To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Problems with Evolution
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

S. Bilderback
7th December 2005 - 04:16 AM
QUOTE
You want some pretty undeniable proof of evolution? Look in the mirror.


I haven't even started with the flaw the the theory of "Spontaneous Evolution" yet - stick around, this is going to get fun!!!!

Its not my beliefs on trial here, its yours!
MXWordNerd
7th December 2005 - 05:13 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 7 2005, 02:29 AM)
QUOTE
"Defete".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


If you refuse to submit all you need to do is answer the question.

It's "defeat" you imbucile.

And you've got "degrees"?

Probably about 180 of 'em soon, as you turn around and walk your *** out of this forum with your tail between your legs.
Grumpy
7th December 2005 - 05:28 AM
S. Bilderback

Spontaneous Evolution

Once again you show complete ignorance of what evolution is all about. There is no theory of Spontaneous Evolution.



I'll put it down here so you can see it, Evolution is not concerned with how life started, that is the study of biogenesis, you got a problem with that???

Grumpy mad.gif

PS The day will not come when you provide valid evidence of anything, judging by past performances.
S. Bilderback
7th December 2005 - 01:01 PM
QUOTE
Once again you show complete ignorance of what evolution is all about. There is no theory of Spontaneous Evolution.


Computers and cars have evolved, is that the same type of evolution as life?

P.S. You still haven't answered my question.
S. Bilderback
7th December 2005 - 01:33 PM
QUOTE
PS The day will not come when you provide valid evidence of anything, judging by past performances.


You still do get it, what I say or believe is irrelevant, it is your use of science and logic that is in question here. I'm beginning to believe that you do not know the difference between a fact and an assumption, they are not interchangeable.

If you are so sure your theory is the one and only solution to the mystery of how life Begin, you would answer my question.

I am a know nothing, brainless fecal worm, so what? If I am that idiotic and mindless you should have no problem giving an answer that can put this fecal worm in its place. The ball is in your court.
gmilam
7th December 2005 - 01:45 PM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 7 2005, 07:33 AM)
If you are so sure your theory is the one and only solution to the mystery of how life Begin, you would answer my question.

Evolution does not cover this topic. Only what happened AFTER it began.

If you have any ideas on how it began, I'd be happy to read them. But so far, all I've seen is you throwing stones without offering any alternatives.
newguy
7th December 2005 - 03:21 PM
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+)
It's "defeat" you imbucile.


MXWordNerd: And it's "imbecile", you... No, I won't go there.

GeneSplicer: You've stepped in from time to time and denounced the Creationists for their practice of pointing out spelling errors, grammar errors, etc. Would you please be so kind, for the sake of fairness, to do the same to those on the Evolution side of the debate? I would personally appreciate it if you did. Thanks for your consideration.
Grumpy
7th December 2005 - 03:31 PM
S. Bilderback

QUOTE
I've never said "Because I say so" another false assumption".


When you make a claim(non-PO) and back that claim up with nothing, we are supposed to accept that garbage why???(Because you say so)
Any claim you make that is unsupported by evidence is "I say so" and is garbage.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I've never said "Because I say so" another false assumption".


When you make a claim(non-PO) and back that claim up with nothing, we are supposed to accept that garbage why???(Because you say so)
Any claim you make that is unsupported by evidence is "I say so" and is garbage.

If you are so sure your theory is the one and only solution to the mystery of how life Begin, you would answer my question.


I do not have a theory of how life began. I do know it did begin some 3.8 billion years ago(by direct dating of rock where fossil bacteria were found). Therefore I know that it is possible for it to do so, despite any bogus probability calculations done by anyone. And I can speculate on how it did happen. But I do not know the precise mechanism whereby life came about, I recognize the limits of my knowledge and I don't know enough chemistry to have a theory, talk to the biogenesis crowd if you want a theory, they know more than you do.

Don't bother with your blather about decay not happening, your "I say so"is garbage, unsupported by evidence. If decay were stopped in the past that would make samples appear OLDER not younger. And God is not in the business of pulling practical jokes. The universe IS as we see it, whether God made it or not.

QUOTE
I'm beginning to believe that you do not know the difference between a fact and an assumption, they are not interchangeable.


And you don't know the difference between fantasy and reality, Speculation and science, evidence and "I say so".

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


Grumpy mad.gif
S. Bilderback
8th December 2005 - 12:12 AM
QUOTE
When you make a claim(non-PO) and back that claim up with nothing, we are supposed to accept that garbage why???(Because you say so)
Any claim you make that is unsupported by evidence is "I say so" and is garbage.


What piece of evidence have I posted that I haven't back up?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
When you make a claim(non-PO) and back that claim up with nothing, we are supposed to accept that garbage why???(Because you say so)
Any claim you make that is unsupported by evidence is "I say so" and is garbage.


What piece of evidence have I posted that I haven't back up?

I do not have a theory of how life began. I do know it did begin some 3.8 billion years ago(by direct dating of rock where fossil bacteria were found).


So by not having a theory, you are still saying that life had to first start on the planet Earth 3.8 billion years ago and could not have started anywhere else in the universe in the 13 billion years as you stated the age of the universe to be?
RealityCheck
8th December 2005 - 12:45 AM
The question of HOW life begins is a question in BIOGENESIS, and not EVOLUTION.

Given Infinity/Eternity, life can reasonably be assumed (based on reasonable deduction from the observable evidence here on this planet) to arise at more than one stage/location in the ongoing universal process. Anyone who asserts that life can/does NOT exist elsewhere in the universe can have no logical/evidentiary basis for that assertion. And whether or not planet Earth was 'seeded' with the 'ingredients' or initial 'cell/information unit' necessary for life to evolve as it has on this planet is a question for EXO-biology and ASTRO-chemists/physicists to treat in their disciplines.


EVOLUTIONARY theory deals with mechanisms for CHANGE once life on a particular planet begins. It does NOT deal with that 'beginning' itself. So, irrespective of the ORIGINAL PROVENANCE of life on this planet, Evolutionary Theory treats the ONGOING EFFECTS, not the ORIGINS PER SE, of that life.

RC.
PS: Does ANYONE here know of a BIO-GENESIS discussion website to which S. Bilderback can direct his 'life origins' questions?
S. Bilderback
8th December 2005 - 01:09 AM
QUOTE
Evolution does not cover this topic. Only what happened AFTER it began.


Sorry, the two topics are mutually inclusive.
The methodology of how the first forms of life eventually evolved into humans in 3.5 billion years (B.) is a 100% dependent precondition on the methodology of how life started (A). If A is an assumption, B, a derivative of A, cannot exceed the credibility of A, logic 101.

Lets say, just to get you work up, that a form of ID seeded the Earth with life, with out knowing ID’s design plan or methodology, it would be pure conjecture on how the mutations were contrived. Would ID have seeded the Earth only once, multiple times, were the seeds of life preprogrammed to mutate, was only single cell life placed as the seed?

To rule out any or all of the above, it has to be shown that life had to start spontaneously somewhere in the universe in 13.5 billion years. Without the methodology to the start of life, every following logic set is pure conjecture.

Simply put , the methodology of a spontaneous start to life is equal to a faith based argument, that is without the evidence of a spontaneous start.
RealityCheck
8th December 2005 - 02:09 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 8 2005, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE
Evolution does not cover this topic. Only what happened AFTER it began.


Sorry, the two topics are mutually inclusive.
The methodology of how the first forms of life eventually evolved into humans in 3.5 billion years (B.) is a 100% dependent precondition on the methodology of how life started (A). If A is an assumption, B, a derivative of A, cannot exceed the credibility of A, logic 101.

Lets say, just to get you work up, that a form of ID seeded the Earth with life, with out knowing ID’s design plan or methodology, it would be pure conjecture on how the mutations were contrived. Would ID have seeded the Earth only once, multiple times, were the seeds of life preprogrammed to mutate, was only single cell life placed as the seed?

To rule out any or all of the above, it has to be shown that life had to start spontaneously somewhere in the universe in 13.5 billion years. Without the methodology to the start of life, every following logic set is pure conjecture.

Simply put , the methodology of a spontaneous start to life is equal to a faith based argument, that is without the evidence of a spontaneous start.

.
.
Tell me, S. Bilderback, when one researches the HYDROLOGIC CYCLE (I assume you know what that is, I hope) on this planet, do you ALSO NECESSARILY INVOLVE/DEPEND on the ORIGINAL SOURCE of WATER in the universe as a whole? No. Your brief is to study what happens to the 'gross' water supply limited to this planet. Your search for supportable evidence leads you to investigate underground/surface/atmospheric reservoirs/mechanisms that explain the observed phenomena relating to that Hydrologic Cycle on this planet. If you want information as to the ORIGINAL UNIVERSAL SOURCE OF H2O, you will have to speak to the ASTRO-CHEMISTS/PHYSICISTS and not the hydrologists studying the hydrologic cycle on this planet ONLY.

Similarly, EVOLUTIONARY scientists study the evidence of LIFE RESERVOIRS/CYCLES/MECHANISMS-for-CHANGE etc. for life on THIS PLANET ONLY. If you want ideas about ORIGINS for life (either HERE or ELSEWHERE) you will need to speak NOT to Earth-related-EVOLUTION-ONLY scientists, but rather to BIO-GENESISTS/EXO-BIOLOGISTS/ASTRO-CHEMISTS/PHYSICISTS.

Can you 'get' that NOW?...and stop harrassing people whom you mistakenly think give a damn about your MISDIRECTED 'intellectual' offensive against the pillars of EVOLUTIONARY science?

RealityCheck.
.
S. Bilderback
8th December 2005 - 02:18 AM
QUOTE
Tell me, S. Bilderback, when one researches the HYDROLOGIC CYCLE (I assume you know what that is, I hope) on this planet, do you ALSO NECESSARILY INVOLVE/DEPEND on the ORIGINAL SOURCE of WATER in the universe as a whole?


That's an easy one, I can prove that H2O can spontaneously form throughout the universe from available matter, and also how it could have found it's way to Earth. Life, I cannot.
RealityCheck
8th December 2005 - 02:25 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 8 2005, 02:18 AM)
QUOTE
Tell me, S. Bilderback, when one researches the HYDROLOGIC CYCLE (I assume you know what that is, I hope) on this planet, do you ALSO NECESSARILY INVOLVE/DEPEND on the ORIGINAL SOURCE of WATER in the universe as a whole?


That's an easy one, I can prove that H2O can spontaneously form throughout the universe from available matter, and also how it could have found it's way to Earth. Life, I cannot.

.
.
Yes, but what exactly does that have to do with UNDERSTANDING how that H2O behaves/cycles ON THIS PLANET ONLY?

RC.
.
S. Bilderback
8th December 2005 - 02:39 AM
I would know that H2O is not a unexplainable, exotic substance and will follow a simple predictable behavior within its environment(s), and I could assume it's properties would remain constant throughout the universe. If it by some chance did not follow it's predictable properties, it could be tested and the property set could be modified by reproducing the anomaly.
Grumpy
8th December 2005 - 03:26 AM
S. Bilderback

Whatever the source of life on Earth we know it does exist, we know it has existed for at least 3.8 billion years and we know it has changed over time to become the types we see today. As an evolutionist that is all I can tell you about the beginnings of life here on Earth other than that the probability that it came into being is 100%. If you want more information on the first chemical life on Earth you will have to look elsewhere.

