Important Statement made by EX-evolutionist Dr. Gary Parker
-
Salam,
Let?s contrast this with a modern view as expressed by biologist and EX-evolutionist Dr. Gary Parker
?A cell needs over 75 "helper molecules", all working together in harmony, to make one protein (R-group series) as instructed by one DNA base series. A few of these molecules are RNA (messenger, transfer, and ribosomal RNA); most are highly specific proteins.
?When it comes to "translating" DNA?s instructions for making proteins, the real "heroes" are the activating enzymes. Enzymes are proteins with special slots for selecting and holding other molecules for speedy reaction. Each activating enzyme has five slots two for chemical coupling, one for energy (ATP), and most importantly, two to establish a non-chemical three-base "code name" for each different amino acid R-group. You may find that awe-inspiring, and so do my cell-biology students! ,]
?And that?s not the end of the story. The living cell requires at least 20 of these activating enzymes I call "translases," one for each of the specific R-group/code name (amino acid/tRNA) pairs. Even so, the whole set of translases (100 specific active sites) would be (1) worthless without ribosomes (50 proteins plus rRNA) to break the base-coded message of heredity into three-letter code names; (2) destructive without a continuously renewed supply of ATP energy ,,,] to keep the translases from tearing up the pairs they are supposed to form; and (3) vanishing if it weren?t for having translases and other specific proteins to re-make the translase proteins that are continuously and rapidly wearing out because of the destructive effects of time and chance on protein structure!
One can give such descriptions some serious thought, or repeat the evolutionist?s mantra, ?But with enough time anything is possible? and change the topic real fast!
Now on 2 the false concept tht Self-organization cld occur over Vast Time Periods. Is there any reason, a priori, to assume that inanimate chemicals, unguided, will aggregate in manners which reflect neither statistical, thermodynamical nor mechanistic principles, and display behavior which we would otherwise clearly identify as the product of design? Random chemical reactions proceed by discrete mechanisms with rate constants that can be studied in fine detail. These follow very exact statistical rules that are at the lowest level constrained by spatial and thermodynamical laws.
Now, as time passes, molecular bonds may break, allowing individual molecules to separate and later undergo other chemical reactions. Eventually, with enough time, one expects a universal trend towards the thermodynamically most stable distribution. However, some molecules have energy barriers to breaking, especially at cold temperatures, and end up as amorphous ?tar?, the nemesis of every organic chemist. These two outcomes are a priori the expected outcome of random chemical changes, given enough time.
Now, what do we observe today among living forms? A steady state of chemical structures plus amorphous junk? Lets take a second look at how organic material is found currently, supposedly after billions of years, in living organisms. Dr. Paul Nelson, informs us, after the theistic biochemist Dr. Michael Behe
?A typical cell contains thousands and thousands of different types of proteins. Assembled from amino acids in chains "anywhere from 50 to 1000 amino acids" long, proteins fold up into "very precise" three-dimensional structures?and those structures determine their precise functions?
That doesn?t sound like nature behaving as expected. Let?s take a closer look at just one of those proteins mentioned above to see how serious the problem is. From any biochemical textbook we find that a precise 3-dimensional structure is necessary for it to be functional in any useful manner. In some portions of the chain a little leeway can be tolerated, in others the right amino acid must be in place
?This means that if, say, a P does not appear at position 78 of a given protein, the protein will not fold regardless of the proximity of the rest of the sequence to the natural protein.?
Might a single protein nevertheless somehow arise unaided? No! Of the possible chemical bonds between amino acids, all must form peptide bonds, although the natural tendency is for the reverse reaction to occur. Then the protein must consist of only L or left-handed amino acid bonds although the inherent symmetry of the chemical reaction predicts a 50/50 mixture of L and R forms for every amino acid (except the achiral glycine) on the protein! Then the right sequence of amino acids must be combined. Robert Sauer, a biochemist at MIT, systematically deleted small pieces from viral proteins and inserted altered pieces back into the genes at the sites of the deletions to determine how much variation at various portions of the sequence can be allowed. As one might expect, in some portions more degrees of freedom can be tolerated than in others.
Sauer?s conclusion the likelihood of finding a folded protein by a random mutational search is about 1 in 1065. That is equivalent to guessing correctly one particular atom out of our whole galaxy.
