RC,
Your mentioning of living "Down Under" made me think of the fact that Australia is an excellent example of evolution.
While placental mammals dominate the rest of the world, Australia broke away from South America prior to their arrival. When placental mammals compete with the more primitive marsupials they invariably win out, thus the only naturally occurring marsupial left in North America is the opossum. Surviving mainly because of its nocturnal habit.
During the Mesozoic period marsupials were very common in North America; more common than placental mammals. The marsupials persisted until the late-Tertiary.
In the land mass that was a combination of South America, Australia and New Zealand, however, marsupials were the only land mammals. When Australia/NZ broke away no placental mammals had yet arrived.
The marsupials of South America began to go extinct in the late Miocene when a land connection with North America formed, allowing placental mammals to cross into South America and out compete the native forms.
Without the same competition in Australia though, marsupials flourished and diversified. They remain the dominant native mammals although other mammals have been introduced by man. The marsupials of Australia/NZ include over 100 diverse species such as kangaroos, koalas, Tasmanian devils and wombats. Until recently, they also included the marsupial wolf (last seen in Tasmania in the 1950s).
Arthur
Hi Adoucette (and Grumpy)!
Great to be living in a 'living object lesson', hehehe. Glad we 'Down-Underlings' could oblige!
BTW, the corollary to that excellent exposition of yours is the strong suggestion that, as at the time of the 'super-continent' (Pangaea/Gondwana), no PREDATORY PLACENTAL MAMMALS existed that could have wiped out the developing marsupial species (or these predators would have been in Australia etc ALL ALONG, and we wouldn't NOW still have such a diverse collection of these marvellous marsupials!).
Lucky thing the 'evolution' of the relevant placental predators didn't take off EARLIER ON in the plate-techtonic processes? [So much for the mammallian AND marsupial SPECIES being 'CO-created' AS IS and 'for all time' by the 'intelligent designer' AT THE SAME TIME 5-6000 yrs. ago, heh, adoucette? hehehe].
Regards.
RealityCheck.
.
Great to be living in a 'living object lesson', hehehe. Glad we 'Down-Underlings' could oblige!
BTW, the corollary to that excellent exposition of yours is the strong suggestion that, as at the time of the 'super-continent' (Pangaea/Gondwana), no PREDATORY PLACENTAL MAMMALS existed that could have wiped out the developing marsupial species (or these predators would have been in Australia etc ALL ALONG, and we wouldn't NOW still have such a diverse collection of these marvellous marsupials!).
Lucky thing the 'evolution' of the relevant placental predators didn't take off EARLIER ON in the plate-techtonic processes? [So much for the mammallian AND marsupial SPECIES being 'CO-created' AS IS and 'for all time' by the 'intelligent designer' AT THE SAME TIME 5-6000 yrs. ago, heh, adoucette? hehehe].
Regards.
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 20 2005, 08:01 AM)
Lucky thing the 'evolution' of the relevant placental predators didn't take off EARLIER ON in the plate-techtonic processes? [So much for the mammallian AND marsupial SPECIES being 'CO-created' AS IS and 'for all time' by the 'intelligent designer' AT THE SAME TIME 5-6000 yrs. ago, heh, adoucette? hehehe].
Excellent point.
I wonder what twisted explanation the Creationists will come up to explain it?
Arthur
Excellent point.
I wonder what twisted explanation the Creationists will come up to explain it?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 20 2005, 07:22 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 20 2005, 08:01 AM)
Lucky thing the 'evolution' of the relevant placental predators didn't take off EARLIER ON in the plate-techtonic processes? [So much for the mammallian AND marsupial SPECIES being 'CO-created' AS IS and 'for all time' by the 'intelligent designer' AT THE SAME TIME 5-6000 yrs. ago, heh, adoucette? hehehe].
Excellent point.
I wonder what twisted explanation the Creationists will come up to explain it?
Arthur
I thought plate tectonics was the work of the devil?
Excellent point.
I wonder what twisted explanation the Creationists will come up to explain it?
Arthur
I thought plate tectonics was the work of the devil?
Hiccup!/Ha-ha-ha!/Hiccup!...gasp, gasp, ouch! gulp, ohhhh.....whew!
KAEROLL!...you 'DEVIL' you!...you made me laugh right in the middle of some hiccups...very painful in the epiglotis region, for sure!...I wouldn't recommend 'multi-tasking' these two activities, hehehe! What is 'The Devil' NOT blamed for, in the minds of such people, I wonder? hehehe.
ADOUCETTE....At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they invoked THE MAN IN THE MOON as 'lowliest' ID in an 'infinitely regressing' series of 'increasingly irreducibly-complex' IDs! Who knows WHAT such whacko/disreputable miscreant intellects(?) will come up with next! But whatever it is, I can't wait to 'have a go' at it! Like Grumpy, I (and I dare say, yourself and others who likewise abhore the very existence of such abject ignorance/miscreance in this day and age) could never resist such a challenge! Whatever it is, it will BEG for instant dispatch to 'stupidity heaven'.
Ciao!
RealityCheck.
.
KAEROLL!...you 'DEVIL' you!...you made me laugh right in the middle of some hiccups...very painful in the epiglotis region, for sure!...I wouldn't recommend 'multi-tasking' these two activities, hehehe! What is 'The Devil' NOT blamed for, in the minds of such people, I wonder? hehehe.
ADOUCETTE....At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they invoked THE MAN IN THE MOON as 'lowliest' ID in an 'infinitely regressing' series of 'increasingly irreducibly-complex' IDs! Who knows WHAT such whacko/disreputable miscreant intellects(?) will come up with next! But whatever it is, I can't wait to 'have a go' at it! Like Grumpy, I (and I dare say, yourself and others who likewise abhore the very existence of such abject ignorance/miscreance in this day and age) could never resist such a challenge! Whatever it is, it will BEG for instant dispatch to 'stupidity heaven'.
Ciao!
RealityCheck.
.
Glad you are back Grumpy.
Sounds like you were describing how religion/superstition works. Let’s take a look shall we?
Sounds like you were describing how religion/superstition works. Let’s take a look shall we?
Misuse of Authority: When one points to a group of “experts” to validate
a conclusion, even if that group disagrees with the conclusion. An
example would be to state—without ever conducting a poll—that all dentists
prefer a certain kind of toothpaste.
Like citing religious leaders to support religion or politicians to support what is held as a fact by the majority rather than take the chance of insulting the voters?
You mean like pointing out that the majority of people on the Earth believe in a god or are xians therefore evolution is false because it has been “rejected” by so many?
You mean like pointing out that the majority of people on the Earth believe in a god or are xians therefore evolution is false because it has been “rejected” by so many?
Argument to Future: Stating that while something is not true now, it will
eventually be proven to be correct with further study and investigation.
Like supporters of ID and CS who claim that science, once advanded sufficiently, will be able to show that the universe has order and design and will “one day” validate all of their claims about the Earth?
Like ignoring the 30+ (or is it 40) radioactive elements that prove that the Earth is billions of years old and maintaining the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand?
Like ignoring the 30+ (or is it 40) radioactive elements that prove that the Earth is billions of years old and maintaining the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand?
Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy occurs when a point is refuted or
proven by simply dating the evidence as very old, thus making it impossible
to be verified or proven.
Like explaining the total lack of physical evidence of religious “historical” figures as a fact due to such evidence being “very old” and therefore probably lost?
Like taking the mythic tale of a worldwide flood and looking at the erosion of the Grand Canyon and claiming it to be evidence without investigating the composition of the rock? Or how about taking a wheel found near the mythic tale of parting the reed/Red sea and claiming, without verification, that is was an Egyptian chariot wheel?
Like taking the mythic tale of a worldwide flood and looking at the erosion of the Grand Canyon and claiming it to be evidence without investigating the composition of the rock? Or how about taking a wheel found near the mythic tale of parting the reed/Red sea and claiming, without verification, that is was an Egyptian chariot wheel?
Begging the Question: This can also be referred to as reasoning in a circle,
or circular logic. When an assumption or unproven conclusion is used to
validate a premise, one is begging the question. In other words, there is no
factual standing for the premise, because it is based on an assumption.
Like that the premise that the xian or any other god’s existence is a given and operating from that premise and making unproven conclusions?
Sounds more like the stock and trade of the religious hucksters in our society. Science has proven it’s claims over and over. So far, religion has failed to produce much of substance in regards to intellectual pursuits. In fact, if many theist had there way, science would be severely curtailed or abolished.
If an attempt at character assassination is your best tool in a debate you won't stand much of a chance against me.
Let me hear your scientific reasoning for your beliefs, or is your belief in spontaneous evolution based on pure faith?
If an attempt at character assassination is your best tool in a debate you won't stand much of a chance against me.
Let me hear your scientific reasoning for your beliefs, or is your belief in spontaneous evolution based on pure faith?
Sorry if common sense hurts..."you have to be cruel to be kind"..sometimes.
As for beliefs I have but one....merely keep an open mind.
Scientific evidence....It's simply everywhere!.....open your eyes/mind.
[/QUOTE]Are you truly blind......this "orginization" was not brought about by miraculous design, it's just the cumulative effect of mindblowingly slow, inefficientcy.
If that's how you view god...then your welcome to this pitiful ignorance.
[QUOTE]
I did not make any mention to a creator, which is an assumption on your part, so far all I shown is you do not know how to debate and you do not understand the science you are trying to defend. In short that means you are running on blind faith. Once again, if I’m wrong show me.
I’m the one showing a logic set and the science to back it up, I see pitiful ignorance but its not mine.
UFOs do exist, I don't believe in alien encounters, a UFO in merely an unidentified flying object. I am not a UFO nut, and even if I was that would have nothing to do with this discussion or the science involved.
Once again, trying to defame my character will never win an argument of scientific principles.
UFOs do exist, I don't believe in alien encounters, a UFO in merely an unidentified flying object. I am not a UFO nut, and even if I was that would have nothing to do with this discussion or the science involved.
Once again, trying to defame my character will never win an argument of scientific principles.
Sorry.....just teasing!
Welcome to Armageddon SB,
All quotes by S. Bilderback
Well Amen to that!
Well Amen to that!
For the simplest cell to live, millions of chemical reactions need to work in a symbiotic relationship, proteins, RNA, DNA, mRNA, tRNA, all need to be moved to the correct location at the correct time and have a means of locomotion and available energy and... needs a reason to do it. Stripping a cell down to its most basic fundamentals, these function require massive amounts of energy and orchestration, it defies science for a group of non-living chemical compounds to pull this off. The chances that entropy wouldn't win the battle are non-existent. Your scenario of how life could have started is no different, or in some cases, less credible than the stories in the Bible. You have no proof it happened as stated, you put your faith in an improvable story; you are following a religion.
AMEN!
And an Amen to that too!
Finally, somebody who can look outside the box! Well done!
p.s. The whole post was great - but I liked these parts the best! Carry on.
There you go assuming again, and like most assumptions, you are wrong, Nor are you a good phisher for information. There are plenty of people with outstanding credentials that have been, are, and will be, wrong. I'm typing this slow so maybe you will understand this time: my credentials are not the issue and they will never be the issue, the issue is the science. If you need to attack something to try and convince yourself you are right, try attacking my ideas or if you don't understand it just say so. If I am wrong and you understand why, then congratulation it will reinforce your belief-set and have a Built up a knowledge to argue your point intelligently (which I haven't seen yet) all I've seen is a prejudice to one religion over another. I hate having to keep repeating myself, but my only reference to a religion is to yours.
Now it is your credibility in question here, you have proven you do not have one iota of scientific knowledge, if you had the logical and scientific resources you would have use them, instead all I hear is the smart-lip of a street thug. You should ask yourself "why should anyone value my opinion?” I've had this debate many times and so far I haven't seen anything that isn't recycled gibberish from the under-educated.
So far this is only been the origins, I haven't even started with the bad science in the theory of evolution.
What, are you not smart enough to see who is head the dunce cap is on?
It could be that one of us was on the collage textbook selection committee to recommend replacement textbooks - one being on thermal dynamics, let me think, was that you or was that me?
If you don't start giving me a stronger argument, I'll put prayer back in schools, don't try me, I will!
There you go assuming again, and like most assumptions, you are wrong, Nor are you a good phisher for information. There are plenty of people with outstanding credentials that have been, are, and will be, wrong. I'm typing this slow so maybe you will understand this time: my credentials are not the issue and they will never be the issue, the issue is the science. If you need to attack something to try and convince yourself you are right, try attacking my ideas or if you don't understand it just say so. If I am wrong and you understand why, then congratulation it will reinforce your belief-set and have a Built up a knowledge to argue your point intelligently (which I haven't seen yet) all I've seen is a prejudice to one religion over another. I hate having to keep repeating myself, but my only reference to a religion is to yours.
Now it is your credibility in question here, you have proven you do not have one iota of scientific knowledge, if you had the logical and scientific resources you would have use them, instead all I hear is the smart-lip of a street thug. You should ask yourself "why should anyone value my opinion?” I've had this debate many times and so far I haven't seen anything that isn't recycled gibberish from the under-educated.
So far this is only been the origins, I haven't even started with the bad science in the theory of evolution.
I already thoroughly destroyed your idea about the second law of thermodynamics, using a CREATIONIST site to do it.
Of course, you ignored that because you can't argue it.
So if I'm wrong that you have no credentials, tell us what they are. What college did you graduate from, and what degree was obtained there?
And what is your answer to the CREATIONIST site that says how wrong you are on the second law of thermodynamics?
QUOTE
How Evolution Works:
Sounds like you were describing how religion/superstition works. Let’s take a look shall we?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How Evolution Works: |
Sounds like you were describing how religion/superstition works. Let’s take a look shall we?
Misuse of Authority: When one points to a group of “experts” to validate
a conclusion, even if that group disagrees with the conclusion. An
example would be to state—without ever conducting a poll—that all dentists
prefer a certain kind of toothpaste.
Like citing religious leaders to support religion or politicians to support what is held as a fact by the majority rather than take the chance of insulting the voters?
QUOTE
Appeal to the People: Using the general public as your basis for establishing
something as fact, instead of relying on relevant evidence.
something as fact, instead of relying on relevant evidence.
You mean like pointing out that the majority of people on the Earth believe in a god or are xians therefore evolution is false because it has been “rejected” by so many?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Appeal to the People: Using the general public as your basis for establishing something as fact, instead of relying on relevant evidence. |
You mean like pointing out that the majority of people on the Earth believe in a god or are xians therefore evolution is false because it has been “rejected” by so many?
Argument to Future: Stating that while something is not true now, it will
eventually be proven to be correct with further study and investigation.
Like supporters of ID and CS who claim that science, once advanded sufficiently, will be able to show that the universe has order and design and will “one day” validate all of their claims about the Earth?
QUOTE
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Trying to prove a point by creating a
hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, stating that the
sky is green, when, in fact, it is obviously not true.
hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, stating that the
sky is green, when, in fact, it is obviously not true.
Like ignoring the 30+ (or is it 40) radioactive elements that prove that the Earth is billions of years old and maintaining the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Trying to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, stating that the sky is green, when, in fact, it is obviously not true. |
Like ignoring the 30+ (or is it 40) radioactive elements that prove that the Earth is billions of years old and maintaining the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand?
Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy occurs when a point is refuted or
proven by simply dating the evidence as very old, thus making it impossible
to be verified or proven.
Like explaining the total lack of physical evidence of religious “historical” figures as a fact due to such evidence being “very old” and therefore probably lost?
QUOTE
Hasty Generalization: This occurs when a small sampling of data is used
to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, a particular car dealership has
nothing but red cars; it would be a hasty generalization to conclude that
all cars everywhere are red.
to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, a particular car dealership has
nothing but red cars; it would be a hasty generalization to conclude that
all cars everywhere are red.
Like taking the mythic tale of a worldwide flood and looking at the erosion of the Grand Canyon and claiming it to be evidence without investigating the composition of the rock? Or how about taking a wheel found near the mythic tale of parting the reed/Red sea and claiming, without verification, that is was an Egyptian chariot wheel?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hasty Generalization: This occurs when a small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, a particular car dealership has nothing but red cars; it would be a hasty generalization to conclude that all cars everywhere are red. |
Like taking the mythic tale of a worldwide flood and looking at the erosion of the Grand Canyon and claiming it to be evidence without investigating the composition of the rock? Or how about taking a wheel found near the mythic tale of parting the reed/Red sea and claiming, without verification, that is was an Egyptian chariot wheel?
Begging the Question: This can also be referred to as reasoning in a circle,
or circular logic. When an assumption or unproven conclusion is used to
validate a premise, one is begging the question. In other words, there is no
factual standing for the premise, because it is based on an assumption.
Like that the premise that the xian or any other god’s existence is a given and operating from that premise and making unproven conclusions?
QUOTE
This is just a sampling of the many logic fallacies covered in A.J. Hoover’s
book, Don’t You Believe It. It is surprising how many are used by scientists when trying to
explain the subject of evolution—a subject assumed, by many, to be proven!
Don't you believe it.
book, Don’t You Believe It. It is surprising how many are used by scientists when trying to
explain the subject of evolution—a subject assumed, by many, to be proven!
Don't you believe it.
Sounds more like the stock and trade of the religious hucksters in our society. Science has proven it’s claims over and over. So far, religion has failed to produce much of substance in regards to intellectual pursuits. In fact, if many theist had there way, science would be severely curtailed or abolished.
Another Evolution v Creation site?
You guys are all nuts...
You guys are all nuts...
But we are highly evolved nuts.
Arthur
Arthur
No, we are highly intelligent nuts created by God.
Gentlemen, are these hypotheses?...theories?....or more like self-evident truths? hehe. RC.
While I have time and before the holiday rush begins, I just wanted to wish all who have taken time to post and visit here a Happy Thanksgiving.
Even NewGuy……
Even NewGuy……
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Nov 23 2005, 01:11 PM)
While I have time and before the holiday rush begins, I just wanted to wish all who have taken time to post and visit here a Happy Thanksgiving.
Even NewGuy……
GeneSplicer: Thanks...I think. Have a good one.
Even NewGuy……
GeneSplicer: Thanks...I think.
Have a good one.
Hello to all!
To make a valid argument on this topic, first the definition of a "Fact" needs to be presented and agreed upon by both sides.
1. A fact is not a fact if it is based on an assumption.
2. All assumptions supporting a fact need to be proven credible.
3. If rule 2 is not followed by one position, the counter position may make an equaled assumption.
The best place to start is the beginning: how life started from non-life.
Scientifically, it cannot, life grossly violates the second law of thermal dynamics. The diversity and complexity of the compound needed for the simplest forms of life cannot form and remain stable in the same environment. The odds are exponentially greater than placing a teaspoon of sugar in a glass of water and have it form a sugar cube, the process could be repeated billions of times per second for 13.5 billion years and it wouldn't happen yet evolutionist clam living cells formed in less than 1 billion years on the hostile proto planet Earth.
Then there is the "Self Awareness" problem.
Order can be created from entropy (with a net loss); crystals and complex compounds can form in favorable environments. Even if the compounds of life did meet and form a cell, why would it want to reproduce itself? The self-awareness of the cell would also have to form at the same time. Complex crystal structures are found in all types of rocks, but they do not reproduce, they don't eat, they don't practice self-preservation - they have no self-awareness. If the start of self-awareness can't be proven or explained, life spontaneously starting from non-life also will not be proven or explained. It takes the same faith to believe in life starting spontaneously from non-life as it does to believe in Intelligent Design.
This is enough for now. Let me throw this out there and see who swings at it.
To make a valid argument on this topic, first the definition of a "Fact" needs to be presented and agreed upon by both sides.
1. A fact is not a fact if it is based on an assumption.
2. All assumptions supporting a fact need to be proven credible.
3. If rule 2 is not followed by one position, the counter position may make an equaled assumption.
The best place to start is the beginning: how life started from non-life.
Scientifically, it cannot, life grossly violates the second law of thermal dynamics. The diversity and complexity of the compound needed for the simplest forms of life cannot form and remain stable in the same environment. The odds are exponentially greater than placing a teaspoon of sugar in a glass of water and have it form a sugar cube, the process could be repeated billions of times per second for 13.5 billion years and it wouldn't happen yet evolutionist clam living cells formed in less than 1 billion years on the hostile proto planet Earth.
Then there is the "Self Awareness" problem.
Order can be created from entropy (with a net loss); crystals and complex compounds can form in favorable environments. Even if the compounds of life did meet and form a cell, why would it want to reproduce itself? The self-awareness of the cell would also have to form at the same time. Complex crystal structures are found in all types of rocks, but they do not reproduce, they don't eat, they don't practice self-preservation - they have no self-awareness. If the start of self-awareness can't be proven or explained, life spontaneously starting from non-life also will not be proven or explained. It takes the same faith to believe in life starting spontaneously from non-life as it does to believe in Intelligent Design.
This is enough for now. Let me throw this out there and see who swings at it.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 01:14 AM)
Hello to all!
To make a valid argument on this topic, first the definition of a "Fact" needs to be presented and agreed upon by both sides.
1. A fact is not a fact if it is based on an assumption.
2. All assumptions supporting a fact need to be proven credible.
3. If rule 2 is not followed by one position, the counter position may make an equaled assumption.
The best place to start is the beginning: how life started from non-life.
Scientifically, it cannot, life grossly violates the second law of thermal dynamics. The diversity and complexity of the compound needed for the simplest forms of life cannot form and remain stable in the same environment. The odds are exponentially greater than placing a teaspoon of sugar in a glass of water and have it form a sugar cube, the process could be repeated billions of times per second for 13.5 billion years and it wouldn't happen yet evolutionist clam living cells formed in less than 1 billion years on the hostile proto planet Earth.
Then there is the "Self Awareness" problem.
Order can be created from entropy (with a net loss); crystals and complex compounds can form in favorable environments. Even if the compounds of life did meet and form a cell, why would it want to reproduce itself? The self-awareness of the cell would also have to form at the same time. Complex crystal structures are found in all types of rocks, but they do not reproduce, they don't eat, they don't practice self-preservation - they have no self-awareness. If the start of self-awareness can't be proven or explained, life spontaneously starting from non-life also will not be proven or explained. It takes the same faith to believe in life starting spontaneously from non-life as it does to believe in Intelligent Design.
This is enough for now. Let me throw this out there and see who swings at it.
You're way off on the second law of thermodynamics.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
Whenever your entire point relies on the thing you start with, and the thing you start with is wrong, there's no need to argue the rest.
To make a valid argument on this topic, first the definition of a "Fact" needs to be presented and agreed upon by both sides.
1. A fact is not a fact if it is based on an assumption.
2. All assumptions supporting a fact need to be proven credible.
3. If rule 2 is not followed by one position, the counter position may make an equaled assumption.
The best place to start is the beginning: how life started from non-life.
Scientifically, it cannot, life grossly violates the second law of thermal dynamics. The diversity and complexity of the compound needed for the simplest forms of life cannot form and remain stable in the same environment. The odds are exponentially greater than placing a teaspoon of sugar in a glass of water and have it form a sugar cube, the process could be repeated billions of times per second for 13.5 billion years and it wouldn't happen yet evolutionist clam living cells formed in less than 1 billion years on the hostile proto planet Earth.