Life is not an exotic substance, we find huge quantities of prebiotic chemicals strewn throughout the universe, life is made of some of the most common chemicals in existance and those chemicals have properties which make them want to combine with other chemicals in more complex molecules which have chemical traits of their own. It seems as if the universe is primed for the explosion of life wherever conditions allow.

Once life has begun, evolutionary forces start to act on it immediately, preserving beneficial changes in the genome, discarding unsuccessfull ones. Thus the racthet of natural selection always climbs toward greater reproductive success.

Simple.

Grumpy cool.gif
RealityCheck
8th December 2005 - 03:41 AM
So far, the life processes and mechanisms/molecules (RNA/DNA etc.) are NATURALLY more complex than simple WATER molecules. The range of NATURAL possibilities/behaviours for the observed LIFE materials are NATURALLY INFINITELY GREATER than for those of WATER. Which is why the study of LIFE'S EVOLUTION on this planet has unearthed myriad forms/processes and 'strands' that, taken together, build up a picture of NATURALLY AND INEVITABLY 'EMERGENT' processes and behaviours arising from the NATURAL LAWS applying to ANY EXTREMELY COMPLEX SYSTEM; be such complex systems 'actual', physico-chemically 'animate' or 'in-animate', or be they 'virtual' (computer simulations).

The upshot is: one can only compare testable evidence/reality for planetary-life evolution with any supposed 'extra-terrestrial' information only after FIRST ESTABLISHING THE FACTS OF THAT EVOLUTION PROCESS on THIS planet and this planet ONLY. Which is what evolutionary science is all about.

Whereas once one establishes that H2O is H2O, then it can be assumed that it will BE H2O ELSEWHERE in the universe...because if it is NOT H2O, THEN IT WILL NOT BE WATER, will it?...it will be SOMETHING ELSE that we must research the facts about.

Please don't confuse 'THE RESEARCH' INTO SOMETHING's SUBSEQUENT properties and behaviour, with 'THE REASONS' WHY THAT SOMETHING EXISTED AS IT DID IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.

RealityCheck.
PS: Grumpy...Hiya!
Messenger
8th December 2005 - 05:58 AM
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 6 2005, 11:13 PM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 7 2005, 02:29 AM)
QUOTE
"Defete".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


If you refuse to submit all you need to do is answer the question.

It's "defeat" you imbucile.

And you've got "degrees"?

Probably about 180 of 'em soon, as you turn around and walk your *** out of this forum with your tail between your legs.


MXWordNerd,

It's your turn to walk.

To give you the benefit of doubt, I checked a dictionary for the word 'imbucile' - here's what it came back with:

Spell Check
Did You Mean:

imbecile

mental retardation (in psychology, medicine

So then I put in 'imbecile', and I found you, I mean this: biggrin.gif

im·be·cile (ĭm'bə-sĭl, -səl) n.
A stupid or silly person; a dolt.
A person whose mental acumen is well below par.
A person of moderate to severe mental retardation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
adj. also im·be·cil·ic (ĭm'bə-sĭl'ĭk)
Stupid; silly.
Well below par in mental acumen.

and this:

Thesaurus for 'imbecile'

One deficient in judgment and good sense: fool, idiot, mooncalf, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, simple, simpleton, softhead, tomfool. Informal dope, gander, goose. Slang cretin, ding-dong, dip, goof, jerk, nerd, schmo, schmuck, turkey. See ability/inability.

I was too busy laughing to notice if anyone else corrected you on this. So I'm sorry if this is redundant. We all make mistakes, sometimes we type too fast, sometimes we are thinking so fast that our fingers can't keep up. tongue.gif

If you are so concerned about spelling errors, please use the spell check button before you post (everyone).

Have a good'n,
Messenger
8th December 2005 - 06:01 AM
Oh, by the way.....

Don't you just hate that when this happens?

wink.gif
MXWordNerd
8th December 2005 - 06:33 AM
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 8 2005, 05:58 AM)
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 6 2005, 11:13 PM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 7 2005, 02:29 AM)
QUOTE
"Defete".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


If you refuse to submit all you need to do is answer the question.

It's "defeat" you imbucile.

And you've got "degrees"?

Probably about 180 of 'em soon, as you turn around and walk your *** out of this forum with your tail between your legs.


MXWordNerd,

It's your turn to walk.

To give you the benefit of doubt, I checked a dictionary for the word 'imbucile' - here's what it came back with:

Spell Check
Did You Mean:

imbecile

mental retardation (in psychology, medicine

So then I put in 'imbecile', and I found you, I mean this: biggrin.gif

im·be·cile (ĭm'bə-sĭl, -səl) n.
A stupid or silly person; a dolt.
A person whose mental acumen is well below par.
A person of moderate to severe mental retardation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
adj. also im·be·cil·ic (ĭm'bə-sĭl'ĭk)
Stupid; silly.
Well below par in mental acumen.

and this:

Thesaurus for 'imbecile'

One deficient in judgment and good sense: fool, idiot, mooncalf, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, simple, simpleton, softhead, tomfool. Informal dope, gander, goose. Slang cretin, ding-dong, dip, goof, jerk, nerd, schmo, schmuck, turkey. See ability/inability.

I was too busy laughing to notice if anyone else corrected you on this. So I'm sorry if this is redundant. We all make mistakes, sometimes we type too fast, sometimes we are thinking so fast that our fingers can't keep up. tongue.gif

If you are so concerned about spelling errors, please use the spell check button before you post (everyone).

Have a good'n,

You were beaten to it.

I appreciate irony. I don't know about you, though.
Messenger
8th December 2005 - 06:43 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 7 2005, 09:31 AM)
S. Bilderback

QUOTE
I've never said "Because I say so" another false assumption".


When you make a claim(non-PO) and back that claim up with nothing, we are supposed to accept that garbage why???(Because you say so)
Any claim you make that is unsupported by evidence is "I say so" and is garbage.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I've never said "Because I say so" another false assumption".


When you make a claim(non-PO) and back that claim up with nothing, we are supposed to accept that garbage why???(Because you say so)
Any claim you make that is unsupported by evidence is "I say so" and is garbage.

If you are so sure your theory is the one and only solution to the mystery of how life Begin, you would answer my question.


I do not have a theory of how life began. I do know it did begin some 3.8 billion years ago(by direct dating of rock where fossil bacteria were found). Therefore I know that it is possible for it to do so, despite any bogus probability calculations done by anyone. And I can speculate on how it did happen. But I do not know the precise mechanism whereby life came about, I recognize the limits of my knowledge and I don't know enough chemistry to have a theory, talk to the biogenesis crowd if you want a theory, they know more than you do.

Don't bother with your blather about decay not happening, your "I say so"is garbage, unsupported by evidence. If decay were stopped in the past that would make samples appear OLDER not younger. And God is not in the business of pulling practical jokes. The universe IS as we see it, whether God made it or not.

QUOTE
I'm beginning to believe that you do not know the difference between a fact and an assumption, they are not interchangeable.


And you don't know the difference between fantasy and reality, Speculation and science, evidence and "I say so".

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that .....
Grumpy mad.gif


yada yada yada .....

smile.gif Grumpy,

OK, I'm going right on down the line here.

The following answer by Grumpy to questions posed by SB will now and forevermore become a Classic:

Question by S. Bilderback (whom I do not know, probably will never meet, but am happy to see someone in this forum with some serious scientific background that has finally challenged the 'hard core' evolutionists in this here forum today, brother can I get an Amen~!)

Here is the question:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I'm beginning to believe that you do not know the difference between a fact and an assumption, they are not interchangeable.


And you don't know the difference between fantasy and reality, Speculation and science, evidence and "I say so".

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that .....
Grumpy mad.gif


yada yada yada .....

smile.gif Grumpy,

OK, I'm going right on down the line here.

The following answer by Grumpy to questions posed by SB will now and forevermore become a Classic:

Question by S. Bilderback (whom I do not know, probably will never meet, but am happy to see someone in this forum with some serious scientific background that has finally challenged the 'hard core' evolutionists in this here forum today, brother can I get an Amen~!)

Here is the question:

If you are so sure your theory is the one and only solution to the mystery of how life Begin, you would answer my question.


'The Classic' Quote by Grumpy 12/7/05:

"I do not have a theory of how life began. I do know it did begin some 3.8 billion years ago (by direct dating of rock where fossil bacteria were found). Therefore I know that it is possible for it to do so, despite any bogus probability calculations done by anyone. And I can speculate on how it did happen. But I do not know the precise mechanism whereby life came about, I recognize the limits of my knowledge and I don't know enough chemistry to have a theory, talk to the biogenesis crowd if you want a theory, they know more than you do.

Don't bother with your blather about decay not happening, your "I say so"is garbage, unsupported by evidence. If decay were stopped in the past that would make samples appear OLDER not younger. And God is not in the business of pulling practical jokes. The universe IS as we see it, whether God made it or not."

(Bold emphasis' all mine for the benefit of all! One for all, and all for one!)

User posted image

"On-guard!"

QUOTE
More blather by Grumpy: 
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that....


yada yada yada

OK, we've already heard this joke. We got the punchline. Please stop posting it.

Note to MX - smile.gif
Nessus
8th December 2005 - 06:55 AM
God created it all 6k years ago is not a scientific theory of how life began...
Messenger
8th December 2005 - 06:59 AM
Oh really? How do you know that?

Prove it.

smile.gif

I'm not so sure about the 6K - I'm working on it. But God most definitely is responsible for Creation.
RealityCheck
8th December 2005 - 07:00 AM
Hi Mess.

One question: I couldn't help but notice the constant flow of cartoon-character content in your posts, both biblical and otherwise...so tell me: Do you live in a (mostly) CARTOON-ONLY universe; and if so, is it any better there than in dadl's PHYSICAL-ONLY universe where he and us scientists live for the 'present'?

RC.
.
RealityCheck
8th December 2005 - 07:10 AM
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 8 2005, 06:55 AM)
God created it all 6k years ago is not a scientific theory of how life began...



QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 8 2005, 06:59 AM)
Oh really?  How do you know that? 

Prove it.

smile.gif

I'm not so sure about the 6K - I'm working on it.  But God most definitely is responsible for Creation.

.
.

Hi Mess.

It might be helpful if you said EXACTLY what it is you want Nessus to 'prove'.

Is it that 'the creation story' which he alluded to is NOT a scientific theory?

or....

Is it that 'creation' as per that 'creation story' is true?

Please clarify.

RC.
.
Messenger
8th December 2005 - 07:18 AM
RC,

Cartoon World: I just like to enjoy life. It's all meant in good, entertainment type humor. It makes me laugh - they all wonder what I'm up to here at home and that makes me laugh that much harder. If I didn't laugh, I'd probably cry.

Nessus' comment: Well, like MX - Nessus is just sittin' there with a cocked mouse. There was not a serious question in that comment. And there certainly wasn't anything scientific about it. smile.gif

Does that clarify things for you - or are you asking me about something else altogether?

Thanks,

RealityCheck
8th December 2005 - 07:35 AM
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 8 2005, 07:18 AM)
RC,

Cartoon World:  I just like to enjoy life.  It's all meant in good, entertainment type humor.  It makes me laugh - they all wonder what I'm up to here at home and that makes me laugh that much harder.  If I didn't laugh, I'd probably cry.

