• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is YE Creationist Kent Hovind right?

TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
It is easy to surpass the mind of all the scientists of the Earth because they proved that people are not people, but animals.
Click to expand...

People aren't animals "instead" of people.
People are simply also animals. And people.

Just like cats are cats and also mammals.

If a person is an animal, then there can be no angels.
Click to expand...

Doesn't follow.

Here is a childish, unspoiled view of the world: plants, animals, people, angels, God
Click to expand...

At least you see it's childish....

To say that people are meaningless beasts means Nihilism.
Click to expand...

It doesn't, actually.
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
It is war casualty. It is third world war.
Click to expand...

Thats it, you have now earned an ignore. Sarah Everard was kidnapped, raped and murdered by one if your precious policemen. No war involved just a pervered murderous cop. Have a nice life.
 
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
ChristineM said:
And i trust that as a qualified scientist you also understand the meaning of scientific theory.
Click to expand...

This understanding allows me and others to analyze existing theory and figure out where conceptual problems occur. I like to dig deeper and not just memorize and accept consensus thinking. I was a Chemical Engineer by trade and an Honorary Chemist by decree. There was more money in Engineering so I went that direction for a career. I specialized in materials such as metals, ceramic and polymers. Physical bio-organic chemistry of polymers is right down my ally. It can be applied to life since this is what it is at the deepest level.

One problem I have with much of the current biological theory of evolution is it does not include the physical chemical impact of water, even though water is the main component of life. Water is lumped into statistical assumptions, so one does not have to know anything about water in detail. It assumes the DNA is doing everything and mutation is all DNA, and not logic involving water.

Organics alone will not allow life to appear. The DNA double helix, as usually written in textbooks, does not work. It needs water to come to life. The DNA has hydrogen bonding provisions for a double helix of water in the major and minor grooves. This reality is not taken into account when teaching biology or else the correct drawings would be in all the textbooks.

As early as the 1950's, experiments where run with single cells to investigate the impact of water and other solvents on life as we know it. The cells were dehydrated to see if the organics alone worked without water since this is how it is presented in drawings. Organics alone cannot support life, even though textbooks show it this way. Water, at minimum, is needed to form the proper 3-D polymer configurations needed for bioactivity. There are many other things that come from the water.

The dehydrated cells were also mixed with all the various solvents that had been postulated as being possible to support life; other planets. None of these solvents could bring the dehydrated cells back to life, except water. In fact, no other solvent could make anything work, properly, down to single proteins. A different solvent, like an alcohol,will prioritize the potentials differently, and pack things wrong. This is not rocket science. Life in other solvents cannot use DNA or RNA.

Life on earth evolved in water. Water helped define the direction for abiogenesis evolution, by providing unique potentials at the nanoscale. Water selected these very particular materials; protein, RNA and DNA, which is why they only work in water. Liquid water wishes to hydrogen bond the matrix of water together and things in water need to accommodate that or potentials are created.

Other solvents will interact with natural bio-materials differently, and will not allow them to pack in any useful bioactive way. Water is like an environment leading to very unique chemical selection. The analogy is the Arctic Circle sets the potentials for macro-life selection. Polar bears will not be selected elsewhere since they are designed for this Arctic potentials. Water has its own potentials and selected the best fit bio-molecules for its nanoscale environmental.

Life and evolution is as much connected to DNA, as it is to the internal water environment. The current theory is half baked organic and is not fully scientific. Can anyone show me the scientific basis for how the impact of water can be lumped and modeled as randomness? It may be a good approximation method, since the water impact is very complicated, but approximation methods can often lead to a poor theoretical foundations. Life has a two pronged potential for evolution; macro and nanoscale or DNA and water.

If you look at computers they have hardware and software. Hardware is only half the story since any computer hardware can run a wide range of software. Domestic dogs and instinctive wolves differ by software; water side, not hardware; DNA side. They can breed but their consciousness have different priorities; different software
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top