Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (18891)	7/7/1998 2:05:00 PM
From: IN_GOD_I_TRUST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Hello, my name is Bob and am a work colleague of Steve. He has been kind enough to let me use his id to speak to you. I've been reading your dialogue with Don Martini, from a biology and chemistry standpoint I cannot argue for or against creation. However, from a physics standpoint I can to a degree. I am a believer in the Bible and creation and I would like you to explain your 'voluminous contradictions' between what science 'knows' and what the Bible says. In the arena of physics, from Einstein to present, many top physicists are in agreement that there is a Master Designer behind the universe. I would also like to comment on your last question to Don. Simply because God is real doesn't mean that life on earth will be a bed of roses free of disease or strife, on the contrary, Jesus Himself made it clear that there would be problems in this world but also said "fear not, I have overcome the world". There is nothing 'terrifying' out there including HIV, the hanta virus, ebola or whatever else there is. It's true these things can kill a person but we will all die someday anyhow.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (18891)	7/8/1998 4:08:00 AM
From: Don Martini	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Chuzzlewit, its a sin to lie, bear false witness, or twist another's words to a meaning not intended, yet you wound me, saying my quotes are "out of context". Assuredly they're in agreement with the original meanings, un-slanted. Most I've cited are evolutionists refuting current theory to build a case for their newest idea. All are specialists writing in their own books or the literature, and I've got several feet of their books. I believe I can sit down with any open-minded skeptic who will accept the evidence and demonstrate that evolution is unscientific nonsense which violates every scientific principle it encounters. Creation has so much evidence there's no need to embellish; the matter is simply what the facts say. Nor do I set up a "straw man". Life from peptide-filled seas is accepted theory since Miller/Urey won the Nobel in 1948, but so much evidence has accumulated that other models are being presented. You've shifted your position from prebiotic sea to evaporation pond, where the problems intensify: 1. Evaporation of essential compounds; aldehydes, hydrogen cyanide. 2. Absence of geologic evidence 3. UV radiation destroys microbiotic life, also fragile peptides 4. Amino acids destroy the sugars necessary to build RNA/DNA 4. Reverse reactions, decomposition, contamination, cross-linking, rapid formation of insoluble sludges, incorporation of D-amino acids, meaningless peptide sequencing, absence of enzymatic couplers, lipids degrade into insoluble magnesium and calcium salts [ring around the evap pond] etc, etc, etc HEAR THE WORDS OF THE "EXPERTS": [Credits by separate post if requested] "In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cell, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment" 5 "It seems to me that the idea of coupling agents putting together polypeptides on a lifeless Earth adds another dimension of unreality to an already unreal line of thought." 6 "Virtually all protein like products would be biologically nonmeaningful, their amino acids and other constituent parts would not be in a biologically meaningful sequence." 7 "A methane and ammonia atmosphere would have been destroyed within a few thousand years by chemical reactions caused by sunlight." 8 "The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence we can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts." 9 "In the current debate on creation versus evolution, this DEFECT OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY receives little mention. I surmise that the reason is that we have almost no ideas." 10 Dear Chuzzlewit, you say "The fact that there are no adequate explanations today does not mean that one will not be found in the future. It simply argues there is much that we do not know." That's a profoundly religious confession: "We must have faith." NO ONE knows, Chuzz, how to put this Humpty Dumpty Darwinian theory together. Since you're going to have a religion, why not open your mind to the possibility of a living loving Jehovah who offers you life eternal? I'll answer most of your questions patiently. You're worth it. Sincerely, Don Martini