|
Post by rational on Aug 11, 2019 21:11:58 GMT -5
There was a saying Theodore Woodward told his interns: "When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras". In this case I can hear the galloping and I am not thinking Gish!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 11, 2019 23:21:47 GMT -5
Still wondering which of the "creationist " church that you attend, gratu.
Which belief does your church adhere to " Old earth or young earth? "
www.gotquestions.org/old-earth-vs-young-earth.html
<except>
" If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6,000 years old. In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around 4.5 billion years and the age of the universe around 14.6 billion years.
The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly."
Also many Christians understand the evolution of life and accept it.
ncse.com/library-resource/what-do-christians-really-believe-evolution
<excerpt>
What Do Christians Believe?
"While a number of recent surveys give us some information on how many Americans express beliefs compatible with literal interpretations of the Bible, they don't tell us whether such beliefs are, in fact, required of Christians by their denominations. Even though the numbers of those polled in the US who say that they accept evolution is about equal with those who accept special creation of humans, the majority of Americans professing to be Christians belong to denominations that accept evolution."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 11, 2019 23:46:11 GMT -5
Gratu.
Why do you continue to cite all of these places rather than answering questions?
Those arguments have been for a long time Don't you realize that I have viewed such arguments many times before you even entered the picture?
Still wondering why you have to rely on other people's videos rather than answering questions. For instance, why are you so reluctant to acknowledge you church affiliation and it's tenets ?
You readily cite all of your perceived, -as well as actual, -problems with the 2x2's; -why so reluctant to name your present church affiliation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 23:49:38 GMT -5
DEBATE: Phil Donahue, Duane Gish, Evolution vs. Creation, Part 1 www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLSejnkMxDQgratu's Notes - on Part 1 Phil obviuosly accepts Watch Tower doctrines as Christian - i.e., he argued about Blood Transfusions being against God's law (J.W. teachings ALONE) as a reason he would not allow creation to be taught in public school. It bacame most clear that Phil wants his religion taught in public schools, but not creation - Phil is/was obviously a theistic evolutionist who would decide for all students that only theistic evolution be taught to the kids - the TYPICAL 'neutral' TYRANY of public school educators in our times. Is this really the point that Phil was making? Let's look at what was sad about the transfusions: There are religions, as you must know, that think blood transfusions are against God's law. You know about that. If I believe that a blood transfusion is against God's law can I teach that in a public school? You can teach that there are people who believe that and why they believe that you don't have to force anyone to believe that. It was an example of what some theists believe and why it shouldn't be taught in schools as fact. Almost the exact opposite of what you claimed was said. Phil is not a JW. He did not want creation science to be taught in schools and this was an example why. And the point being made was that there is no science that supports creationism. As uncommon as listening to a video and getting the points made right. If you insist upon twisting what I wrote all out of shape rational, then I have no choice but speak to you -- You draw a distinction where there is NO difference between what I wrote, what Duane said, what Phil said OR what you have said in specific regard to public school teachers teaching religion in public school classrooms. I would not want Phil or you teaching my kids religion either because he is/was obviously a theistic evolutionist who does not seem to know the difference between cultic doctrine (J.W. doctrine) and Biblical teachings - much less that creation is not any more a religion than evolution is. And your opinion that there is no science that supports creation is about as ignorant as poor Phil showed himself to be in the video. The evidence that evolution scientists observe as support of evolution is the very same evidence that creation scientists observe as support of creation. And if creation is a religion so is evolution a religion. And if evolution is not a religion, neither is creation - both evolution and creation are nothing more than explanations of origin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 0:22:04 GMT -5
Gratu.
Why do you continue to cite all of these places rather than answering questions?
Those arguments have been for a long time Don't you realize that I have viewed such arguments many times before you even entered the picture?
Still wondering why you have to rely on other people's videos rather than answering questions. For instance, why are you so reluctant to acknowledge you church affiliation and it's tenets ?