Then there is the "Self Awareness" problem.
Order can be created from entropy (with a net loss); crystals and complex compounds can form in favorable environments. Even if the compounds of life did meet and form a cell, why would it want to reproduce itself? The self-awareness of the cell would also have to form at the same time. Complex crystal structures are found in all types of rocks, but they do not reproduce, they don't eat, they don't practice self-preservation - they have no self-awareness. If the start of self-awareness can't be proven or explained, life spontaneously starting from non-life also will not be proven or explained. It takes the same faith to believe in life starting spontaneously from non-life as it does to believe in Intelligent Design.
This is enough for now. Let me throw this out there and see who swings at it.
You're way off on the second law of thermodynamics.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
Whenever your entire point relies on the thing you start with, and the thing you start with is wrong, there's no need to argue the rest.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 01:14 AM)
Scientifically, it cannot, life grossly violates the second law of thermal dynamics. The diversity and complexity of the compound needed for the simplest forms of life cannot form and remain stable in the same environment. The odds are exponentially greater than placing a teaspoon of sugar in a glass of water and have it form a sugar cube, the process could be repeated billions of times per second for 13.5 billion years and it wouldn't happen yet evolutionist clam living cells formed in less than 1 billion years on the hostile proto planet Earth.
Perhaps if you were to employ more than one brain cell you'd realise that this statement is drivel.
The first self replicating molecule to arise on this planet resulted from a simple "by chance" series of interactions, one of countless trillions that were occurring in hot, ultra-violet irradiated, chemical soup puddles. It just so happened to involve
purines and pyrimidines which were then in huge abundance.
It could have formed from any great number of chemical interactions, that's why on other worlds the likelyhood of life based on DNA is remote, as their self replicating molecules undoubtedly formed from other "building blocks"
From these initial molecules, trial and error with regards to the environment have spawned all life structures including our own....It's a wasteful mindless process that takes billions of years to form anything of any interest.
So what's the big deal?
Perhaps if you were to employ more than one brain cell you'd realise that this statement is drivel.
The first self replicating molecule to arise on this planet resulted from a simple "by chance" series of interactions, one of countless trillions that were occurring in hot, ultra-violet irradiated, chemical soup puddles. It just so happened to involve
purines and pyrimidines which were then in huge abundance.
It could have formed from any great number of chemical interactions, that's why on other worlds the likelyhood of life based on DNA is remote, as their self replicating molecules undoubtedly formed from other "building blocks"
From these initial molecules, trial and error with regards to the environment have spawned all life structures including our own....It's a wasteful mindless process that takes billions of years to form anything of any interest.
So what's the big deal?
I will gladly argue the second law of thermal dynamics pertaining to cell biology if you think you understand and prove the validity of the website you posted.
I have heard, read and successfully argued against the opinions you are referring to. Because you read it on the web doesn’t mean it's correct - the logic is flawed.
I have heard, read and successfully argued against the opinions you are referring to. Because you read it on the web doesn’t mean it's correct - the logic is flawed.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 04:19 AM)
I will gladly argue the second law of thermal dynamics pertaining to cell biology if you think you understand and prove the validity of the website you posted.
I have heard, read and successfully argued against the opinions you are referring to. Because you read it on the web doesn’t mean it's correct - the logic is flawed.
Read it?.....No it's a purely common sense statement based upon my understanding of the universe.....do something different....try thinking for a change!
I have heard, read and successfully argued against the opinions you are referring to. Because you read it on the web doesn’t mean it's correct - the logic is flawed.
Read it?.....No it's a purely common sense statement based upon my understanding of the universe.....do something different....try thinking for a change!
QUOTE
Perhaps if you were to employ more than one brain cell you'd realise that this statement is drivel.
If an attempt at character assassination is your best tool in a debate you won't stand much of a chance against me.
Let me hear your scientific reasoning for your beliefs, or is your belief in spontaneous evolution based on pure faith?
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 04:19 AM)
I will gladly argue the second law of thermal dynamics pertaining to cell biology if you think you understand and prove the validity of the website you posted.
I have heard, read and successfully argued against the opinions you are referring to. Because you read it on the web doesn’t mean it's correct - the logic is flawed.
What, exactly, are your credentials?
Once you tell me, I'll tell you the credentials of the people who maintain that website.
I have heard, read and successfully argued against the opinions you are referring to. Because you read it on the web doesn’t mean it's correct - the logic is flawed.
What, exactly, are your credentials?
Once you tell me, I'll tell you the credentials of the people who maintain that website.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 04:19 AM)
I will gladly argue the second law of thermal dynamics pertaining to cell biology if you think you understand and prove the validity of the website you posted.
I have heard, read and successfully argued against the opinions you are referring to. Because you read it on the web doesn’t mean it's correct - the logic is flawed.
Oh, and once you answer what your credentials are, read this:
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
I have heard, read and successfully argued against the opinions you are referring to. Because you read it on the web doesn’t mean it's correct - the logic is flawed.
Oh, and once you answer what your credentials are, read this:
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 04:32 AM)
If an attempt at character assassination is your best tool in a debate you won't stand much of a chance against me.
Let me hear your scientific reasoning for your beliefs, or is your belief in spontaneous evolution based on pure faith?
Sorry if common sense hurts..."you have to be cruel to be kind"..sometimes.
As for beliefs I have but one....merely keep an open mind.
Scientific evidence....It's simply everywhere!.....open your eyes/mind.
I am thinking, mostly that you do not understand the science you are trying to defend. I'll try and put this simply for you: Heat from a cold object does not move to a warmer object. The same principle applies to organization, the level of organization needed to create the compound of life. The chemical reactivity of each compound of the first forming cell(s) would need to be near equal but they are not. It is relatively easy to zap some energy into hydrocarbons to create amino acids, the problem arises when trying to create the fatty acids needed to create the cell walls, the energy required will destroy the amino acids and with out a living cell to protect the fatty acids, the fatty acids break down rapidly. There are thousands of basic compounds found only in living cells, needed for life functions, that are not found anywhere else.
I would also like someone to explain you concept of the creation of self-awareness from your point of view. It does exist, at lease for me, if it exists it had to start, where, when how? Remember we are talking science here not blind faith.
I would also like someone to explain you concept of the creation of self-awareness from your point of view. It does exist, at lease for me, if it exists it had to start, where, when how? Remember we are talking science here not blind faith.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 05:00 AM)
I am thinking, mostly that you do not understand the science you are trying to defend. I'll try and put this simply for you: Heat from a cold object does not move to a warmer object. The same principle applies to organization, the level of organization needed to create the compound of life. The chemical reactivity of each compound of the first forming cell(s) would need to be near equal but they are not. It is relatively easy to zap some energy into hydrocarbons to create amino acids, the problem arises when trying to create the fatty acids needed to create the cell walls, the energy required will destroy the amino acids and with out a living cell to protect the fatty acids, the fatty acids break down rapidly. There are thousands of basic compounds found only in living cells, needed for life functions, that are not found anywhere else.
I would also like someone to explain you concept of the creation of self-awareness from your point of view. It does exist, at lease for me, if it exists it had to start, where, when how? Remember we are talking science here not blind faith.
You didn't answer my questions.
I would also like someone to explain you concept of the creation of self-awareness from your point of view. It does exist, at lease for me, if it exists it had to start, where, when how? Remember we are talking science here not blind faith.
You didn't answer my questions.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 05:00 AM)
I am thinking, mostly that you do not understand the science you are trying to defend. I'll try and put this simply for you: Heat from a cold object does not move to a warmer object. The same principle applies to organization, the level of organization needed to create the compound of life. The chemical reactivity of each compound of the first forming cell(s) would need to be near equal but they are not. It is relatively easy to zap some energy into hydrocarbons to create amino acids, the problem arises when trying to create the fatty acids needed to create the cell walls, the energy required will destroy the amino acids and with out a living cell to protect the fatty acids, the fatty acids break down rapidly. There are thousands of basic compounds found only in living cells, needed for life functions, that are not found anywhere else.
I would also like someone to explain you concept of the creation of self-awareness from your point of view. It does exist, at lease for me, if it exists it had to start, where, when how? Remember we are talking science here not blind faith.
Are you truly blind......this "organization" was not brought about by miraculous design, it's just the cumulative effect of mindblowingly slow, inefficiency.
If that's how you view god...then you're welcome to this pitiful ignorance.
Self awareness is just another "recent" manifestation of this pathetic process.
I would also like someone to explain you concept of the creation of self-awareness from your point of view. It does exist, at lease for me, if it exists it had to start, where, when how? Remember we are talking science here not blind faith.
Are you truly blind......this "organization" was not brought about by miraculous design, it's just the cumulative effect of mindblowingly slow, inefficiency.
If that's how you view god...then you're welcome to this pitiful ignorance.
Self awareness is just another "recent" manifestation of this pathetic process.
An open mind works both ways, I have not seen a shred of evidence to support your opinion. You will have to do better than just saying I'm wrong. If there is a flaw in my science and logic, show me.
You can throw insults and digs at me as much as you like but that doesn't change any facts, there can be only one truth to the beginning of life. Your obvious hostilities to an opinion that differs from yours is no different than the Catholic Church locking-up Galileo for looking through his telescope
You can throw insults and digs at me as much as you like but that doesn't change any facts, there can be only one truth to the beginning of life. Your obvious hostilities to an opinion that differs from yours is no different than the Catholic Church locking-up Galileo for looking through his telescope
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 05:11 AM)
An open mind works both ways, I have not seen a shred of evidence to support your opinion. You will have to do better than just saying I'm wrong. If there is a flaw in my science and logic, show me.
You can throw insults and digs at me as much as you like but that doesn't change any facts, there can be only one truth to the beginning of life. Your obvious hostilities to an opinion that differs from yours is no different than the Catholic Church locking-up Galileo for looking through his telescope
So what are your credentials?
Accepted credentials include jobs you have held and degrees achieved at universities, or high schools.
You can throw insults and digs at me as much as you like but that doesn't change any facts, there can be only one truth to the beginning of life. Your obvious hostilities to an opinion that differs from yours is no different than the Catholic Church locking-up Galileo for looking through his telescope
So what are your credentials?
Accepted credentials include jobs you have held and degrees achieved at universities, or high schools.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 05:11 AM)
An open mind works both ways, I have not seen a shred of evidence to support your opinion. You will have to do better than just saying I'm wrong. If there is a flaw in my science and logic, show me.
You can throw insults and digs at me as much as you like but that doesn't change any facts, there can be only one truth to the beginning of life. Your obvious hostilities to an opinion that differs from yours is no different than the Catholic Church locking-up Galileo for looking through his telescope
Let's get one thing clear...we're only here to help. If you ignore this help, that's your problem!
You can throw insults and digs at me as much as you like but that doesn't change any facts, there can be only one truth to the beginning of life. Your obvious hostilities to an opinion that differs from yours is no different than the Catholic Church locking-up Galileo for looking through his telescope
Let's get one thing clear...we're only here to help. If you ignore this help, that's your problem!
[/QUOTE]Are you truly blind......this "orginization" was not brought about by miraculous design, it's just the cumulative effect of mindblowingly slow, inefficientcy.
If that's how you view god...then your welcome to this pitiful ignorance.
[QUOTE]
I did not make any mention to a creator, which is an assumption on your part, so far all I shown is you do not know how to debate and you do not understand the science you are trying to defend. In short that means you are running on blind faith. Once again, if I’m wrong show me.
I’m the one showing a logic set and the science to back it up, I see pitiful ignorance but its not mine.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 05:22 AM)
Are you truly blind......this "orginization" was not brought about by miraculous design, it's just the cumulative effect of mindblowingly slow, inefficiency.
If that's how you view god...then your welcome to this pitiful ignorance.
I did not make any mention to a creator, which is an assumption on your part, so far all I shown is you do not know how to debate and you do not understand the science you are trying to defend. In short that means you are running on blind faith. Once again, if I’m wrong show me.
I’m the one showing a logic set and the science to back it up, I see pitiful ignorance but its not mine.
If that's the case, I apologize, I'll try and find some groovy stuff on the web to substantiate my "common sense"
If that's how you view god...then your welcome to this pitiful ignorance.
QUOTE
I did not make any mention to a creator, which is an assumption on your part, so far all I shown is you do not know how to debate and you do not understand the science you are trying to defend. In short that means you are running on blind faith. Once again, if I’m wrong show me.
I’m the one showing a logic set and the science to back it up, I see pitiful ignorance but its not mine.
If that's the case, I apologize, I'll try and find some groovy stuff on the web to substantiate my "common sense"
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 05:22 AM)
[/QUOTE]Are you truly blind......this "orginization" was not brought about by miraculous design, it's just the cumulative effect of mindblowingly slow, inefficientcy.
If that's how you view god...then your welcome to this pitiful ignorance.
[QUOTE]
I did not make any mention to a creator, which is an assumption on your part, so far all I shown is you do not know how to debate and you do not understand the science you are trying to defend. In short that means you are running on blind faith. Once again, if I’m wrong show me.
I’m the one showing a logic set and the science to back it up, I see pitiful ignorance but its not mine.
So what are your credentials?
If that's how you view god...then your welcome to this pitiful ignorance.
[QUOTE]
I did not make any mention to a creator, which is an assumption on your part, so far all I shown is you do not know how to debate and you do not understand the science you are trying to defend. In short that means you are running on blind faith. Once again, if I’m wrong show me.
I’m the one showing a logic set and the science to back it up, I see pitiful ignorance but its not mine.
So what are your credentials?
Was you question
The big deal is bad science being perpetuated by people with political agendas, including restricting freedom of speech and ideas by banning this exact discussion in a classroom. This discussion has nothing to do with religion, not for me anyway.
I have taught sciences from astronomy to zoology (that's zo-ology not zoo- ology - the long O sound) but mostly anatomy and physiology. My favorite hobbies are astronomy and theoretical physics - yes, I'm a nerd.
QUOTE
So what's the big deal? dry.gif
The big deal is bad science being perpetuated by people with political agendas, including restricting freedom of speech and ideas by banning this exact discussion in a classroom. This discussion has nothing to do with religion, not for me anyway.
I have taught sciences from astronomy to zoology (that's zo-ology not zoo- ology - the long O sound) but mostly anatomy and physiology. My favorite hobbies are astronomy and theoretical physics - yes, I'm a nerd.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Dec 3 2005, 05:29 AM)
If that's the case, I apologize, I'll try and find some groovy stuff on the web to substantiate my "common sense"
Didn't have to look far.....Are you the S. Bilderback (Raelian UFO nut).
Case closed!
Didn't have to look far.....Are you the S. Bilderback (Raelian UFO nut).
Case closed!
S. Bilderback
You, sir, haven't a clue what the second law of thermodynamics says if you are trying to apply it to a non closed system. In an open system where energy(from the sun, heat energy, chemical energy) is being introduced, complexity can indeed increase in one part of the system as long as the overall entrophy of the entire system increases. This is the situation anytime an organism eats food, thus building up it's own complexity at the expense of increased disorder in the energy providing component of the entire system. Energy(in the form of food and heat or light or chemistry) is expended(entrophy increased) to build the organism(increase it's complexity) so energy can indeed flow from the less concentrated to the more concentrated area.
This also applies to biogenesis. The first self replicating protein molecule need only have been a relatively short chain of amino acids(which can be found in interstellar gas clouds, in asteroids and comets). The perfect spot for this to occur would be deep sea Black Smoker volcanic vents where hot chemical rich water is expelled from the vents into deep water, safe from ultraviolet light. The trillions of amino acid molecules in this energetic environment would have millions of years for that first self replicating protein molecule to have come about, and IT ONLY HAS TO HAPPEN ONCE. It needs no self awareness(Bacteria have none), it need not be a whole cell, it does not need to be fast,efficient, robust(after the first few generations 99% could die every regenerative cycle and it's numbers would still increase), it doesn't need seperate RNA or DNA(it may indeed be nothing but a short simple segment of nucleac acid), all that first bit of life needs to be able to do is assemble a reasonable facsimile of itself from the available amino acids in the chemical soup around itself. That's it. Given these facts(and they are facts) it is really almost inevitable for life to begin under the right circumstances, and once it has begun evolutionary forces begin improving the breed through the selection of advantagious modifications. Taa Daa!!!
Grumpy
You, sir, haven't a clue what the second law of thermodynamics says if you are trying to apply it to a non closed system. In an open system where energy(from the sun, heat energy, chemical energy) is being introduced, complexity can indeed increase in one part of the system as long as the overall entrophy of the entire system increases. This is the situation anytime an organism eats food, thus building up it's own complexity at the expense of increased disorder in the energy providing component of the entire system. Energy(in the form of food and heat or light or chemistry) is expended(entrophy increased) to build the organism(increase it's complexity) so energy can indeed flow from the less concentrated to the more concentrated area.
This also applies to biogenesis. The first self replicating protein molecule need only have been a relatively short chain of amino acids(which can be found in interstellar gas clouds, in asteroids and comets). The perfect spot for this to occur would be deep sea Black Smoker volcanic vents where hot chemical rich water is expelled from the vents into deep water, safe from ultraviolet light. The trillions of amino acid molecules in this energetic environment would have millions of years for that first self replicating protein molecule to have come about, and IT ONLY HAS TO HAPPEN ONCE. It needs no self awareness(Bacteria have none), it need not be a whole cell, it does not need to be fast,efficient, robust(after the first few generations 99% could die every regenerative cycle and it's numbers would still increase), it doesn't need seperate RNA or DNA(it may indeed be nothing but a short simple segment of nucleac acid), all that first bit of life needs to be able to do is assemble a reasonable facsimile of itself from the available amino acids in the chemical soup around itself. That's it. Given these facts(and they are facts) it is really almost inevitable for life to begin under the right circumstances, and once it has begun evolutionary forces begin improving the breed through the selection of advantagious modifications. Taa Daa!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 3 2005, 06:04 AM)
S. Bilderback
You, sir, haven't a clue what the second law of thermodynamics says if you are trying to apply it to a non closed system. In an open system where energy(from the sun, heat energy, chemical energy) is being introduced, complexity can indeed increase in one part of the system as long as the overall entrophy of the entire system increases. This is the situation anytime an organism eats food, thus building up it's own complexity at the expense of increased disorder in the energy providing component of the entire system. Energy(in the form of food and heat or light or chemistry) is expended(entrophy increased) to build the organism(increase it's complexity) so energy can indeed flow from the less concentrated to the more concentrated area.
This also applies to biogenesis. The first self replicating protein molecule need only have been a relatively short chain of amino acids(which can be found in interstellar gas clouds, in asteroids and comets). The perfect spot for this to occur would be deep sea Black Smoker volcanic vents where hot chemical rich water is expelled from the vents into deep water, safe from ultraviolet light. The trillions of amino acid molecules in this energetic environment would have millions of years for that first self replicating protein molecule to have come about, and IT ONLY HAS TO HAPPEN ONCE. It needs no self awareness(Bacteria have none), it need not be a whole cell, it does not need to be fast,efficient, robust(after the first few generations 99% could die every regenerative cycle and it's numbers would still increase), it doesn't need seperate RNA or DNA(it may indeed be nothing but a short simple segment of nucleac acid), all that first bit of life needs to be able to do is assemble a reasonable facsimile of itself from the available amino acids in the chemical soup around itself. That's it. Given these facts(and they are facts) it is really almost inevitable for life to begin under the right circumstances, and once it has begun evolutionary forces begin improving the breed through the selection of advantagious modifications. Taa Daa!!!
Grumpy
I'll go along with that. cheers Grumpy!
You, sir, haven't a clue what the second law of thermodynamics says if you are trying to apply it to a non closed system. In an open system where energy(from the sun, heat energy, chemical energy) is being introduced, complexity can indeed increase in one part of the system as long as the overall entrophy of the entire system increases. This is the situation anytime an organism eats food, thus building up it's own complexity at the expense of increased disorder in the energy providing component of the entire system. Energy(in the form of food and heat or light or chemistry) is expended(entrophy increased) to build the organism(increase it's complexity) so energy can indeed flow from the less concentrated to the more concentrated area.
This also applies to biogenesis. The first self replicating protein molecule need only have been a relatively short chain of amino acids(which can be found in interstellar gas clouds, in asteroids and comets). The perfect spot for this to occur would be deep sea Black Smoker volcanic vents where hot chemical rich water is expelled from the vents into deep water, safe from ultraviolet light. The trillions of amino acid molecules in this energetic environment would have millions of years for that first self replicating protein molecule to have come about, and IT ONLY HAS TO HAPPEN ONCE. It needs no self awareness(Bacteria have none), it need not be a whole cell, it does not need to be fast,efficient, robust(after the first few generations 99% could die every regenerative cycle and it's numbers would still increase), it doesn't need seperate RNA or DNA(it may indeed be nothing but a short simple segment of nucleac acid), all that first bit of life needs to be able to do is assemble a reasonable facsimile of itself from the available amino acids in the chemical soup around itself. That's it. Given these facts(and they are facts) it is really almost inevitable for life to begin under the right circumstances, and once it has begun evolutionary forces begin improving the breed through the selection of advantagious modifications. Taa Daa!!!
Grumpy
I'll go along with that. cheers Grumpy!
QUOTE
.Are you the S. Bilderback (Raelian UFO nut).
UFOs do exist, I don't believe in alien encounters, a UFO in merely an unidentified flying object. I am not a UFO nut, and even if I was that would have nothing to do with this discussion or the science involved.
Once again, trying to defame my character will never win an argument of scientific principles.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 06:17 AM)
QUOTE
.Are you the S. Bilderback (Raelian UFO nut).
UFOs do exist, I don't believe in alien encounters, a UFO in merely an unidentified flying object. I am not a UFO nut, and even if I was that would have nothing to do with this discussion or the science involved.
Once again, trying to defame my character will never win an argument of scientific principles.
Sorry.....just teasing!
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 05:58 AM)
Was you question
The big deal is bad science being perpetuated by people with political agendas, including restricting freedom of speech and ideas by banning this exact discussion in a classroom. This discussion has nothing to do with religion, not for me anyway.
I have taught sciences from astronomy to zoology (that's zo-ology not zoo- ology - the long O sound) but mostly anatomy and physiology. My favorite hobbies are astronomy and theoretical physics - yes, I'm a nerd.
So what are your credentials?
QUOTE
So what's the big deal? dry.gif
The big deal is bad science being perpetuated by people with political agendas, including restricting freedom of speech and ideas by banning this exact discussion in a classroom. This discussion has nothing to do with religion, not for me anyway.
I have taught sciences from astronomy to zoology (that's zo-ology not zoo- ology - the long O sound) but mostly anatomy and physiology. My favorite hobbies are astronomy and theoretical physics - yes, I'm a nerd.
So what are your credentials?
My credentials are the science and logic I use, this is the Internet, not everything posted is true. I could say I have ten doctrines but that would not be true or relevant.