Nessus' comment:  Well, like MX - Nessus is just sittin' there with a cocked mouse.  There was not a serious question in that comment.  And there certainly wasn't anything scientific about it.   smile.gif

Does that clarify things for you - or are you asking me about something else altogether?

Thanks,

.
.
Mess,

I alluded only to the obvious ambiguities in your challenge to Nessus. I make no comment on your own impression regarding his behaviour; for it is irrelevant to my observation regarding your 'challenge' to him. That is all. Nothing else.

RC.
PS: Last time I checked, people in this forum are free to make observations as long as they are not defamatory/unseemly. Since Nessus' observation expressed a well supported general opinion on the subject matter, I assume you do not have any truly serious objections to it other than 'inconvenient'. RC
Messenger
8th December 2005 - 07:38 AM
RC,

OH, one other thing - I was just reading your post to Jerry in the Intelligent Design/Creationism thread and wanted to comment on it here. I didn't want to take away from your discussion over there:

QUOTE
Quote by RC,
I was born with a bent for intense curiosity and a need to comprehend beyond the 'superficial' or 'make-do' level. Such a thing can be both a 'blessing' and a 'curse': a 'blessing' because one is driven to learn, comprehend and apply what is necessary to make one a 'most adaptable human'; but also a 'curse' at times because it often takes a toll on one's health, time and financial resources (which is doubly burdensome when one is afflicted from birth with ill-health, and has little extra time for oneself alone, and is born poor and stays poor owing to the 'opportunity costs' incurred in the non-mercenary pursuit of one's lifeswork.


I agree with you 100% and you could just as easily be describing me with this statement. The only difference is that you are fascinated with the physical and I am fascinated with God, and the spiritual.

I'm sure you'll agree that we both have an interest in the vice-versa, but our passion is directed towards one or the other.

Wouldn't it be great if the physical and the spirtual people could meld their theories and philosophies together?

The difference between the physical and the spiritual may be understood in this parallel:
What is the difference between a person who takes a swim in the ocean versus a person who studies the water?

We need every element in order to be whole. We need the ocean, the swimmer, and the scientist.

Or the difference between one who studies the brain versus one who thinks.

biggrin.gif That was a good one, wasn't it? HaHa
RealityCheck
8th December 2005 - 07:57 AM
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 8 2005, 07:38 AM)
RC,

OH, one other thing - I was just reading your post to Jerry in the Intelligent Design/Creationism thread and wanted to comment on it here.  I didn't want to take away from your discussion over there:

QUOTE
Quote by RC,
I was born with a bent for intense curiosity and a need to comprehend beyond the 'superficial' or 'make-do' level. Such a thing can be both a 'blessing' and a 'curse': a 'blessing' because one is driven to learn, comprehend and apply what is necessary to make one a 'most adaptable human'; but also a 'curse' at times because it often takes a toll on one's health, time and financial resources (which is doubly burdensome when one is afflicted from birth with ill-health, and has little extra time for oneself alone, and is born poor and stays poor owing to the 'opportunity costs' incurred in the non-mercenary pursuit of one's lifeswork.


I agree with you 100% and you could just as easily be describing me with this statement. The only difference is that you are fascinated with the physical and I am fascinated with God, and the spiritual.

I'm sure you'll agree that we both have an interest in the vice-versa, but our passion is directed towards one or the other.

Wouldn't it be great if the physical and the spirtual people could meld their theories and philosophies together?

The difference between the physical and the spiritual may be understood in this parallel:
What is the difference between a person who takes a swim in the ocean versus a person who studies the water?

We need every element in order to be whole. We need the ocean, the swimmer, and the scientist.

Or the difference between one who studies the brain versus one who thinks.

biggrin.gif That was a good one, wasn't it? HaHa

.
.
Dear Mess,

I can only attribute your grievous errors of judgement when you assume I am 'fascinated with the physical' only, to your simple 'black and white', 'good and evil' perspective in all things.

The first error is assuming I am anything like yourself (I am as sure as anyone can be about anything, that I am NOTHING like you; thank the universe).

The second error is assuming I am easily 'fascinated', full stop (People of truly RATIONAL and COHERENT faculties are NEVER fascinated, possibly intensely interested, but never 'fascinated' such as to SUSPEND rationality, skepticism and connection with reality).

The third error is assuming I have NOT studied or been intensely interested in all matters 'spiritual' and/or 'religious' and/or 'superstitious' (my lifelong researches have been extremely diverse in BOTH physical and non-Physical fields of thought/process; the knowledge so gained is therefore eclectic as all get-out...I'm not in ANY ONE of your 'boxes'...I am ME, not YOU or anyone else...please refrain in future from 'pigeonholing' me in your demonstrably very limited scheme of things; thanks...as I have taken great pains to ensure that I do not fall into anyone else's preconceived 'box' system...it is this 'across-all-boxes' status, dearly earned, that makes for effective 'problem-solving' abilities in many diverse fields).

The most serious error of all, however, is the assumption that I would be 'fascinated' by your transparent effort to 'identify' with me as some sort of 'solidarity' approach which you would then no doubt have no compunction in deviously exploiting for your own ends (in other words: I'm not impressed; and I'm not playing your psychological games, as I have too much respect for my own 'soul').

Go in peace; and don't try that again, please. Ciao.

RC.
.
Nessus
8th December 2005 - 08:33 AM
To prevent wasting of my time, it seems ok on a Science forum to accept the scientific theories for anything as true. You come over here and spout out that Science is wrong (on a Science forum) I say we have plenty of proof, cause without proof you dont have good Science.

If you want to debate the nitty gritty details (as all scientists do) then thats fine by me. But if you want to wildly fire your "Thats wrong, prove its true first" gun, point it at yourself.
S. Bilderback
8th December 2005 - 12:30 PM
QUOTE
Life is not an exotic substance


Give me the right lab and I can produce almost anything you ask, I can even create many of the building blocks of life.

I cannot create life.

I would conclude life = exotic substance, it cannot be created in a lab. If you could create it in a lab then we would have a different story, until then, living cells are an exotic substance unless you can show me otherwise.
gmilam
8th December 2005 - 02:08 PM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 7 2005, 06:12 PM)
So by not having a theory, you are still saying that life had to first start on the planet Earth 3.8 billion years ago and could not have started anywhere else in the universe in the 13 billion years as you stated the age of the universe to be?

You claim to be a scientist with no religious agenda, but all you do is throw stones without offering any alternatives.

So, what is your theory?
gmilam
8th December 2005 - 02:19 PM
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 8 2005, 01:38 AM)
I'm sure you'll agree that we both have an interest in the vice-versa, but our passion is directed towards one or the other.

Wouldn't it be great if the physical and the spirtual people could meld their theories and philosophies together?

My personal search for understanding has taken me down many different paths... except maybe the one dad1 is walking down.

I must admit I never looked at it from his point of view.... blink.gif

Grumpy
8th December 2005 - 03:44 PM
S. Bilderback

QUOTE

Give me the right lab and I can produce almost anything you ask, I can even create many of the building blocks of life.

I cannot create life.

I would conclude life = exotic substance, it cannot be created in a lab. If you could create it in a lab then we would have a different story, until then, living cells are an exotic substance unless you can show me otherwise.


Since the building blocks of life are made from some of the most common chemicals and since we find pre-biotic compounds strewn throughout the universe and since the properties of these chemicals are such that they "want" to join in ways conducive to life, no I would not call life exotic. A Magnetic Monopole, now that's exotic.

When you say you could not produce life don't make the mistake of thinking it will not be done by someone sooner or later.

And once again this obcession with the cell, a construct several orders of magnitude from the simplest requirements of life. To the homeless a condo is a luxury.

Grumpy cool.gif

PS Messenger, I will continue to post those most cogent quotes until I see that you have larned the truths contained therein.
S. Bilderback
8th December 2005 - 04:16 PM
QUOTE
If you want to debate the nitty gritty details (as all scientists do) then thats fine by me. But if you want to wildly fire your "Thats wrong, prove its true first" gun, point it at yourself


The "nitty gritty" details are like insignificant digits in an equation if a level of accuracy (the big picture) is not substantiated. If one proof set claims a result of 10 and another proof set claims a result of 100 for the same event, until one or the other result is proved, arguing if the the number is actually 10.0000001 is insignificant unless the number 10. 0000001 is what solves the discrepancy.
S. Bilderback
8th December 2005 - 04:26 PM
QUOTE
When you say you could not produce life don't make the mistake of thinking it will not be done by someone sooner or later.


No, that would prove life could have been created by ID.

To prove life spontaneously started, you would have to find or reproduce a naturally formed environmental setting, then and sit and watch and see what come to life.
Grumpy
8th December 2005 - 05:37 PM
S. Bilderback

QUOTE
To prove life spontaneously started, you would have to find or reproduce a naturally formed environmental setting, then and sit and watch and see what come to life.


Or simulate such conditions in a lab and observe self replicating molecules come together, which I have no doubt will be demonstrated in the near future.

Grumpy cool.gif
RealityCheck
8th December 2005 - 09:13 PM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 8 2005, 04:26 PM)
QUOTE
When you say you could not produce life don't make the mistake of thinking it will not be done by someone sooner or later.


No, that would prove life could have been created by ID.

To prove life spontaneously started, you would have to find or reproduce a naturally formed environmental setting, then and sit and watch and see what come to life.

Hello S. Bilderback.

Any such natural 'pre-life/simplest-life occurrences going on in today’s complex environment of inter-woven natural web of living organisms will almost certainly be immediately scavenged/predated-upon by the copious and ubiquitous bacterial/microbial life forms which treat such 'starting tidbits' as yummy food.

Knowing this, the probability of completely-restarted life processes surviving more than a few milliseconds is remote. The ONLY time/circumstance 'new' life could have arisen/taken-hold on this planet is when there is NO PRIOR Possibility of being 'ingested' as food by other more established 'uni-cellular' life.

After formation, Earth would have been a 'sterile' environment OPEN TO ALL SORTS of 'first time' experiments by nature. Eventually, given the (practically) 'unlimited' time, energy and materials, nature MUST chance upon one-out-of-many-zillions of possible permutations/processes which led to 'replication' suitable as a blueprint for further complexification.

For example, lipids form globules NATURALLY when dispersed in water (solvent). So right off, nature has a blueprint for a 'bag' capable of further exploitation by innumerable natural trial and error 'events'. Early on, for instance, an abundance of natural inorganically-produced lipids from which the natural saponification processes can make both alkali-lipid soaps and acid-lipid 'soaps' which in water will produce 'suspensions' of microscopic globular 'particle' arrangements wherein the 'interior is 'charged' "+" and the exterior "-" or (for the opposite type of 'soap') an interior "-" charged and an exterior "+" charged. Such a natural and 'spontaneously-occurring in-out 'charge-differential' is perfectly suited for further 'natural-experimental' developments which eventually involve other elements 'impurities' affected by 'charged' states under various 'chemical/physical reaction' conditions which occur/change naturally. Such a 'system' of INTERIOR-TO-EXTERIOR-AND-BACK-AGAIN 'charge-driven' impurity 'attraction/expulsion' would be ideal for any further 'natural experimentation' (which will occur constantly and ubiquitously IN THE ABSENCE OF PRE-EXISTING LIFE/PROCESSES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE IMMEDIATELY EAT/DESTROY SUCH PRECURSOR STRUCTURES) suitable for eventually becoming complex and 'self-refined' (by trial-and-error EVOLUTION at that most basic level) enough to become a 'self-replicating arrangement/process'.