You readily cite all of your perceived, -as well as actual, -problems with the 2x2's; -why so reluctant to name your present church affiliation? well not to defend gratu but he would have to be able to read your mind and experiences to know what you have or haven't viewed....right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 0:48:45 GMT -5
"Why do you continue to cite all of these places rather than answering questions?"
Simply because every time I comment, if rational doesn't twist up what I have said that long handled chief angel of rational does, if not both at one and the same time. I have not seen better examples of 2x2 style arrogance since I left the 2x2 church, both of whom talk down my "pay grade" as if they know something about that topic -always trying to show off their 'superiority over everyone else.
So I have reverted to posting Bible teachers' videos in link form for viewers who do not post on here, leaving the clicking to anyone who chooses to do so - you will see very little else, especially after yet another LONG WINDED twisting of my very brief notes on half a video twisted so as to to draw a distinction where there is no difference. This is rational's thread in memory of Duane Gish - I don't see rational or his similar critics picking apart the things shared in the videos by Duane Gish - just arrogant 'blanket' denial of "creation science" as science.
So I thank you Wally for asking - so all get the answer.
"You readily cite all of your perceived, -as well as actual, -problems with the 2x2's; -why so reluctant to name your present church affiliation? "
I have clearly stated my church affiliation several times since registering. But here for your convenience I do so again - I am a believer in and of Biblical faith. And I gather with other believers of Biblical faith wherever I find them (including a few closet-believers among the 2x2s) - sometimes even on street corners any day of the week. And I have also found some on this board to share faith with and encourage as best I can, any day of the week. I have also clearly stated all of the tenets of my faith several times over since registering, but if you are even interested in those tenets I'll let you do some of your own homework BECAUSE to this time I have not seen you spell out even one of the tenets of YOUR faith.But here is a hint for you, the first tenet of my faith is the full deity (His own claim) and full humanity (obvious to His disciples) of Jesus the Messiah.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 12, 2019 2:13:46 GMT -5
Gratu.
Why do you continue to cite all of these places rather than answering questions?
Those arguments have been for a long time Don't you realize that I have viewed such arguments many times before you even entered the picture?
Still wondering why you have to rely on other people's videos rather than answering questions. For instance, why are you so reluctant to acknowledge you church affiliation and it's tenets ?
You readily cite all of your perceived, -as well as actual, -problems with the 2x2's; -why so reluctant to name your present church affiliation? well not to defend gratu but he would have to be able to read your mind and experiences to know what you have or haven't viewed....right? True, but, he should realize by now that we aren't bothering to check his numerous videos.
Besides, he just throws them out there with out making his own comments about them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 2:31:38 GMT -5
well not to defend gratu but he would have to be able to read your mind and experiences to know what you have or haven't viewed....right? True, but, he should realize by now that we aren't bothering to check his numerous videos.
Besides, he just throws them out there with out making his own comments about them.
"...he should realize by now that we aren't bothering to check his numerous videos." I am depending on that because YOU MIGHT have something good to say in respose to Duane Gish sometime soon --- however I do not post FOR YOUR EYES anyway because I already know they are closed tight. I post mainly for visitors who have not and or will not register and post on this board - and fellow believers who I have found on here.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 12, 2019 2:54:41 GMT -5
"Why do you continue to cite all of these places rather than answering questions?" Simply because every time I comment, if rational doesn't twist up what I have said that long handled chief angel of rational does, if not both at one and the same time. I have not seen better examples of 2x2 style arrogance since I left the 2x2 church that rational and his chief angel, both of whom talk down my "pay grade" as if they know something about that topic -always trying to show off their 'superiority over everyone else. So I have reverted to posting videos in link form leaving the clicking to anyone who chooses to do so - you will see very little else, especially after yet another LONG WINDED twisting of my very brief notes on half a video twisted so as to to draw a distinction where there is no difference. This is rational's thread in memory of Duane Gish - why has he not responded TO DUANE GISH on it yet (that is not a question because the answer is obvious). So I thank you Wally for asking - so all get the answer. "You readily cite all of your perceived, -as well as actual, -problems with the 2x2's; -why so reluctant to name your present church affiliation? "I have clearly stated my church affiliation several times since registering. But here for your convenience I do so again - I am a believer in and of Biblical faith. And I gather with other believers of Biblical faith wherever I find them (including a few closet-believers among the 2x2s) - sometimes even on street corners any day of the week. And I have also found some on this board to share faith with and encourage as best I can, any day of the week. If you truly wanted a debate or at least dialogue about your posts gratu, - you would not feel the need to complain that people "twist" up what you say. All we are doing is making comments ourselves.
