Science Disproves Evolution
Thinking

Harlow, UK

#929 Aug 29, 2014
There's a deer in our garden that can dig holes with either front leg.

He's bambidextrous.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Chuckle...
I’m ambidextrous, I’d give either arm to be normal

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#930 Aug 29, 2014
Thinking wrote:
There's a deer in our garden that can dig holes with either front leg.
He's bambidextrous.
<quoted text>
LOL

Since: Dec 08

Tarpon Springs, FL

#931 Sep 4, 2014
Handedness: Left and Right 2

No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).

A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce an equal number of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.

If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organism’s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how beneficial a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness.“Inverted”(or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites.“Inverted” forests would fill continents. Other “inverted” plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don’t beneficial mutations enable most carriers to defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe.[See “Mutations” on page 9.]

d.“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.” Kenyon, p. A-23.

Evolutionists who work in this field are continually seeking a solution. Occasionally, someone claims that it has been solved, but only after checking the details does one find that the problem remains. In Germany, in 1994, a doctoral candidate, Guido Zadel, claimed he had solved the problem. Supposedly, a strong magnetic field will bias a reaction toward either the left-handed or right-handed form. Origin-of-life researchers were excited. Zadel’s doctorate was awarded. At least 20 groups then tried to duplicate his results, always unsuccessfully. Later, Zadel admitted that he had dishonestly manipulated his data.[See Daniel Clery and David Bradley,“Underhanded ‘Breakthrough’ Revealed,” Science, Vol. 265, 1 July 1994, p. 21.]

James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 71–79.

A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1981), pp. 15–32, 154–160.
Dickerson, p. 76.

[http://www.creationscience.co m/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.ht ml#wp1009545]
Thinking

Glasgow, UK

#932 Sep 4, 2014
How's your menagerie?
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#933 Sep 5, 2014
Pahu wrote:
Handedness: Left and Right 2
No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).
A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce an equal number of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.
If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organism’s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how beneficial a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness.“Inverted”(or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites.“Inverted” forests would fill continents. Other “inverted” plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don’t beneficial mutations enable most carriers to defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe.[See “Mutations” on page 9.]
d.“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.” Kenyon, p. A-23.
Evolutionists who work in this field are continually seeking a solution. Occasionally, someone claims that it has been solved, but only after checking the details does one find that the problem remains. In Germany, in 1994, a doctoral candidate, Guido Zadel, claimed he had solved the problem. Supposedly, a strong magnetic field will bias a reaction toward either the left-handed or right-handed form. Origin-of-life researchers were excited. Zadel’s doctorate was awarded. At least 20 groups then tried to duplicate his results, always unsuccessfully. Later, Zadel admitted that he had dishonestly manipulated his data.[See Daniel Clery and David Bradley,“Underhanded ‘Breakthrough’ Revealed,” Science, Vol. 265, 1 July 1994, p. 21.]
James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 71–79.
A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1981), pp. 15–32, 154–160.
Dickerson, p. 76.
[http://www.creationscience.co m/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.ht ml#wp1009545]
Why are you such an ignorant moron?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#934 Sep 5, 2014
Thinking wrote:
How's your menagerie?
<quoted text>
Fine thanks, not gown any in the last few months.
religionislies

Great Missenden, UK

#935 Sep 6, 2014
Pahu wrote:
Handedness: Left and Right 2
No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).
A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce an equal number of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.
If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organism’s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how beneficial a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness.“Inverted”(or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites.“Inverted” forests would fill continents. Other “inverted” plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don’t beneficial mutations enable most carriers to defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe.[See “Mutations” on page 9.]
d.“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.” Kenyon, p. A-23.
Evolutionists who work in this field are continually seeking a solution. Occasionally, someone claims that it has been solved, but only after checking the details does one find that the problem remains. In Germany, in 1994, a doctoral candidate, Guido Zadel, claimed he had solved the problem. Supposedly, a strong magnetic field will bias a reaction toward either the left-handed or right-handed form. Origin-of-life researchers were excited. Zadel’s doctorate was awarded. At least 20 groups then tried to duplicate his results, always unsuccessfully. Later, Zadel admitted that he had dishonestly manipulated his data.[See Daniel Clery and David Bradley,“Underhanded ‘Breakthrough’ Revealed,” Science, Vol. 265, 1 July 1994, p. 21.]
James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 71–79.
A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1981), pp. 15–32, 154–160.
Dickerson, p. 76.
[http://www.creationscience.co m/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.ht ml#wp1009545]
Religious spam from a known liar with no evidence of god.
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#936 Sep 9, 2014
Pahu wrote:
Handedness: Left and Right 2
No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).
A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce an equal number of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.
If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organism’s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how beneficial a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness.“Inverted”(or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites.“Inverted” forests would fill continents. Other “inverted” plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don’t beneficial mutations enable most carriers to defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe.[See “Mutations” on page 9.]
d.“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.” Kenyon, p. A-23.
Evolutionists who work in this field are continually seeking a solution. Occasionally, someone claims that it has been solved, but only after checking the details does one find that the problem remains. In Germany, in 1994, a doctoral candidate, Guido Zadel, claimed he had solved the problem. Supposedly, a strong magnetic field will bias a reaction toward either the left-handed or right-handed form. Origin-of-life researchers were excited. Zadel’s doctorate was awarded. At least 20 groups then tried to duplicate his results, always unsuccessfully. Later, Zadel admitted that he had dishonestly manipulated his data.[See Daniel Clery and David Bradley,“Underhanded ‘Breakthrough’ Revealed,” Science, Vol. 265, 1 July 1994, p. 21.]
James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 71–79.
A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1981), pp. 15–32, 154–160.
Dickerson, p. 76.
[http://www.creationscience.co m/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.ht ml#wp1009545]
Why do godbots always use out of date texts?
Dak-Original

