|
Understudy.net/orgOk you have made it this far.You obviously must be bored and have nothing better to do with your life. |
|
|
|
Understudy.net/orgOk you have made it this far.You obviously must be bored and have nothing better to do with your life. |
|
[Previous entry: "Kyle Butts lies in the name of God."] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Biology Today 1975 Second Edition"]
02/26/2010 Archived Entry: "Kyle Butts Says New Scientific Discovery Proves Creationism. Hey Kyle do you even have a clue?"
Kyle Butts once again tries to show how scientific discovery means that creationism is right and well science is just inconvenient when it comes to God.
The original article from Kyle Butts. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240319
For 80 years-two generations-the majority of biology textbooks have propagated the lie that life spontaneously arose in a "primordial soup" near the surface of the ocean.
Oh here we go again. Abiogensis talks about the creation of life and it was anything but spontaneous.
Creationists who have not been duped by the evolutionary hype have pointed out for just as long that not only is the spontaneous generation of life biologically impossible, but the "chemical soup" theory is demonstrably false.
Wrong again. Why do you persist in promoting falsehoods? The scientist who have also attempted the Miller-Urey experiment have shown there was a flaw with the original experiment that instead of producing 5 amino acids it produced 22 amino acids. Creationists are not being duped they are being stubborn. They refuse to accept the facts. The truth doesn't matter no matter how much evidence there is.
Finally, after almost a century, the scientific community has admitted that the chemical soup theory cannot be correct. Nick Lane, from University College London, stated: "Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all" (as quoted in "New Research...," 2010, emp. added).
Hey Kyle, this does not contradict Abiogenesis. It merely offers an addition to the Miller-Urey experiment. Nick is also a firm believer in evolution and a premiere biologist. In talking about his book Life Ascending. He states this:
It was a world on which life emerged, 3,800 million years ago....
Whoops I guess that fits right into a creationist view on the age of the earth. Also the hydrothermal vents were a great break throiugh for science because they show how life can exist without light or UV radiation. There are several experiments that have been done in regards to what conditions life could have been created under. What is great about those experiments is they show complex organisims arise under a large variety of conditions.
In 1929, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that UV radiation "provided the energy to convert methane, ammonia and water into the first organic compounds in the oceans of the early earth. However, critics of the soup theory point out that there is no sustained driving force to make anything react; and without an energy source, life as we know it can't exist" (2010). So, with a simple wave of the hand, 80 years of evolutionary indoctrination is dismissed without so much as tinge of guilt about misleading two generations of children and adults. What is even more remarkable, and heartbreaking, is that the "primordial soup" idea is being replaced with another scenario that is equally flawed and biologically impossible. According to the "latest research," life arose in deep-ocean hydrothermal vents. Yet the "hydrothermal vent" theory has just as many defects and errors inherent in it as the "primordial soup" idea.
Abiogenesis is a work in progress. There is more information to be discovered. In 1929 the idea of life without light was a foreign concept. This is not done with a simple wave of the hand. Also so it is clear Abipgenesis is not evolution. You cannot seem to get that concept through your head.
If history is any indication of what will happen, we can expect to see the "primordial soup" idea remain in textbooks for several more years. Slowly but surely, over the next several decades, it will be replaced with the "hydrothermal vent" theory (or some other that might pop up). After years of indoctrination, the vent theory will be replaced by another, equally implausible scenario that allegedly explains how life spontaneously generated from non-living chemicals millions of years ago. This perpetual cycle of theory replacing theory will continue ad nauseam. The only thing that can stop this vicious, destructive cycle is for the scientific community to admit that spontaneous generation is biologically impossible-a fact that has been verified by every relevant biological experiment for the past 160 years (Lyons, 2009).
Sorry but using Eric Lyons as a source is a boatload of fail. Eric is not a biologist. The term of indoctrination is a interesting one. Considering that is exactly what the members of religion do to their followers. Science doesn't indoctrinate. Science educates. The idea that things can change and be updated in science textbooks is a good thing. As our knowledge in matters increases we need to improve the educational materials to our students. The bible hasn't taken much of an update lately has it?
Yet, if they admit this truth, they are faced with the reality that George Wald so concisely stated more than 50 years ago, when he said that the only alternative to spontaneous generation is "to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position" (Wald, 1954, 191[2]:46). How many times must the evolutionary community admit to indoctrinating millions of children for decades with false ideas before we demand that they be held accountable?
The biggie quote out of context. Read what George Wald actually said and the intent behind it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57
The best part is science is accountable. It does hold to the rigor of the scientific method. It does make scientist retract that which does not hold up.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" is a statement that has been preserved for 3,500 years. To this date not a single scientific discovery has invalidated the statement. How high must the stack of outdated, error-laden, evolutionary-based science textbooks reach before society returns to truths found in the only book that "shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31)?
You are delusional if you believe that. The scientific evidence has shown that the Universe and the Earth and their creation and existence do not fit with the story of Genesis. Also the creation of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution. You keep trying to throw garbage into your articles. The planet earth is not here because of Evolution.
I had several people point out to me that Kyle does this for a living. He is paid by other churches to come out and lecture on the bible and creationism. The problem is if he stopped being deceitful he would be out of a job. Kyle will resort to nothing more than circular reasoning or try to go off topic. This is the worst kind of deceit and indoctrination. He claims that science is guilty of this but science has evidence. Kyle should have a mirror.
References:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5900/404
http://www.nick-lane.net/About Life Ascending.htm
http://www.nick-lane.net/Life Ascending Chapter 1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