Hi Grumpy
First I don't think you understand that a bunch of chemicals, compounds and energy cannot be thrown together to produce a self-aware, eating, breathing, reproducing, living cell that, yes, as a single event, mutates into humans having this discussion in 3.5 billion years. It is just as unexplainable as a creator.
For the simplest cell to live, millions of chemical reactions need to work in a symbiotic relationship, proteins, RNA, DNA, mRNA, tRNA, all need to be moved to the correct location at the correct time and have a means of locomotion and available energy and... needs a reason to do it. Stripping a cell down to its most basic fundamentals, these function require massive amounts of energy and orchestration, it defies science for a group of non-living chemical compounds to pull this off. The chances that entropy wouldn't win the battle are non-existent. Your scenario of how life could have started is no different, or in some cases, less credible than the stories in the Bible. You have no proof it happened as stated, you put your faith in an improvable story; you are following a religion.
I understand the open and closed entropic systems and it is not a valid argument for this level of organization. The one, of many examples, I stated earlier that the energy to create carboxylic acids of the chain of at least 8 carbon atoms with strong bonds and their "tails" of hydrogen atoms with weak bonds would cause the cell's amino acids to break down into unusable compound adding random instances of energy would only compound the problem. There is a mathematical probability equation to calculate the diversity of reactiveness of compounds in close proximity, to have the raw compounds that make up a living cell calculated into this equation, (I haven't done it) but the number is close to 10^ 10^58 chances per second. This means the exponent multiplier has 58 zeros not 10^58. Remember, this value is not for life to form but the sustenance of reactive compounds for life in a closed system the size of a cell.
As for bacteria not being self aware, is that an opinion or do you have proof? Self-awareness is not a quantifiable unit, the only proof of self-awareness I have is my own, any perceptions of other entities having self-awareness is only assumed on my part; why it’s the same argument as having a soul.
Show me some facts that are not based on assumptions that cannot be proven. Your knowledge base should not be the final measuring stick to explain the workings of the universe. Examining only the evidence to support and perpetuate one theory is not only bad science but it is also a religion. Would you also like to jail or kill those that disagree with your theory, as the church did to those that stated the Earth was not the center of the universe? I cannot say you are 100% wrong no more than you saying the same about me; the difference is I have an open mind and the courage to examine new data and to see where it leads.
Hi Grumpy
First I don't think you understand that a bunch of chemicals, compounds and energy cannot be thrown together to produce a self-aware, eating, breathing, reproducing, living cell that, yes, as a single event, mutates into humans having this discussion in 3.5 billion years. It is just as unexplainable as a creator.
For the simplest cell to live, millions of chemical reactions need to work in a symbiotic relationship, proteins, RNA, DNA, mRNA, tRNA, all need to be moved to the correct location at the correct time and have a means of locomotion and available energy and... needs a reason to do it. Stripping a cell down to its most basic fundamentals, these function require massive amounts of energy and orchestration, it defies science for a group of non-living chemical compounds to pull this off. The chances that entropy wouldn't win the battle are non-existent. Your scenario of how life could have started is no different, or in some cases, less credible than the stories in the Bible. You have no proof it happened as stated, you put your faith in an improvable story; you are following a religion.
I understand the open and closed entropic systems and it is not a valid argument for this level of organization. The one, of many examples, I stated earlier that the energy to create carboxylic acids of the chain of at least 8 carbon atoms with strong bonds and their "tails" of hydrogen atoms with weak bonds would cause the cell's amino acids to break down into unusable compound adding random instances of energy would only compound the problem. There is a mathematical probability equation to calculate the diversity of reactiveness of compounds in close proximity, to have the raw compounds that make up a living cell calculated into this equation, (I haven't done it) but the number is close to 10^ 10^58 chances per second. This means the exponent multiplier has 58 zeros not 10^58. Remember, this value is not for life to form but the sustenance of reactive compounds for life in a closed system the size of a cell.
As for bacteria not being self aware, is that an opinion or do you have proof? Self-awareness is not a quantifiable unit, the only proof of self-awareness I have is my own, any perceptions of other entities having self-awareness is only assumed on my part; why it’s the same argument as having a soul.
Show me some facts that are not based on assumptions that cannot be proven. Your knowledge base should not be the final measuring stick to explain the workings of the universe. Examining only the evidence to support and perpetuate one theory is not only bad science but it is also a religion. Would you also like to jail or kill those that disagree with your theory, as the church did to those that stated the Earth was not the center of the universe? I cannot say you are 100% wrong no more than you saying the same about me; the difference is I have an open mind and the courage to examine new data and to see where it leads.
Welcome to Armageddon SB,All quotes by S. Bilderback
QUOTE
First I don't think you understand that a bunch of chemicals, compounds and energy cannot be thrown together to produce a self-aware, eating, breathing, reproducing, living cell that, yes, as a single event, mutates into humans having this discussion in 3.5 billion years. It is just as unexplainable as a creator.
Well Amen to that!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First I don't think you understand that a bunch of chemicals, compounds and energy cannot be thrown together to produce a self-aware, eating, breathing, reproducing, living cell that, yes, as a single event, mutates into humans having this discussion in 3.5 billion years. It is just as unexplainable as a creator. |
Well Amen to that!
For the simplest cell to live, millions of chemical reactions need to work in a symbiotic relationship, proteins, RNA, DNA, mRNA, tRNA, all need to be moved to the correct location at the correct time and have a means of locomotion and available energy and... needs a reason to do it. Stripping a cell down to its most basic fundamentals, these function require massive amounts of energy and orchestration, it defies science for a group of non-living chemical compounds to pull this off. The chances that entropy wouldn't win the battle are non-existent. Your scenario of how life could have started is no different, or in some cases, less credible than the stories in the Bible. You have no proof it happened as stated, you put your faith in an improvable story; you are following a religion.
AMEN!
QUOTE
Show me some facts that are not based on assumptions that cannot be proven. Your knowledge base should not be the final measuring stick to explain the workings of the universe. Examining only the evidence to support and perpetuate one theory is not only bad science but it is also a religion. Would you also like to jail or kill those that disagree with your theory, as the church did to those that stated the Earth was not the center of the universe? I cannot say you are 100% wrong no more than you saying the same about me; the difference is I have an open mind and the courage to examine new data and to see where it leads.
And an Amen to that too!
Finally, somebody who can look outside the box! Well done!
p.s. The whole post was great - but I liked these parts the best! Carry on.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 05:39 PM)
My credentials are the science and logic I use, this is the Internet, not everything posted is true. I could say I have ten doctrines but that would not be true or relevant.
So you don't have any.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Anyone reading this should note that you just admitted that you have no teaching or training in the fields in which you are claiming expertise of.
That is why you show a complete and total lack of knowledge of the science which you claim to know inside and out. It has been pointed out in your lack of knowledge of your chief argument involving the second law of thermodynamics.
Actually, even among creationists, you're behind.
This is from our friends "Answers in Genesis" in a list titled "Arguments creationists shouldn't use":
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Which arguments should definitely not be used?
‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’. This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.
Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the Biblical framework above, as are suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.
So there you go, Mr. No Credentials.
So you don't have any.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Anyone reading this should note that you just admitted that you have no teaching or training in the fields in which you are claiming expertise of.
That is why you show a complete and total lack of knowledge of the science which you claim to know inside and out. It has been pointed out in your lack of knowledge of your chief argument involving the second law of thermodynamics.
Actually, even among creationists, you're behind.
This is from our friends "Answers in Genesis" in a list titled "Arguments creationists shouldn't use":
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Which arguments should definitely not be used?
‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’. This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.
Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the Biblical framework above, as are suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.
So there you go, Mr. No Credentials.
Note to SB,
MX never believes what anybody says anyways. He just tries to make you look like an idiotic creationist or Bible thumper and thinks that's all it takes to discredit someone.
MX,
You could have 10 degrees from the University of TimBukToo - but I would say that you've been trained by the very people who are spreading the big lie! Maybe they don't know any better - but when the blind are leading the blind, well what can you say?
The only way to ever find out the truth is to TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!
MX never believes what anybody says anyways. He just tries to make you look like an idiotic creationist or Bible thumper and thinks that's all it takes to discredit someone.
MX,
You could have 10 degrees from the University of TimBukToo - but I would say that you've been trained by the very people who are spreading the big lie! Maybe they don't know any better - but when the blind are leading the blind, well what can you say?
The only way to ever find out the truth is to TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 3 2005, 07:41 PM)
Note to SB,
MX never believes what anybody says anyways. He just tries to make you look like an idiotic creationist or Bible thumper and thinks that's all it takes to discredit someone.
MX,
You could have 10 degrees from the University of TimBukToo - but I would say that you've been trained by the very people who are spreading the big lie! Maybe they don't know any better - but when the blind are leading the blind, well what can you say?
The only way to ever find out the truth is to TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!
That thing I quoted was from the Answers in Genesis website - a CREATIONIST website. Even THEY understand why the second law of thermodynamics doesn't mean anything to the point of evolution.
Besides, I don't have to do much to make you guys look like idiots. All I have to do is let you continue to dig your own hole.
MX never believes what anybody says anyways. He just tries to make you look like an idiotic creationist or Bible thumper and thinks that's all it takes to discredit someone.
MX,
You could have 10 degrees from the University of TimBukToo - but I would say that you've been trained by the very people who are spreading the big lie! Maybe they don't know any better - but when the blind are leading the blind, well what can you say?
The only way to ever find out the truth is to TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!
That thing I quoted was from the Answers in Genesis website - a CREATIONIST website. Even THEY understand why the second law of thermodynamics doesn't mean anything to the point of evolution.
Besides, I don't have to do much to make you guys look like idiots. All I have to do is let you continue to dig your own hole.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 05:39 PM)
My credentials are the science and logic I use, this is the Internet, not everything posted is true. I could say I have ten doctrines but that would not be true or relevant.
Hi Grumpy
First I don't think you understand that a bunch of chemicals, compounds and energy cannot be thrown together to produce a self-aware, eating, breathing, reproducing, living cell that, yes, as a single event, mutates into humans having this discussion in 3.5 billion years. It is just as unexplainable as a creator.
For the simplest cell to live, millions of chemical reactions need to work in a symbiotic relationship, proteins, RNA, DNA, mRNA, tRNA, all need to be moved to the correct location at the correct time and have a means of locomotion and available energy and... needs a reason to do it. Stripping a cell down to its most basic fundamentals, these function require massive amounts of energy and orchestration, it defies science for a group of non-living chemical compounds to pull this off. The chances that entropy wouldn't win the battle are non-existent. Your scenario of how life could have started is no different, or in some cases, less credible than the stories in the Bible. You have no proof it happened as stated, you put your faith in an improvable story; you are following a religion.
I understand the open and closed entropic systems and it is not a valid argument for this level of organization. The one, of many examples, I stated earlier that the energy to create carboxylic acids of the chain of at least 8 carbon atoms with strong bonds and their "tails" of hydrogen atoms with weak bonds would cause the cell's amino acids to break down into unusable compound adding random instances of energy would only compound the problem. There is a mathematical probability equation to calculate the diversity of reactiveness of compounds in close proximity, to have the raw compounds that make up a living cell calculated into this equation, (I haven't done it) but the number is close to 10^ 10^58 chances per second. This means the exponent multiplier has 58 zeros not 10^58. Remember, this value is not for life to form but the sustenance of reactive compounds for life in a closed system the size of a cell.
As for bacteria not being self aware, is that an opinion or do you have proof? Self-awareness is not a quantifiable unit, the only proof of self-awareness I have is my own, any perceptions of other entities having self-awareness is only assumed on my part; why it’s the same argument as having a soul.
Show me some facts that are not based on assumptions that cannot be proven. Your knowledge base should not be the final measuring stick to explain the workings of the universe. Examining only the evidence to support and perpetuate one theory is not only bad science but it is also a religion. Would you also like to jail or kill those that disagree with your theory, as the church did to those that stated the Earth was not the center of the universe? I cannot say you are 100% wrong no more than you saying the same about me; the difference is I have an open mind and the courage to examine new data and to see where it leads.
Your ridiculous "half-wit" logic is based upon the overall outcome when basically the outcome of life on Earth is but one of a potential hideously huge number of possibilities over a great expanse of time, therefore I place your arguement into the great recycle bin of intellectualism and delete....
Amen
Hi Grumpy
First I don't think you understand that a bunch of chemicals, compounds and energy cannot be thrown together to produce a self-aware, eating, breathing, reproducing, living cell that, yes, as a single event, mutates into humans having this discussion in 3.5 billion years. It is just as unexplainable as a creator.
For the simplest cell to live, millions of chemical reactions need to work in a symbiotic relationship, proteins, RNA, DNA, mRNA, tRNA, all need to be moved to the correct location at the correct time and have a means of locomotion and available energy and... needs a reason to do it. Stripping a cell down to its most basic fundamentals, these function require massive amounts of energy and orchestration, it defies science for a group of non-living chemical compounds to pull this off. The chances that entropy wouldn't win the battle are non-existent. Your scenario of how life could have started is no different, or in some cases, less credible than the stories in the Bible. You have no proof it happened as stated, you put your faith in an improvable story; you are following a religion.
I understand the open and closed entropic systems and it is not a valid argument for this level of organization. The one, of many examples, I stated earlier that the energy to create carboxylic acids of the chain of at least 8 carbon atoms with strong bonds and their "tails" of hydrogen atoms with weak bonds would cause the cell's amino acids to break down into unusable compound adding random instances of energy would only compound the problem. There is a mathematical probability equation to calculate the diversity of reactiveness of compounds in close proximity, to have the raw compounds that make up a living cell calculated into this equation, (I haven't done it) but the number is close to 10^ 10^58 chances per second. This means the exponent multiplier has 58 zeros not 10^58. Remember, this value is not for life to form but the sustenance of reactive compounds for life in a closed system the size of a cell.
As for bacteria not being self aware, is that an opinion or do you have proof? Self-awareness is not a quantifiable unit, the only proof of self-awareness I have is my own, any perceptions of other entities having self-awareness is only assumed on my part; why it’s the same argument as having a soul.
Show me some facts that are not based on assumptions that cannot be proven. Your knowledge base should not be the final measuring stick to explain the workings of the universe. Examining only the evidence to support and perpetuate one theory is not only bad science but it is also a religion. Would you also like to jail or kill those that disagree with your theory, as the church did to those that stated the Earth was not the center of the universe? I cannot say you are 100% wrong no more than you saying the same about me; the difference is I have an open mind and the courage to examine new data and to see where it leads.
Your ridiculous "half-wit" logic is based upon the overall outcome when basically the outcome of life on Earth is but one of a potential hideously huge number of possibilities over a great expanse of time, therefore I place your arguement into the great recycle bin of intellectualism and delete....
Amen
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 3 2005, 12:41 PM)
Note to SB,
MX never believes what anybody says anyways. He just tries to make you look like an idiotic creationist or Bible thumper and thinks that's all it takes to discredit someone.
MX,
You could have 10 degrees from the University of TimBukToo - but I would say that you've been trained by the very people who are spreading the big lie! Maybe they don't know any better - but when the blind are leading the blind, well what can you say?
The only way to ever find out the truth is to TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!
Actually he just asked for evidence of what SB said he had done. My guess is that all that teaching that SB alluded to was done in a "Christian school" or somewhere like that. He might even have a science degree in something (as I would hope that even Christian schools have academic standards of some sort) where the teaching of science would be taught through a Christian filter.
Besides if you are an "idiotic creationist or Bible thumper" you have no credibility anyway
Mess: In your case its the mentally numb leading the mentally blind!
Also when you TEST EVERYTHING!!! make sure you document and save your work, as the results you (or anyone else presents) will not be accepted without it!
Krreagan
MX never believes what anybody says anyways. He just tries to make you look like an idiotic creationist or Bible thumper and thinks that's all it takes to discredit someone.
MX,
You could have 10 degrees from the University of TimBukToo - but I would say that you've been trained by the very people who are spreading the big lie! Maybe they don't know any better - but when the blind are leading the blind, well what can you say?
The only way to ever find out the truth is to TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!
Actually he just asked for evidence of what SB said he had done. My guess is that all that teaching that SB alluded to was done in a "Christian school" or somewhere like that. He might even have a science degree in something (as I would hope that even Christian schools have academic standards of some sort) where the teaching of science would be taught through a Christian filter.
Besides if you are an "idiotic creationist or Bible thumper" you have no credibility anyway
Mess: In your case its the mentally numb leading the mentally blind!
Also when you TEST EVERYTHING!!! make sure you document and save your work, as the results you (or anyone else presents) will not be accepted without it!
Krreagan
QUOTE
So you don't have any.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Anyone reading this should note that you just admitted that you have no teaching or training in the fields in which you are claiming expertise of.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Anyone reading this should note that you just admitted that you have no teaching or training in the fields in which you are claiming expertise of.
There you go assuming again, and like most assumptions, you are wrong, Nor are you a good phisher for information. There are plenty of people with outstanding credentials that have been, are, and will be, wrong. I'm typing this slow so maybe you will understand this time: my credentials are not the issue and they will never be the issue, the issue is the science. If you need to attack something to try and convince yourself you are right, try attacking my ideas or if you don't understand it just say so. If I am wrong and you understand why, then congratulation it will reinforce your belief-set and have a Built up a knowledge to argue your point intelligently (which I haven't seen yet) all I've seen is a prejudice to one religion over another. I hate having to keep repeating myself, but my only reference to a religion is to yours.
Now it is your credibility in question here, you have proven you do not have one iota of scientific knowledge, if you had the logical and scientific resources you would have use them, instead all I hear is the smart-lip of a street thug. You should ask yourself "why should anyone value my opinion?” I've had this debate many times and so far I haven't seen anything that isn't recycled gibberish from the under-educated.
So far this is only been the origins, I haven't even started with the bad science in the theory of evolution.
QUOTE
Besides, I don't have to do much to make you guys look like idiots. All I have to do is let you continue to dig your own hole.
What, are you not smart enough to see who is head the dunce cap is on?
It could be that one of us was on the collage textbook selection committee to recommend replacement textbooks - one being on thermal dynamics, let me think, was that you or was that me?
If you don't start giving me a stronger argument, I'll put prayer back in schools, don't try me, I will!
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 05:00 AM)
I am thinking, mostly that you do not understand the science you are trying to defend. I'll try and put this simply for you: Heat from a cold object does not move to a warmer object. The same principle applies to organization, the level of organization needed to create the compound of life. The chemical reactivity of each compound of the first forming cell(s) would need to be near equal but they are not. It is relatively easy to zap some energy into hydrocarbons to create amino acids, the problem arises when trying to create the fatty acids needed to create the cell walls, the energy required will destroy the amino acids and with out a living cell to protect the fatty acids, the fatty acids break down rapidly. There are thousands of basic compounds found only in living cells, needed for life functions, that are not found anywhere else.
I would also like someone to explain you concept of the creation of self-awareness from your point of view. It does exist, at lease for me, if it exists it had to start, where, when how? Remember we are talking science here not blind faith.
.
.
Hello S. Bilderback.
You might want to do some catch-up reading about 'catalyst-mediated' reactions that proceed with much-smaller/less-violent inputs of the otherwise required energy/time. There are both in-organic and organic (enzymatic) catalysts in nature. Hence any system having the randomly-available construction/process 'system elements' will proceed in the direction determined by the physi-chemistry of that process/situation. You have been told that the earth's environment is not a closed system, and that there is an overwhelming abundance of material, energy (sun), duration (time) and random probabilities/encounters/combinations. So it would be STRANGER if 'life' and 'order' did NOT transpire at least transiently in such situations. Good luck with your learning process.
Oh, and about 'consciousness': It might help if you also read up on 'EMERGENT BEHAVIOUR/PROPERTIES' arising in overwhelmingly-complex systems. Ciao.
RealityCheck.
.
I would also like someone to explain you concept of the creation of self-awareness from your point of view. It does exist, at lease for me, if it exists it had to start, where, when how? Remember we are talking science here not blind faith.
.
.
Hello S. Bilderback.
You might want to do some catch-up reading about 'catalyst-mediated' reactions that proceed with much-smaller/less-violent inputs of the otherwise required energy/time. There are both in-organic and organic (enzymatic) catalysts in nature. Hence any system having the randomly-available construction/process 'system elements' will proceed in the direction determined by the physi-chemistry of that process/situation. You have been told that the earth's environment is not a closed system, and that there is an overwhelming abundance of material, energy (sun), duration (time) and random probabilities/encounters/combinations. So it would be STRANGER if 'life' and 'order' did NOT transpire at least transiently in such situations. Good luck with your learning process.
Oh, and about 'consciousness': It might help if you also read up on 'EMERGENT BEHAVIOUR/PROPERTIES' arising in overwhelmingly-complex systems. Ciao.
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 3 2005, 11:53 PM)
QUOTE
So you don't have any.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Anyone reading this should note that you just admitted that you have no teaching or training in the fields in which you are claiming expertise of.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Anyone reading this should note that you just admitted that you have no teaching or training in the fields in which you are claiming expertise of.
There you go assuming again, and like most assumptions, you are wrong, Nor are you a good phisher for information. There are plenty of people with outstanding credentials that have been, are, and will be, wrong. I'm typing this slow so maybe you will understand this time: my credentials are not the issue and they will never be the issue, the issue is the science. If you need to attack something to try and convince yourself you are right, try attacking my ideas or if you don't understand it just say so. If I am wrong and you understand why, then congratulation it will reinforce your belief-set and have a Built up a knowledge to argue your point intelligently (which I haven't seen yet) all I've seen is a prejudice to one religion over another. I hate having to keep repeating myself, but my only reference to a religion is to yours.
Now it is your credibility in question here, you have proven you do not have one iota of scientific knowledge, if you had the logical and scientific resources you would have use them, instead all I hear is the smart-lip of a street thug. You should ask yourself "why should anyone value my opinion?” I've had this debate many times and so far I haven't seen anything that isn't recycled gibberish from the under-educated.
So far this is only been the origins, I haven't even started with the bad science in the theory of evolution.
I already thoroughly destroyed your idea about the second law of thermodynamics, using a CREATIONIST site to do it.
Of course, you ignored that because you can't argue it.
So if I'm wrong that you have no credentials, tell us what they are. What college did you graduate from, and what degree was obtained there?
And what is your answer to the CREATIONIST site that says how wrong you are on the second law of thermodynamics?
S. Bilderback
First, there was no chance meeting of chemicals just thrown together. Chemical compounds have properties of there own. Amino acids have a tendency to join together at points on their surface, several joined in series makes a protein molecule. Amino acids have been shown to be shocked into long molecular chain molecules from the shock of entry into the atmosphere and colision with the surface of the Earth. These long chain molecules are only one step down from protein molecules. In the ocean deeps near the Black Smokers is the rich, hot soup of minerals providing heat energy and raw materials and ultraviolet light protection.
Second, the first living molecule was much simpler than a cell, needing only to be able to make a reasonable facsimile of itself by attaching strands of amino acids together or even a mirror image of itself( which makes the original(a) which makes b...Imagine, sexual reproduction of sorts(a to b to a to b...).