Once THAT happened (again, in the ABSENCE of predator/destructor life/processes), such a simple 'charged-grab-bag' arrangement could reproduce EXPONENTIALLY to fill the ABSOLUTELY VACANT NICHES which Earth had in abundance at that earliest stage in the evolution of 'pre-life/simplest-life' systems.

The TOTAL ARRAY of 'circumstances' CANNOT be reproduced NOW IN THE LAB. The TIME element will NOT be LARGE enough for the natural 'blind-trial-and-error' process to produce the same 'earliest' result; the NICHE VACANCY element is NON-EXISTENT NOW; the natural environment has been POLLUTED BY MAN-MADE CHEMICALS that NEVER existed in Nature back then; and NATURE ITSELF has, through evolution/replication of aerobic/an-aerobic microbial life, has CHANGED IRREVOCABLY the balance of free gases/chemicals and the processes they engage in naturally.

I hope you can now see the reason why asking someone to prove-by-reproducing 'spontaneous' life forms and processes is an unfair 'ask'.

HOWEVER, if you will be kind enough to provide that someone with a 'brand-new' planet approximately the age and condition of the 'early-Earth', I'm sure they will be only too happy to oblige, and get nature to 'run' that same 'experiment' ALL OVER AGAIN for your viewing pleasure (assuming you had a couple billion years to spare from your no doubt busy 'scientific' schedule).

Give it a rest, mate. Start making sense out of what you have (supposedly) 'learned' that you think 'qualifies' you to discuss these matters. Stop depending on the 'simplistic' thought (falsely so-called) promulgated and encouraged by your ID/CS cult leaders. Start thinking (if it's not too late for you) for yourself; AND REALLY AND HONESTLY TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORT OF ALL THAT LOVELY KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM OUT THERE.

And stop making unreasonable demands of others that you yourself would not countenance for a second on your OWN 'side' of the 'debate'.

Good luck to you, mate. Ciao.

RealityCheck.
PS: Hi Grumpy!...I hope S, Bilderback and his ID/CS mates are going to stump up with the necessaries in time/funds for that IN-LAB experiment. You never know, though; we could get lucky first up!...there is no law that says randomness knows the difference between 'the-first-place-you-looked-for-them' and 'the-last-place-you-looked-for-them' (your car-keys, that is...or in this case 'life'! hehehe). RC.
.
S. Bilderback
8th December 2005 - 09:46 PM
QUOTE
Or simulate such conditions in a lab and observe self replicating molecules come together, which I have no doubt will be demonstrated in the near future.


Grumpy:
I'm sure glad you are now showing faith!!!!! biggrin.gif

Will it be discovered on the same day Jesus returns? wink.gif
S. Bilderback
8th December 2005 - 10:03 PM
QUOTE
After formation, Earth would have been a 'sterile' environment


Is this a fact or another assumption? You have excepted the evidence that amino acids have been found in meteorites, surviving intact for millions maybe billions of years drifting through space. Could the Earth have been contaminated by previous life from somewhere in the universe? I can't rule it out, do you know something I don't know?

There will be more to come on this statement if we ever get to the flaws in the "Spontaneous Evolution Theory". wink.gif
Grumpy
8th December 2005 - 11:12 PM
S. Bilderback

Again with the straw men, are you some kind of farmer???

There is and cannot be anything called the Spontaneous Evolution Theory because evolution has nothing to say about the biogenesis of life on Earth. It could be an alien who was overcome by the sudden need to eliminate waste , leaving a steaming pile of microbe laden poo, we don't care!!! Until the first life began evolution cannot occur, only afterward does it come into effect.

Sorry to ruin your obvious glee at the thought of knocking down the strawman you've been trying to set up, but those are the facts(as you would know, if you knew anything about the subject at all).

Grumpy cool.gif
S. Bilderback
8th December 2005 - 11:36 PM
QUOTE
Once THAT happened (again, in the ABSENCE of predator/destructor life/processes), such a simple 'charged-grab-bag' arrangement could reproduce EXPONENTIALLY to fill the ABSOLUTELY VACANT NICHES which Earth had in abundance at that earliest stage in the evolution of 'pre-life/simplest-life' systems.


So this little organic bags could withstand the heat, radiation, H2SO4 rain, of the primordial Earth and not decay via entropy and still remain a viable long enough to host a non-living clump of amino acids and then:
"BOOM" ...... I'm alive ... I'm ALIVE .... I want to eat and reproduce!
Wait, I don't know how to eat ... and where is my mouth?
How do I reproduce again? Why was I doing this anyway?
Oh well, I only have 3.5 billion years before I become a real boy - I better get started!

Great story. Thanks, now can I hear the one about the three bears? blink.gif
S. Bilderback
8th December 2005 - 11:41 PM
QUOTE
There is and cannot be anything called the Spontaneous Evolution Theory


I will ask this question again:
Cars and computers evolve, is that the same type of evolution as life or is there a difference?
RealityCheck
9th December 2005 - 12:03 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 8 2005, 10:03 PM)
QUOTE
After formation, Earth would have been a 'sterile' environment


Is this a fact or another assumption? You have excepted the evidence that amino acids have been found in meteorites, surviving intact for millions maybe billions of years drifting through space. Could the Earth have been contaminated by previous life from somewhere in the universe? I can't rule it out, do you know something I don't know?

There will be more to come on this statement if we ever get to the flaws in the "Spontaneous Evolution Theory". wink.gif

.
.
Are 'obtuseness' and 'irremedial stupidity' elective or compusory subjects where you 'got your degrees' from? If you were a mere youngster, I could understand and tolerate with equanimity your self-evident 'thickness' up top; but you profess yourself to be a 'learned' individual. How you can do so with a straight face is not funny! Now listen carefully.....

STERILITY implies the effective ABSENCE of 'LIVING ORGANISMS' of any kind; it says NOTHING about 'raw materials' FOR life. And any 'seeding' of the early STERILE planet would merely shift the goalposts of the 'origin' of life on this planet; it does NOT say anything about evolution as ahs happned on this planet of the life that IS here IRESPECTIVE of provenance. How many times does your kind of 'learned? idoit' have to be told all that before you even get a 'glimmer' as to what the hell people are ACTUALLY SAYING to you, as opposed to what YOU THINK they're saying to you (for the umpteenth time)?

If you STILL are totally clueless, may I suggest you call up and review ALL POSTS by either 'side' of the debate in the Creation/Evolution fora (especially those of SoLoved, Adoucette, Grumpy and others. After that, when hopefully you have actually learned something about what you're talking about, then come back and we'll all talk again. Until this happens, it's quite obvious that your currently 'unlit' intellect is the proverbial 'virtual' brick wall against which rhyme and reason have no effect due to its total impenetrability to all things lucid.

Go in peace and for god's sake get a REAL education, and not one from a mickey-mouse "Pay-and-we'll-put-it-in-the-mail" scheister-degree 'institution' somewhere in Nigeria (you know, the preferred 'home' of all those 'scams'). Ciao and good luck, mate.

RealityCheck.
.
MXWordNerd
9th December 2005 - 12:12 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 8 2005, 11:41 PM)
QUOTE
There is and cannot be anything called the Spontaneous Evolution Theory


I will ask this question again:
Cars and computers evolve, is that the same type of evolution as life or is there a difference?

Big difference.

I've personally never seen a Nissan Titan have a child.
Grumpy
9th December 2005 - 12:14 AM
S. Bilderback

Car and computers do not evolve by themselves, the engineering knowledge of the builders of those objects increases, but the evolution of knowledge in no way is simular to that of living organisms. The increase of knowledge of the sciences is conciously driven in the direction of increased abilities and efficiencies, natural evolution in organisms only reacts to one rule, does a change yeild greater reproductive success? If so it survives, if not it does not.

Grumpy cool.gif

PS Any more strawmen you want me to burn?
RealityCheck
9th December 2005 - 12:15 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 8 2005, 11:36 PM)
QUOTE
Once THAT happened (again, in the ABSENCE of predator/destructor life/processes), such a simple 'charged-grab-bag' arrangement could reproduce EXPONENTIALLY to fill the ABSOLUTELY VACANT NICHES which Earth had in abundance at that earliest stage in the evolution of 'pre-life/simplest-life' systems.


So this little organic bags could withstand the heat, radiation, H2SO4 rain, of the primordial Earth and not decay via entropy and still remain a viable long enough to host a non-living clump of amino acids and then:
"BOOM" ...... I'm alive ... I'm ALIVE .... I want to eat and reproduce!
Wait, I don't know how to eat ... and where is my mouth?
How do I reproduce again? Why was I doing this anyway?
Oh well, I only have 3.5 billion years before I become a real boy - I better get started!

Great story. Thanks, now can I hear the one about the three bears? blink.gif

.
.
It may interest you to know that some 'detergents' involve H2SO4 (Sulphuric Acid) and lipids in their 'saponification' makeup. And that there was EVENTUALLY a time/stage in Earth's climatological 'evolution' (cooling; hydro-logic cycle; atmospheric circulation etc) when such molecules/bags as are necessary for 'pre-life/life processes to be able to persist. And since that acid rain you were talking about was JUST THE THING for those early life forms to LIVE ON (google "deap sea vents" for goodness' sake...or go read all about it in the answers given to SoLoved etc.).

And as for eating/mouths: You obviously aren't even aware that EVERYTHING ultimately ingests food through 'membranes' NOT mouths. Your stomach has inlet/outlet openings because of, you gussed it, Evolution. The original and many current life forms, being unicellular, ingest directly through the 'membrane....as EACH OF THE CELLS IN YOUR BODY STILL DO (which you would have known if you had anything but ID/CS BS up top).

Please, it is now excruciatingly apparent that you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of what you speak; and totally uncopmrehending of the content/import of the BS which your ID/CSer cult leaders are 'channelling' through your empty head. Please stop insulting everyone here; and stop demeaning further whatever 'intellect' you may have had before those ID/CSer 'cultists' got their hooks into you.

Go in peace.

RealityCheck.
.
fivedoughnut
9th December 2005 - 12:17 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 8 2005, 10:03 PM)
QUOTE
After formation, Earth would have been a 'sterile' environment


Is this a fact or another assumption? You have excepted the evidence that amino acids have been found in meteorites, surviving intact for millions maybe billions of years drifting through space. Could the Earth have been contaminated by previous life from somewhere in the universe? I can't rule it out, do you know something I don't know?

There will be more to come on this statement if we ever get to the flaws in the "Spontaneous Evolution Theory". wink.gif

It is very improbable (in the extreme) that Earth was "seeded" by extra-terrestrial life, unless this "life" was of the most basic form.......without cell walls, proto/cytoplasm organelles etc.

I've a feeling you've a (piss-poorly) hidden agenda.......writing a book are we?....
Do yourself a favour, listen to Grumpy, burn your blithering blatherings and persue objectives better suited to your intellect......train spotting? wink.gif
newguy
9th December 2005 - 12:21 AM
QUOTE
Go in peace and for god's sake get a REAL education, and not one from a mickey-mouse "Pay-and-we'll-put-it-in-the-mail" scheister-degree 'institution' somewhere in Nigeria (you know, the preferred 'home' of all those 'scams'). Ciao and good luck, mate.