Apparently unless we agree with your posts, anyone that answers is either "twisting" your post or being that person's " long handled chief angel."
I missed where you gave the name of your church affiliation or you are just generalizing and don't actually have a fellowship that you attend Regularly.
The reason given that you "gather with other believers of Biblical faith wherever I find them," doesn't ring very true with the scripture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 2:58:19 GMT -5
"If you truly wanted a debate....."
Who told YOU that I want, let alone consider discussion on this board a "debate." I said I am here to share the good news of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 12, 2019 5:08:02 GMT -5
"If you truly wanted a debate....." Who told YOU that I want, let alone consider discussion on this board a "debate." I said I am here to share the good news of the Bible. This is a board where people can present their views.
Anytime we do present OUR views, -you claim that we are "twisting" your supposedly "good news of the Bible" and you make false accusations against us.
Are YOUR accusations suppose to be a part of the "good news of the Bible?"
Then you assume we aren't allowed to answer you?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 12, 2019 6:37:58 GMT -5
If you insist upon twisting what I wrote all out of shape rational, then I have no choice but speak to you -- You draw a distinction where there is NO difference between what I wrote, what Duane said, what Phil said OR what you have said in specific regard to public school teachers teaching religion in public school classrooms. Since you claimed Gish wanted to teach creationist science there is no difference. The issue is that there is no creationist science. Phil is not religious so the chances of his teaching anything religious is slim. The biggest discrepancy is that you said Phil was a JW when he used the example regarding transfusions to point out how crazy it would be to reach what some religions consider fact (for example, god does not like transfusions) when it goes directly against what is known ro be true and has resulted in the death of people who were led to believe it. Well, you are safe because both Phil and me do not believe religion should be taught in school and Phil, not believing in god, could hardly be called a theistic anything. The use of the example of transfusions was just pointing out the way teaching religious beliefs has the potential for harm. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits ingesting blood and that Christians should not accept blood transfusions or donate or store their own blood for transfusion. The belief is based on an interpretation of scripture that differs from that of other Christian denominations. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions) The JW interpretation of scripture is no less unsupported that the creationists whose interpretation of scripture lead them to believe the world is 6,000 years old. Just as Lisle has tried to twist the speed ot light to make his point, so have others failed in their work. This is why there is no theory of creation. There are no base facts to build upon. Creation 'scientists' do not use the evidence to support their work. Remember how long the chants were "There are no transitional fossils." even though there are 10s of thousands? "There are no new species." even though there are examples of new species being created within the lifetime of living humans. The creationists is an ongoing demand for 'perfect' data even though data collected from 800 million years ago can never be perfect. The impostant thing is that as new data is found it only adds to the theory of evolution and does not contradict the premise. Nope. Pull out the god of the gaps and there id no data to support the creationist story. Nope. Creationism is an attempt to make the data fit the interpretation of scripture creationists have applied to the bible and evolution is taking data and using it to verify the existing theory and seeing if the new data matches the prediction. That is the difference between science and religion. The interesting thing is that I posted the actual words that Phil spoke in the video and you still thought him to be a believer. And somehow I was twisting your words when all I did was post Phil's words that contradicted what you claimed. After this demonstration of listening and reporting the content of videos I am somewhat surprised that that you were able to pull as many points out of the Lisle video that you did.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 12, 2019 7:07:38 GMT -5
True, but, he should realize by now that we aren't bothering to check his numerous videos.
