Same old tricks......yet they hate to be misquoted!
DC 2010 Release - The Origin of Life and its many misquotes
"The Complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible. Most scientists now believe that life originated in a number of smaller and probabilistically likelier steps. Instead of being one big chance like event, life might actually be an accretion of a series of events emerging at different moments in time.”
The makeup of biological organisms doesn't allow for the alternate theory that is why the statement was omitted:
Charles Darwin zealots have made science a substitute religion
Christopher Booker is troubled by the fervor surrounding the 200-year anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.
One great stumbling block to his argument is that evolution has repeatedly taken place in leaps forward so sudden and so complex that they could not possibly have been accounted for by the gradual process he suggested - “the Cambrian explosion" of new life forms, the complexities of the eye, the post-Cretaceous explosion of mammals. Again and again some new development emerged which required a whole mass of interdependent changes to take place simultaneously, such as the transformation of reptiles into feathered, hollow-boned and warm-blooded birds.
I've engaged in many conversations with scientists that are theists. The WTS doesn't even need to make a case for the the origin of life and the physical universe without a designer: join a real discussion for a change:
Calton Description: Particle Physicist, String Theorist, Cosmologist: Has matter/energy always existed?
"I just find it odd that a true scientist does not remain humble and agnostic" - Supespook
How does humility imply agnosticism? Are you also surprised by scientists who are atheistic instead of agnostic?
I am a theist because I believe it provides the greatest metaphysical explanatory power with the fewest non-trivial assumptions. I feel that naturalism, while a plausible and logically consistent worldview, ultimately runs into too many difficulties to be taken seriously. I do not assert this with a sense of brute dogmatism, but rather as my personal view which you are welcome to challenge (how else can I learn?).
"Just because we don't understand the true origin of the universe today, doesn't mean that we will never find the answers" - Superspook
If one insists on holding out for a scientific answer, then you will never find the answer. Any proposed explanation for the origin of the universe will be metaphysical and outside the reach of empirical science, whether it is theism, a string derived model, or turtles all the way down.
Alice, i will point out the obvious: the cambrian explosion had to do with multicelled organisms. The quote is about the origin of one cell.
multicelled != singlecelled
you are comparing apples to oranges. Since you brought up the line of argument, can you then provide me with the reason you think 'all parts of a cell occur at once' is a fair description of the current thinking? you know, physical evidence, that it is the majority oppinion by experts, anything like that?
The first quote is misquoted !!
1 / p4-5 How life began: evolution's three geneses par Alexandre Meinesz
no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction."
Here the quote in context page 45. http://www.scribd.com/doc/27089768/How-Life-Began-Evolution-s-Three-Geneses
The balance sheet of the last 50 years of research on the origin of life is simple. No empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearence of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and on significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction. Even if our alchemists one day reconstruct in their laboratories part of the puzzle of how bacterial machinenry arose, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that that is how things actually happened on Earth.By contrast, we are witnessing the emergence of a group of new arguments and a new piece of evidence (the magnetite necklaces) in favor of an alternative hypothesis : an extraterrestrial origin. I will add that, if this hypothesis is supported by other sorts of tangible evidence, many of the articles contesting the first reports that appeared in 1996 will be thrown into question. After all, if a research team proves that these traces could be of inorganic or terrestrial origin, there is no decisive reason to choose between the two hypotheses – there is doubt. The two demonstrations cancel one another. However, if other lines of research prove that the rock really does have traces of life, it is worth reexamining the previously disputed finding.
In fact, Meinesz's objection is not about possility of abiogenesis itself but on the impossibility to prove HOW it happened exactly on earth. This comment introduced a chapter dedicated to panspermia.
here are a few of the "disclaimer" footnotes:
* Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.
# It should be noted that neither the New Science aricle nor Bapteste nor Rose mean to suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. Their point, rather, is that Darwin 's proposed tree of life, a mainstay of his theory, is not supported by the evidence. Such scientists still seek other explanations involving evolution.
• Note: None of the researchers quoted in this box believe in the Bible's teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.
but I want to get all misquotes and inaccuracies listed properly, so that once it is released over here, I have my information ready at hand to wipe the brochure totally
how is your list going? I am in a heated and on going conversation with my bro this week who is a former elder who stepped down from heavy work schedule.
If you have a nice tidy list, I would be interested in referencing your finds. Make the list an unmistaken mile long as trusting the quotes given with holy spirit for proper grazing of spiritual food.
and by the way.... why is it ok for the GB to research outside but it's not ol for us? hmmm