Third, what's this obccession of yours with self awareness??? The carbon atom is not self aware yet 64 of them in the right conditions form a Buckey Ball, the perfect readymade "cell wall" enclosure needing only to drop a few carbon atoms for a "vacuole" , with a self replicating protein molecule inside to be a primative cell with no self awareness needed.
First, there was no chance meeting of chemicals just thrown together. Chemical compounds have properties of there own. Amino acids have a tendency to join together at points on their surface, several joined in series makes a protein molecule. Amino acids have been shown to be shocked into long molecular chain molecules from the shock of entry into the atmosphere and colision with the surface of the Earth. These long chain molecules are only one step down from protein molecules. In the ocean deeps near the Black Smokers is the rich, hot soup of minerals providing heat energy and raw materials and ultraviolet light protection.
Second, the first living molecule was much simpler than a cell, needing only to be able to make a reasonable facsimile of itself by attaching strands of amino acids together or even a mirror image of itself( which makes the original(a) which makes b...Imagine, sexual reproduction of sorts(a to b to a to b...).
Third, what's this obccession of yours with self awareness??? The carbon atom is not self aware yet 64 of them in the right conditions form a Buckey Ball, the perfect readymade "cell wall" enclosure needing only to drop a few carbon atoms for a "vacuole" , with a self replicating protein molecule inside to be a primative cell with no self awareness needed.
For the simplest cell to live, millions of chemical reactions need to work in a symbiotic relationship, proteins, RNA, DNA, mRNA, tRNA, all need to be moved to the correct location at the correct time and have a means of locomotion and available energy and... needs a reason to do it. Stripping a cell down to its most basic fundamentals, these function require massive amounts of energy and orchestration, it defies science for a group of non-living chemical compounds to pull this off. The chances that entropy wouldn't win the battle are non-existent. Your scenario of how life could have started is no different, or in some cases, less credible than the stories in the Bible. You have no proof it happened as stated, you put your faith in an improvable story; you are following a religion.
Your conception of a "simple cell" is orders of magnitude more complex than is needed for the first life. The ONLY thing simple life needs to be able to do is make copies of itself, a relatively easy chemical process in the right environment. It does not need to move, nor does it need to be a fast reproducer(random meetings of the right amino acids is sufficient, if not efficient), it does not need to store energy in the form of atp, it does not need to produce or process anything, in other words it needs none of the complicated chemical processes of a complete cell, these can come along much later. And a reason to do this is just because it can chemically do so. No other "purpose" needed. Even the cell wall is superflurios, a bare protein molecule may be vulnerable to a lot of things but every "copy" is not required to survive, just enough of them. and one protein molecule coopting the parts of another smaller protein molecule is just a form of "eating" or predation which would cause the natural "arms race" to begin. So your misuse of probability is flawed by your expectations of the cell appearing"full blown" all at one time when this is not necessary. My scenario is not based on this misconception and is very possible, even likely. Do we yet know the precise steps in this process??? No, but we know that these events are not improbable, but likely.
Once again you misuse math and science in a doomed attempt to put limits on the possibilities of chemical reactions taking place. Your assumptions are contrived and in error, therefore GIGO. The "odds" that life came into being some 3.8 billion years ago are 1 to 1, it happened. We may not know and may never know everything about the exact process but we do know that it occured, so your math supposedly showing the impossibility of that occurance is obviously wrong from the start.
It always helps to start from the reality and work toward a conclusion rather than starting from a conclusion and trying to make reality fit.
Once again you misuse math and science in a doomed attempt to put limits on the possibilities of chemical reactions taking place. Your assumptions are contrived and in error, therefore GIGO. The "odds" that life came into being some 3.8 billion years ago are 1 to 1, it happened. We may not know and may never know everything about the exact process but we do know that it occured, so your math supposedly showing the impossibility of that occurance is obviously wrong from the start.
It always helps to start from the reality and work toward a conclusion rather than starting from a conclusion and trying to make reality fit.
Show me some facts that are not based on assumptions that cannot be proven. Your knowledge base should not be the final measuring stick to explain the workings of the universe. Examining only the evidence to support and perpetuate one theory is not only bad science but it is also a religion. Would you also like to jail or kill those that disagree with your theory, as the church did to those that stated the Earth was not the center of the universe? I cannot say you are 100% wrong no more than you saying the same about me; the difference is I have an open mind and the courage to examine new data and to see where it leads.
I also have an open mind but that is not the same as an empty one. I have the courage to face REALITY and see where that leads me rather than hide behind dogma and stick my fingers in my ears and shout "is not, is not..." when science shows your dogma to be in error. You are not in danger of jail for being, in this case, wrong, but for that reason don't bother applying to be a science teacher in our public schools!!!
Grumpy
Destroyed it, the only thing you destroyed was you overly crude explain it. I'm finding hard to convey my concepts on a primitive level that you can understand.
The web site you are referring to is based on maybes, ifs, and could bes. It is pure assumptions based on speculation with a plethora of falsely placed points of logic. It is true that some of the building blocks of life can be explained by some of the processes listed, is there proof that it did happen, no. Is there a way all these building blocks could be created, be at the same location, meld in to a self-aware entity, no. The presumption of logic presented is like stating that: an eyedropper can hold water = an ocean contains water so an eyedropper is an ocean. A valid argument cannot take gratuitous leaps on the scale presented.
I know your closed mindedness will reject any data that doesn't conform to you preconceived prejudice but here is a site that I' sure you won’t read objectively so you can perpetuate your own overly simplified view of the universe.
http://www.creationism.org/caesar/primordial.htm
I have also have done the readings on the "Clay Catalysts" and so on, once again is there merit to the chemistry alleged, yes, is there any proof that it happened, no.
News flash! A probable event does not = a fact, nor should an entire theory rest on such a collection. If one probable event turns out no to be true, the entire theory fails.
Destroyed it, the only thing you destroyed was you overly crude explain it. I'm finding hard to convey my concepts on a primitive level that you can understand.
The web site you are referring to is based on maybes, ifs, and could bes. It is pure assumptions based on speculation with a plethora of falsely placed points of logic. It is true that some of the building blocks of life can be explained by some of the processes listed, is there proof that it did happen, no. Is there a way all these building blocks could be created, be at the same location, meld in to a self-aware entity, no. The presumption of logic presented is like stating that: an eyedropper can hold water = an ocean contains water so an eyedropper is an ocean. A valid argument cannot take gratuitous leaps on the scale presented.
I know your closed mindedness will reject any data that doesn't conform to you preconceived prejudice but here is a site that I' sure you won’t read objectively so you can perpetuate your own overly simplified view of the universe.
http://www.creationism.org/caesar/primordial.htm
I have also have done the readings on the "Clay Catalysts" and so on, once again is there merit to the chemistry alleged, yes, is there any proof that it happened, no.
News flash! A probable event does not = a fact, nor should an entire theory rest on such a collection. If one probable event turns out no to be true, the entire theory fails.
You didn't even read it.
The buckey Ball does not make a perfect cell wall, it is incapable of allowing osmotic processes, nucleotides cannot freely move in and out or any macro-organic compounds need for cell respiration. It also presents a problem when it comes time for a cell to divide. The active transport of compounds needed to keep a cell in equilibrium to maintain life functions, needs a cell wall to be compiled of reactive molecules. The sites of a cell wall to transport compounds in and out need to have a variation of reactive states to allow for a wide variety of compound movements, from H2O to macro carbon chains, all with different chemical properties. The cell also needs to have the insight to know what needs to done and when - that doesn't happen by a random set of events, it happens because of self-awareness.
Without self-awareness, the cell dies; the entire concept of life depends on it. Self-awareness is life . . . . period.
The buckey Ball does not make a perfect cell wall, it is incapable of allowing osmotic processes, nucleotides cannot freely move in and out or any macro-organic compounds need for cell respiration. It also presents a problem when it comes time for a cell to divide. The active transport of compounds needed to keep a cell in equilibrium to maintain life functions, needs a cell wall to be compiled of reactive molecules. The sites of a cell wall to transport compounds in and out need to have a variation of reactive states to allow for a wide variety of compound movements, from H2O to macro carbon chains, all with different chemical properties. The cell also needs to have the insight to know what needs to done and when - that doesn't happen by a random set of events, it happens because of self-awareness.
Without self-awareness, the cell dies; the entire concept of life depends on it. Self-awareness is life . . . . period.
.
.
Hi again S. Bilderback.
Your information re buckyballs (and carbon nanotubes in general) is incorrect/out of date. Because of such structures' superconducting and other unique electrical properties/behaviour, minute electrical impulses/discharges of static electricity (lightning, local static build ups etc) 'distort' the wall structure so allowing incorporation/enclosure/expulsion of other elements. Also, as far as 'self-awareness' is concerned: there are in nature, both in inorganic and organic systems, what are called 'natural feedback mechanisms' whose progress/reactions of one process/reaction, depend on the state of another...each state varying according to the rate/output of the other. Simple chemical synthesis in industries every day produce/use such feedback mechanisms by way of 'relative reactant-densities' between the inputs and products. There are all sorts of simple-to-complex feedback mechanisms in nature even before/without 'living entity' self-awareness per se.
I hope this helps. Gotta rush, Ciao!
RealityCheck.
PS: About that 'perfect' cell wall 'requirement' implied in your post: there never was a natural requirement for 'perfection' for MARK I version of a self-replicating configuration of an otherwise 'inanimate' cell structure that appears in nature at all levels due to 'spherical' tendencies in all things that tend naturally to minimise energy/action factors. RC.
.
QUOTE
First I don't think you understand that a bunch of chemicals, compounds and energy cannot be thrown together to produce a self-aware, eating, breathing, reproducing, living cell that, yes, as a single event, mutates into humans having this discussion in 3.5 billion years. It is just as unexplainable as a creator.
First, there was no chance meeting of chemicals just thrown together. Chemical compounds have properties of there own. Amino acids have a tendency to join together at points on their surface, several joined in series makes a protein molecule. Amino acids have been shown to be shocked into long molecular chain molecules from the shock of entry into the atmosphere and colision with the surface of the Earth. These long chain molecules are only one step down from protein molecules. In the ocean deeps near the Black Smokers is the rich, hot soup of minerals providing heat energy and raw materials and ultraviolet light protection.
Second, the first living molecule was much simpler than a cell, needing only to be able to make a reasonable facsimile of itself by attaching strands of amino acids together or even a mirror image of itself(
which makes the original(a) which makes b...Imagine, sexual reproduction of sorts(a to b to a to b...).Third, what's this obccession of yours with self awareness??? The carbon atom is not self aware yet 64 of them in the right conditions form a Buckey Ball, the perfect readymade "cell wall" enclosure needing only to drop a few carbon atoms for a "vacuole" , with a self replicating protein molecule inside to be a primative cell with no self awareness needed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First I don't think you understand that a bunch of chemicals, compounds and energy cannot be thrown together to produce a self-aware, eating, breathing, reproducing, living cell that, yes, as a single event, mutates into humans having this discussion in 3.5 billion years. It is just as unexplainable as a creator. |
First, there was no chance meeting of chemicals just thrown together. Chemical compounds have properties of there own. Amino acids have a tendency to join together at points on their surface, several joined in series makes a protein molecule. Amino acids have been shown to be shocked into long molecular chain molecules from the shock of entry into the atmosphere and colision with the surface of the Earth. These long chain molecules are only one step down from protein molecules. In the ocean deeps near the Black Smokers is the rich, hot soup of minerals providing heat energy and raw materials and ultraviolet light protection.
Second, the first living molecule was much simpler than a cell, needing only to be able to make a reasonable facsimile of itself by attaching strands of amino acids together or even a mirror image of itself(
which makes the original(a) which makes b...Imagine, sexual reproduction of sorts(a to b to a to b...).Third, what's this obccession of yours with self awareness??? The carbon atom is not self aware yet 64 of them in the right conditions form a Buckey Ball, the perfect readymade "cell wall" enclosure needing only to drop a few carbon atoms for a "vacuole" , with a self replicating protein molecule inside to be a primative cell with no self awareness needed.
For the simplest cell to live, millions of chemical reactions need to work in a symbiotic relationship, proteins, RNA, DNA, mRNA, tRNA, all need to be moved to the correct location at the correct time and have a means of locomotion and available energy and... needs a reason to do it. Stripping a cell down to its most basic fundamentals, these function require massive amounts of energy and orchestration, it defies science for a group of non-living chemical compounds to pull this off. The chances that entropy wouldn't win the battle are non-existent. Your scenario of how life could have started is no different, or in some cases, less credible than the stories in the Bible. You have no proof it happened as stated, you put your faith in an improvable story; you are following a religion.
Your conception of a "simple cell" is orders of magnitude more complex than is needed for the first life. The ONLY thing simple life needs to be able to do is make copies of itself, a relatively easy chemical process in the right environment. It does not need to move, nor does it need to be a fast reproducer(random meetings of the right amino acids is sufficient, if not efficient), it does not need to store energy in the form of atp, it does not need to produce or process anything, in other words it needs none of the complicated chemical processes of a complete cell, these can come along much later. And a reason to do this is just because it can chemically do so. No other "purpose" needed. Even the cell wall is superflurios, a bare protein molecule may be vulnerable to a lot of things but every "copy" is not required to survive, just enough of them. and one protein molecule coopting the parts of another smaller protein molecule is just a form of "eating" or predation which would cause the natural "arms race" to begin. So your misuse of probability is flawed by your expectations of the cell appearing"full blown" all at one time when this is not necessary. My scenario is not based on this misconception and is very possible, even likely. Do we yet know the precise steps in this process??? No, but we know that these events are not improbable, but likely.
QUOTE
I understand the open and closed entropic systems and it is not a valid argument for this level of organization. The one, of many examples, I stated earlier that the energy to create carboxylic acids of the chain of at least 8 carbon atoms with strong bonds and their "tails" of hydrogen atoms with weak bonds would cause the cell's amino acids to break down into unusable compound adding random instances of energy would only compound the problem. There is a mathematical probability equation to calculate the diversity of reactiveness of compounds in close proximity, to have the raw compounds that make up a living cell calculated into this equation, (I haven't done it) but the number is close to 10^ 10^58 chances per second. This means the exponent multiplier has 58 zeros not 10^58. Remember, this value is not for life to form but the sustenance of reactive compounds for life in a closed system the size of a cell.
Once again you misuse math and science in a doomed attempt to put limits on the possibilities of chemical reactions taking place. Your assumptions are contrived and in error, therefore GIGO. The "odds" that life came into being some 3.8 billion years ago are 1 to 1, it happened. We may not know and may never know everything about the exact process but we do know that it occured, so your math supposedly showing the impossibility of that occurance is obviously wrong from the start.
It always helps to start from the reality and work toward a conclusion rather than starting from a conclusion and trying to make reality fit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I understand the open and closed entropic systems and it is not a valid argument for this level of organization. The one, of many examples, I stated earlier that the energy to create carboxylic acids of the chain of at least 8 carbon atoms with strong bonds and their "tails" of hydrogen atoms with weak bonds would cause the cell's amino acids to break down into unusable compound adding random instances of energy would only compound the problem. There is a mathematical probability equation to calculate the diversity of reactiveness of compounds in close proximity, to have the raw compounds that make up a living cell calculated into this equation, (I haven't done it) but the number is close to 10^ 10^58 chances per second. This means the exponent multiplier has 58 zeros not 10^58. Remember, this value is not for life to form but the sustenance of reactive compounds for life in a closed system the size of a cell. |
Once again you misuse math and science in a doomed attempt to put limits on the possibilities of chemical reactions taking place. Your assumptions are contrived and in error, therefore GIGO. The "odds" that life came into being some 3.8 billion years ago are 1 to 1, it happened. We may not know and may never know everything about the exact process but we do know that it occured, so your math supposedly showing the impossibility of that occurance is obviously wrong from the start.
It always helps to start from the reality and work toward a conclusion rather than starting from a conclusion and trying to make reality fit.
Show me some facts that are not based on assumptions that cannot be proven. Your knowledge base should not be the final measuring stick to explain the workings of the universe. Examining only the evidence to support and perpetuate one theory is not only bad science but it is also a religion. Would you also like to jail or kill those that disagree with your theory, as the church did to those that stated the Earth was not the center of the universe? I cannot say you are 100% wrong no more than you saying the same about me; the difference is I have an open mind and the courage to examine new data and to see where it leads.
I also have an open mind but that is not the same as an empty one. I have the courage to face REALITY and see where that leads me rather than hide behind dogma and stick my fingers in my ears and shout "is not, is not..." when science shows your dogma to be in error. You are not in danger of jail for being, in this case, wrong, but for that reason don't bother applying to be a science teacher in our public schools!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
I already thoroughly destroyed your idea about the second law of thermodynamics, using a CREATIONIST site to do it.
Destroyed it, the only thing you destroyed was you overly crude explain it. I'm finding hard to convey my concepts on a primitive level that you can understand.
The web site you are referring to is based on maybes, ifs, and could bes. It is pure assumptions based on speculation with a plethora of falsely placed points of logic. It is true that some of the building blocks of life can be explained by some of the processes listed, is there proof that it did happen, no. Is there a way all these building blocks could be created, be at the same location, meld in to a self-aware entity, no. The presumption of logic presented is like stating that: an eyedropper can hold water = an ocean contains water so an eyedropper is an ocean. A valid argument cannot take gratuitous leaps on the scale presented.
I know your closed mindedness will reject any data that doesn't conform to you preconceived prejudice but here is a site that I' sure you won’t read objectively so you can perpetuate your own overly simplified view of the universe.
http://www.creationism.org/caesar/primordial.htm
I have also have done the readings on the "Clay Catalysts" and so on, once again is there merit to the chemistry alleged, yes, is there any proof that it happened, no.
News flash! A probable event does not = a fact, nor should an entire theory rest on such a collection. If one probable event turns out no to be true, the entire theory fails.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 4 2005, 02:58 AM)
QUOTE
I already thoroughly destroyed your idea about the second law of thermodynamics, using a CREATIONIST site to do it.
Destroyed it, the only thing you destroyed was you overly crude explain it. I'm finding hard to convey my concepts on a primitive level that you can understand.
The web site you are referring to is based on maybes, ifs, and could bes. It is pure assumptions based on speculation with a plethora of falsely placed points of logic. It is true that some of the building blocks of life can be explained by some of the processes listed, is there proof that it did happen, no. Is there a way all these building blocks could be created, be at the same location, meld in to a self-aware entity, no. The presumption of logic presented is like stating that: an eyedropper can hold water = an ocean contains water so an eyedropper is an ocean. A valid argument cannot take gratuitous leaps on the scale presented.
I know your closed mindedness will reject any data that doesn't conform to you preconceived prejudice but here is a site that I' sure you won’t read objectively so you can perpetuate your own overly simplified view of the universe.
http://www.creationism.org/caesar/primordial.htm
I have also have done the readings on the "Clay Catalysts" and so on, once again is there merit to the chemistry alleged, yes, is there any proof that it happened, no.
News flash! A probable event does not = a fact, nor should an entire theory rest on such a collection. If one probable event turns out no to be true, the entire theory fails.
You didn't even read it.
Hello again, S. Bilderback.
Perhaps you should compare notes with another poster in these forums before you proceed. He is spouting some creationist tale about flying Jesuses and hyper-evolution where things go 'pop!' and all of a sudden we have all sorts of strange 'chances' happening all at once. It might be useful if you could better differentiate your tale from his, otherwise there could soon be cross-forum laughter abroad.
By the way, if you really have taught those things you say you have taught, I would think that all such basic-level chemistry/physics/biology etc that you've asked to be explained to you here should normally have been a pre-requisite in your teaching job. Perhaps that's why some are suspicious of your bona fides in purporting to 'engage' in fair discussion when you may have lied about your own relevant level-of knowledge/backgound; which would be necessary for you to comprehend what is being explained to you as a result of your 'challenges' to others' bona fides/knowledge.
Good luck, mate!
RealityCheck.
.
Perhaps you should compare notes with another poster in these forums before you proceed. He is spouting some creationist tale about flying Jesuses and hyper-evolution where things go 'pop!' and all of a sudden we have all sorts of strange 'chances' happening all at once. It might be useful if you could better differentiate your tale from his, otherwise there could soon be cross-forum laughter abroad.
By the way, if you really have taught those things you say you have taught, I would think that all such basic-level chemistry/physics/biology etc that you've asked to be explained to you here should normally have been a pre-requisite in your teaching job. Perhaps that's why some are suspicious of your bona fides in purporting to 'engage' in fair discussion when you may have lied about your own relevant level-of knowledge/backgound; which would be necessary for you to comprehend what is being explained to you as a result of your 'challenges' to others' bona fides/knowledge.
Good luck, mate!
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
Third, what's this obccession of yours with self awareness??? The carbon atom is not self aware yet 64 of them in the right conditions form a Buckey Ball, the perfect readymade "cell wall" enclosure needing only to drop a few carbon atoms for a "vacuole" , with a self replicating protein molecule inside to be a primative cell with no self awareness needed.
The buckey Ball does not make a perfect cell wall, it is incapable of allowing osmotic processes, nucleotides cannot freely move in and out or any macro-organic compounds need for cell respiration. It also presents a problem when it comes time for a cell to divide. The active transport of compounds needed to keep a cell in equilibrium to maintain life functions, needs a cell wall to be compiled of reactive molecules. The sites of a cell wall to transport compounds in and out need to have a variation of reactive states to allow for a wide variety of compound movements, from H2O to macro carbon chains, all with different chemical properties. The cell also needs to have the insight to know what needs to done and when - that doesn't happen by a random set of events, it happens because of self-awareness.
Without self-awareness, the cell dies; the entire concept of life depends on it. Self-awareness is life . . . . period.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 4 2005, 03:36 AM)
QUOTE
Third, what's this obccession of yours with self awareness??? The carbon atom is not self aware yet 64 of them in the right conditions form a Buckey Ball, the perfect readymade "cell wall" enclosure needing only to drop a few carbon atoms for a "vacuole" , with a self replicating protein molecule inside to be a primative cell with no self awareness needed.
The buckey Ball does not make a perfect cell wall, it is incapable of allowing osmotic processes, nucleotides cannot freely move in and out or any macro-organic compounds need for cell respiration. It also presents a problem when it comes time for a cell to divide. The active transport of compounds needed to keep a cell in equilibrium to maintain life functions, needs a cell wall to be compiled of reactive molecules. The sites of a cell wall to transport compounds in and out need to have a variation of reactive states to allow for a wide variety of compound movements, from H2O to macro carbon chains, all with different chemical properties. The cell also needs to have the insight to know what needs to done and when - that doesn't happen by a random set of events, it happens because of self-awareness.
Without self-awareness, the cell dies; the entire concept of life depends on it. Self-awareness is life . . . . period.
.
.
Hi again S. Bilderback.