How'd he know that? blink.gif Actually, according to UPS(United Parcel Service), the #1 place on earth for "scams" is Nigeria. I got some requests online to ship some stuff there a year or two ago, and I contacted UPS. They told me that credit cards are commonly stolen in that area of the world and it was their #1 place for bogus orders.
S. Bilderback
9th December 2005 - 12:26 AM
QUOTE
And any 'seeding' of the early STERILE planet would merely shift the goalposts of the 'origin' of life on this planet

I've already told you I'm a mindless fecal worm, what do you expect? It should be easy for you to defeat a scum dwelling fecal worm in a debate, because I know you know much much more than a fecal worm.

Do you have a problem with moving the goalposts back, let's say, giving you about another 12 billion years for your story to unfold?

Yes, no, either way your lack of knowledge, failed logic and inability to discern assumption from fact already has you defeated.

I'm just counting the moves to checkmate. biggrin.gif
RealityCheck
9th December 2005 - 12:36 AM
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 9 2005, 12:21 AM)
QUOTE
Go in peace and for god's sake get a REAL education, and not one from a mickey-mouse "Pay-and-we'll-put-it-in-the-mail" scheister-degree 'institution' somewhere in Nigeria (you know, the preferred 'home' of all those 'scams'). Ciao and good luck, mate.


How'd he know that? blink.gif Actually, according to UPS(United Parcel Service), the #1 place on earth for "scams" is Nigeria. I got some requests online to ship some stuff there a year or two ago, and I contacted UPS. They told me that credit cards are commonly stolen in that area of the world and it was their #1 place for bogus orders.

.
.
Hi newguy!

How'd I know that, you ask? Easy. Unlike the S. Bilderbacks and SoLoveds of this world, I actually try to observe and comprehend what I see going past my eyes and into my brain, hehehe. I have noticed the 'pattern/frequency' in 'phisching/scam' emails received and purged by my computer system, and noticed the 'language-indicators' to pin-point the most likely 'source' region. Knowing the state of politics/organised-crime in Nigeria to be the most conducive to such 'institutionalised' money-making scam activity, I naturally arrived at what dadl would agree was the "....reasonable deduction..." based on the evidence before me: Nigeria! No magic or divine inspiration, I assure you, mate!

How's things?

RC.
.
RealityCheck
9th December 2005 - 12:44 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 9 2005, 12:26 AM)
QUOTE
And any 'seeding' of the early STERILE planet would merely shift the goalposts of the 'origin' of life on this planet

I've already told you I'm a mindless fecal worm, what do you expect? It should be easy for you to defeat a in a debate, because I know you know much much more than a fecal worm.

Do you have a problem with moving the goalposts back, let's say, giving you about another 12 billion years for your story to unfold?

Yes, no, either way your lack of knowledge, failed logic and inability to discern assumption from fact already has you defeated.

I'm just counting the moves to checkmate. biggrin.gif

.
.
To ALL.

If anyone can decipher/extract any logic from that self-professed "scum dwelling fecal worm"'s 'wiffy' pile of heaven-only-knows-what, I would be most obliged if they would let us all in on the 'enigma' that is S. Bilderback's inner 'workings'. But if it's just as I suspect, another pile of worm dung, please don't bother to reply. Thanks.

RC.
.
S. Bilderback
9th December 2005 - 12:52 AM
QUOTE
Car and computers do not evolve by themselves, the engineering knowledge of the builders of those objects increases, but the evolution of knowledge in no way is simular to that of living organisms. The increase of knowledge of the sciences is conciously driven in the direction of increased abilities and efficiencies, natural evolution in organisms only reacts to one rule, does a change yeild greater reproductive success? If so it survives, if not it does not.


So you do understand that there needs to be a differentiation between a form of evolution by the hands of a creator and a spontaneous form of evolution that is the product of a random chance of events. So can I have the liberty of referring to the type of random event evolution as spontaneous evolution so there is no confusion between the two? Spontaneous as in spontaneous combustion.
S. Bilderback
9th December 2005 - 01:09 AM
QUOTE
And as for eating/mouths: You obviously aren't even aware that EVERYTHING ultimately ingests food through 'membranes' NOT mouths.


I know all about phagocytosis and pinocytosis, it was humor, for me anyway. And also to make a point that you overtly ignored by a poor attempt of diversion going to the eating thing.
Oh, and how did the newly formed cells learn how to do the phagocytosis thing anyway?
How did they figure out how to manipulate those cell walls for pinocytosis? You must have an answer.
Nessus
9th December 2005 - 01:29 AM
Humor is banned in a serious discussion such as this smile.gif
S. Bilderback
9th December 2005 - 01:31 AM
QUOTE
But if it's just as I suspect, another pile of worm dung, please don't bother to reply. Thanks.


You really want me to go away don't you. sad.gif

Do you feel threatened? unsure.gif

Have I given you a feeling of insecurety about your beliefs? blink.gif

Is it not fair someone knows more than you? mad.gif

Does it hurt your feelings you can't debate with the big kids? sad.gif

I'm sorry, mom will give you a hug and it will all be better. wub.gif

Get use to it, I'm having fun and I'm just getting started! tongue.gif
Grumpy
9th December 2005 - 01:34 AM
S. Bilderback



The "evolution" of cars and other constructs is not in any way comparable to that experienced by living things. Most of the improvements in engineering are driven by the scientific method with occasional flashes of insight allowing leaps of improvement. All this is an improvement in Mental and Scientific abilities, not an evolution of an organism.

QUOTE
So can I have the liberty of referring to the type of random event evolution as spontaneous evolution so there is no confusion between the two?


What gives you the idea that evolution is random??? It is "guided" by the mechanical logic of natural selection, not pure randomness. Changes occur in the genome in a random manner but that which survives is determined by whether that change gives that organism an advantage in the competition which is life, and is anything BUT random.

As I pointed out above, there is no comparison between improvements in engineering abilities and evolution in living organisms so there never was any possibility of confusion between the two unrelated concepts.

Sorry about running over your strawman before you could set it up.

By the way, dad is known(and loathed) on other forums. Those interested can study his tactics here

http://www.christianforums.com/t2369712-st...rth.html&page=2

But they are the same as he displays here, throwing up straw men, misunderstanding and misuse of science and a total lack of evidence for his fantasies. Even those on this Christian forum recognize a Troll when they see one.

Grumpy cool.gif



RealityCheck
9th December 2005 - 01:43 AM
S. (dadl-clone) Bilderback.

It's obvious you are STILL missing the crucial factor: the 'molecular cleavage' and 'transport' processes all depend on 'electro-chemical' CHARGE-interaction processes that occur randomly throughout nature owing to thermodynamical system variabilities spurred on by natural energy-flows through the Earth environment.

And you must have even less intelligence than a single-cell organism if you think that they have 'intention' or 'plans' to 'do' something-or-other. At that earliest of stages, such processes were still happening as NATURAL 'blind-trial-and-error' permutations/experiments in chemical/physical/thermodynamical/biological...the 'outcomes' of which would determine the efficacy/persistence of the evolutional/survival/reproductive effects. No plan or intention was necessary, merely unlimited time/nutrient/natural-organosynthesis etc 'opportunities'. Some of which 'lived to tell the tale' as it were, most of which would not.

As to cell-division: Again, if you had even one iota of comprehension of the requisite subject matter, you would know that, again, it all has to to with 'charge-pairing', charge-neutralisation and symmetric-charge-splitting etc. where the relevant molecules/structures evolved to 'suit' the electro-chemistry processes leading to such step-wise division once a certain 'charge/geometric topology' occurred due to various nutrient/environmental bio-feedback mechanisms which 'trigger/initiate' the relevant processes 'primed' for such 'triggers' etc.

Didn't I advise you not to embarass yourself further by demonstrating so publicly your lack of knowledge WHERE IT COUNTS in these matters? Stop now, go learn more, much more, then come back and we'll compare notes with at least SOME hope of you comprehending even YOUR OWN perspective on these things.

Go in peace and LEARN BY YOUR OWN EFFORTS; we are not here to teach you EVERYTHING, are we?...or ARE we?

RealityCheck.
.
S. Bilderback
9th December 2005 - 01:46 AM
QUOTE
As I pointed out above, there is no comparison between improvements in engineering abilities and evolution in living organisms so there never was any possibility of confusion between the two unrelated concepts.


Good, then we agree that the two different types of evolution shall never meet.

I'm sorry, instead of "random event evolution", which is more encompassing by including environmental factors I'll simplify it by retracting "event" and replace it with "mutation".
MXWordNerd
9th December 2005 - 02:04 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 9 2005, 01:31 AM)
QUOTE
But if it's just as I suspect, another pile of worm dung, please don't bother to reply. Thanks.


You really want me to go away don't you. sad.gif

Do you feel threatened? unsure.gif

Have I given you a feeling of insecurety about your beliefs? blink.gif

Is it not fair someone knows more than you? mad.gif

Does it hurt your feelings you can't debate with the big kids? sad.gif

I'm sorry, mom will give you a hug and it will all be better. wub.gif

Get use to it, I'm having fun and I'm just getting started! tongue.gif

You sure are cocky for someone who knows nothing about science posting in a science forum.
S. Bilderback
9th December 2005 - 02:07 AM
QUOTE
And you must have even less intelligence than a single-dell organism if you think that they have 'intention' or 'plans' to 'do' something-or-other.


I thought we covered the part about self-awareness a long time ago, self-awareness is life - there is no life without it,

If you think otherwise, I would suggest you appropriate a small portion of extra cytoplasm from an amoeba, why you could triple your brain power!

Cells need to know when and how to eat, reproduce, move from danger ... that sounds like intent to me. With out intent, they die. Intent comes from self-awareness, without it, no life.


We will be here forever if your good, but short, memory make me keep having to repeat myself.
MXWordNerd
9th December 2005 - 02:28 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 9 2005, 02:07 AM)
QUOTE
And you must have even less intelligence than a single-dell organism if you think that they have 'intention' or 'plans' to 'do' something-or-other.


I thought we covered the part about self-awareness a long time ago, self-awareness is life - there is no life without it,

If you think otherwise, I would suggest you appropriate a small portion of extra cytoplasm from an amoeba, why you could triple your brain power!

Cells need to know when and how to eat, reproduce, move from danger ... that sounds like intent to me. With out intent, they die. Intent comes from self-awareness, without it, no life.


We will be here forever if your good, but short, memory make me keep having to repeat myself.

You're really clueless. Whatever cells don't do that died out. The others didn't. That's why this is all that's left.

Natural selection.

Clueless AND cocky. That's a combo that, previous to civilization keeping you out of trouble, would've gotten you eaten.

Sometimes I long for the good ol' days...
Grumpy
9th December 2005 - 02:39 AM
S. Bilderback

QUOTE
I thought we covered the part about self-awareness a long time ago, self-awareness is life - there is no life without it,


What a pile!!! A single celled organism has no self awareness yet it is alive. REPRODUCTION is life, nothing else is required.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I thought we covered the part about self-awareness a long time ago, self-awareness is life - there is no life without it,


What a pile!!! A single celled organism has no self awareness yet it is alive. REPRODUCTION is life, nothing else is required.


Cells need to know when and how to eat, reproduce, move from danger ... that sounds like intent to me. With out intent, they die. Intent comes from self-awareness, without it, no life.


