALWAYS destructive to the person that wields it.

WOW - talk about MEGA p-r-o-j-e-c-t-i-o-n!

Far more so than missing some element in the origins debate.

Jim

That and ten bucks will gain you admittance into most movie theaters in the U.S.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Sure I could be "wrong". All I'd have to do is use "enlightened, Post-Modern, New Age Hermeneutics, New Age Exegesis and distort Scripture with no holds barred" and I would certainly be "wrong". You refuse to 'get it', don't you.

Barring doing the above, Biblical Creationism is the ONLY possible interpretation of the Holy Bible. Accept it and live with it. All your huffing and puffing won't change that fact.



WOW - talk about MEGA p-r-o-j-e-c-t-i-o-n!




That and ten bucks will gain you admittance into most movie theaters in the U.S.

Jorge

Or use knowledge of Creation itself to help interpret the stories.

You know kinda like Galileo and the fixed Earth.

It's really not that difficult.

The important thing is THAT God creates. Isn't it?

K54

[Jorge]

Just for you Jorge:-

Mutation Rates and Evolution of Multiple Coding in RNA-based Protocells

The last line of the abstract is interesting:-

"Our results indicate that inherent properties of RNA molecules and their interactions allow the evolution of complexity even at high mutation rates."


It illustrates the point - while you do nothing more than rant, run, rant, run, and rant, run, these guys continue to test ideas to see if they can actually work it out. Who knows, one day they might, and you'll still rant then run.

The are not "testing" - they are trying to force-fit observations to comply with their BELIEF in Evolution. Obviously you never learned how to tell the difference.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Or use knowledge of Creation itself to help interpret the stories.

You know kinda like Galileo and the fixed Earth.

It's really not that difficult.

The important thing is THAT God creates. Isn't it?

K54

At a sophomoric level, yes, that is the "important thing".

At a level beyond puberty a person has to realize that Scripture must be taken in its entirety, not in compartmentalized, isolated pockets. Also, the hermeneutic/exegesis employed must be sound and proper. These are simple lessons that are lost on you et al.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Sure I could be "wrong". All I'd have to do is use "enlightened, Post-Modern, New Age Hermeneutics, New Age Exegesis and distort Scripture with no holds barred" and I would certainly be "wrong". You refuse to 'get it', don't you.

Barring doing the above, Biblical Creationism is the ONLY possible interpretation of the Holy Bible. Accept it and live with it. All your huffing and puffing won't change that fact.

Silly fellow. What you have just said is that the 'only possible interpretation of the Holy Bible' (Genesis anyway) is provably wrong from a scientific perspective. Talk about not having a clue what one is saying. Yikes.


Jim