Your information re buckyballs (and carbon nanotubes in general) is incorrect/out of date. Because of such structures' superconducting and other unique electrical properties/behaviour, minute electrical impulses/discharges of static electricity (lightning, local static build ups etc) 'distort' the wall structure so allowing incorporation/enclosure/expulsion of other elements. Also, as far as 'self-awareness' is concerned: there are in nature, both in inorganic and organic systems, what are called 'natural feedback mechanisms' whose progress/reactions of one process/reaction, depend on the state of another...each state varying according to the rate/output of the other. Simple chemical synthesis in industries every day produce/use such feedback mechanisms by way of 'relative reactant-densities' between the inputs and products. There are all sorts of simple-to-complex feedback mechanisms in nature even before/without 'living entity' self-awareness per se.
I hope this helps. Gotta rush, Ciao!
RealityCheck.
PS: About that 'perfect' cell wall 'requirement' implied in your post: there never was a natural requirement for 'perfection' for MARK I version of a self-replicating configuration of an otherwise 'inanimate' cell structure that appears in nature at all levels due to 'spherical' tendencies in all things that tend naturally to minimise energy/action factors. RC.
.
S. Bilderback
What idiotic blather!!! Just what part of "simple" don't you understand???
The buckey Ball does not make a perfect cell wall, it is incapable of allowing osmotic processes, nucleotides cannot freely move in and out or any macro-organic compounds need for cell respiration.
What cell respiration??? A BB missing a few atoms has a HOLE IN IT to allow ingress or egress, so what osmotic process??? The molecule might move in and out of the BB THROUGH THE HOLE!!! And the copy can find it's own home like a hermit crab. who knows??? The only important thing is that it is not nearly as improbable as your misuse of math indicates.
What cell respiration??? A BB missing a few atoms has a HOLE IN IT to allow ingress or egress, so what osmotic process??? The molecule might move in and out of the BB THROUGH THE HOLE!!! And the copy can find it's own home like a hermit crab. who knows??? The only important thing is that it is not nearly as improbable as your misuse of math indicates.
The sites of a cell wall to transport compounds in and out need to have a variation of reactive states to allow for a wide variety of compound movements, from H2O to macro carbon chains, all with different chemical properties. The cell also needs to have the insight to know what needs to done and when - that doesn't happen by a random set of events, it happens because of self-awareness.
Again with your complete lack of understanding of the simple word "simple". A cell wall is unnecessary, therefore no transport. A chemical process self aware, gimme a break!!! Platinum causes chemical reactions in many compounds yet it has no "intention" of doing so, get a grip.
[QUOTE]Without self-awareness, the cell dies; the entire concept of life depends on it. Self-awareness is life . . . . period.
The ol' "I say so" evidence??? You haven't provided the least bit of evidence OR REASON for us to accept this idiotic concept!!! A germ that's self aware, or a vius, how 'bout a prion??? They are all life and the prion is just a snippet of genetic material that makes copies of itself in the presence of suitable material, it doesn't even hijack the cells machinery as a virus does it just starts grabbing what it needs to reproduce and assembling copies, not much more complicated than that possible first life.
Again, it is better to start from reality and work towards a conclusion than to start from a conclusion and try to fit reality to it.
Grumpy
Isn't that exactly what you are doing? You are cutting the pieces of the puzzle to fit your preconceived outcome.
If you deem a cell doesn't need a cell wall, I'm not sure you understand what defines a cell and haven’t the credentials to adjudicate the complex biochemical reactions to sustain the simplest life.
Isn't that exactly what you are doing? You are cutting the pieces of the puzzle to fit your preconceived outcome.
If you deem a cell doesn't need a cell wall, I'm not sure you understand what defines a cell and haven’t the credentials to adjudicate the complex biochemical reactions to sustain the simplest life.
No.
You truly have a piss-poor understanding of science.
But that has been obvious since your first post here.
Science's only agenda is to figure out the truth about the world around us. It doesn't start at a conclusion and work its way backward. Perhaps this is why you think your view of the universe holds merit in science circles and is being wrongly ignored. You think "creation science" is science.
It's not.
There is hope for these guys.
Shock, Anger and Denial are some of the first signs of recovery (Grumpy, RC, MX).
Thanks Messenger. It is entertaining to watch the squirm and poke their little heads out, when they feel it's safe with a hostile insult when the realize they don't have the knowledge base to support their beliefs.
They don't even realize they are Evangelists for a religion.
What idiotic blather!!! Just what part of "simple" don't you understand???
QUOTE
The buckey Ball does not make a perfect cell wall, it is incapable of allowing osmotic processes, nucleotides cannot freely move in and out or any macro-organic compounds need for cell respiration.
What cell respiration??? A BB missing a few atoms has a HOLE IN IT to allow ingress or egress, so what osmotic process??? The molecule might move in and out of the BB THROUGH THE HOLE!!! And the copy can find it's own home like a hermit crab. who knows??? The only important thing is that it is not nearly as improbable as your misuse of math indicates.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The buckey Ball does not make a perfect cell wall, it is incapable of allowing osmotic processes, nucleotides cannot freely move in and out or any macro-organic compounds need for cell respiration. |
What cell respiration??? A BB missing a few atoms has a HOLE IN IT to allow ingress or egress, so what osmotic process??? The molecule might move in and out of the BB THROUGH THE HOLE!!! And the copy can find it's own home like a hermit crab. who knows??? The only important thing is that it is not nearly as improbable as your misuse of math indicates.
The sites of a cell wall to transport compounds in and out need to have a variation of reactive states to allow for a wide variety of compound movements, from H2O to macro carbon chains, all with different chemical properties. The cell also needs to have the insight to know what needs to done and when - that doesn't happen by a random set of events, it happens because of self-awareness.
Again with your complete lack of understanding of the simple word "simple". A cell wall is unnecessary, therefore no transport. A chemical process self aware, gimme a break!!! Platinum causes chemical reactions in many compounds yet it has no "intention" of doing so, get a grip.
[QUOTE]Without self-awareness, the cell dies; the entire concept of life depends on it. Self-awareness is life . . . . period.
The ol' "I say so" evidence??? You haven't provided the least bit of evidence OR REASON for us to accept this idiotic concept!!! A germ that's self aware, or a vius, how 'bout a prion??? They are all life and the prion is just a snippet of genetic material that makes copies of itself in the presence of suitable material, it doesn't even hijack the cells machinery as a virus does it just starts grabbing what it needs to reproduce and assembling copies, not much more complicated than that possible first life.
Again, it is better to start from reality and work towards a conclusion than to start from a conclusion and try to fit reality to it.
Grumpy
RealityCheck:
What are you doing here anyway? How long am I going to have to wait to see any worth posting from you? Have you checked your reality lately? I think you might have lost it. It takes nothing to be a naysayer and a pessimistic imbecile, prosing empty articulations, but please, show some self-respect. Or if you are going to post insignificant refuse, make it humorous.
If you have consternation from a consciousness state of inadequacy owing to a diminutive phallus constituent, I’m indubitably penitent.
Let's see some original concepts, knowing of a web site is not knowing - or understanding.
What are you doing here anyway? How long am I going to have to wait to see any worth posting from you? Have you checked your reality lately? I think you might have lost it. It takes nothing to be a naysayer and a pessimistic imbecile, prosing empty articulations, but please, show some self-respect. Or if you are going to post insignificant refuse, make it humorous.
If you have consternation from a consciousness state of inadequacy owing to a diminutive phallus constituent, I’m indubitably penitent.
Let's see some original concepts, knowing of a web site is not knowing - or understanding.
Hi Grumpy!
Using science's, and now dadl's-sanctioned, "...reasonable deduction..." processes here, I have been forced to the conclusion that PT Barnum was right: There IS one born every minute...and most of them are 'reproduced' in the 'vat' labelled 'stupid & dishonest' at one of the many local 'crazy-creationist' clinics conveniently located, it seems, on every corner.
Oh dear; will there be no end to madness and dishonesty in the guise of 'religious' ends which, apparently, even justify perjury and pre-meditated 'murder' of knowledge?
RealityCheck.
.
Using science's, and now dadl's-sanctioned, "...reasonable deduction..." processes here, I have been forced to the conclusion that PT Barnum was right: There IS one born every minute...and most of them are 'reproduced' in the 'vat' labelled 'stupid & dishonest' at one of the many local 'crazy-creationist' clinics conveniently located, it seems, on every corner.
Oh dear; will there be no end to madness and dishonesty in the guise of 'religious' ends which, apparently, even justify perjury and pre-meditated 'murder' of knowledge?
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
Again, it is better to start from reality and work towards a conclusion than to start from a conclusion and try to fit reality to it.
Isn't that exactly what you are doing? You are cutting the pieces of the puzzle to fit your preconceived outcome.
If you deem a cell doesn't need a cell wall, I'm not sure you understand what defines a cell and haven’t the credentials to adjudicate the complex biochemical reactions to sustain the simplest life.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 4 2005, 05:07 AM)
QUOTE
Again, it is better to start from reality and work towards a conclusion than to start from a conclusion and try to fit reality to it.
Isn't that exactly what you are doing? You are cutting the pieces of the puzzle to fit your preconceived outcome.
If you deem a cell doesn't need a cell wall, I'm not sure you understand what defines a cell and haven’t the credentials to adjudicate the complex biochemical reactions to sustain the simplest life.
No.
You truly have a piss-poor understanding of science.
But that has been obvious since your first post here.
Science's only agenda is to figure out the truth about the world around us. It doesn't start at a conclusion and work its way backward. Perhaps this is why you think your view of the universe holds merit in science circles and is being wrongly ignored. You think "creation science" is science.
It's not.
SB,
There is hope for these guys.
Shock, Anger and Denial are some of the first signs of recovery (Grumpy, RC, MX).
If only they would move to acceptance and insight sooner.
All this kicking and screaming accomplishes nothing,
-well, except it amuses me for a while.
There is hope for these guys.
Shock, Anger and Denial are some of the first signs of recovery (Grumpy, RC, MX).
If only they would move to acceptance and insight sooner.
All this kicking and screaming accomplishes nothing,
-well, except it amuses me for a while.
S. Bilderback
Once again you show your complete ignorance of the scientific method. When we get something wrong our SM corrects us, therefore we are always getting closer to the truth while you are stuck with your erronius translations of obscure texts trying to force square pegs into round holes.
The definition of life does not say it has to be a cell, the only requirement of a living organism is that it be able to reproduce a reasonable facsimile of itself, period. A cell wall, like a nice condo, is a luxury a homeless person is still able to live without. A self reproductive molecule needs no cell to live in under the right conditions. Your study subjects for today are extremophile and prion. Also spend some time looking at Black Smokers, that way your next posts won't make you look so stupid.
Grumpy
PS Reality Check I realize that posting the truth to these...people with obvious severe brain damage is like casting pearls before swine and is largely fruitless but other impressionable minds may be watching and the truth needs to be pointed out.
Again, it is better to start from reality and work towards a conclusion than to start from a conclusion and try to fit reality to it.
QUOTE
Isn't that exactly what you are doing? You are cutting the pieces of the puzzle to fit your preconceived outcome.
If you deem a cell doesn't need a cell wall, I'm not sure you understand what defines a cell and haven’t the credentials to adjudicate the complex biochemical reactions to sustain the simplest life.
If you deem a cell doesn't need a cell wall, I'm not sure you understand what defines a cell and haven’t the credentials to adjudicate the complex biochemical reactions to sustain the simplest life.
Once again you show your complete ignorance of the scientific method. When we get something wrong our SM corrects us, therefore we are always getting closer to the truth while you are stuck with your erronius translations of obscure texts trying to force square pegs into round holes.
The definition of life does not say it has to be a cell, the only requirement of a living organism is that it be able to reproduce a reasonable facsimile of itself, period. A cell wall, like a nice condo, is a luxury a homeless person is still able to live without. A self reproductive molecule needs no cell to live in under the right conditions. Your study subjects for today are extremophile and prion. Also spend some time looking at Black Smokers, that way your next posts won't make you look so stupid.
Grumpy
PS Reality Check I realize that posting the truth to these...people with obvious severe brain damage is like casting pearls before swine and is largely fruitless but other impressionable minds may be watching and the truth needs to be pointed out.
Again, it is better to start from reality and work towards a conclusion than to start from a conclusion and try to fit reality to it.
Grumpy, can you give me one example of a living entity without a cell wall?
QUOTE
There is hope for these guys.
Shock, Anger and Denial are some of the first signs of recovery (Grumpy, RC, MX).
Thanks Messenger. It is entertaining to watch the squirm and poke their little heads out, when they feel it's safe with a hostile insult when the realize they don't have the knowledge base to support their beliefs.
They don't even realize they are Evangelists for a religion.
I've no faith/belief in tooth fairies, father christmas, or even the most mindshreddingly of all puerile concepts "god"
I'm a very happy individual who "loves his life"......however this individual (me) could not trade his very "precious" and only existance for one of a mindless "Zombie" (Messanger strangely springs to mind)
.....as much as I love life, I'd rather not exist as a "zombie", as to "believe" is an ignorance beyond hell!
I'm a very happy individual who "loves his life"......however this individual (me) could not trade his very "precious" and only existance for one of a mindless "Zombie" (Messanger strangely springs to mind)
.....as much as I love life, I'd rather not exist as a "zombie", as to "believe" is an ignorance beyond hell!
Mess...o...love...daddy
You asked.
Transient existence of life without a cell membrane: a novel strategy of siphonous seaweed for survival and propagation.
Ram M, Babbar SB.
Department of Botany, University of Delhi, Delhi 110 007, India.
Siphonous seaweeds, which constitute a vital component of coral reefs, are structurally simple, single-celled coenocytic macroscopic green algae. Kim et al.1 have recently shown the extraordinary wound-repair and propagation mechanism of one such siphonous green alga--Bryopsis plumosa. Nucleocytoplasmic aggregates, which are released after injury to this plant, are membraneless structures that can survive in seawater for 10-20 minutes, before they are surrounded by a gelatinous envelope. Subsequently, a cell membrane and cell wall are synthesized around each of these aggregates and the resulting individual cells, so formed, develop into new plants. This report represents a significant advance in our understanding of wound response and, more significantly, is probably the first example of transient survival of life without a cell membrane! Copyright 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PMID: 12111719 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...9&dopt=Abstract
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabe...oBookCELL1.html
Grumpy
But you do have faith that life spontaneously started from non-life and mutated into humans in 3.5 billion years without the resources to credibly prove it. don't you?
But you do have faith that life just popped into existance 6 thousand years ago and nothing since then has changed, no evolution for example, and as yet noone has proven that.
I guess you havent read any of my postings, why is it only religious wackos get to questions the scientific postulation accuracies of evolution?
Another assumption, another person - wrong.
What about the possibility that the Earth was seeded with life? The universe is at least 3 times older that the Earth, if your claim that the odds are 1:1 life stared from non-life, does that mean there is no probability of the Earth being seeded from earlier life?
RealityCheck,
What are you doing here anyway? How long am I going to have to wait to see any worth posting from you? Have you checked your reality lately? I think you might have lost it. It takes nothing to be a naysayer and a pessimistic imbecile, prosing empty articulations, but please, show some self-respect. Or if you are going to post insignificant refuse, make it humorous.
If you have consternation from a consciousness state of inadequacy owing to a diminutive phallus constituent, I’m indubitably penitent.
Let's see some original concepts, knowing of a web site is not knowing - or understanding.
.
.
Ahhh S. Bilderback.
Now, now....temper!
Besides, all others will have noted that my posts started out in a helpful vein. The knowledge base from which you were arguing scientific matters with others was evidently inadequate to your needs. I merely pointed out your lack and then directed you to areas of further research pertinent to your needs.
You then proceeded to offer obviously ignorant opinions on matters which you 'challenged' others on but where you yourself were patently ignorant and incapable of comprehending the logical/factual import of the answers given you.
You then CONTINUED this ignorant 'wedge-document' agenda-driven farce called 'honest engagement' with science and scientists. You thus proved by your comments, ignorance and incomprehension that you are yet another dishonest debater in the mold of SoLoved, Messenger, dadl and co. Please don't insult other's intelligence by pretending we here can't see through both your ignorance AND miscreance with whatever 'intellect' your 'god' may have inadequately provided in the case of all these crazy-creationists who think they are 'scientists' and then proceed to make a mockery of the concept of (as your mate dadl put it) "....reasonable deduction...". Mate, you too will soon be 'seeing' flying Jesuses' with eternally-suppurating merged' wounds if you're not careful, and stop listening to your crazy-creationist 'keepers'.
You are a disgrace to the 'image of god'; you do 'him/her' no good service by alienating all intelligent people on this planet...which leaves 'DE-volving intelligence' people as the only ones that will 'believe' in your delusions...and then: self-extinction by the lack of exercise to the critical faculties required to 'connect' with reality. It is your fate to be manipulated until you die horribly in some insane 'Jonestown Massacre'-like scenario, or in some 'bible-basher-schism' war which crazy-creationists are so good at starting/having with other 'religions' and 'bible-versions' (the latest would-be amender/translator of bibles being your mate dadl, just another would-be 'finger in the pie' that is the 'inerrant' bible...hehehe, remember that claim of yours, SoLoved?).
As others have said before, we here continue to try to educate you out of pity and duty to banish ignorance; and to prevent non-critical children from accepting your rantings as 'gospel', and so damaging themselves possibly for life. And it is the children whom all you twisted cult-leaders want, isn't it?...I wonder why? Up to no good, I bet...as history has amply proved where religions and religious cults are concerned. So don't act so holier-than-thou with me, mate; for history is replete with your ignorant and miscreant kind...and they have always been defeated by reason in the end. Despair awaits you, mate...for that has been the lot in the end for crazy-creationists down the ages. History repeats, heh?...and you're the latest crazy-creationist 'expendable' thrown into the 'wedge-document' farce-fight. Poor sod; I almost pity you out of sheer humanity (but your 'religion' doesn't recognise 'humanity' as a valid motivation, so as far as you're concerned, I cannot even pity you...how sad).
.
Oh, by the way, I'd be very scared if I were you, now that Messenger has 'praised' your efforts [Quote Messenger: "The whole post was great - but I liked these parts the best! Carry on.].
You see, mate, any approval from Messenger/SoLoved as to your 'debate content' or 'tactics' is THE KISS OF DEATH as sure as you were 'created'. They are the most UN-christian of any we've met here. They treat 'perjury' and 'malice aforethought' as virtues and 'christian values'...can you believe it!
So if anyone answering the description of SoLoved/Messenger approaches you: RUN FOR YOUR 'VIRTUE' if not your sanity. They will drag you down with them. Sad but true.
Prove me wrong, heh?
And instead of biting the hand that tries to offer you knowledge and integrity, which you obviously lacked or you would not have pretended to what you did not possess, try to LEARN. You know, that thing that NON-BIBLE-BASHERS do all the time as best they can. They make an effort; whereas you and your kind obviously have given up trying, and so revert back to the same type of disgraced/delusional concepts and social 'engineering' experiments that have led to more 'ungodliness' than anything else. You are HUMAN, with all your human pride/inadequacies. Others recognise this in themselves, and try to apply the scientific method' of logic and behaviour to 'compensate' for what obviously ails you and your crazy-creationist mates. Your feeble attempts at a MIMIC-OF-SCIENCE 'method' will not wash with truly intelligent people...which is why your kind is always reduced to appealing to IGNORANCE and one-born-every-minute types to support your hell-on-earth visions of 'virtues' (such as perjury and malice-aforethought graven forever into the 'wedge-document' agenda for all future generations to see for themselves the depth of UN-christian depravity you crazy-creationists will stoop to for the 'materialistic' ends of the 'satanic' egos of the cult-leaders behind that UN-christian document/campaign).
Sorry mate, that's all the time I have to set you straight. Good luck with your learning process. I hope your critical faculties 'kick in' before you attain no-hoper status! Just listen to Messenger/SoLoved and dadl, that's a good crazy-creationist-in-the-making.
Reminder: People in glass houses (whether pre/post dadl's 'split) should not throw stones. You began here ignorant; you wilfully retain that ignorance against all the available knowledge; and if you persist in 'farcical debating' like your compatriots, you will remain forever ignorant. Don't blame us or get angry at us. You are the problem, and you have the solution. Get to it and live in enlightenment instead of in the shadows of ignorance absolute. Your choice.
And before you complain again about the content/tenor of my posts, remember also that it is the likes of YOU that has introduced 'myth', 'unsubstantiated opinion' and 'philosophical views' into these otherwise science-only discussions...so you have no-one but yourselves to blame if I ALSO give you an earful as to MY points of view on YOUR 'pseudo-science' and dishonest behaviour in the name of 'christianity'. If you brand my replies as you have done, then it is PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT that you ARE a hypocrite and perjuror...just perfect qualifications for that 'religion' of yours, heh? A model crazy-creationist-in-the-making, I'd say, wouldn't you, mate? Tread carefully, because ignorance can be so tragically unforgiving to its most ardent adherents.
RealityCheck.
PS: QUOTE S. BILDERBACK:"Or if you are going to post insignificant refuse, make it humorous."
PSS: Oh, so THAT'S what you, dadl, Messenger and SoLoved were doing all that time? No wonder! their posts (and yours above) are replete with such "humorous" but "insignificant refuse". Another 'victorious strategy': all that these crazy-creationists have to do is post "humorous insignificant refuse" and 'bingo'! all of science will bow down to these bringers-of-light(entertainment)! Pathetic delusions with your humour, anyone? RC.
.
So what is your point, life started, we both agree it to be true, how it started is what we are discussing. You have stuck by your guns on all your argument that life spontaneously started on Earth, what if that is not true and life started a star or two generations ago, or the seed of life drifted here by other means. Wouldn't that change your argument? Is the seeding of life not a possibility?
So what is your point, life started, we both agree it to be true, how it started is what we are discussing. You have stuck by your guns on all your argument that life spontaneously started on Earth, what if that is not true and life started a star or two generations ago, or the seed of life drifted here by other means. Wouldn't that change your argument? Is the seeding of life not a possibility?
.
Ahhh S. Bilderback.
And what is YOUR point: That physical life inevitably nust exist elsewhere in an infinite/eternal universe?
RC.
.
Thanks but no thanks for the help.
You don't have a clue what my agenda is so how do you know what is adequate and what is not. Should I start a running list of all the assumption proven to be wrong about me and my arguments? Every negative response so far has at least one. Once again, you have made another assumption based on a preconceived bias and you are, . . . wrong again. I thought you might be getting sick of that by now.
I would highly suggest reading more and not more unqualified and under qualified web sight that support your narrow viewpoint. Try a book.
Thanks but no thanks for the help.
You don't have a clue what my agenda is so how do you know what is adequate and what is not. Should I start a running list of all the assumption proven to be wrong about me and my arguments? Every negative response so far has at least one. Once again, you have made another assumption based on a preconceived bias and you are, . . . wrong again. I thought you might be getting sick of that by now.
I would highly suggest reading more and not more unqualified and under qualified web sight that support your narrow viewpoint. Try a book.
.
.
Ahhh S. Bilderback.