It's called instinct, and those organisms which don't develope it, DIE. No intent, no awareness, all programed.


QUOTE
We will be here forever if your good, but short, memory make me keep having to repeat myself.


Repeat it all you like it would only make you look more idiotic than you have already done.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
We will be here forever if your good, but short, memory make me keep having to repeat myself.


Repeat it all you like it would only make you look more idiotic than you have already done.

Good, then we agree that the two different types of evolution shall never meet.


No, we do not agree. There is evolution of living organisms and there is engineering progress which IS NOT EVOLUTION. Where did you get all that straw??? Somewhere some cows are going hungry!!!

QUOTE
I'm sorry, instead of "random event evolution", which is more encompassing by including environmental factors I'll simplify it by retracting "event" and replace it with "mutation".


How 'bout we use proper nomenclature and call it Descent with Modification and Natural Selection, or Evolution, for short. 'Course you would know that, wouldn't you, "teacher"???

To avoid wasting time debunking the trash you are preparing let me make sure you see this:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I'm sorry, instead of "random event evolution", which is more encompassing by including environmental factors I'll simplify it by retracting "event" and replace it with "mutation".


How 'bout we use proper nomenclature and call it Descent with Modification and Natural Selection, or Evolution, for short. 'Course you would know that, wouldn't you, "teacher"???

To avoid wasting time debunking the trash you are preparing let me make sure you see this:

I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What's more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old. I believe they got it right. . . I've found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing. Nature, as far as I'm concerned, has an integrity that enables it to be understood without recourse to revelatory texts.

- William Dembski, Design theorist.


QUOTE
"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents."

Steven J. Gould

-"The Verdict on Creationism", The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 87/88, pg. 186


And

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents."

Steven J. Gould

-"The Verdict on Creationism", The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 87/88, pg. 186


And

"...we must counterpose the overwhelming judgment provided by consistent observations and inferences by the thousands. The earth is billions of years old and its living creatures are linked by ties of evolutionary descent. Scientists stand accused of promoting dogma by so stating, but do we brand people illiberal when they proclaim that the earth is neither flat nor at the center of the universe? Science *has* taught us some things with confidence! Evolution on an ancient earth is as well established as our planet's shape and position. Our continuing struggle to understand how evolution happens (the "theory of evolution") does not cast our documentation of its occurrence -- the "fact of evolution" -- into doubt.

Steven J. Gould

-"The Verdict on Creationism", The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol XII No. 2


So don't waste any more of our time with your unsubstantiated fantasies or idiotic nonsense.

Grumpy cool.gif
RealityCheck
9th December 2005 - 03:03 AM
S. (dadl-clone) Bilderback.

There is a world of difference between 'self-awareness' and automatically-self-regulating 'feedback-mechanisms' in naturally-occurring physio-chemical processes (both organic and inorganic ones).

There is also a world of difference between the 'random' factors leading to myriad 'mutation-events' and the NON-'random' survival-mediated 'self-selection' processes that determine by-trial-and-error in any particular environment, whether any particular 'mutation-event' is 'preserved' by descent to future generations.

Get your blinkers off; then get your facts straight; then apply some intelligence to same; and also stop foaming off at the mouth...because threats and taunts from a 12year-old stunted-development evolutionary-throwback like yourself don't mean much to your elders and (obviously) betters who have left you behind in the reasoning stakes.

Go in peace and learn something...ANYTHING will do; just as long as it's SOMETHING that doesn't make you sound so hopelessly masochistic as you 'beg' for 'punishment' from people who have better things to do with their spare time than pander to your perverted need to be told you know nothing at every turn.

RealityCheck.
.
Grumpy
9th December 2005 - 03:40 AM
RC

My, that last was elegantly stated, wish I had said that, I'm Jealous!!! Masochistic, that's the concept i've been looking for!!!

Goodo, I believe the phrase is!

Grumpy cool.gif
RealityCheck
9th December 2005 - 03:56 AM
Grumpy.

I live to serve, mate. But please know that I said what I said, for the common good, and not for your approbation....but I will nevertheless gratefully accept same!(...only so as not to offend a good friend, of course. heehee).

Anyway, some of your own past efforts here and elsewhere haven't been too 'shabby' either; and I recall saying something to this effect some time ago!

And you're right; "Goodo" it is. Thanks. See ya!

RC.
.
gmilam
9th December 2005 - 04:34 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 8 2005, 07:34 PM)
By the way, dad is known(and loathed) on other forums. Those interested can study his tactics here

http://www.christianforums.com/t2369712-st...rth.html&page=2

But they are the same as he displays here, throwing up straw men, misunderstanding and misuse of science and a total lack of evidence for his fantasies. Even those on this Christian forum recognize a Troll when they see one.

I love these lines

QUOTE
Aww, I didn't want this to become a dad thread!

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Aww, I didn't want this to become a dad thread!

Oh don't you worry, he eventually makes his way into every thread.
I admire his persistance though, he does try and answere every post.
With the circular reasoning going in his head, I'm suprised he's still here. He should have gotten tired with us "evos" a long time ago.

QUOTE
Sorry, but I have an irrational fear of unsupported assertions. And dad keps posting them.


S. Bilderback
9th December 2005 - 12:25 PM
QUOTE
It's obvious you are STILL missing the crucial factor: the 'molercular cleavage' and 'transport' processes all depend on 'electro-chemical' CHARGE-interaction processes that occur randomly throughout nature owing to thermodynamical system variabilities spurred on by natural energy-flows through the Earth environment.

I'm not missing anything, the more important point you are missing is, that it is not random electro-chemical reactions that keep a cell alive, it is a highly planned and orchestrated series of events to offset entropy.

You haven't learned a thing, I am truly beginning to believe that you do not have the cognitive capacity to grasp the simplest concepts of scientific deduction and reasoning. Before you continue pontificating your unscientific ejaculations, I would suggest you reread whats posted.

You are doing a disservice to you cause.
S. Bilderback
9th December 2005 - 12:39 PM
QUOTE
What a pile!!! A single celled organism has no self awareness yet it is alive. REPRODUCTION is life, nothing else is required.


Let me see, is that a fact or an assumption?

Amoebas have been trained not to eat their favorite food by the means of electric shock, that is learned behavior, they know to move toward light in low temps and out of light in high temps, self preservation.

Self preservation = self awareness FACT!
Grumpy
9th December 2005 - 02:44 PM
S. Bilderback

QUOTE
Amoebas have been trained not to eat their favorite food by the means of electric shock, that is learned behavior, they know to move toward light in low temps and out of light in high temps, self preservation.


Simple feedback loops, nothing else. Diatoms in a water column need a certain level of light to function. A simple inverse proportional feedback loop between the chloroplast and boyancy mechanism provides all the control needed, no "selfawareness" needed. These mechanisms have come about because those without them died without issue enough times to establish them in the genome. No "thinking" required. Even Pavlof's dog salivated at the sound of a bell even though the dogs intellect knew there was no food available. Are you "aware" of the individual steps taken by your own digestive system to process the food you eat??? Of course not, you autonomic system takes care of these details for you, no selfawareness needed.

Try not to...advance such stupid points in the future. We already know you just don't "get it" you don't need to prove it with every word you post. "Teacher" my big ol' butt!!!

Grumpy mad.gif
fivedoughnut
9th December 2005 - 02:45 PM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 9 2005, 12:39 PM)
QUOTE
What a pile!!! A single celled organism has no self awareness yet it is alive. REPRODUCTION is life, nothing else is required.


Let me see, is that a fact or an assumption?

Amoebas have been trained not to eat their favorite food by the means of electric shock, that is learned behavior, they know to move toward light in low temps and out of light in high temps, self preservation.

Self preservation = self awareness FACT!

Your arguement is indicative of severe mental retardation...Amoeba's are not trained and are certainly not aware ( lashings of empathy, huh Bilder-dunce)

An Amoeba "reacts" because of simple self replicating biochemistry derived from countless mutations/trial and error occurances....nothing more...nothing less.

There's many of us who've contributed to this forum who are positively flabbergasted with your inanely incredulous lack of brains....how many more times can we suggest 1+1 =2!
RealityCheck
9th December 2005 - 08:05 PM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 9 2005, 12:25 PM)
QUOTE
It's obvious you are STILL missing the crucial factor: the 'molercular cleavage' and 'transport' processes all depend on 'electro-chemical' CHARGE-interaction processes that occur randomly throughout nature owing to thermodynamical system variabilities spurred on by natural energy-flows through the Earth environment.

I'm not missing anything, the more important point you are missing is, that it is not random electro-chemical reactions that keep a cell alive, it is a highly planned and orchestrated series of events to offset entropy.

You haven't learned a thing, I am truly beginning to believe that you do not have the cognitive capacity to grasp the simplest concepts of scientific deduction and reasoning. Before you continue pontificating your unscientific ejaculations, I would suggest you reread whats posted.

You are doing a disservice to you cause.

.
.
S. (dadl-clone) Bilderback.

Oh dear oh dear. If you are going to make counter-accusations of ignorance, then for god's sake don't include in the same breath, such an idiotic assertions as:

"....it is a highly planned and orchestrated series of events...."

...when describing what happens at the sub-cellular level and in Nature generally purely as the result of 'elementary/automatic' physical/chemical/biological feedback mechanisms....mechanisms of the type that ALSO arise EVERY DAY in INDUSTRY whenever a chemical-reaction 'batch' is underway...and the temperature/catalytic conditions, and RELATIVE abundances of the raw material and the 'products', will determine NOT ONLY the 'rate/direction' of said reaction, but ALSO the NATURE/VARIETY of the products/by-products. So tell me, what/who is supposedly 'planning' and 'orchestrating' these reactions (once given the 'materials/conditions' for the reaction PER SE are present...that is to say, Nature provides both of these, and chemists merely 'mimic' nature by providing same in the 'lab'....so ID/CS BS will NOT be valid as part of your answer here, please).

Mate, if you WILL persist every day and in every way to DEMONSTRATE EXHAUSTIVELY your pathetic comprehension of ANYTHING you are talking about here, then I would suggest you refrain from castigating others with pathetically stupid remarks like the ones containing that pathetically ignorant assertion like the one quoted above.

Don't you recognise good advice when you see it? GO AND LEARN. Then your 'impersonation' of a thinking person may be sustained for a little longer than the 'zero time' your present attempt lasted before being 'busted'.

Your very anxious (for your reputation amongst your 'brilliant' ID/CS mates) friend. Sincerely,

RealityCheck.
.
RealityCheck
9th December 2005 - 08:39 PM
[QUOTE=S. Bilderback,Dec 9 2005, 12:39 PM][QUOTE]
...
...
Amoebas have been trained not to eat their favorite food by the means of electric shock, that is learned behavior, they know to move toward light in low temps and out of light in high temps, self preservation.

Self preservation = self awareness FACT![/QUOTE]
.
.
.
Again, oh dear oh dear oh dear, S. (dadl-clone) Bilderback.

Are you determined to bring your family name into disrepute with your sheer, unending, ignorance?

Does a 'dissected' frog's-leg 'learn' to 'react' (ie, 'fire' its muscle nerves/tissues) in response to an electric shock from a Galvanic battery?