Besides, he just throws them out there with out making his own comments about them.
"...he should realize by now that we aren't bothering to check his numerous videos." I am depending on that because YOU MIGHT have something good to say in respose to Duane Gish sometime soon --- however I do not post FOR YOUR EYES anyway because I already know they are closed tight. I post mainly for visitors who have not and or will not register and post on this board - and fellow believers who I have found on here. Oh, there are some who read here that look at the stuff that has been thrown at the wall and slowly try to clean up the mess. It is something that needs to be done after someone gallops through lest the information stuck to the walls lead someone astray.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 12, 2019 7:18:37 GMT -5
"Why do you continue to cite all of these places rather than answering questions?" Simply because every time I comment, if rational doesn't twist up what I have said that long handled chief angel of rational does, if not both at one and the same time. I have not seen better examples of 2x2 style arrogance since I left the 2x2 church, both of whom talk down my "pay grade" as if they know something about that topic -always trying to show off their 'superiority over everyone else. And by twisting do you mean posting the actual text to show how you have misrepresented the video? Unsubstantiated bits and pieces thrown out for people to find stuck to the wall. Nope, it was a satirical post warning of what I was guessing was going to be a continuation of the Gish gallop. And it has come to pass. (Wonder if that qualifies as a prophet?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 9:39:08 GMT -5
"Why do you continue to cite all of these places rather than answering questions?" Simply because every time I comment, if rational doesn't twist up what I have said that long handled chief angel of rational does, if not both at one and the same time. I have not seen better examples of 2x2 style arrogance since I left the 2x2 church, both of whom talk down my "pay grade" as if they know something about that topic -always trying to show off their 'superiority over everyone else. And by twisting do you mean posting the actual text to show how you have misrepresented the video? Unsubstantiated bits and pieces thrown out for people to find stuck to the wall. Nope, it was a satirical post warning of what I was guessing was going to be a continuation of the Gish gallop. And it has come to pass. (Wonder if that qualifies as a prophet?) "And by twisting do you mean posting the actual text to show how you have misrepresented the video?" Yup - I don't have the actual text, nor do I need the actual text - you are thus beating up on the little guy instead of Duane Gish - and I believe from your constant performance of the same act that Duane Gish was above your "pay grade" such that you have to bash the little guy to toot your superiority horn. "Unsubstantiated bits and pieces thrown out for people to find stuck to the wall." Look who is talking - your posts often go all over the map in long winded topic hops in long posts in response my my short repeats, NO MATTER WHO my post is responding to. "Nope, it was a satirical post warning of what I was guessing was going to be a continuation of the Gish gallop. And it has come to pass. (Wonder if that qualifies as a prophet?) " So you have tried to make out that it is satirical - with no success with me. And evidently you do not know WHAT a "prophet" is, much less a "gallop," niether of which I see "come to pass" both of which are just cheap ad hominem that attempts to hide not dealing with the scientific data that Gish provides in the video. I'm actually surprised that you are not still going to 2x2 meetings regularly where there are all kinds of leaders and other littkle guys for you to toot your superiority horn upon. I'm sure you could drum up a few worshipers in their meetings. I am already tired of wasting my time with you again. So I'll shut up again and post videos in link for for 2x2 visitors if that is all I can do without YOUR gallop all over every post of my own words - your act on "plagiarism" is a great example of the lengths you will go to across long time periods thread after thread just to toot your superiority horn some more.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 12, 2019 13:48:32 GMT -5
"And by twisting do you mean posting the actual text to show how you have misrepresented the video?" Yup - I don't have the actual text, nor do I need the actual text - you are thus beating up on the little guy instead of Duane Gish - and I believe from your constant performance of the same act that Duane Gish was above your "pay grade" such that you have to bash the little guy to toot your superiority horn. Nope. I was commenting on what you had said in your misquote of Phil's comment on the video. What you did would be equivalent to a teacher watching a video and then teaching students. Duane Gish is dead so there is little to discuss. Virtually all have his claims have been shown to be in error. When the over-acheiver who watched the video at home comments you reply: "'Yup - I don't have the actual text, nor do I need the actual text...' because I don't really have anything to back up my claims nor do I care that what I said is incorrect." But I think readers know that already. Thanks for repeating my definition of the the Gish gallop in your own words. As you pointed out it takes a lot of work to clean up after a Gish galloper passes by. Real explanations require more words than unsubstantiated crap. I had stated: The tactic is to present as many claims as possible without worrying if they are supported by fact or not, knowing that cleaning up the mess will take an unreasonable amount of time and effort and still probably not be able to clear up all of the skeptical claims.