And that would be one single, isolated, worthless protein, which would quickly fall apart in the presence of water or ultraviolet light from the sun!
Taken from http//www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
GOD Bless! -
Again you assume naievely like other creationist that Theory of Evolution is complete! How can it be? Scientist have a very long way to go.
What you have given here is the next challenge for Evolutionary scientist to determine biochemical nature of Evolution. Scientist have only just begun in this challenging area.
Because scientist have no explanation for it now does not mean that it can never be explained...
Regards,
-
Again you assume naievely like other creationist that Theory of Evolution is complete! How can it be? Scientist have a very long way to go.
Khi- The Creationists n i never assume tht the theory of evolution is complete. We know tht it is false, fraudulous n corrupt. N the claim tht "scientists" have a very long way 2 go is always an easy way out 4 evolutionists.
What you have given here is the next challenge for Evolutionary scientist to determine biochemical nature of Evolution. Scientist have only just begun in this challenging area.
Because scientist have no explanation for it now does not mean that it can never be explained...
Regards,
Khi- Ok lets see wht fraud n menace theyll come up with this time. However the truth will stand out clear by GOD
Whatever argument they come up with, we provide you with the truth, and a better understanding.
For He has decreed that the truth shall prevail, and the falsehood shall vanish, in spite of the evildoers.
Proclaim, "The truth has prevailed, and falsehood has vanished; falsehood will inevitably vanish."
GOD Bless! -
you wrote
"Khi- The Creationists n i never assume tht the theory of evolution is complete. We know tht it is false, fraudulous n corrupt. N the claim tht "scientists" have a very long way 2 go is always an easy way out 4 evolutionists."Obviously you don't even understand what a scientific truth is do you? Science is a accumulative effort unlike scripture which is absolute truth to believers. And indeed science has long way to go to explain the workings of the universe is NOT a way out but it is the truth, if you can't see that then you have very blinkered view of science...
you wrote
"Khi- Ok lets see wht fraud n menace theyll come up with this time. However the truth will stand out clear by GOD"That's the Creationist get out clause "Invoke God" when you are stuck!
How did the Grand Canyon get created? It was created by receding tide after the Flood and all the fossils was washed up when the waters drained away!
Earth is only 6000 years old and the rainbow is God's bow... yep lets not use our God-given reason to arrive at an understanding but Invoke God to explain it all - how lazy of you. God even tells you to use reason and you can't even follow this one command ! -)
There is never been antagonism in Islam between science and religion but people like you and Yahya are bent on creating one, just like the Fundamentalist Christians. It is only Christianity that is undermined by progress of Science not Islam...
Regards,
-
you wrote
"Khi- The Creationists n i never assume tht the theory of evolution is complete. We know tht it is false, fraudulous n corrupt. N the claim tht "scientists" have a very long way 2 go is always an easy way out 4 evolutionists."Obviously you don't even understand what a scientific truth is do you? Science is a accumulative effort unlike scripture which is absolute truth to believers. And indeed science has long way to go to explain the workings of the universe is NOT a way out but it is the truth, if you can't see that then you have very blinkered view of science...
you wrote
"Khi- Ok lets see wht fraud n menace theyll come up with this time. However the truth will stand out clear by GOD"That's the Creationist get out clause "Invoke God" when you are stuck!
How did the Grand Canyon get created? It was created by receding tide after the Flood and all the fossils was washed up when the waters drained away!
Earth is only 6000 years old and the rainbow is God's bow... yep lets not use our God-given reason to arrive at an understanding but Invoke God to explain it all - how lazy of you. God even tells you to use reason and you can't even follow this one command ! -)
There is never been antagonism in Islam between science and religion but people like you and Yahya are bent on creating one, just like the Fundamentalist Christians. It is only Christianity that is undermined by progress of Science not Islam...
Regards,
Khi- The Quran does by no means support evolution, which is an imaginary fairy tale process. I can only repeat tht. As i said i do not necessary endorse all of Dr. Kent's views but i stand by his viewpoint on Creation n Intelligent Design coz this is an inevitable scientific truth which can be witnessed in every creation. Evolutionists degrade this perfect design by making false claims n propganda. I can understand tht this is not going 2 get out of ur head so easily since these ppl have spoent billions n billions of Dollars 2 fool the ppl n unfortunately u r one of them. I live in Germany u know. Whenever i open a TV channel or read the news there is an article abt evolution "science" in one form or the other. Yet as i read the very 1st sentences i start laughing at the absurdities. These ppl twist things into a self made up "complexity" n thereby want 2 impress the audience. This is not science. This is DECEPTION. Dont allow urself 2 be deceived. Evolution=Darwinism=Communism=Eradication of inferior human races. Creationism=Intelligent Design=Love n respect 4 all ppl n creatures. See the difference? GOD Bless!