Are you done yet? Have you succeeded in making your family name synonymous with ignorance personified? IF you ARE a "teacher", then I pity any child coming within a mile of that pall of ignorance you call 'knowledge'. Give us a break, huh? Go regurgitate your "ID/CS BS elsewhere....there is only so much wilful stupidity we can tolerate here. Now that you've 'shed' your 'quota' here, DO be a good chap/chapess and go learn something that might justify your calling yourself "teacher".

Sincerely. RealityCheck.
.
S. Bilderback
9th December 2005 - 10:47 PM
QUOTE
Does a 'dissected' frog's-leg 'learn' to 'react' (ie, 'fire' its muscle nerves/tissues) in response to an electric shock from a Galvanic battery?

And a rock moves when you hit it with a hammer - you are brilliant!!!!!! wacko.gif


Try doing it with a formaldehyde soaked frog "ole wise master".

Your genius never fails me. That is the worst argument I've ever heard, I'm getting car sick, or its just I'm laughing to hard. And it's not with you!



Messenger
9th December 2005 - 10:58 PM
oh me oh my RC,

user posted image

You sound like a stuffy old fart, you know that? No offense to old farts, just stuffy ones.



You have a very condescending attitude. It's one thing to correct people and such, but the drama is unncessary and not appreciated by anyone. You only encourage rebuttals to your ignorant, stuffy, dramatic tone - and not to your intelligence/lack thereof.

However, nice person that I am, I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Are you trying to be funny, like me? Maybe I shouldn't take such offense if your responses are your misguided attempt at being humorous. Please let me know. And I'm only gonna ask you once, because I really don't care.

Thank you,
fivedoughnut
9th December 2005 - 11:10 PM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 9 2005, 10:47 PM)
QUOTE
Does a 'dissected' frog's-leg 'learn' to 'react' (ie, 'fire' its muscle nerves/tissues) in response to an electric shock from a Galvanic battery?

And a rock moves when you hit it with a hammer - you are brilliant!!!!!! wacko.gif


Try doing it with a formaldehyde soaked frog "ole wise master".

Your genius never fails me. That is the worst argument I've ever heard, I'm getting car sick, or its just I'm laughing to hard. And it's not with you!

....what can I say?.......you've truly exposed yourself....please go away!.. you re-definition of cretin! mad.gif
Grumpy
9th December 2005 - 11:49 PM
To All

Messenger is actually the Messenger of Satan, not content to abuse science with his lack of wit he also lies about me, saying I said we(scientists) don't know of a mechanism for evolution to occur. What complete bilge.

Grumpy
mad.gif
newguy
9th December 2005 - 11:58 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 9 2005, 11:49 PM)
To All

Messenger is actually the Messenger of Satan, not content to abuse science with his lack of wit he also lies about me, saying I said we(scientists) don't know of a mechanism for evolution to occur. What complete bilge.

Grumpy
mad.gif

Preach it, brother! Did I say "brother"? blink.gif
RealityCheck
10th December 2005 - 03:43 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 9 2005, 10:47 PM)
QUOTE
Does a 'dissected' frog's-leg 'learn' to 'react' (ie, 'fire' its muscle nerves/tissues) in response to an electric shock from a Galvanic battery?

And a rock moves when you hit it with a hammer - you are brilliant!!!!!! wacko.gif


Try doing it with a formaldehyde soaked frog "ole wise master".

Your genius never fails me. That is the worst argument I've ever heard, I'm getting car sick, or its just I'm laughing to hard. And it's not with you!

S. Bilderback.

Are you saying that rocks are ALSO aware?

Or that a 'lump' of THOROUGHLY "DENATURED" proteins (you know what 'denatured' means, "teacher"?) is THE SAME as a 'frog's-leg' with nerve/muscle tissues and NATURAL and 'UNAWARE' AUTONOMOUS-reaction systems 'intact'?

You are not only desperate, you are also reverting to dishonest 'examples'. Some "teacher"! Your "students" are DOOMED to a state of 'inculcated idiocy' from a dishonest master idiot calling itself "S. Biderback". May god forgive you.

Sincerely,

RealityCheck.
.
RealityCheck
10th December 2005 - 03:58 AM
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 9 2005, 10:58 PM)
oh me oh my RC,

user posted image

You sound like a stuffy old fart, you know that?  No offense to old farts, just stuffy ones.



You have a very condescending attitude.  It's one thing to correct people and such, but the drama is unncessary and not appreciated by anyone.  You only encourage rebuttals to your ignorant, stuffy, dramatic tone - and not to your intelligence/lack thereof.

However, nice person that I am, I'll give you the benefit of doubt.  Are you trying to be funny, like me?  Maybe I shouldn't take such offense if your responses are your misguided attempt at being humorous.  Please let me know.  And I'm only gonna ask you once, because I really don't care.

Thank you,

.
.
Hi Mess.

See that stuff coming out of my 'arse'?...it makes more sense than what comes out of your 'mouth' and that of S. Bilderback.

And your hypocrisy is again out for all to see: If YOU can be 'CARTOON GAL' in your 'CARTOON WORLD' (that you say you like so much), then who are YOU to 'criticise' my 'choice' of 'stuffy/drama world', heh?

And I bet even a five-year-old child could display more 'original' humour than you; as most of your 'humorous' gimmicks represent the work of others (much like the ID/CS BS you and S.Bilderb. spout).

The day the likes of you and S.Bilder. SUCCESSFULLY rebut EITHER my attitude OR my intellect/knowledge, I will know immediately that 'ignorance' has triumphed over reason and knowledge; and hence, that 'doomsday' is upon us.

Serious, dramatic and stuffy enough for you and S.B? Sincerely,

RealityCheck.
.
S. Bilderback
10th December 2005 - 06:15 PM
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 10 2005, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 9 2005, 10:47 PM)
QUOTE
Does a 'dissected' frog's-leg 'learn' to 'react' (ie, 'fire' its muscle nerves/tissues) in response to an electric shock from a Galvanic battery?

And a rock moves when you hit it with a hammer - you are brilliant!!!!!! wacko.gif


Try doing it with a formaldehyde soaked frog "ole wise master".

Your genius never fails me. That is the worst argument I've ever heard, I'm getting car sick, or its just I'm laughing to hard. And it's not with you!

S. Bilderback.

Are you saying that rocks are ALSO aware?

Or that a 'lump' of THOROUGHLY "DENATURED" proteins (you know what 'denatured' means, "teacher"?) is THE SAME as a 'frog's-leg' with nerve/muscle tissues and NATURAL and 'UNAWARE' AUTONOMOUS-reaction systems 'intact'?

You are not only desperate, you are also reverting to dishonest 'examples'. Some "teacher"! Your "students" are DOOMED to a state of 'inculcated idiocy' from a dishonest master idiot calling itself "S. Biderback". May god forgive you.

Sincerely,

RealityCheck.
.

No Rocks Are Not Alive, I was sarcastically pointing out how absurd your reply was. Is shows you do not know enough to argue the subject if you can't recognize sarcasm.

If the organization created by life is still intact it can be manipulated by external means. If the frog could spontaneously come back to life, then we would have some proof. All the necessary components are there, if you zap it with a random influx of energy, why doesn't it come back to life? You already stated that:

“...when describing what happens at the sub-cellular level and in Nature generally purely as the result of 'elementary/automatic' physical/chemical/biological feedback mechanisms....mechanisms of the type that ALSO arise EVERY DAY in INDUSTRY whenever a chemical-reaction 'batch' is underway...and the temperature/catalytic conditions, and RELATIVE abundances of the raw material and the 'products', will determine NOT ONLY the 'rate/direction' of said reaction, but ALSO the NATURE/VARIETY of the products/by-products. So tell me, what/who is supposedly 'planning' and 'orchestrating' these reactions (once given the 'materials/conditions' for the reaction PER SE are present...that is to say, Nature provides both of these, and chemists merely 'mimic' nature by providing same in the 'lab'....so ID/CS BS will NOT be valid as part of your answer here, please).”


It is not being dishonest by talking over someone head, I deliberately deleted steps of logical deduction from my points to see if you could extrapolate the data on your own, you failed miserably.

You are doing a disservice to your fellow teammates here – engage brain first – then speak.

Does you Day Care provider know you are online again?
Messenger
10th December 2005 - 09:00 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 9 2005, 05:49 PM)

Messenger is actually the Messenger of ......, not content to abuse science with his lack of wit he also lies about me, saying I said we(scientists) don't know of a mechanism for evolution to occur. What complete bilge.
Grumpy
mad.gif



Nobody is lying about you, you twist words and practice bureaucracy and debunkery.


Well, like I said - welcome to my world. NewGuy has lumped you in with me now - or did you forget already? I thought you didn't believe in God? Isn't satan God's adversary? By the way, satan and all his demons were destroyed in 70AD. You're really blind, you know that? He who has eyes, let him see. He who has ears, let him hear.

Grumpy - please do me a favor - go research the word preterism. Since you're marinated in the blood - you should be able to understand everything you read - unless of course you were marinated when you were a child. By the way, I don't like that term - marinated in the blood - sounds kind of sick to me.

Take a serious look at it. Maybe the reason you stopped believing or whatever - is that you could not reconcile the words of Jesus to the words of Revelation. You may be so angry that you've built an impenetrable wall, if so, then I'm sorry, you're on your own.

Do you really think you're the only one/s that feel passionately about their evidence? Do you not think that others are capable of the same thoughts and intelligence that you think you have? You can study the brain but you can't think. Are you so prejudiced against your fellow man that you feel a need to control everyone and shut out all other information? Your behavior is indicative of someone who wishes to stifle information, rebuke others, and generally act superior to other human beings. This attitude is prevalent in all areas of society - including religion and science.

Why don't you just forget the personal attacks and innuendo - and just debate the issues? You guys practice the art of debunkery and nothing else. You're a perfect example of science bureaucracy.

Grumpy
10th December 2005 - 09:18 PM
Messenger

You are the one lying about things you should understand. Biogenesis and evolution are two entirely seperate areas of study, Ihave explained this over and over but you continue to lie.

Don't worry about it, it's what we've come to expect out of you,

Grumpy cool.gif
Messenger
10th December 2005 - 09:20 PM
Thank you for proving my point.

Debunkery at its finest. Forget about the issues - just cover up your ignorance and unwillingness to learn anything new.
RealityCheck
10th December 2005 - 09:46 PM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 10 2005, 06:15 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 10 2005, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 9 2005, 10:47 PM)
QUOTE
Does a 'dissected' frog's-leg 'learn' to 'react' (ie, 'fire' its muscle nerves/tissues) in response to an electric shock from a Galvanic battery?

And a rock moves when you hit it with a hammer - you are brilliant!!!!!! wacko.gif


Try doing it with a formaldehyde soaked frog "ole wise master".

Your genius never fails me. That is the worst argument I've ever heard, I'm getting car sick, or its just I'm laughing to hard. And it's not with you!

S. Bilderback.

Are you saying that rocks are ALSO aware?

Or that a 'lump' of THOROUGHLY "DENATURED" proteins (you know what 'denatured' means, "teacher"?) is THE SAME as a 'frog's-leg' with nerve/muscle tissues and NATURAL and 'UNAWARE' AUTONOMOUS-reaction systems 'intact'?

You are not only desperate, you are also reverting to dishonest 'examples'. Some "teacher"! Your "students" are DOOMED to a state of 'inculcated idiocy' from a dishonest master idiot calling itself "S. Biderback". May god forgive you.