Throwing dung against the wall to see if it sticks is much easier than stopping to clean it up.So many things seem to go over your head. Yet here you are... Nope, they were comments pointing out Well, what you described above is close enough to the Gish gallop to be the definition and the identifying trait of the galloper. No matter how short their nonsense is it takes a lot of words to explain the truth and to provide the data to show the short claim is false. Your attention to details would probably allow this thought process. Sounds like exactly what I had expected - A bunch of short unsupported posts/links thrown up against the wall as galloping by to see if any stick and then being unwilling to support the claim(s) when questioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 20:18:58 GMT -5
The Origin of Life www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YAY68WodD8Edit - Excerpts - quote When Amino acids are in the same solution with sugars they react with one another and they are mutually destroyed. You can't even have Amino acids in the presence of sugars because they mutually destroy one another. Unquote
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 12, 2019 20:33:19 GMT -5
True, but, he should realize by now that we aren't bothering to check his numerous videos.
Besides, he just throws them out there with out making his own comments about them.
".. .he should realize by now that we aren't bothering to check his numerous videos."I am depending on that because YOU MIGHT have something good to say in respose to Duane Gish sometime soon --- however I do not post FOR YOUR EYES anyway because I already know they are closed tight I post mainly for visitors who have not and or will not register and post on this board - and fellow believers who I have found on here. And I post to show that the creation "scientists" have no proof of "science" in their premises and are only promoting "religion," -and only one brand of religion amongst thousands of other religions at that!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 12, 2019 21:40:01 GMT -5
"If you truly wanted a debate....." Who told YOU that I want, let alone consider discussion on this board a "debate." I said I am here to share the good news of the Bible. "If you truly wanted a debate....." Who told YOU that I want, let alone consider discussion on this board a "debate." I said I am here to share the good news of the Bible. gratu,
In which one of your threads have you stated that you are here "to share the good news of the Bible?" The first thread I pulled up was a derogatory indictment of ex- 2x2's.
Your beginning comment on your thread: "Are we seeing similar/same religious discrimination on TMB practiced by former 2x2s? The 2x2 church has for its entire history practiced religious discrimination in just its condemnation of all other churches. So it might not be a surprise to find former 2x2s from within whatever they have replaced the 2x2 Church with continuing to do what they were trained to do as 2x2s."
Is that what you consider "the good news of the Bible?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 23:33:41 GMT -5
The good news of the Bible. Now I want to make clear for you,1 brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised4 on the third day according to the scriptures,
The ONLY good news of the Bible But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! As we have said before, and now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell!
The DIFFERENT good news of the 2x2 church Homeless preachers and meetings in the home.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 13, 2019 10:53:19 GMT -5
The good news of the Bible. Now I want to make clear for you,1 brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised4 on the third day according to the scriptures,The ONLY good news of the BibleBut even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! As we have said before, and now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell!
The DIFFERENT good news of the 2x2 church Homeless preachers and meetings in the home. Well!! Isn't that just wonderful!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 15:52:32 GMT -5
The good news of the Bible. Now I want to make clear for you,1 brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised4 on the third day according to the scriptures,The ONLY good news of the BibleBut even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! As we have said before, and now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell!