-
you wrote
"Khi- The Quran does by no means support evolution, which is an imaginary fairy tale process. I can only repeat tht. As i said i do not necessary endorse all of Dr. Kent's views but i stand by his viewpoint on Creation n Intelligent Design coz this is an inevitable scientific truth which can be witnessed in every creation. Evolutionists degrade this perfect design by making false claims n propganda. I can understand tht this is not going 2 get out of ur head so easily since these ppl have spoent billions n billions of Dollars 2 fool the ppl n unfortunately u r one of them. I live in Germany u know. Whenever i open a TV channel or read the news there is an article abt evolution "science" in one form or the other. Yet as i read the very 1st sentences i start laughing at the absurdities. These ppl twist things into a self made up "complexity" n thereby want 2 impress the audience. This is not science. This is DECEPTION. Dont allow urself 2 be deceived. Evolution=Darwinism=Communism=Eradication of inferior human races. Creationism=Intelligent Design=Love n respect 4 all ppl n creatures. See the difference? GOD Bless!"Earth is 6000 years old and thats a inevitable scientific truth?
you wrote
"Evolution=Darwinism=Communism=Eradication of inferior human races. Creationism=Intelligent Design=Love n respect 4 all ppl n creatures. See the difference?"This is nonsense. Science has no morality of its own. I have told you before. Only human being can act morrally or immorally. But if you don't want to use your God-given reason then thats up to you but I telly you you are decieving yourself by taking non scientist like Dr. Kent seriously. At least listen to a proper "Creationist" scientist like Micheal Behe.
Regards,
-
Earth is 6000 years old and thats a inevitable scientific truth?
Khi- Ive told u many times now tht i dont endorse all of Kent's views neither Harun's. Dont u get this.
This is nonsense. Science has no morality of its own. I have told you before. Only human being can act morrally or immorally. But if you don't want to use your God-given reason then thats up to you but I telly you you are decieving yourself by taking non scientist like Dr. Kent seriously. At least listen to a proper "Creationist" scientist like Micheal Behe.
Regards,
Khi- False. Psedoscience like evolution does. They r racists though ofcourse they dont admit this at the outset. Hitler acted openly on evolution eradicating the sick n leaving only the good pure gened ppl survive. As far as Behe is concerned yes hes a biologist supporting Intelligent Design but u dont even seem 2 agree with him on tht. GOD Bless!
-
you wrote
"Khi- False. Psedoscience like evolution does. They r racists though ofcourse they dont admit this at the outset. Hitler acted openly on evolution eradicating the sick n leaving only the good pure gened ppl survive. As far as Behe is concerned yes hes a biologist supporting Intelligent Design but u dont even seem 2 agree with him on tht. GOD Bless!"Hitler acted imorrally, not science. Science created the atom bomb but it was human who acted imorally by exploding it over nagasaki and hiroshima. But I think the problem you have idmkhizar, I think, is that you take implications of science to be morality. But why? Science is always neutral, it we that either use wisely science or abuse it very badly but it us who can act in this way.
As for Behe - he has good arguments and those arguments are very valid scientific arguments. Scientists can engage with him intellectually. I can see he has good arguments because I have no prejuidice and I can look at things objectively...
Regards,
-
Dear LoteTree,
I would like to make you aware as I feel it is relevant in the bigger picture (and not for character assasination purposes) that Khizar also believes in Uri Geller as the real deal.
It might shed some light on his blind faith in charlatans and disregard of rationality even when repeatedly invited to it.
He was unable to defend his man, Uri Geller when I showed him a video of how he (Uri) behaved when challenged to do his super-dooper-paranormal thing on the (late) Johnny Carson's show in the 80's.
Regards.
-
Dear LoteTree,
I would like to make you aware as I feel it is relevant in the bigger picture (and not for character assasination purposes) that Khizar also believes in Uri Geller as the real deal.
