Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Friday, February 18, 2011

“We must reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must also concede that there are presently no Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

atheist Biochemist Franklin M. Harold

There are some atheists reading here that seem to have evidence for their beliefs that biochemists don't.
Posted by at
Labels:

5 comments:

  1. HugoFebruary 20, 2011 at 10:46 AM

    1) You're dishonest, you posted the quote with a mistake in it:
    "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system"

    2) Quote-mining proves nothing. You obviously have no clue what you are writing about. Are you able to think by yourself? Are you able to explain what you believe in and why? Are you able to explain why this quote leads you to conclude that "There are some atheists reading here that seem to have evidence for their beliefs that biochemists don't."

    The answer is NO. You have no clue, and...

    3) Your conclusion is wrong. Nobody claims to have DETAILED explanations for how BIOCHEMICAL SYSTEM, or CELLULAR SYSTEM evolved.

    Why?

    Because that happened BILLIONS of years ago...

    4) You are naive. You think that some apologists quoting a biochemist out of context means anything. How can you go through life thinking that this is an honest way to gain knowledge and learn anything?
    Do you even try to understand what you read regarding biology? Seriously? Did you ever put any effort into it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. ThesaurosFebruary 21, 2011 at 8:43 AM

    I copied it the way I found it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. HugoFebruary 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM

    Which shows that my last questions were accurate...

    You are naive. You think that some apologists quoting a biochemist out of context means anything. How can you go through life thinking that this is an honest way to gain knowledge and learn anything?

    Do you even try to understand what you read regarding biology?
    Seriously?
    Did you EVER put any effort into it?

    I guess the answer is NO, you never did, and won't... because you obviously don't care about what's true or not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ThesaurosFebruary 21, 2011 at 3:16 PM

    I think the series that I did on the subject speaks for itself. It's accuate, well thought out, answers relevant questions, and left atheists with nothing more than, "Well, we don't know how life began."

    But you sure know that it had to be material - right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. HugoFebruary 22, 2011 at 3:28 PM

    "I think the series that I did on the subject speaks for itself"

    What subject?

    I write to you saying that your interpretation of the Cambrian explosion is ridiculous and that DNA is not evidence for an intelligent designer (just to name these two examples) and you come back talking about abiogenesis and religious positions...

    In other words, you barely know what subject you are writing on and are not able to focus on specific points. When some people tried to point out flaws in your arguments, you jumped to other subjects and/or built strawmen argument that you then attack to prove your own flawed conclusions. It was like that throughout your so-called "series" back in Makarios days, and it's still the case here at Thesauros' blog.

    Want to see an example? No need to look far, you did it once again in your very last comment!

    " Well, we don't know how life began."
    But you sure know that it had to be material - right?"

    Who cares!? You jump too far, again... and portrait a simplistic and dumb view of another issue... that's the whole point.

    How can you even try to discuss how life started when you don't understand how life works NOW?

    How can you discuss how life started when you don't expose correctly what we know about how life evolved much much MUCH later... AFTER it started?

    Try showing accurate interpretations of the living world we see NOW; then you might be able to comprehend what chemistry, physics AND biology teach us about the possible origins of life on Earth.

    You babble about Adam and Eve as if they were literal characters, but then later admit that common ancestry is a fact (or could be?) that is an indication of a common designer. Actually no, you said that you prefer to call the 'common ancestor' a 'common designer'; two completely different things. Way to be coherent... You contradict yourself by both believing and disbelieving common ancestry, and contradict yourself in the later by equating ancestor with designer. You really think that this makes you someone qualified for writing a series that's "accurate, well thought out [and] answers relevant questions...". Really? What a joke! LOL

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)