|
Post by chemengineer on Oct 4, 2023 16:57:27 GMT -5
I shared my critique of Richard Dawkins' monkey nonsense with another biochemist and he replied with this:
October 3, 2023
John, I think you were spot on.
Well put.
I think it's incredibly dumb to take Dawkins' position as fact or even possible.
Jason Cardova, PhD, Biochemistry
|
|
|
Post by chemengineer on Oct 18, 2023 20:29:54 GMT -5
I went back to check my calculations on the volume of 10 to the 50th marbles of 1 cm in diameter by using a different method. It seems completely reliable to me and shows that my first attempt was off by only three orders of magnitude. Hey, what's three orders when you're dealing with 72,000? So here are updated calculations and if anyone finds an error, please post it here. I always strive to do things properly but sometimes fall short. ________________________________ Eminent statistician, Emil Borel, defined “impossible” as one chance in ten to the fiftieth power, or less.1 Let’s look at the volume of ten to the fiftieth marbles, one centimeter in diameter. There are 100 such marbles per meter, and 100 times 1,000 per kilometer. Therefore 10 to the 5 marbles cubed equals 10 to the 15 marbles per cubic kilometer. Pluto is 5.906 billion kilometers from our sun2, the radius of which is 700,000 kilometers.3 From the center of our sun to Pluto is 5.906 billion km + 700,000 km, or 6.606 x 10 to the 9 kilometers. The volume of a sphere the size of our solar system to Pluto is 4/3 pi x (6.606 x 10 to the 9) cubed, or 1.2075x 10 to the 30 cubic kilometers. 1.2075 x 10 to the 30 cubic kilometers x 10 to the 15 marbles per cubic kilometer = 1.2075 x 10 to the 45 marbles to fill that one hypothetical sphere. 10 to the 50 marbles / 1.2075 x 10 to the 45 marbles per sphere = 8.28 x 10 to the 4 spheres out to Pluto, not 78.5 spheres as I originally calculated incorrectly Imagine someone telling you one chance in 10 to the 50 IS POSSIBLE, when that many marbles fill 82,800 spheres the size of our solar system, out to Pluto, and you have to find the one unique marble on your first and only try. 1 owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability 2 www.universetoday.com/44534/plutos-distance-from-the-sun/ 3 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radius
|
|
|
Post by chemengineer on Oct 24, 2023 20:30:51 GMT -5
“The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.” (Dr. Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
“There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution.” (Sir Cecil Wakely)
“It’s impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species.” (Dr. Richard Goldschmit, evolutionist. Founder of the “Hopeful Monster” theory.)
“Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities…Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.” (Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin,” Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96.)
“The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas…In the past ten years has emerged a new breed of biologists who are scientifically respectable, but who have their doubts about Darwinism.” (Dr. B. Leith, scientist)
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought’s after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)
“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.” (Albert Einstein)
“Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.” (Dr. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147)
“Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.” (Dr. John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in “The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought”)
“The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.” (Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77)
“I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.” (H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.)
“In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory.” (Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)
“The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.” (Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent that it’s been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” (Malcolm Muggeridge)
“There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist..denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict.” (Dr. David Berlinski)
“Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” (Time Magazine, Nov. 7, 1977)
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” (Dr. Ronald R. West)
“The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate.” (Dr. James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 241)
|
|
|
Post by chemengineer on Nov 8, 2023 18:45:36 GMT -5
On Origin of Life, Chemist James Tour Has Successfully Called These Researchers’ Bluff Brian Miller October 31, 2023, 1:57 PM
David Klinghoffer and Tova Forman previously wrote about Rice University chemist James Tour’s 60-day challenge to leading origin-of-life researchers to demonstrate that the field had substantively advanced in the past seventy years (here, here). Tour offered to remove all his videos on the topic if three leading experts agreed that any of five fundamental problems had been solved:
Linking of amino acids into chains (aka polypeptides) Linking of nucleotides into RNA molecules Linking of simple sugars (aka monosaccharides) into chains known as polysaccharides Origin of biological information Assembly of components into a cell Tour issued this challenge in response to the many false claims made by YouTubers, such as Dave Farina, about how these hurdles to life’s origin had been fully addressed. The deadline has expired, and no one has presented solutions to any of the problems.
The Rules For the first three problems, Tour allowed origin-of-life researchers to assume a chemical mixture started with amino acids, nucleotides, or sugars with the same handedness (aka enantiomerically pure). For instance, all the amino acids were left-handed as required in modern proteins. For the first problem, participants needed to detail how chains of just two amino acids — aspartic acid and lysine — could have formed with the correct bonds. For the second problem, proposed solutions needed to describe how nucleotides could have linked into chains with less than 2 percent of the wrong linkages. And for the third, proposals needed to explain how molecules of the simple sugar glucose could have properly joined in high yields.
For the fourth problem, researchers could assume that the first three challenges had been solved. They only needed to explain how amino acids, nucleotides, or simple sugars could have linked together in the correct order to contain the required functional information to perform some biologically relevant task. For the fifth problem, researchers could assume that all cellular components were available in abundance. They only needed to explain how the biological building blocks could have assembled into a functional cell. Proposed solutions for all the problems had to rely only on chemistry that could have occurred on the early Earth.
The Implications of Failure The failure of any origin-of-life expert to propose a solution to even one of the five problems has dire implications for the field. Tour allowed origins researchers to assume unrealistically favorable starting conditions. The hurdles are collosal for life’s constituent molecules to form in sufficiently high concentrations and purities to allow for even the slightest possibility of their linking into proteins, RNA, or complex polysaccharides (here, here). In addition, any cellular component that formed on the early Earth would have decomposed long before finding its way to the staging ground for an aspiring cell. Consequently, even if every problem were fully solved, life’s genesis would still face the insurmountable hurdle of transporting the components of life to the same microscopic environment.
YouTubers and other defenders of the secular faith of scientific materialism have confidently asserted that scientists are steadily unraveling the mystery of life’s origin. Yet Tour called on leading experts to demonstrate whether they had achieved any real progress in answering any of the most fundamental questions. None could rise to the challenge.
At some point, both the scientific community and the public will need to recognize that the lack of progress cannot be explained by a lack of serious effort by highly competent scientists but by the philosophical assumptions blinding them from seeing the truth staring them in the face. The answer to life’s origin does not reside in the fields of physics and chemistry but in the mind behind our universe.
|
|
|
Post by chemengineer on Dec 2, 2023 17:43:55 GMT -5
Science is about questioning science, not about censorship and bullying, which are practiced by the Left and public schools and universities across America.
Imagine Wilbur and Orville Wright, two high school dropouts, reasoning, "Well, since Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society, the oldest science organization in the world, said in 1895, 'Heavier than air human flight is impossible,' we shouldn't even think we can build an airplane. So let's just throw out our wind tunnel, wings, engine, and other stuff because science knows best, right?"
|
|
|
Post by chemengineer on Jan 23, 2024 13:54:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chemengineer on Feb 16, 2024 13:31:14 GMT -5
A wonderful website created by a Rabbi in Jerusalem years ago. Two years ago, I found a typographical error and notified them via email. Rabbi Geduld replied to thank me and tell me he corrected it. Now just last week I went back and the website was GONE! What are the odds that the one person in the world who reported the error would two years later report that the website was gone? Rabbi renewed it immediately. Study it and learn: 2001Principle.net
|
|