no scientist alive today understands macroevolution

[betsy]

14 hours ago, ?Impact said:

When he makes a claim about chemistry I agree, but that was not his claim.

You were reacting to his quote:

 

Quote

The interactions of light with small molecules is well understood. The experiment has been performed. The outcome is known. Regardless of the wavelength of the light, no plant ever forms.

http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues

Did you read his letter?  Here's what he said next after that:

 

Quote

 

We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense.

 

Beyond our planet, all the others that have been probed are lifeless, a result in accord with our chemical expectations. The laws of physics and chemistry’s Periodic Table are universal, suggesting that life based upon amino acids, nucleotides, saccharides and lipids is an anomaly. Life should not exist anywhere in our universe. Life should not even exist on the surface of the earth.¹⁷

 

http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues

 

You don't need to be a chemist to see that indeed, earth is vastly different from other planets when we talk about life!

  How odd that scientists get all excited by simply detecting water in a planet (because it COULD mean there's life in it).  Look how much life we have on earth!

 

Kindly explain:

If it's not his opinion as a chemist - then, what claim exactly  is it, that you judge with seeming "authority?"

Edited January 19, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

On 1/17/2018 at 9:41 AM, ?Impact said:

Fine, it is a big punch. Well the knock-out blow is the one I score when I responded to his ridiculous claim: " The interactions of light with small molecules is well understood. The experiment has been performed. The outcome is known. Regardless of the wavelength of the light, no plant ever forms " by pointing out that conducting a couple of experiments in limited circumstances in no way is a "well understanding" of the countless different conditions that existed upon the Earth over billions of years. I can server up rhetoric just as well as your intelligent design nitwits.[/quote]

You've been corrected and shown that you reacted to Tour's exact quote from his own  letter - not to opinions of what you call as ID "nitwits."   

Those are not ID's rhetorics.   Therefore, they are not what you call "nitwits," since they didn't make any unsupported claims at all!  However...... you are making some eye-rolling claims.  The question is, are they supported?

 

You've got some explaining to do.  Here's the question:

How did you know only a couple of experiments were conducted about this?

Cite your source.

Edited January 19, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

7 hours ago, betsy said:

 you are making some eye-rolling claims

 

7 hours ago, betsy said:

How did you know only a couple of experiments were conducted about this?

Cite your source.

I wouldn't matter if a million different experiments were performed, the fact is we are comparing it to countless variable parameters over the course of billions of years. Could you cite your source of trillions and trillions of different experiments being conducted, otherwise you are just making some eye-rolling claims.

[?Impact]

8 hours ago, betsy said:

You don't need to be a chemist to see that indeed, earth is vastly different from other planets when we talk about life!

Based on what? We know about 0.000000001% of about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% of other planets.