The DIFFERENT good news of the 2x2 church Homeless preachers and meetings in the home. Well!! Isn't that just wonderful! Yup - for example, it is written over 2000 years ago; (so when that shows up today one can find good reason to trust the word of God) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 16:00:50 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 16:07:59 GMT -5
Our Created Solar System - What You Aren't Being Told www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI&list=PL-HCqVfWnk4ypvWt9mu576LhOQitAP8HNExcerpt - quote Theories predict that the giant protoplanets will merge into the central star before planrts have time to form. This makes it very difficult to understand how they can form at all. Astronomy & Astrophysics press release The locked migration of giant protoplanets 21 March 2006 unquote
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 13, 2019 17:31:16 GMT -5
The Origin of Life www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YAY68WodD8Edit - Excerpts - quote When Amino acids are in the same solution with sugars they react with one another and they are mutually destroyed. You can't even have Amino acids in the presence of sugars because they mutually destroy one another. Unquote I wonder who you were quoting. Gish would have known better than this and in the video you referenced this statement is not to be found. What Gish did claim was: Gish - Now life could never have evolved in such an atmosphere it's physically impossible you see with all of that oxygen present if there were any amino acids or sugars or something like that generated on the hypothetical primordial earth they would have been rapidly oxidized and destroyed.but this is because he refused to recognize that there was a very limited amount of oxygen on earth during the time he was talking about. Your blood contains sugars and amino acids in solution - products of digestion. I assume you notice that they do not distroy each other. But what should have caught your eye was the following: Gish - what did dr. Miller generate a few amino acids the mere building blocks of proteins that you might say the primitive substances necessary for life he was lightyears short of creating life in a test tube. You see not only amino acids - they must be combined to make protein. You've got to have DNAbecause earlier you had parroted Lisle's work and commented that a light year was a measure of distance and not time, as Gish used it here. But then Gish was a biologist and not a physicist. Did you not listen to the whole video?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 20:19:54 GMT -5
The Origin of Life www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YAY68WodD8Edit - Excerpts - quote When Amino acids are in the same solution with sugars they react with one another and they are mutually destroyed. You can't even have Amino acids in the presence of sugars because they mutually destroy one another. Unquote I wonder who you were quoting. Gish would have known better than this and in the video you referenced this statement is not to be found. What Gish did claim was: Gish - Now life could never have evolved in such an atmosphere it's physically impossible you see with all of that oxygen present if there were any amino acids or sugars or something like that generated on the hypothetical primordial earth they would have been rapidly oxidized and destroyed.but this is because he refused to recognize that there was a very limited amount of oxygen on earth during the time he was talking about. Your blood contains sugars and amino acids in solution - products of digestion. I assume you notice that they do not distroy each other. But what should have caught your eye was the following: Gish - what did dr. Miller generate a few amino acids the mere building blocks of proteins that you might say the primitive substances necessary for life he was lightyears short of creating life in a test tube. You see not only amino acids - they must be combined to make protein. You've got to have DNAbecause earlier you had parroted Lisle's work and commented that a light year was a measure of distance and not time, as Gish used it here. But then Gish was a biologist and not a physicist. Did you not listen to the whole video? Duane Gish speaking, vid time stamp – 45:41 “You know, when Amino acids are in the same solution with sugars they react with one another and they are mutually destroyed. You can't even have Amino acids existing in the presence of sugars because they mutually destroy one another.” vid time stamp 45:55 (transcribed)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 13, 2019 22:37:06 GMT -5
I wonder who you were quoting. Gish would have known better than this and in the video you referenced this statement is not to be found. What Gish did claim was: Gish - Now life could never have evolved in such an atmosphere it's physically impossible you see with all of that oxygen present if there were any amino acids or sugars or something like that generated on the hypothetical primordial earth they would have been rapidly oxidized and destroyed.but this is because he refused to recognize that there was a very limited amount of oxygen on earth during the time he was talking about. Your blood contains sugars and amino acids in solution - products of digestion. I assume you notice that they do not distroy each other. But what should have caught your eye was the following: Gish - what did dr. Miller generate a few amino acids the mere building blocks of proteins that you might say the primitive substances necessary for life he was lightyears short of creating life in a test tube. You see not only amino acids - they must be combined to make protein. You've got to have DNAbecause earlier you had parroted Lisle's work and commented that a light year was a measure of distance and not time, as Gish used it here. But then Gish was a biologist and not a physicist. Did you not listen to the whole video? Duane Gish speaking, vid time stamp – 45:41 “You know, when Amino acids are in the same solution with sugars they react with one another and they are mutually destroyed. You can't even have Amino acids existing in the presence of sugars because they mutually destroy one another.” vid time stamp 45:55 (transcribed) Chemistry: Why only L- Amino Acids and D- Sugars are involved in the biological system? Why not D- Amino Acid and L- Sugar?