London, UK

#937 Sep 9, 2014
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do godbots always use out of date texts?
Agree. It suits them better to confuse the unwary!
Thinking

Poole, UK

#938 Sep 9, 2014
Because they still think their retarded bible is relevant today.
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do godbots always use out of date texts?
Patrick

United States

#939 Sep 9, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Because they still think their retarded bible is relevant today.
<quoted text>
How dare people disagree with your often stated opinions :-)

If you are in a spaceship that is traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on the headlights, does anything happen?
Steven Wright
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#940 Sep 10, 2014
Dak-Original wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree. It suits them better to confuse the unwary!
And utterly dishonest.
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#941 Sep 10, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Because they still think their retarded bible is relevant today.
<quoted text>
Also that "ancient" knowledge is more correct than new knowledge or more correctly that "knowledge" invented between 1900 and 2000 years ago. As obversely any earlier"knowledge" say from the Egyptians ie. "The Book of The Dead" (from which the 10 commandments were taken) is also wrong.
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#942 Sep 10, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
How dare people disagree with your often stated opinions :-)
If you are in a spaceship that is traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on the headlights, does anything happen?
Steven Wright
Typical godbot ploy assert a statement of fact as an opinion and then try to change the topic with a totally meaningless question.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#943 Sep 10, 2014
Patrick/Lincock has spammed that same old joke a lot.

Judging by the narrowness of his content, I don't think Lincock reads very much.
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical godbot ploy assert a statement of fact as an opinion and then try to change the topic with a totally meaningless question.
Patrick

United States

#944 Sep 10, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Patrick..........
<quoted text>
Is Scotland staying or going ?
Patrick

United States

#945 Sep 10, 2014
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical godbot ploy assert a statement of fact as an opinion and then try to change the topic with a totally meaningless question.
Mellow out and have some coffee with friends who disagree with your Opinions.

Interlude in a coffee shop

To sip coffee with you,
Reading the newspaper,

Sitting close
Steam rises from my cup,

I relish this moment
Cherishing your smile,

Examine your face,
Lines, changes over the years

Still, I look in your eyes
And see the young man,

The hearth is still warm
And I’m thankful for that.
Patrick

United States

#946 Sep 10, 2014
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Also that "ancient" knowledge is more correct than new knowledge or more correctly that "knowledge" invented between 1900 and 2000 years ago. As obversely any earlier"knowledge" say from the Egyptians ie. "The Book of The Dead" (from which the 10 commandments were taken) is also wrong.
Gibberish but amusing -"ancient" knowledge is more correct than new knowledge"

-

NEW YORK —CNN kicked off its coverage of the latest royal pregnancy on Monday by simulating the journey of Prince William’s sperm to Kate Middleton’s egg.

Holding two plastic models of the Windsors’ reproductive cells, the CNN host Don Lemon offered viewers a dramatic re-creation of the path taken by the royal spermatozoon.

The CNN president Jeff Zucker praised the demonstration, calling it “the perfect way to kick off our twenty-four-hour coverage of this story for the next nine months.”

“This is the most important story of the year, and we plan to throw everything at it,” Zucker said, adding that he was reassigning reporters who are currently working from Ukraine.
TheHeadlines

London, UK

#947 Sep 12, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
How dare people disagree with your often stated opinions :-)
If you are in a spaceship that is traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on the headlights, does anything happen?
Steven Wright
"Hardline Right Wing Creationist Accidentally Quotes Atheist Comedian."
TheHeadlines

London, UK

#948 Sep 12, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
Mellow out and have some coffee with friends who disagree with your Opinions.
Interlude in a coffee shop
To sip coffee with you,
Reading the newspaper,
Sitting close
Steam rises from my cup,
I relish this moment
Cherishing your smile,
Examine your face,
Lines, changes over the years
Still, I look in your eyes
And see the young man,
The hearth is still warm
And I’m thankful for that.
"Third Grade Poetry Student Sues Creationist Church For Plagiarism."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 4 hr Frindly 3,322
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Frindly 84,013
News BILL-BORED: Get Ready For Atheists' Annual Use ... 16 hr Eagle 12 - 9
News Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... Thu Eagle 12 - 6
High School Atheism Thu blacklagoon 3 41
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) Wed Eagle 12 - 132
More from around the web