Now you are 'ignoring' difficult questions and self-evident truths. Proof positive that all you crazy-creationist 'wedge-offensive-expendables' learned 'pseudo-science' and 'dishonest debating' tactics from the same 'training manual' for perjurists, hypocrites and evasionists that SoLoved/Messenger/dadl did. You are providing more evidence of your lack of integrity and true-christian virtues with every post...so post on, mate, post on and do more damage to yourself and your 'oh-too-worldly' ID/CS cult-leaders/masters.
It is sad in the extreme for all true-scientists and true-christians alike to have to witness the worldwide-web perpetration of such wanton and studied ignorance and malice aforethought; as you and your buddies are doing here and elsewhere----yes, everyone here knows by now what you and your fellow malignant-ignoramuses are up to, because of your outed 'wedge-document' strategy based on perjury and malice-aforethought. Keep it up 'wedge-expendable'; you have nothing to lose but your integrity, sanity and soul (which last, according to dadl, you can't possibly have in his 'post-split' non-spiritual universe).
Go cry at those who have brainwashed you into pretending to be 'genuinely interested' in 'scientific debate' as 'equals'. They have delusions of grandeur, I think, SB; are you a 'follower' or a 'leader' in that cult?
Either way, you have proven yourself worthless as a true-human being, a true-christian and, now here, as a true-scientist. I have no more pity for you. You can look to your 'keepers' for that. And don't complain when people shovel the same stuff that you give back at you; that's a good Bilderback.
Reality.
.
You asked.
QUOTE
Grumpy, can you give me one example of a living entity without a cell wall?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Grumpy, can you give me one example of a living entity without a cell wall? |
Transient existence of life without a cell membrane: a novel strategy of siphonous seaweed for survival and propagation.
Ram M, Babbar SB.
Department of Botany, University of Delhi, Delhi 110 007, India.
Siphonous seaweeds, which constitute a vital component of coral reefs, are structurally simple, single-celled coenocytic macroscopic green algae. Kim et al.1 have recently shown the extraordinary wound-repair and propagation mechanism of one such siphonous green alga--Bryopsis plumosa. Nucleocytoplasmic aggregates, which are released after injury to this plant, are membraneless structures that can survive in seawater for 10-20 minutes, before they are surrounded by a gelatinous envelope. Subsequently, a cell membrane and cell wall are synthesized around each of these aggregates and the resulting individual cells, so formed, develop into new plants. This report represents a significant advance in our understanding of wound response and, more significantly, is probably the first example of transient survival of life without a cell membrane! Copyright 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PMID: 12111719 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...9&dopt=Abstract
QUOTE
Where did life originate and how?
Extra-terrestrial: In 1969, a meteorite (left-over bits from the origin of the solar system) landed near Allende, Mexico. The Allende Meteorite (and others of its sort) have been analyzed and found to contain amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, one of the four organic molecule groups basic to all life. The idea of panspermia hypothesized that life originated out in space and came to earth inside a meteorite. Recently, this idea has been revived as Cosmic Ancestry. The amino acids recovered from meteorites are in a group known as exotics: they do not occur in the chemical systems of living things. The ET theory is now not considered by most scientists to be correct, although the August 1996 discovery of the Martian meteorite and its possible fossils have revived thought of life elsewhere in the Solar System.
Supernatural: Since science is an attempt to measure and study the natural world, this theory is outside science (at least our current understanding of science). Science classes deal with science, and this idea is in the category of not-science.
Organic Chemical Evolution: Until the mid-1800's scientists thought organic chemicals (those with a C-C skeleton) could only form by the actions of living things. A French scientist heated crystals of a mineral (a mineral is by definition inorganic), and discovered that they formed urea (an organic chemical) when they cooled. Russian scientist and academecian A.I. Oparin, in 1922, hypothesized that cellular life was preceeded by a period of chemical evolution. These chemicals, he argued, must have arisen spontaneously under conditions exisitng billions of years ago (and quite unlike current conditions).
Ingredients used in Miller's experiments, simple molecules thought at the time to have existed on the Earth billions of years ago. Image from Purves et al., Life: The Science of Biology, 4th Edition, by Sinauer Associates (www.sinauer.com) and WH Freeman (www.whfreeman.com), used with permission.
In 1950, then-graduate student Stanley Miller designed an experimental test for Oparin's hypothesis. Oparin's original hypothesis called for : 1) little or no free oxygen (oxygen not bonded to other elements); and 2) C H O and N in abundance. Studies of modern volcanic eruptions support inference of the existence of such an atmosphere. Miller discharged an electric spark into a mixture thought to resemble the primordial composition of the atmosphere. From the water receptacle, designed to model an ancient ocean, Miller recovered amino acids. Subsequent modifications of the atmosphere have produced representatives or precursors of all four organic macromolecular classes.
A diagrammatic representation of Miller's experimental apparatus. Image from Purves et al., Life: The Science of Biology, 4th Edition, by Sinauer Associates (www.sinauer.com) and WH Freeman (www.whfreeman.com), used with permission.
The primordial Earth was a very different place than today, with greater amounts of energy, stronger storms, etc. The oceans were a "soup" of organic compounds that formed by inorganic processes (although this soup would not taste umm ummm good). Miller's (and subsequent) experiments have not proven life originated in this way, only that conditions thought to have existed over 3 billion years ago were such that the spontaneous (inorganic) formation of organic macromolecules could have taken place. The simple inorganic molecules that Miller placed into his apparatus, produced a variety of complex molecules:
Molecules recovered from Miller's and similar experiments. Image from Purves et al., Life: The Science of Biology, 4th Edition, by Sinauer Associates (www.sinauer.com) and WH Freeman (www.whfreeman.com), used with permission.
The interactions of these molecules would have increased as their concentrations increased. Reactions would have led to the building of larger, more complex molecules. A pre-cellular life would have began with the formation of nucleic acids. Chemicals made by these nucleic acids would have remained in proximity to the nucleic acids. Eventually the pre-cells would have been enclosed in a lipid-protein membrane, which would have resulted in the first cells.
Biochemically, living systems are separated from other chemical systems by three things.
The capacity for replication from one generation to another. Most organisms today use DNA as the hereditary material, although recent evidence (ribozymes) suggests that RNA may have been the first nucleic acid system to have formed. Nobel laureate Walter Gilbert refers to this as the RNA world. Recent studies suggest a molecular
The presence of enzymes and other complex molecules essential to the processes needed by living systems. Miller's experiment showed how these could possibly form.
A membrane that separates the internal chemicals from the external chemical environment. This also delimits the cell from not-cell areas. The work of Sidney W. Fox has produced proteinoid spheres, which while not cells, suggest a possible route from chemical to cellular life.
Fossil evidence supports the origins of life on earth earlier than 3.5 billion years ago. The North Pole microfossils from Australia are complex enough that more primitive cells must have existed earlier. From rocks of the Ishua Super Group in Greenland come possibly the earliest cells, as much as 3.8 billion years old. The oldest known rocks on Earth are 3.96 billion years old and are from Arctic Canada. Thus, life appears to have begun soon after the cooling of the Earth and formation of the atmosphere and oceans.
These ancient fossils occur in marine rocks, such as limestones and sandstones, that formed in ancient oceans. The organisms living today that are most similar to ancient life forms are the archaebacteria. This group is today restricted to marginal environments. Recent discoveries of bacteria at mid-ocean ridges add yet another possible origin for life: at these mid-ocean ridges where heat and molten rock rise to the earth's surface.
Extra-terrestrial: In 1969, a meteorite (left-over bits from the origin of the solar system) landed near Allende, Mexico. The Allende Meteorite (and others of its sort) have been analyzed and found to contain amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, one of the four organic molecule groups basic to all life. The idea of panspermia hypothesized that life originated out in space and came to earth inside a meteorite. Recently, this idea has been revived as Cosmic Ancestry. The amino acids recovered from meteorites are in a group known as exotics: they do not occur in the chemical systems of living things. The ET theory is now not considered by most scientists to be correct, although the August 1996 discovery of the Martian meteorite and its possible fossils have revived thought of life elsewhere in the Solar System.
Supernatural: Since science is an attempt to measure and study the natural world, this theory is outside science (at least our current understanding of science). Science classes deal with science, and this idea is in the category of not-science.
Organic Chemical Evolution: Until the mid-1800's scientists thought organic chemicals (those with a C-C skeleton) could only form by the actions of living things. A French scientist heated crystals of a mineral (a mineral is by definition inorganic), and discovered that they formed urea (an organic chemical) when they cooled. Russian scientist and academecian A.I. Oparin, in 1922, hypothesized that cellular life was preceeded by a period of chemical evolution. These chemicals, he argued, must have arisen spontaneously under conditions exisitng billions of years ago (and quite unlike current conditions).
Ingredients used in Miller's experiments, simple molecules thought at the time to have existed on the Earth billions of years ago. Image from Purves et al., Life: The Science of Biology, 4th Edition, by Sinauer Associates (www.sinauer.com) and WH Freeman (www.whfreeman.com), used with permission.
In 1950, then-graduate student Stanley Miller designed an experimental test for Oparin's hypothesis. Oparin's original hypothesis called for : 1) little or no free oxygen (oxygen not bonded to other elements); and 2) C H O and N in abundance. Studies of modern volcanic eruptions support inference of the existence of such an atmosphere. Miller discharged an electric spark into a mixture thought to resemble the primordial composition of the atmosphere. From the water receptacle, designed to model an ancient ocean, Miller recovered amino acids. Subsequent modifications of the atmosphere have produced representatives or precursors of all four organic macromolecular classes.
A diagrammatic representation of Miller's experimental apparatus. Image from Purves et al., Life: The Science of Biology, 4th Edition, by Sinauer Associates (www.sinauer.com) and WH Freeman (www.whfreeman.com), used with permission.
The primordial Earth was a very different place than today, with greater amounts of energy, stronger storms, etc. The oceans were a "soup" of organic compounds that formed by inorganic processes (although this soup would not taste umm ummm good). Miller's (and subsequent) experiments have not proven life originated in this way, only that conditions thought to have existed over 3 billion years ago were such that the spontaneous (inorganic) formation of organic macromolecules could have taken place. The simple inorganic molecules that Miller placed into his apparatus, produced a variety of complex molecules:
Molecules recovered from Miller's and similar experiments. Image from Purves et al., Life: The Science of Biology, 4th Edition, by Sinauer Associates (www.sinauer.com) and WH Freeman (www.whfreeman.com), used with permission.
The interactions of these molecules would have increased as their concentrations increased. Reactions would have led to the building of larger, more complex molecules. A pre-cellular life would have began with the formation of nucleic acids. Chemicals made by these nucleic acids would have remained in proximity to the nucleic acids. Eventually the pre-cells would have been enclosed in a lipid-protein membrane, which would have resulted in the first cells.
Biochemically, living systems are separated from other chemical systems by three things.
The capacity for replication from one generation to another. Most organisms today use DNA as the hereditary material, although recent evidence (ribozymes) suggests that RNA may have been the first nucleic acid system to have formed. Nobel laureate Walter Gilbert refers to this as the RNA world. Recent studies suggest a molecular
The presence of enzymes and other complex molecules essential to the processes needed by living systems. Miller's experiment showed how these could possibly form.
A membrane that separates the internal chemicals from the external chemical environment. This also delimits the cell from not-cell areas. The work of Sidney W. Fox has produced proteinoid spheres, which while not cells, suggest a possible route from chemical to cellular life.
Fossil evidence supports the origins of life on earth earlier than 3.5 billion years ago. The North Pole microfossils from Australia are complex enough that more primitive cells must have existed earlier. From rocks of the Ishua Super Group in Greenland come possibly the earliest cells, as much as 3.8 billion years old. The oldest known rocks on Earth are 3.96 billion years old and are from Arctic Canada. Thus, life appears to have begun soon after the cooling of the Earth and formation of the atmosphere and oceans.
These ancient fossils occur in marine rocks, such as limestones and sandstones, that formed in ancient oceans. The organisms living today that are most similar to ancient life forms are the archaebacteria. This group is today restricted to marginal environments. Recent discoveries of bacteria at mid-ocean ridges add yet another possible origin for life: at these mid-ocean ridges where heat and molten rock rise to the earth's surface.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabe...oBookCELL1.html
Grumpy
Grumpy: I've seen many refutations of Miller's experiment over the years. Here is but one. I'm curious as to what you think about what follows. Please let me know. Thanks.
Four Facts That Invalidate Miller's Experiment
Miller's experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form on their own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it contains inconsistencies in a number of areas:
1- By using a mechanism called a "cold trap," Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules.
Doubtless, this kind of conscious isolation mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth. Without such a mechanism, even if one amino acid were obtained, it would immediately have been destroyed. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that "Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source."254 And, sure enough, in his previous experiments, Miller had been unable to make even one single amino acid using the same materials without the cold trap mechanism.
2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia.
So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:
Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. ...However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.255
The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth.
The American scientists J. P. Ferris and C. T. Chen repeated Miller's experiment with an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapor, and were unable to obtain even a single amino acid molecule.256
3- Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old.257
There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time was much higher than originally claimed by evolutionists. Studies also show that the amount of ultraviolet radiation to which the earth was then exposed was 10,000 times more than evolutionists' estimates. This intense radiation would unavoidably have freed oxygen by decomposing the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which oxygen was completely neglected. If oxygen had been used in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an environment where there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer either; therefore, the amino acids would have immediately been destroyed, since they would have been exposed to the most intense ultraviolet rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In other words, with or without oxygen in the primordial world, the result would have been a deadly environment for the amino acids.
4- At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable.
Moreover, Miller's experiment also produced right-handed amino acids.258 The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidizing the useful molecules obtained.
Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life.
All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's experiment cannot claim to have proved that living things formed by chance under primordial earth-like conditions. The whole experiment is nothing more than a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. The amount and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally determined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too little, but arranged precisely to enable the necessary reactions to occur. The experimental apparatus was isolated, so that it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive, or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino acids. No elements, minerals or compounds that were likely to have been present on the primordial earth, but which would have changed the course of the reactions, were included in the experiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of these destructive elements. Even under such ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the amino acids produced to survive and avoid destruction without the "cold trap" mechanism.
In fact, by his experiment, Miller destroyed evolution's claim that "life emerged as the result of unconscious coincidences." That is because, if the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically designed by conscious intervention.
Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life's Crucible":
Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."259
As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth," the following comments appear:
Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.260
In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.261
254 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
255 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
256 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, "Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth," Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
257 "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
258 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
259 "Life's Crucible," Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
260 "The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
261 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325. (emphasis added)
Four Facts That Invalidate Miller's Experiment
Miller's experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form on their own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it contains inconsistencies in a number of areas:
1- By using a mechanism called a "cold trap," Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules.
Doubtless, this kind of conscious isolation mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth. Without such a mechanism, even if one amino acid were obtained, it would immediately have been destroyed. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that "Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source."254 And, sure enough, in his previous experiments, Miller had been unable to make even one single amino acid using the same materials without the cold trap mechanism.
2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia.
So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:
Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. ...However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.255
The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth.
The American scientists J. P. Ferris and C. T. Chen repeated Miller's experiment with an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapor, and were unable to obtain even a single amino acid molecule.256
3- Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old.257
There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time was much higher than originally claimed by evolutionists. Studies also show that the amount of ultraviolet radiation to which the earth was then exposed was 10,000 times more than evolutionists' estimates. This intense radiation would unavoidably have freed oxygen by decomposing the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which oxygen was completely neglected. If oxygen had been used in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an environment where there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer either; therefore, the amino acids would have immediately been destroyed, since they would have been exposed to the most intense ultraviolet rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In other words, with or without oxygen in the primordial world, the result would have been a deadly environment for the amino acids.
4- At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable.
Moreover, Miller's experiment also produced right-handed amino acids.258 The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidizing the useful molecules obtained.
Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life.
All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's experiment cannot claim to have proved that living things formed by chance under primordial earth-like conditions. The whole experiment is nothing more than a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. The amount and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally determined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too little, but arranged precisely to enable the necessary reactions to occur. The experimental apparatus was isolated, so that it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive, or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino acids. No elements, minerals or compounds that were likely to have been present on the primordial earth, but which would have changed the course of the reactions, were included in the experiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of these destructive elements. Even under such ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the amino acids produced to survive and avoid destruction without the "cold trap" mechanism.
In fact, by his experiment, Miller destroyed evolution's claim that "life emerged as the result of unconscious coincidences." That is because, if the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically designed by conscious intervention.
Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life's Crucible":
Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."259
As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth," the following comments appear:
Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.260
In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.261
254 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
255 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
256 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, "Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth," Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
257 "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
258 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
259 "Life's Crucible," Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
260 "The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
261 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325. (emphasis added)
You haven't posted anything new, a short-lived state of a symbionoc relationship is not evidence of a cell living without a cell wall. I want to know if you know of a big pile of goo that is living without a cell wall.
QUOTE
I've no faith/belief in tooth fairies, father christmas, or even the most mindshreddingly of all puerile concepts "god"
But you do have faith that life spontaneously started from non-life and mutated into humans in 3.5 billion years without the resources to credibly prove it. don't you?
Hi Newguy.
Their arguments are base on best-case-scenarios of laboratory observations designed to replicate small segments of an incredible large chain of events - a big pot of would haves, should haves and could haves. and they call it their science. They will have no valid rebuttal so they'll hurl insults, it's the school boy bully syndrome, "If I can beat you up, that makes me right". Primitive and non-effective debate tactic.
QUOTE
Grumpy: I've seen many refutations of Miller's experiment over the years. Here is but one. I'm curious as to what you think about what follows.
Their arguments are base on best-case-scenarios of laboratory observations designed to replicate small segments of an incredible large chain of events - a big pot of would haves, should haves and could haves. and they call it their science. They will have no valid rebuttal so they'll hurl insults, it's the school boy bully syndrome, "If I can beat you up, that makes me right". Primitive and non-effective debate tactic.
New Guy
The manufacturing of pre organic molecules has been demonstrated in the lab by many method's, only one of which was Miller's. The biogenesis of life is not dependent on laboritory products. Miller did show under a reducing atmosphere(one with little free oxygen,the iron oxide is the reason that the O that became available did not last very long in the atmosphere) with the addition of energy(electrical in this case) DID produce amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins. Even if he made mistakes in his original conditions, amino acids,ready made, have been found in meteorites on Earth and in interstellar gas clouds, ready to be delivered to Earth.
Amino acids have been shown to be shocked into long chain molecules(polymers) in lab conditions simulating those found in the atmospheric entry and subsiquent impact with the ocean surface. Then what better "cold trap" could be available than the mega tons of relatively cool(compared with the reentry and imact temps) ocean water to preserve those polymers??? By the way, those same megatons of water also give very good protection against UV rays.
Once these long chain molecules(polymers) in the ocean are introduced to the large amount of energy and food in the vacinity of the Black Smokers the rest as they say is history.
Once again with the misuse of probability to show how impossible an event we already know happened is. Get this straight, the odds that life began on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago is 1 to 1. It has already occured, now let's try to figure out how. And magic doesn't count.
Grumpy
The manufacturing of pre organic molecules has been demonstrated in the lab by many method's, only one of which was Miller's. The biogenesis of life is not dependent on laboritory products. Miller did show under a reducing atmosphere(one with little free oxygen,the iron oxide is the reason that the O that became available did not last very long in the atmosphere) with the addition of energy(electrical in this case) DID produce amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins. Even if he made mistakes in his original conditions, amino acids,ready made, have been found in meteorites on Earth and in interstellar gas clouds, ready to be delivered to Earth.
Amino acids have been shown to be shocked into long chain molecules(polymers) in lab conditions simulating those found in the atmospheric entry and subsiquent impact with the ocean surface. Then what better "cold trap" could be available than the mega tons of relatively cool(compared with the reentry and imact temps) ocean water to preserve those polymers??? By the way, those same megatons of water also give very good protection against UV rays.
Once these long chain molecules(polymers) in the ocean are introduced to the large amount of energy and food in the vacinity of the Black Smokers the rest as they say is history.
Once again with the misuse of probability to show how impossible an event we already know happened is. Get this straight, the odds that life began on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago is 1 to 1. It has already occured, now let's try to figure out how. And magic doesn't count.
Grumpy
QUOTE
But you do have faith that life spontaneously started from non-life and mutated into humans in 3.5 billion years without the resources to credibly prove it. don't you?
But you do have faith that life just popped into existance 6 thousand years ago and nothing since then has changed, no evolution for example, and as yet noone has proven that.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 4 2005, 08:21 PM)
New Guy
The manufacturing of pre organic molecules has been demonstrated in the lab by many method's, only one of which was Miller's. The biogenesis of life is not dependent on laboritory products. Miller did show under a reducing atmosphere(one with little free oxygen,the iron oxide is the reason that the O that became available did not last very long in the atmosphere) with the addition of energy(electrical in this case) DID produce amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins. Even if he made mistakes in his original conditions, amino acids,ready made, have been found in meteorites on Earth and in interstellar gas clouds, ready to be delivered to Earth.
Amino acids have been shown to be shocked into long chain molecules(polymers) in lab conditions simulating those found in the atmospheric entry and subsiquent impact with the ocean surface. Then what better "cold trap" could be available than the mega tons of relatively cool(compared with the reentry and imact temps) ocean water to preserve those polymers??? By the way, those same megatons of water also give very good protection against UV rays.
Once these long chain molecules(polymers) in the ocean are introduced to the large amount of energy and food in the vacinity of the Black Smokers the rest as they say is history.
Once again with the misuse of probability to show how impossible an event we already know happened is. Get this straight, the odds that life began on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago is 1 to 1. It has already occured, now let's try to figure out how. And magic doesn't count.
Grumpy
Grumpy: The only reason I addressed Miller's experiment was because you listed it in one of your posts. The point being that Miller's experiment was faulty and shouldn't be used as evidence. That's all that I was after. I'll have to research what you just wrote about meteorites and interstellar clouds, etc. and possibly respond to it in the future. Although I'm strapped for time as far as research is concerned, one thing I like about this forum is that posts can be retrieved and responded to at a later date. That's all for now...
The manufacturing of pre organic molecules has been demonstrated in the lab by many method's, only one of which was Miller's. The biogenesis of life is not dependent on laboritory products. Miller did show under a reducing atmosphere(one with little free oxygen,the iron oxide is the reason that the O that became available did not last very long in the atmosphere) with the addition of energy(electrical in this case) DID produce amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins. Even if he made mistakes in his original conditions, amino acids,ready made, have been found in meteorites on Earth and in interstellar gas clouds, ready to be delivered to Earth.
Amino acids have been shown to be shocked into long chain molecules(polymers) in lab conditions simulating those found in the atmospheric entry and subsiquent impact with the ocean surface. Then what better "cold trap" could be available than the mega tons of relatively cool(compared with the reentry and imact temps) ocean water to preserve those polymers??? By the way, those same megatons of water also give very good protection against UV rays.
Once these long chain molecules(polymers) in the ocean are introduced to the large amount of energy and food in the vacinity of the Black Smokers the rest as they say is history.