submitted 4 years ago by HawkEye_7t Physical Chemistry | Astrochemistry | Spectroscopy 83 points 4 years ago* Just like the extraterrestrial life post yesterday, you've stumbled upon one of the "great mysteries" of life as we know it. A biologically-inclined person should answer the biological part in more detail, but the simple answer is that we use these enantiomers because they are what work with our system. The others simply don't function, have different functions, or in some cases have detrimental functions! The phenomenon is known as the Homochirality of Life and from an astrobiological/astrochemical perspective, the deeper question is: was there a primordial reason for why life started with a preference for one over the other?There are a number of theories for how, say, a very very slight overabundance of one enantiomer over another was formed and propagated through to us. One intriguing theory is this: There exists in the interstellar medium intense radiation (light) coming from the emission of hydrogen gas that is called " Lyman Alpha" radiation (Wikipedia Article). In certain environments, this light is circularly polarized. Experiments have shown that when chiral molecules such as amino acids are exposed to this light and destroyed by it there can be a slight preference to destroy one enantiomer over another. So over the billions of years of the formation and destruction of such molecules in space, before they are incorporated into planets (us!), it's possible that this cycle has built up an excess of one enantiomer over another, and thus life evolved to prefer the more prevalent enantiomer!
A good paper discussing this particular theory is in J Phys Chem Lett last year by Tia et al. at this link, though it may be behind a paywall. A final interesting thing of note: we actually observe an overabundance of some enantiomers in nature, and they tend to prefer L-amino acids!
Two articles in the journal Nature are a good starting point, and they discuss the distribution of these enantiomers in extraterrestrial amino acids found in the Murchison Meteorite!* They are both by M.H. Engel and co-workers, and can be found here and here, hopefully not behind paywalls... footnote *The Murchison meteorite is a large meteorite that fell to earth near Murchison, Victoria, in Australia, in 1969. It is one of the most studied meteorites due to its mass, the fact that it was an observed fall, and that it belongs to a group of meteorites rich in organic compounds.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 13, 2019 22:53:17 GMT -5
Duane Gish speaking, vid time stamp – 45:41 “You know, when Amino acids are in the same solution with sugars they react with one another and they are mutually destroyed. You can't even have Amino acids existing in the presence of sugars because they mutually destroy one another.” vid time stamp 45:55 (transcribed) You are correct. I had overlooked the reference. What Gish did leave out was the fact that he was referring to the Maillard reaction. It is what causes the browning of food. The reactions begin to occur above 285°F. That is why foods don't brown at low temperatures. It is a chemical reaction between an amino acid and a reducing sugar. But it does not happen when they are in solution. It happens at high temperatures. Gish went on to claim that amino acids and sugars could not exist in the same solution only to undermine the possibility of amino acids forming, as demonstrated by Miller. But you are correct. Gish did go so far as to make a claim that, as a biologist, he should have known was false. My apology for doubting your quote.
|
|