It might shed some light on his blind faith in charlatans and disregard of rationality even when repeatedly invited to it.
He was unable to defend his man, Uri Geller when I showed him a video of how he (Uri) behaved when challenged to do his super-dooper-paranormal thing on the (late) Johnny Carson's show in the 80's.
Regards.
eh... When did you do this?
-
Link plz?
-
Hitler acted imorrally, not science. Science created the atom bomb but it was human who acted imorally by exploding it over nagasaki and hiroshima. But I think the problem you have idmkhizar, I think, is that you take implications of science to be morality. But why? Science is always neutral, it we that either use wisely science or abuse it very badly but it us who can act in this way.
Khi- Yes science shld be neutral but evolutionist "science" is not. Thts the whole pt. They adopted forgeries n propganda 2 spread their false views. thts y Creationists like Kent call evolution a relgion n NOT science. GOT tht?
As for Behe - he has good arguments and those arguments are very valid scientific arguments. Scientists can engage with him intellectually. I can see he has good arguments because I have no prejuidice and I can look at things objectively...
Regards,
Khi- So then i guess u shld be supporting Creation instead of evolution. GOD Bless!
-
Here is one on the general discussion board
http//19.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=18687&rid=0&S=9a82097667239a037a9cbf9614eb8692#msg_18687
I requested a move of 4 or 5 other related (spam) threads to the trash on the same forum where you can now find them if you wish.
Regards.
-
Dear LoteTree,
I would like to make you aware as I feel it is relevant in the bigger picture (and not for character assasination purposes) that Khizar also believes in Uri Geller as the real deal.
It might shed some light on his blind faith in charlatans and disregard of rationality even when repeatedly invited to it.
He was unable to defend his man, Uri Geller when I showed him a video of how he (Uri) behaved when challenged to do his super-dooper-paranormal thing on the (late) Johnny Carson's show in the 80's.
Regards.
Khi- Is saw tht tape bro. Plz dont accuse me of such. Ofcourse if u have a chance 4 preparation then such is possible. However at the live experiment show here in germany Uri performed under CONTROLLED conditions n thts y i think tht the probability of him being a fake is quite low. Yet there were skeptics but i did not find their arguments convincing. I think i gave the link 2 the channel on 19.org. But this has nothing 2 do with my stand on Creation which is of utmost importance 2 me n 2 anyone who truly believes in GOD. GOD Bless!
-
Well Khizar if you review the thread on 19.org where I pointed you to James Randi, you said he was not to be trusted because he believed in evolution.
Is that not enough of a reason to raise it? Is that really a criteria for searching for truth? To distrust someone who accepts evolution?
You need to deprogram your prejudiced views and try to see things in a balanced way. Don't blindly follow - you are making many blunders and exposing yourself as foolish.
Regards.
BTW Johnny Carson's show where Uri Geller was told to select whatever trick he wanted to do with DEFINITELY UNTAMPERED spoons etc. was a CONTROLLED situation.
Uri was embarassed and unable to do anything because he got negative vibes or some other excuse which I can't recall now.
-
Well Khizar if you review the thread on 19.org where I pointed you to James Randi, you said he was not to be trusted because he believed in evolution.
Is that not enough of a reason to raise it? Is that really a criteria for searching for truth? To distrust someone who accepts evolution?
You need to deprogram your prejudiced views and try to see things in a balanced way. Don't blindly follow - you are making many blunders and exposing yourself as foolish.
Regards.
Khi- I don follow anyone/thing blindly. I do study n examine it very carefully n i know 4 sure tht most, if not all, evolutionists r materialistic ppl. They bother only abt this world n not the hereafter.
BTW Johnny Carson's show where Uri Geller was told to select whatever trick he wanted to do with DEFINITELY UNTAMPERED spoons etc. was a CONTROLLED situation.
Uri was embarassed and unable to do anything because he got negative vibes or some other excuse which I can't recall now.
Khi- I saw tht too but it is possible tht he had a bad day or was under pressure. I wldnt have believed Uri had such abilities wld i not have seen this live experiment show in Germany in 2004. GOD Bless!
-
Hello Truth,
I have just had a quick look at the 19.org for Uri Geller threads.
I feel that I have wasted my time -(
Regards,