Once again with the misuse of probability to show how impossible an event we already know happened is. Get this straight, the odds that life began on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago is 1 to 1. It has already occured, now let's try to figure out how. And magic doesn't count.
Grumpy
Grumpy: The only reason I addressed Miller's experiment was because you listed it in one of your posts. The point being that Miller's experiment was faulty and shouldn't be used as evidence. That's all that I was after. I'll have to research what you just wrote about meteorites and interstellar clouds, etc. and possibly respond to it in the future. Although I'm strapped for time as far as research is concerned, one thing I like about this forum is that posts can be retrieved and responded to at a later date. That's all for now...
S. Bilderback
Nope, haven't seen that big pile of goo your looking for. We really don't know EXACTLY how the first life emerged from the conditions 3.8 billion years ago, we just know it did. Therefore the likelyhood that life can arise from nonlife is exactly 1 to 1, it happened. Science is currently studying the subject and have found that pre biotic chemicals are really very easy to make and the properties of those chemicals cause them to be attracted to others like themselves so the "clump" together in myriads of combinations. Given enough molecules, in the right conditions and enough time life is inevitable. Anywhere on Earth where life can exist, it does exist(see extremophiles). Given these facts(and facts they are) your mathematical manipulations are meaningless meanderings and useless, sorry you wasted your time.
Grumpy
Nope, haven't seen that big pile of goo your looking for. We really don't know EXACTLY how the first life emerged from the conditions 3.8 billion years ago, we just know it did. Therefore the likelyhood that life can arise from nonlife is exactly 1 to 1, it happened. Science is currently studying the subject and have found that pre biotic chemicals are really very easy to make and the properties of those chemicals cause them to be attracted to others like themselves so the "clump" together in myriads of combinations. Given enough molecules, in the right conditions and enough time life is inevitable. Anywhere on Earth where life can exist, it does exist(see extremophiles). Given these facts(and facts they are) your mathematical manipulations are meaningless meanderings and useless, sorry you wasted your time.
Grumpy
QUOTE
But you do have faith that life just popped into existance 6 thousand years ago and nothing since then has changed, no evolution for example, and as yet noone has proven that.
I guess you havent read any of my postings, why is it only religious wackos get to questions the scientific postulation accuracies of evolution?
Another assumption, another person - wrong.
Read this, it might spark some creativity and expand your horizons, or may just humor you.
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
Voice Two: "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
Voice One: "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Maybe they're like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage."
Voice One: "Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take long. Do you have any idea what's the life span of meat?"
Voice Two: "Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."
Voice One: "Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them all the way through."
Voice Two: "No brain?"
Voice One: "Oh, there's a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat! That's what I've been trying to tell you."
Voice Two: "So ... what does the thinking?"
Voice One: "You're not getting it, are you? You're refusing to deal with what I'm telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat."
Voice Two: "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"
Voice One: "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?"
Voice Two: "Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat."
Voice One: "Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years."
Voice Two: "Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?"
Voice One: "First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, communicate, swap ideas and information. The usual."
Voice Two: "We're supposed to talk to meat."
Voice One: "That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there. Anybody home.' That sort of thing."
Voice Two: "They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"
Voice One: "Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat."
Voice Two: "I thought you just told me they used radio."
Voice One: "They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."
Voice Two: "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"
Voice One: "Officially or unofficially?"
Voice Two: "Both."
Voice One: "Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, we advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing."
Voice Two: "I was hoping you would say that."
Voice One: "It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?"
Voice Two: "I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?"
Voice One: "Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they are limited to the speed of light, which makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact."
Voice Two: "So we just pretend there's no one home in the Universe."
Voice One: "That's it."
Voice Two: "Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? But the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You're sure they won't remember?"
Voice One: "They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them."
Voice Two: "A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream."
Voice One: "And we marked the entire sector unoccupied."
Voice Two: "Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?"
Voice One: "Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again."
Voice Two: "They always come around."
Voice One: "And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe would be if one were all alone ..."
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
Voice Two: "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
Voice One: "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Maybe they're like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage."
Voice One: "Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take long. Do you have any idea what's the life span of meat?"
Voice Two: "Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."
Voice One: "Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them all the way through."
Voice Two: "No brain?"
Voice One: "Oh, there's a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat! That's what I've been trying to tell you."
Voice Two: "So ... what does the thinking?"
Voice One: "You're not getting it, are you? You're refusing to deal with what I'm telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat."
Voice Two: "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"
Voice One: "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?"
Voice Two: "Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat."
Voice One: "Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years."
Voice Two: "Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?"
Voice One: "First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, communicate, swap ideas and information. The usual."
Voice Two: "We're supposed to talk to meat."
Voice One: "That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there. Anybody home.' That sort of thing."
Voice Two: "They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"
Voice One: "Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat."
Voice Two: "I thought you just told me they used radio."
Voice One: "They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."
Voice Two: "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"
Voice One: "Officially or unofficially?"
Voice Two: "Both."
Voice One: "Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, we advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing."
Voice Two: "I was hoping you would say that."
Voice One: "It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?"
Voice Two: "I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?"
Voice One: "Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they are limited to the speed of light, which makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact."
Voice Two: "So we just pretend there's no one home in the Universe."
Voice One: "That's it."
Voice Two: "Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? But the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You're sure they won't remember?"
Voice One: "They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them."
Voice Two: "A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream."
Voice One: "And we marked the entire sector unoccupied."
Voice Two: "Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?"
Voice One: "Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again."
Voice Two: "They always come around."
Voice One: "And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe would be if one were all alone ..."
QUOTE
Therefore the likelyhood that life can arise from nonlife is exactly 1 to 1, it happened.
What about the possibility that the Earth was seeded with life? The universe is at least 3 times older that the Earth, if your claim that the odds are 1:1 life stared from non-life, does that mean there is no probability of the Earth being seeded from earlier life?
New Guy
I am in no respect upset by your post chalenging Morris's experiment, it was also challenged by scientists at the time and since then. I feel that most, if not all the criticisms levelled at the experiments were successfully dealt with, and the scientific community agrees.
The critique you cited was basically a creationist polemic which brought up criticisms previously handled in the peer review process without noting that those scientists quoted later agreed that the Morris experiment was, for the most part, valid, if not all inclusive or the last word on the subject.This is a dishonest tactic often used by creation adherents.
The probability calculations cited later in the post are equally falacious. At no time can accurate initial conditions be assigned to biological functions unless you understand ALL the processes involved, which means pretty much never. All such calculations are extremely flawed from the start and therefore GIGO.
Besides, we already know that life began 3.8 billion years ago(plus or minus), so the probability is 100% or 1 to 1 or certainty. The thing science is trying to do is find out how it happened, not what some pseudoscientist thinks the likelyhood of it happening is. The odds on yesterday's football game are irrelivant(not to mention usually highly inaccurate before the fact).
Take care of that little girl,answer as you get the chance.
Grumpy
I am in no respect upset by your post chalenging Morris's experiment, it was also challenged by scientists at the time and since then. I feel that most, if not all the criticisms levelled at the experiments were successfully dealt with, and the scientific community agrees.
The critique you cited was basically a creationist polemic which brought up criticisms previously handled in the peer review process without noting that those scientists quoted later agreed that the Morris experiment was, for the most part, valid, if not all inclusive or the last word on the subject.This is a dishonest tactic often used by creation adherents.
The probability calculations cited later in the post are equally falacious. At no time can accurate initial conditions be assigned to biological functions unless you understand ALL the processes involved, which means pretty much never. All such calculations are extremely flawed from the start and therefore GIGO.
Besides, we already know that life began 3.8 billion years ago(plus or minus), so the probability is 100% or 1 to 1 or certainty. The thing science is trying to do is find out how it happened, not what some pseudoscientist thinks the likelyhood of it happening is. The odds on yesterday's football game are irrelivant(not to mention usually highly inaccurate before the fact).
Take care of that little girl,answer as you get the chance.
Grumpy
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 4 2005, 04:49 AM)
RealityCheck,
What are you doing here anyway? How long am I going to have to wait to see any worth posting from you? Have you checked your reality lately? I think you might have lost it. It takes nothing to be a naysayer and a pessimistic imbecile, prosing empty articulations, but please, show some self-respect. Or if you are going to post insignificant refuse, make it humorous.
If you have consternation from a consciousness state of inadequacy owing to a diminutive phallus constituent, I’m indubitably penitent.
Let's see some original concepts, knowing of a web site is not knowing - or understanding.
.
.
Ahhh S. Bilderback.
Now, now....temper!
Besides, all others will have noted that my posts started out in a helpful vein. The knowledge base from which you were arguing scientific matters with others was evidently inadequate to your needs. I merely pointed out your lack and then directed you to areas of further research pertinent to your needs.
You then proceeded to offer obviously ignorant opinions on matters which you 'challenged' others on but where you yourself were patently ignorant and incapable of comprehending the logical/factual import of the answers given you.
You then CONTINUED this ignorant 'wedge-document' agenda-driven farce called 'honest engagement' with science and scientists. You thus proved by your comments, ignorance and incomprehension that you are yet another dishonest debater in the mold of SoLoved, Messenger, dadl and co. Please don't insult other's intelligence by pretending we here can't see through both your ignorance AND miscreance with whatever 'intellect' your 'god' may have inadequately provided in the case of all these crazy-creationists who think they are 'scientists' and then proceed to make a mockery of the concept of (as your mate dadl put it) "....reasonable deduction...". Mate, you too will soon be 'seeing' flying Jesuses' with eternally-suppurating merged' wounds if you're not careful, and stop listening to your crazy-creationist 'keepers'.
You are a disgrace to the 'image of god'; you do 'him/her' no good service by alienating all intelligent people on this planet...which leaves 'DE-volving intelligence' people as the only ones that will 'believe' in your delusions...and then: self-extinction by the lack of exercise to the critical faculties required to 'connect' with reality. It is your fate to be manipulated until you die horribly in some insane 'Jonestown Massacre'-like scenario, or in some 'bible-basher-schism' war which crazy-creationists are so good at starting/having with other 'religions' and 'bible-versions' (the latest would-be amender/translator of bibles being your mate dadl, just another would-be 'finger in the pie' that is the 'inerrant' bible...hehehe, remember that claim of yours, SoLoved?).
As others have said before, we here continue to try to educate you out of pity and duty to banish ignorance; and to prevent non-critical children from accepting your rantings as 'gospel', and so damaging themselves possibly for life. And it is the children whom all you twisted cult-leaders want, isn't it?...I wonder why? Up to no good, I bet...as history has amply proved where religions and religious cults are concerned. So don't act so holier-than-thou with me, mate; for history is replete with your ignorant and miscreant kind...and they have always been defeated by reason in the end. Despair awaits you, mate...for that has been the lot in the end for crazy-creationists down the ages. History repeats, heh?...and you're the latest crazy-creationist 'expendable' thrown into the 'wedge-document' farce-fight. Poor sod; I almost pity you out of sheer humanity (but your 'religion' doesn't recognise 'humanity' as a valid motivation, so as far as you're concerned, I cannot even pity you...how sad).
.
Oh, by the way, I'd be very scared if I were you, now that Messenger has 'praised' your efforts [Quote Messenger: "The whole post was great - but I liked these parts the best! Carry on.].
You see, mate, any approval from Messenger/SoLoved as to your 'debate content' or 'tactics' is THE KISS OF DEATH as sure as you were 'created'. They are the most UN-christian of any we've met here. They treat 'perjury' and 'malice aforethought' as virtues and 'christian values'...can you believe it!
So if anyone answering the description of SoLoved/Messenger approaches you: RUN FOR YOUR 'VIRTUE' if not your sanity. They will drag you down with them. Sad but true.
Prove me wrong, heh?
And instead of biting the hand that tries to offer you knowledge and integrity, which you obviously lacked or you would not have pretended to what you did not possess, try to LEARN. You know, that thing that NON-BIBLE-BASHERS do all the time as best they can. They make an effort; whereas you and your kind obviously have given up trying, and so revert back to the same type of disgraced/delusional concepts and social 'engineering' experiments that have led to more 'ungodliness' than anything else. You are HUMAN, with all your human pride/inadequacies. Others recognise this in themselves, and try to apply the scientific method' of logic and behaviour to 'compensate' for what obviously ails you and your crazy-creationist mates. Your feeble attempts at a MIMIC-OF-SCIENCE 'method' will not wash with truly intelligent people...which is why your kind is always reduced to appealing to IGNORANCE and one-born-every-minute types to support your hell-on-earth visions of 'virtues' (such as perjury and malice-aforethought graven forever into the 'wedge-document' agenda for all future generations to see for themselves the depth of UN-christian depravity you crazy-creationists will stoop to for the 'materialistic' ends of the 'satanic' egos of the cult-leaders behind that UN-christian document/campaign).
Sorry mate, that's all the time I have to set you straight. Good luck with your learning process. I hope your critical faculties 'kick in' before you attain no-hoper status! Just listen to Messenger/SoLoved and dadl, that's a good crazy-creationist-in-the-making.
Reminder: People in glass houses (whether pre/post dadl's 'split) should not throw stones. You began here ignorant; you wilfully retain that ignorance against all the available knowledge; and if you persist in 'farcical debating' like your compatriots, you will remain forever ignorant. Don't blame us or get angry at us. You are the problem, and you have the solution. Get to it and live in enlightenment instead of in the shadows of ignorance absolute. Your choice.
And before you complain again about the content/tenor of my posts, remember also that it is the likes of YOU that has introduced 'myth', 'unsubstantiated opinion' and 'philosophical views' into these otherwise science-only discussions...so you have no-one but yourselves to blame if I ALSO give you an earful as to MY points of view on YOUR 'pseudo-science' and dishonest behaviour in the name of 'christianity'. If you brand my replies as you have done, then it is PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT that you ARE a hypocrite and perjuror...just perfect qualifications for that 'religion' of yours, heh? A model crazy-creationist-in-the-making, I'd say, wouldn't you, mate? Tread carefully, because ignorance can be so tragically unforgiving to its most ardent adherents.
RealityCheck.
PS: QUOTE S. BILDERBACK:"Or if you are going to post insignificant refuse, make it humorous."
PSS: Oh, so THAT'S what you, dadl, Messenger and SoLoved were doing all that time? No wonder! their posts (and yours above) are replete with such "humorous" but "insignificant refuse". Another 'victorious strategy': all that these crazy-creationists have to do is post "humorous insignificant refuse" and 'bingo'! all of science will bow down to these bringers-of-light(entertainment)! Pathetic delusions with your humour, anyone? RC.
.
QUOTE
Besides, we already know that life began 3.8 billion years ago(plus or minus), so the probability is 100% or 1 to 1 or certainty. The thing science is trying to do is find out how it happened, not what some pseudoscientist thinks the likelyhood of it happening is. The odds on yesterday's football game are irrelivant(not to mention usually highly inaccurate before the fact).
So what is your point, life started, we both agree it to be true, how it started is what we are discussing. You have stuck by your guns on all your argument that life spontaneously started on Earth, what if that is not true and life started a star or two generations ago, or the seed of life drifted here by other means. Wouldn't that change your argument? Is the seeding of life not a possibility?
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 5 2005, 03:53 AM)
QUOTE
Besides, we already know that life began 3.8 billion years ago(plus or minus), so the probability is 100% or 1 to 1 or certainty. The thing science is trying to do is find out how it happened, not what some pseudoscientist thinks the likelyhood of it happening is. The odds on yesterday's football game are irrelivant(not to mention usually highly inaccurate before the fact).
So what is your point, life started, we both agree it to be true, how it started is what we are discussing. You have stuck by your guns on all your argument that life spontaneously started on Earth, what if that is not true and life started a star or two generations ago, or the seed of life drifted here by other means. Wouldn't that change your argument? Is the seeding of life not a possibility?
.
Ahhh S. Bilderback.
And what is YOUR point: That physical life inevitably nust exist elsewhere in an infinite/eternal universe?
RC.
.
QUOTE
Besides, all others will have noted that my posts started out in a helpful vein. The knowledge base from which you were arguing scientific matters with others was evidently inadequate to your needs.
Thanks but no thanks for the help.
You don't have a clue what my agenda is so how do you know what is adequate and what is not. Should I start a running list of all the assumption proven to be wrong about me and my arguments? Every negative response so far has at least one. Once again, you have made another assumption based on a preconceived bias and you are, . . . wrong again. I thought you might be getting sick of that by now.
I would highly suggest reading more and not more unqualified and under qualified web sight that support your narrow viewpoint. Try a book.
S. Bilderback
Of course it's possible,after all amino acids, formaldihide, methane and other prebiotic chemicals have been found in huge quantities in interstellar gas clouds, on meteorites and in the tails of comets. It seems our whole universe is primed to produce our kind of life wherever it is possible to do so. I, for one, will not be suprised if we find life on Mars or on the moons of Jupiter. After all, everywhere on Earth that life can survive we find it. That includes deep in the Earth, in boiling hot springs in Yellowstone, in the dry uplands of Antartica where it is never above freezing and there is very little moisture, in the middle of the driest deserts and in the bottom of the deepest ocean near volcanic vents with water near 500 degrees F.
But what causes life to begin is really irrelivent to the study of what happens next(evolution). Descent with modification and natural selection began to work on that first simple life immediately, beginning a long(3 billion years+-) climb to the advanced one cell forms with complete cell structures and processes, and the 800 million year climb from the first muticellular organisms to today.
And all this is due to the properties of the chemicals involved, the huge amounts of time available and the "mechanical logic" of the natural selection process(if it helps the individual organism survive to reproduce it is selected because of that fact and passed on to the following generations, if not those genes are eliminated from the gene pool).
So the universe is set in motion with the laws in place to manufacture the chemicals that those laws allow to become life that evolves due to those same laws so that we exist to invent the tools of science which allow us to look out at that universe and back in time to the beginning and understand the laws of the universe. It's simply beautiful. If you say God said"Let there be light..." and he created the Big Bang I could not argue with that. But like the pool player who strokes the cue one time and puts every ball in the pockets in order is a better pool player than one who must make stroke after stroke to do the same, the God who set the universe in motion knowing that the laws he set in place would result in our becoming man without his further input is a much more omnipotent God than one who had to redesign his handywork every time a difficulty was encountered. The first God would trully be a powerful God, the second one is a Poser who couldn't get it right the first time.
Grumpy
QUOTE
So what is your point, life started, we both agree it to be true, how it started is what we are discussing. You have stuck by your guns on all your argument that life spontaneously started on Earth, what if that is not true and life started a star or two generations ago, or the seed of life drifted here by other means. Wouldn't that change your argument? Is the seeding of life not a possibility?
Of course it's possible,after all amino acids, formaldihide, methane and other prebiotic chemicals have been found in huge quantities in interstellar gas clouds, on meteorites and in the tails of comets. It seems our whole universe is primed to produce our kind of life wherever it is possible to do so. I, for one, will not be suprised if we find life on Mars or on the moons of Jupiter. After all, everywhere on Earth that life can survive we find it. That includes deep in the Earth, in boiling hot springs in Yellowstone, in the dry uplands of Antartica where it is never above freezing and there is very little moisture, in the middle of the driest deserts and in the bottom of the deepest ocean near volcanic vents with water near 500 degrees F.
But what causes life to begin is really irrelivent to the study of what happens next(evolution). Descent with modification and natural selection began to work on that first simple life immediately, beginning a long(3 billion years+-) climb to the advanced one cell forms with complete cell structures and processes, and the 800 million year climb from the first muticellular organisms to today.
And all this is due to the properties of the chemicals involved, the huge amounts of time available and the "mechanical logic" of the natural selection process(if it helps the individual organism survive to reproduce it is selected because of that fact and passed on to the following generations, if not those genes are eliminated from the gene pool).
So the universe is set in motion with the laws in place to manufacture the chemicals that those laws allow to become life that evolves due to those same laws so that we exist to invent the tools of science which allow us to look out at that universe and back in time to the beginning and understand the laws of the universe. It's simply beautiful. If you say God said"Let there be light..." and he created the Big Bang I could not argue with that. But like the pool player who strokes the cue one time and puts every ball in the pockets in order is a better pool player than one who must make stroke after stroke to do the same, the God who set the universe in motion knowing that the laws he set in place would result in our becoming man without his further input is a much more omnipotent God than one who had to redesign his handywork every time a difficulty was encountered. The first God would trully be a powerful God, the second one is a Poser who couldn't get it right the first time.
Grumpy
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 5 2005, 04:19 AM)
QUOTE
Besides, all others will have noted that my posts started out in a helpful vein. The knowledge base from which you were arguing scientific matters with others was evidently inadequate to your needs.
Thanks but no thanks for the help.
You don't have a clue what my agenda is so how do you know what is adequate and what is not. Should I start a running list of all the assumption proven to be wrong about me and my arguments? Every negative response so far has at least one. Once again, you have made another assumption based on a preconceived bias and you are, . . . wrong again. I thought you might be getting sick of that by now.
I would highly suggest reading more and not more unqualified and under qualified web sight that support your narrow viewpoint. Try a book.
.
.
Ahhh S. Bilderback.
Now you are 'ignoring' difficult questions and self-evident truths. Proof positive that all you crazy-creationist 'wedge-offensive-expendables' learned 'pseudo-science' and 'dishonest debating' tactics from the same 'training manual' for perjurists, hypocrites and evasionists that SoLoved/Messenger/dadl did. You are providing more evidence of your lack of integrity and true-christian virtues with every post...so post on, mate, post on and do more damage to yourself and your 'oh-too-worldly' ID/CS cult-leaders/masters.
It is sad in the extreme for all true-scientists and true-christians alike to have to witness the worldwide-web perpetration of such wanton and studied ignorance and malice aforethought; as you and your buddies are doing here and elsewhere----yes, everyone here knows by now what you and your fellow malignant-ignoramuses are up to, because of your outed 'wedge-document' strategy based on perjury and malice-aforethought. Keep it up 'wedge-expendable'; you have nothing to lose but your integrity, sanity and soul (which last, according to dadl, you can't possibly have in his 'post-split' non-spiritual universe).
Go cry at those who have brainwashed you into pretending to be 'genuinely interested' in 'scientific debate' as 'equals'. They have delusions of grandeur, I think, SB; are you a 'follower' or a 'leader' in that cult?
Either way, you have proven yourself worthless as a true-human being, a true-christian and, now here, as a true-scientist. I have no more pity for you. You can look to your 'keepers' for that. And don't complain when people shovel the same stuff that you give back at you; that's a good Bilderback.
Reality.
.
S. Bilderback
You can't start a list until you "prove"something we have said is wrong. So far your batting 000 and are not even fit for the bush leagues. You have stopped answering my posts altogether, probably because I clean your clock every time you have tried.
You made the mistake of coming to a science site with your pseudoscientific babble, that might have worked for you in the relatively scientificly illiterate Christian forums. But here you will find the real lions and bears(oh my) not the teddy bears and dandy lions they have there.
35+ years of teaching Physics and Chemistry have left me ample tools to disassemble any rickety, flimsy excuse you can cobble up, and there are others on this forum who scare me with their formidable intellects, Reality Check, adoucette, Gene Splicer, MX and many others are well armed to take on lightweights such as yourself.
When you first started posting I witheld judgement and accepted your claim of being a teacher. Well the jury is back and you are guilty of Bearing False Witness at the very least for you just don't have the intellect required(much less the knowledge). It's said that the day we stop learning is the day we start dying and for you that day came long ago.
Grumpy
You can't start a list until you "prove"something we have said is wrong. So far your batting 000 and are not even fit for the bush leagues. You have stopped answering my posts altogether, probably because I clean your clock every time you have tried.
You made the mistake of coming to a science site with your pseudoscientific babble, that might have worked for you in the relatively scientificly illiterate Christian forums. But here you will find the real lions and bears(oh my) not the teddy bears and dandy lions they have there.
35+ years of teaching Physics and Chemistry have left me ample tools to disassemble any rickety, flimsy excuse you can cobble up, and there are others on this forum who scare me with their formidable intellects, Reality Check, adoucette, Gene Splicer, MX and many others are well armed to take on lightweights such as yourself.
When you first started posting I witheld judgement and accepted your claim of being a teacher. Well the jury is back and you are guilty of Bearing False Witness at the very least for you just don't have the intellect required(much less the knowledge). It's said that the day we stop learning is the day we start dying and for you that day came long ago.
Grumpy
Hi Grumpy!
You'd think these wedge-offensive cult-leaders would have more regard for the welfare of their 'troops', heh?
Their recruits seem to have less brains and integrity than the sparrow I'm looking at right now at my window!
And all the 'training' these 'expendables' get before they are sent to the 'pseudo-front' is on how to perjure themselves and display utter ignorance in the face of overwhelming enlightenment. Poor sods. This bloke isn't the first casualty, nor will he be the last, sad to say. Such is the price that these so-easily-led gullibles must pay for their wilful starving ignorance in the midst of knowledge plenty.
How's your 'racer' and your back doin', OK? Regards to your sister the nurse from all the way here 'Down Under'!
RC.
You'd think these wedge-offensive cult-leaders would have more regard for the welfare of their 'troops', heh?
Their recruits seem to have less brains and integrity than the sparrow I'm looking at right now at my window!
And all the 'training' these 'expendables' get before they are sent to the 'pseudo-front' is on how to perjure themselves and display utter ignorance in the face of overwhelming enlightenment. Poor sods. This bloke isn't the first casualty, nor will he be the last, sad to say. Such is the price that these so-easily-led gullibles must pay for their wilful starving ignorance in the midst of knowledge plenty.
How's your 'racer' and your back doin', OK? Regards to your sister the nurse from all the way here 'Down Under'!
RC.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 5 2005, 12:44 AM)
Read this, it might spark some creativity and expand your horizons, or may just humor you.
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
Voice Two: "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
Voice One: "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Maybe they're like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage."
Voice One: "Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take long. Do you have any idea what's the life span of meat?"
Voice Two: "Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."
Voice One: "Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them all the way through."
Voice Two: "No brain?"
Voice One: "Oh, there's a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat! That's what I've been trying to tell you."
Voice Two: "So ... what does the thinking?"
Voice One: "You're not getting it, are you? You're refusing to deal with what I'm telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat."
Voice Two: "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"
Voice One: "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?"
Voice Two: "Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat."
Voice One: "Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years."
Voice Two: "Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?"
Voice One: "First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, communicate, swap ideas and information. The usual."
Voice Two: "We're supposed to talk to meat."
Voice One: "That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there. Anybody home.' That sort of thing."
Voice Two: "They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"
Voice One: "Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat."
Voice Two: "I thought you just told me they used radio."
Voice One: "They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."
Voice Two: "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"
Voice One: "Officially or unofficially?"
Voice Two: "Both."
Voice One: "Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, we advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing."
Voice Two: "I was hoping you would say that."
Voice One: "It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?"
Voice Two: "I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?"
Voice One: "Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they are limited to the speed of light, which makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact."
Voice Two: "So we just pretend there's no one home in the Universe."
Voice One: "That's it."
Voice Two: "Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? But the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You're sure they won't remember?"
Voice One: "They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them."
Voice Two: "A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream."
Voice One: "And we marked the entire sector unoccupied."
Voice Two: "Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?"
Voice One: "Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again."
Voice Two: "They always come around."
Voice One: "And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe would be if one were all alone ..."
If I had to resort to quoting fiction to prove my argument, I would quit arguing.
Of course, if you're USED to quoting fiction to support your argument, I guess it wouldn't be alarming...
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
Voice Two: "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
Voice One: "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Maybe they're like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage."
Voice One: "Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take long. Do you have any idea what's the life span of meat?"
Voice Two: "Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."
Voice One: "Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them all the way through."
Voice Two: "No brain?"
Voice One: "Oh, there's a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat! That's what I've been trying to tell you."
Voice Two: "So ... what does the thinking?"
Voice One: "You're not getting it, are you? You're refusing to deal with what I'm telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat."
Voice Two: "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"
Voice One: "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?"
Voice Two: "Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat."
Voice One: "Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years."
Voice Two: "Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?"
Voice One: "First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, communicate, swap ideas and information. The usual."
Voice Two: "We're supposed to talk to meat."
Voice One: "That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there. Anybody home.' That sort of thing."
Voice Two: "They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"
Voice One: "Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat."
Voice Two: "I thought you just told me they used radio."
Voice One: "They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."
Voice Two: "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"
Voice One: "Officially or unofficially?"
Voice Two: "Both."
Voice One: "Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, we advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing."
Voice Two: "I was hoping you would say that."
Voice One: "It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?"
Voice Two: "I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?"
Voice One: "Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they are limited to the speed of light, which makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact."
Voice Two: "So we just pretend there's no one home in the Universe."
Voice One: "That's it."
Voice Two: "Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? But the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You're sure they won't remember?"
Voice One: "They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them."
Voice Two: "A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream."
Voice One: "And we marked the entire sector unoccupied."
Voice Two: "Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?"
Voice One: "Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again."
Voice Two: "They always come around."
Voice One: "And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe would be if one were all alone ..."
If I had to resort to quoting fiction to prove my argument, I would quit arguing.
Of course, if you're USED to quoting fiction to support your argument, I guess it wouldn't be alarming...
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 5 2005, 06:23 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 5 2005, 12:44 AM)
Read this, it might spark some creativity and expand your horizons, or may just humor you.
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
.
.
.
.
.
If I had to resort to quoting fiction to prove my argument, I would quit arguing.
Of course, if you're USED to quoting fiction to support your argument, I guess it wouldn't be alarming...
Hi MXWordNerd!
Now stop that; you nearly made me fall off my chair when I read that last line of yours. It's a doozy! hehehe. Too subtle for the likes of the target audience, I'm afraid, though. What a waste of a good 'zinger', heh mate?
RealityCheck.
.
So you are saying that all of your previous postings are irrelevant?
In the assumption department:
- I do have a degrees
- I do not believe life is 6,000 years old
- I do not believe in a "magical" start of life
- I have not misrepresented myself
How many more assumptions would you like me to point out, or are you saying none of these assumptions have been posted?
Because you ignore the flaws in your own scientific logic, doesn't mean you won or accomplish anything. it has only showed your narrow mind set.
As I first stated, I had this argument many times before and I'm playing you all like a well tuned fiddle, you have posted your opinions, made your beds, and now I hope you like the taste of crow.
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
.
.
.
.
.
If I had to resort to quoting fiction to prove my argument, I would quit arguing.
Of course, if you're USED to quoting fiction to support your argument, I guess it wouldn't be alarming...
Hi MXWordNerd!
Now stop that; you nearly made me fall off my chair when I read that last line of yours. It's a doozy! hehehe. Too subtle for the likes of the target audience, I'm afraid, though. What a waste of a good 'zinger', heh mate?
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
But what causes life to begin is really irrelivent to the study of what happens next
So you are saying that all of your previous postings are irrelevant?
In the assumption department:
- I do have a degrees
- I do not believe life is 6,000 years old
- I do not believe in a "magical" start of life
- I have not misrepresented myself
How many more assumptions would you like me to point out, or are you saying none of these assumptions have been posted?
Because you ignore the flaws in your own scientific logic, doesn't mean you won or accomplish anything. it has only showed your narrow mind set.
As I first stated, I had this argument many times before and I'm playing you all like a well tuned fiddle, you have posted your opinions, made your beds, and now I hope you like the taste of crow.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 5 2005, 02:21 AM)
The critique you cited was basically a creationist polemic which brought up criticisms previously handled in the peer review process without noting that those scientists quoted later agreed that the Morris experiment was, for the most part, valid, if not all inclusive or the last word on the subject.This is a dishonest tactic often used by creation adherents.
Grumpy: I trust you understand that when I posted the info regarding Miller's experiment, it wasn't an "in your face" type of post. I did state that I was curious as to your opinions on it and I thank you for them. As far as whether or not "creation adherants" use "dishonest tactics"...maybe they do, I don't know. If so, that would only prove my contention that many so-called "Christians"(not that all creationists claim to be Christians) are NOT Christian at all. I know there was no "dishonest" intent on my part, just curiosity(I trust you already know this). I might add, though, that there is no shortage of the same "dishonest tactics" on many pro-evolution sites that I've seen over the years. But, that's another topic for another day. If nothing else, my vocabulary is improving by being involved in this forum. "Polemic"? I had to look that one up. Have a good one.
Grumpy: I trust you understand that when I posted the info regarding Miller's experiment, it wasn't an "in your face" type of post. I did state that I was curious as to your opinions on it and I thank you for them. As far as whether or not "creation adherants" use "dishonest tactics"...maybe they do, I don't know. If so, that would only prove my contention that many so-called "Christians"(not that all creationists claim to be Christians) are NOT Christian at all. I know there was no "dishonest" intent on my part, just curiosity(I trust you already know this). I might add, though, that there is no shortage of the same "dishonest tactics" on many pro-evolution sites that I've seen over the years. But, that's another topic for another day. If nothing else, my vocabulary is improving by being involved in this forum. "Polemic"? I had to look that one up. Have a good one.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 5 2005, 09:30 AM)
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 5 2005, 06:23 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 5 2005, 12:44 AM)
Read this, it might spark some creativity and expand your horizons, or may just humor you.
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
.
.
.
.
.
If I had to resort to quoting fiction to prove my argument, I would quit arguing.
Of course, if you're USED to quoting fiction to support your argument, I guess it wouldn't be alarming...
Hi MXWordNerd!
Now stop that; you nearly made me fall off my chair when I read that last line of yours. It's a doozy! hehehe. Too subtle for the likes of the target audience, I'm afraid, though. What a waste of a good 'zinger', heh mate?
RealityCheck.
.
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
.
.
.
.
.
If I had to resort to quoting fiction to prove my argument, I would quit arguing.
Of course, if you're USED to quoting fiction to support your argument, I guess it wouldn't be alarming...
Hi MXWordNerd!
Now stop that; you nearly made me fall off my chair when I read that last line of yours. It's a doozy! hehehe. Too subtle for the likes of the target audience, I'm afraid, though. What a waste of a good 'zinger', heh mate?
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 5 2005, 01:50 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 5 2005, 09:30 AM)
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 5 2005, 06:23 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 5 2005, 12:44 AM)
Read this, it might spark some creativity and expand your horizons, or may just humor you.
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
.
.
.
.
.
If I had to resort to quoting fiction to prove my argument, I would quit arguing.
Of course, if you're USED to quoting fiction to support your argument, I guess it wouldn't be alarming...
Hi MXWordNerd!
Now stop that; you nearly made me fall off my chair when I read that last line of yours. It's a doozy! hehehe. Too subtle for the likes of the target audience, I'm afraid, though. What a waste of a good 'zinger', heh mate?
RealityCheck.
.
So you didn't get it, huh? HeHe
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
.
.
.
.
.
If I had to resort to quoting fiction to prove my argument, I would quit arguing.
Of course, if you're USED to quoting fiction to support your argument, I guess it wouldn't be alarming...
Hi MXWordNerd!
Now stop that; you nearly made me fall off my chair when I read that last line of yours. It's a doozy! hehehe. Too subtle for the likes of the target audience, I'm afraid, though. What a waste of a good 'zinger', heh mate?
RealityCheck.
.
So you didn't get it, huh? HeHe
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 5 2005, 08:44 PM)
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 5 2005, 01:50 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 5 2005, 09:30 AM)
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 5 2005, 06:23 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 5 2005, 12:44 AM)
Read this, it might spark some creativity and expand your horizons, or may just humor you.
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
.
.
.
.
.
If I had to resort to quoting fiction to prove my argument, I would quit arguing.
Of course, if you're USED to quoting fiction to support your argument, I guess it wouldn't be alarming...
Hi MXWordNerd!
Now stop that; you nearly made me fall off my chair when I read that last line of yours. It's a doozy! hehehe. Too subtle for the likes of the target audience, I'm afraid, though. What a waste of a good 'zinger', heh mate?
RealityCheck.
.
So you didn't get it, huh? HeHe
.
.
Oh Mess.
Has it occurred to you that most scientists and science-fiction readers here ALREADY 'got' it THE FIRST TIME WE READ IT (in my case, way back when, in dadl's 'old ages' before the 'split-pea-soup', hehehe). The original stories were extremely funny and ironic THEN; and remain so NOW (without any help/endorsement/exploitation from you); and will no doubt STILL be, well into that dadl's 'far future' merger...unless 'merged' people are not then allowed to 'laugh at themselves' anymore under pain of 'death-by-diddle-dadling'.
RC.
.
So you are saying that all of your previous postings are irrelevant?
In the assumption department:
- I do have a degrees
- I do not believe life is 6,000 years old
- I do not believe in a "magical" start of life
- I have not misrepresented myself
How many more assumptions would you like me to point out, or are you saying none of these assumptions have been posted?
Because you ignore the flaws in your own scientific logic, doesn't mean you won or accomplish anything. it has only showed your narrow mind set.
As I first stated, I had this argument many times before and I'm playing you all like a well tuned fiddle, you have posted your opinions, made your beds, and now I hope you like the taste of crow.
So is the primordial soup theory relevant to your theory or not?
If you refuse to submit all you need to do is answer the question.
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
A ONE ACT PLAY by Terry Bisson
The set is a deep space galactic panorama projected on a screen--the Universe. Two lights moving like fireflies among the stars on the screen represent the the TWO VOICES.
(As a radio play, there are just the TWO VOICES, with a slight echo added for strangeness.)
Voice One: "They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "Meat. They're made out of meat."
Voice Two: "Meat?"
Voice One: "There's no doubt about it. We took several aboard our recon vessels from different parts of the planet and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
Voice Two: "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
Voice One: "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
Voice Two: "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
Voice One: "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
.
.
.
.
.
If I had to resort to quoting fiction to prove my argument, I would quit arguing.
Of course, if you're USED to quoting fiction to support your argument, I guess it wouldn't be alarming...
Hi MXWordNerd!
Now stop that; you nearly made me fall off my chair when I read that last line of yours. It's a doozy! hehehe. Too subtle for the likes of the target audience, I'm afraid, though. What a waste of a good 'zinger', heh mate?
RealityCheck.
.
So you didn't get it, huh? HeHe
.
.
Oh Mess.
Has it occurred to you that most scientists and science-fiction readers here ALREADY 'got' it THE FIRST TIME WE READ IT (in my case, way back when, in dadl's 'old ages' before the 'split-pea-soup', hehehe). The original stories were extremely funny and ironic THEN; and remain so NOW (without any help/endorsement/exploitation from you); and will no doubt STILL be, well into that dadl's 'far future' merger...unless 'merged' people are not then allowed to 'laugh at themselves' anymore under pain of 'death-by-diddle-dadling'.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 5 2005, 01:37 PM)
QUOTE
But what causes life to begin is really irrelivent to the study of what happens next
So you are saying that all of your previous postings are irrelevant?
In the assumption department:
- I do have a degrees
- I do not believe life is 6,000 years old
- I do not believe in a "magical" start of life
- I have not misrepresented myself
How many more assumptions would you like me to point out, or are you saying none of these assumptions have been posted?
Because you ignore the flaws in your own scientific logic, doesn't mean you won or accomplish anything. it has only showed your narrow mind set.
As I first stated, I had this argument many times before and I'm playing you all like a well tuned fiddle, you have posted your opinions, made your beds, and now I hope you like the taste of crow.
So is the primordial soup theory relevant to your theory or not?
Your silence = DEFETE!
You do not have enough information to argue your point
You do not understand the science
You do not understand the logic
You do not know how to debate
You have narrow vision
Your are evangelist for a false religion
You are the ones that "look stupid"
Etc...
If you want to learn more, just ask. There is much much more to this debate, I was only getting started.
Or, if you choose to keep your head tightly surrounded by your anal sphincter, I cannot help you.
You do not have enough information to argue your point
You do not understand the science
You do not understand the logic
You do not know how to debate
You have narrow vision
Your are evangelist for a false religion
You are the ones that "look stupid"
Etc...
If you want to learn more, just ask. There is much much more to this debate, I was only getting started.
Or, if you choose to keep your head tightly surrounded by your anal sphincter, I cannot help you.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 7 2005, 01:16 AM)
Your silence = DEFETE!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
"Defete".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
"Defete".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 7 2005, 01:16 AM)
Your silence = DEFETE!
You do not have enough information to argue your point
You do not understand the science
You do not understand the logic
You do not know how to debate
You have narrow vision
Your are evangelist for a false religion
You are the ones that "look stupid"
Etc...
If you want to learn more, just ask. There is much much more to this debate, I was only getting started.
Or, if you choose to keep your head tightly surrounded by your anal sphincter, I cannot help you.
.
.
Mate, it is always a mistake to confuse silence in others, in this case occasioned by profound shock at having been forced to witness such irremedial stupidity as you display, with their capitulation to the nonsense you present as 'scientific arguments'. Learn from this observation. If you are going to be arrogant, at least have SOMETHING for which you can BE arrogant in the first place...you know, knowledge, wisdom and such like useful things with which to engage in rational debate with intelligent folk.
RealityCheck.
.
You do not have enough information to argue your point
You do not understand the science
You do not understand the logic
You do not know how to debate
You have narrow vision
Your are evangelist for a false religion
You are the ones that "look stupid"
Etc...
If you want to learn more, just ask. There is much much more to this debate, I was only getting started.
Or, if you choose to keep your head tightly surrounded by your anal sphincter, I cannot help you.
.
.
Mate, it is always a mistake to confuse silence in others, in this case occasioned by profound shock at having been forced to witness such irremedial stupidity as you display, with their capitulation to the nonsense you present as 'scientific arguments'. Learn from this observation. If you are going to be arrogant, at least have SOMETHING for which you can BE arrogant in the first place...you know, knowledge, wisdom and such like useful things with which to engage in rational debate with intelligent folk.
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
"Defete".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
If you refuse to submit all you need to do is answer the question.
Hello all,
Good to see the Evolution/creation debate is still in full swing. Keeps us all on our toes...
I would just like to pipe in and remind you all of Cap'n Caveman's post at the bottom of page 4. You want some pretty undeniable proof of evolution? Look in the mirror. As he says, there are quite a few features that have virtually no purpose in today's world, but are quite useful for other creatures in other environments. I mean, goosebumps stopping you from losing too much body heat? Come on. They may prolong your tolerance of the cold by a small degree, but without a large coat of fur (which I'm sure most of us don't have) , the bumps are nearly obsolete.
And as for Grumpy and Arthur, Oh my goodness: my biology professors could take classes from you guys. Thanks for all the info!
So, IDers, take a good look in the mirror, evolutionists do the same!
Take care all,
-ben out-
Good to see the Evolution/creation debate is still in full swing. Keeps us all on our toes...
I would just like to pipe in and remind you all of Cap'n Caveman's post at the bottom of page 4. You want some pretty undeniable proof of evolution? Look in the mirror. As he says, there are quite a few features that have virtually no purpose in today's world, but are quite useful for other creatures in other environments. I mean, goosebumps stopping you from losing too much body heat? Come on. They may prolong your tolerance of the cold by a small degree, but without a large coat of fur (which I'm sure most of us don't have)
, the bumps are nearly obsolete.And as for Grumpy and Arthur, Oh my goodness: my biology professors could take classes from you guys. Thanks for all the info!
So, IDers, take a good look in the mirror, evolutionists do the same!
Take care all,
-ben out-
S. Bilderback
First of all my silence=something better to do than listen to your bilge.
Second it's Defeat you person who supposedly
First of all my silence=something better to do than listen to your bilge.
Second it's Defeat you person who supposedly
I do have a degrees
It's I do have a degree or I do have degrees. Funny, I don't believe either statement.
We run you off the forum for two days and that's the drivel you come back with??? We've shown your moronic trash for what it is time after time. You have shown no evidence for anyone to debate about, just "I say so" which, coming from you means LESS than nothing(meaning we know anything you say is false).
Look, soloved the third, unless you DO show some evidence you lose(don't make us take a vote). Your Trollish behavior does not help your argument,and your idiotic ideas are grounds for medication.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Your silence = DEFETE!
First of all my silence=something better to do than listen to your bilge.
Second it's Defeat you person who supposedly
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your silence = DEFETE! |
First of all my silence=something better to do than listen to your bilge.
Second it's Defeat you person who supposedly
I do have a degrees
It's I do have a degree or I do have degrees. Funny, I don't believe either statement.
QUOTE
You do not have enough information to argue your point
You do not understand the science
You do not understand the logic
You do not know how to debate
You have narrow vision
Your are evangelist for a false religion
You are the ones that "look stupid"
You do not understand the science
You do not understand the logic
You do not know how to debate
You have narrow vision
Your are evangelist for a false religion
You are the ones that "look stupid"
We run you off the forum for two days and that's the drivel you come back with??? We've shown your moronic trash for what it is time after time. You have shown no evidence for anyone to debate about, just "I say so" which, coming from you means LESS than nothing(meaning we know anything you say is false).
Look, soloved the third, unless you DO show some evidence you lose(don't make us take a vote). Your Trollish behavior does not help your argument,and your idiotic ideas are grounds for medication.
Grumpy
Just answer my question.
I know I will shake the foundation of everything you believe and that is hard to except. Do you wish to widen your horizons or dwell in blissful ignorance? It's up to you.
I don't see how asking for an answer could be coincided "Moronic Trash" or Trollish, could you please elaborate or substantiate why you think that?
I've never said "Because I say so" another false assumption".
This is the debate: Is "Primordial Soup” relevant to the start of life?
I don't have to prove anything other than the flaws in your logic, science, and limited knowledge.
I know I will shake the foundation of everything you believe and that is hard to except. Do you wish to widen your horizons or dwell in blissful ignorance? It's up to you.
I don't see how asking for an answer could be coincided "Moronic Trash" or Trollish, could you please elaborate or substantiate why you think that?
I've never said "Because I say so" another false assumption".
This is the debate: Is "Primordial Soup” relevant to the start of life?
I don't have to prove anything other than the flaws in your logic, science, and limited knowledge.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.