Sincerely,

RealityCheck.
.

No Rocks Are Not Alive, I was sarcastically pointing out how absurd your reply was. Is shows you do not know enough to argue the subject if you can't recognize sarcasm.

If the organization created by life is still intact it can be manipulated by external means. If the frog could spontaneously come back to life, then we would have some proof. All the necessary components are there, if you zap it with a random influx of energy, why doesn't it come back to life? You already stated that:

“...when describing what happens at the sub-cellular level and in Nature generally purely as the result of 'elementary/automatic' physical/chemical/biological feedback mechanisms....mechanisms of the type that ALSO arise EVERY DAY in INDUSTRY whenever a chemical-reaction 'batch' is underway...and the temperature/catalytic conditions, and RELATIVE abundances of the raw material and the 'products', will determine NOT ONLY the 'rate/direction' of said reaction, but ALSO the NATURE/VARIETY of the products/by-products. So tell me, what/who is supposedly 'planning' and 'orchestrating' these reactions (once given the 'materials/conditions' for the reaction PER SE are present...that is to say, Nature provides both of these, and chemists merely 'mimic' nature by providing same in the 'lab'....so ID/CS BS will NOT be valid as part of your answer here, please).”


It is not being dishonest by talking over someone head, I deliberately deleted steps of logical deduction from my points to see if you could extrapolate the data on your own, you failed miserably.

You are doing a disservice to your fellow teammates here – engage brain first – then speak.

Does you Day Care provider know you are online again?

.
.
To S. Bilderback (the "teacher" falsely-so-calling-him/herself).

It is you who did not recognise sarcasm, when I queried whether you were implying 'rocks' were 'self-aware'. Hehehe, talk about 'thick'!

And when you say:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Does a 'dissected' frog's-leg 'learn' to 'react' (ie, 'fire' its muscle nerves/tissues) in response to an electric shock from a Galvanic battery?

And a rock moves when you hit it with a hammer - you are brilliant!!!!!! wacko.gif


Try doing it with a formaldehyde soaked frog "ole wise master".

Your genius never fails me. That is the worst argument I've ever heard, I'm getting car sick, or its just I'm laughing to hard. And it's not with you!

S. Bilderback.

Are you saying that rocks are ALSO aware?

Or that a 'lump' of THOROUGHLY "DENATURED" proteins (you know what 'denatured' means, "teacher"?) is THE SAME as a 'frog's-leg' with nerve/muscle tissues and NATURAL and 'UNAWARE' AUTONOMOUS-reaction systems 'intact'?

You are not only desperate, you are also reverting to dishonest 'examples'. Some "teacher"! Your "students" are DOOMED to a state of 'inculcated idiocy' from a dishonest master idiot calling itself "S. Biderback". May god forgive you.

Sincerely,

RealityCheck.
.

No Rocks Are Not Alive, I was sarcastically pointing out how absurd your reply was. Is shows you do not know enough to argue the subject if you can't recognize sarcasm.

If the organization created by life is still intact it can be manipulated by external means. If the frog could spontaneously come back to life, then we would have some proof. All the necessary components are there, if you zap it with a random influx of energy, why doesn't it come back to life? You already stated that:

“...when describing what happens at the sub-cellular level and in Nature generally purely as the result of 'elementary/automatic' physical/chemical/biological feedback mechanisms....mechanisms of the type that ALSO arise EVERY DAY in INDUSTRY whenever a chemical-reaction 'batch' is underway...and the temperature/catalytic conditions, and RELATIVE abundances of the raw material and the 'products', will determine NOT ONLY the 'rate/direction' of said reaction, but ALSO the NATURE/VARIETY of the products/by-products. So tell me, what/who is supposedly 'planning' and 'orchestrating' these reactions (once given the 'materials/conditions' for the reaction PER SE are present...that is to say, Nature provides both of these, and chemists merely 'mimic' nature by providing same in the 'lab'....so ID/CS BS will NOT be valid as part of your answer here, please).”


It is not being dishonest by talking over someone head, I deliberately deleted steps of logical deduction from my points to see if you could extrapolate the data on your own, you failed miserably.

You are doing a disservice to your fellow teammates here – engage brain first – then speak.

Does you Day Care provider know you are online again?

.
.
To S. Bilderback (the "teacher" falsely-so-calling-him/herself).

It is you who did not recognise sarcasm, when I queried whether you were implying 'rocks' were 'self-aware'. Hehehe, talk about 'thick'!

And when you say:I deliberately deleted steps of logical deduction from my points to see if you could extrapolate the data on your own, you failed miserably.

You are obviously lying in a sorry attempt to cover up your self-evident lack of reasoning faculties and knowledge of the subject matter. By your own words you have proven beyond doubt that you are not qualified to call yourself a "teacher".

Because your 'response' demonstrates that you do NOT know what it means when proteins are 'denatured'----namely, that the 'integrity' of the natural structures/arrangements of molecules necessary for life processes have been compromised or totally destroyed. If you HAD known this, you would NOT have come up with such a 'lamebrain' response as you have done. You see, 'denaturing' is what HAPPENS when you COOK/MARINATE/SMOKE/SALT-DRY/PYROLYSE an egg or a steak; or when you, guess what?...that's right!....when you PRESERVE a frog's-leg in FORMALDEHYDE!

And what's all this about 'zapping' the 'dead' frog back to life? How can you do that if the frog's LIFE-SYSTEMS/PROCESSES are 'denatured' or otherwise KAPUT? Have you no sense at all?

But even in THAT 'challenge' to me, you demonstrate that you are TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS to what is going on around you even as we speak. You see, "teacher" (falsely-so-calling itself), since the invention of a medical appliance commonly called the 'HEART STARTER', otherwise 'dead' humans (and animals in veterinary surgeries) are brought back to life after they died but their proteins had NOT yet been 'denatured' by putrefaction (and/or uncontrolled oxidation-reduction reactions) beyond repair/re-energising. So you see, "teacher" (falsely-so-calling itself) your idiotic 'challenge' IS met EVERY DAY somewhere around the world.

Yes, WILFUL ignorance WILL do that to you, mate; it will let you prove more effectively than I myself could, for all here to see, your totally 'bogus' claim to being a "teacher" of ANYTHING except regressive and malicious IGNORANCE. I pity anyone who even comes near you, let alone trusts you with their intellectual assets...as you are so devoid of such assets that you will naturally seek to 'steal' others' by pretending to be a "teacher". Shame. May god forgive you.

Seriously, SB, don't imply anyone here is not 'up to speed' intellectually. Such 'snails' in that department as yourself are only more ridiculous when brought into comparison with others (why, even Messenger shows more in that department than yourself...and that's damning!).

Sincerely,

RealityCheck.
.
RealityCheck
10th December 2005 - 10:02 PM
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 10 2005, 09:20 PM)
Thank you for proving my point. 

Debunkery at its finest.  Forget about the issues - just cover up your ignorance and unwillingness to learn anything new.

.
.
Mess.

Grumpy SAID to newguy he didn't believe in Satan, but that his name for you was well suited to your behaviour here.

And what is the issue?...if not that YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY LIED AND TWISTED and otherwise carried on the good 'ol SoLoved 'tradition', hmmmm?

Your attempts, like those of SoLoved before you, to throw the blame on others for what YOU have wreaked in the name of idiocy and ignorance, ARE THE ISSUE whenever you open your mouth. Nothing else even comes close to being more necessary than your utter and honest repentance, apology and desisting from following that well-trod ID/CS BS hypocrisy and wilful stupidity.

How can you sit/stand there and castigate others and bleat about ANYTHING? You have 'disqualified' yourself in that area. You are a non-truthful/non-trustworthy 'source' for ANYTHING 'moral', let alone 'scientific'. In which case, you have absolutely NO 'standing' or 'respect' here. An empty vessel would make more substantial sounds than what issues from you. Please in future refrain from castigating your betters...which includes practically EVERYONE here except S. Bilder. Perhaps you two should compare notes as to who is the more culpable in the lowering of intellectual standards here.

Sincerely non-hateful observation and advice; from:

RealityCheck.
.
Messenger
10th December 2005 - 10:49 PM
OK RC,

Show me where I have lied. Certainly I may have stated my beliefs - but that doesn't mean I lied.

So what exactly are you talking about?

By the way, there is no one better than me except God. And that goes for you too.
RealityCheck
10th December 2005 - 11:26 PM
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 10 2005, 10:49 PM)
OK RC,

Show me where I have lied.  Certainly I may have stated my beliefs - but that doesn't mean I lied.

So what exactly are you talking about?

By the way, there is no one better than me except God.  And that goes for you too.

.
.
Mess.

Do all your type of "christian" have the attention-span and memory capacity of a gnat?

Do you forget the BIG LIE here pretending to be 'innocent' of SoLoved agenda?

Do you forget your "stupid is as stupid does" comment and my response to same, pointing out that you 'qualify' because of your pretence that your 'questions' and 'intentions' are NOT patently 'false' and 'repetitive' in the face of PREVIOUS answers/responses involving SoLoved and others?

And do you not support the current 'wedge-document' strategy of such miscreant ID/CS 'cultists' who LIED to their god, themselves and to the courts when attempting to deny that their ID manifesto was NOT their previous CS manifesto with merely a change of 'title'?

Please, Mess; there is not enough time left to me in this world for me to go back and point out your consistent deceit and immorality. Do your own dirty work; and get a conscience, will ya?....it is so depressing talking to something LESS than human in that respect.

A non-hateful reply to yet another 'disingenuous' and 'psychologically-disconnected' post by a 'thoroughgoing Mess'. Sincerely,

RealityCheck.
PS: Oh, and since you bring up the subject: practically EVERYTHING ON THIS PLANET is 'better' than a liar, twister, perjuror and hypocrite of a "christian" falsely so-called (and if the shoe fits......).
S. Bilderback
11th December 2005 - 12:01 AM
RealityCheck:

Your simple assertions, without justification followed by childish derogatory comments are starting to bore me, I don't have time for it any more, if you want really want to argue the fact, then start using them and stick to them. From now on every time you post an assumption or an unsubstantiated comment, I will justify why the assumption has no bearing on a valid argument or it will be added to my tally of wrong scientific statements, deductions, topic irrelevant and anything else to show the others how little you apparently know.

Driving good people off this forum with you childish behavior does not make you or your ideas right and I'm not going away. It is hard to filter out the few valid point you've made amongst the piles of trash, there are people reading this forum that want to learn and you are depriving them of that right.

So clean it up or shut it up.

I also have been guilty and I apologize to the reads and it will happen no more.
Messenger
11th December 2005 - 12:17 AM
RC,

I am not pretending to be SoLoved and nor have I ever typed verbatim statements from SoLoved - only conveyed thoughts in my own words, as I have alread said. I no longer post any messages from SoLoved nor will I post and messages from him/her in the future - without at least saying that such message is from him/her. I also do not post as 'guest', just for the record (unless I make a mistake).

I follow my own agenda, if there is such a thing.

I don't know anything about a 'wedge document' - please explain where this can be found. If you're wondering how I feel about Intelligent Design - then here it is. I would like the idea of God to be taught in school. I am not actively fighting for this, other than stating my opinions in such forums as this. I have been known to be politically active, but not on any subject related to God, ID/CS, or evolution.
I am disappointed, saddened, and grieved, that the government, the educational system, and science (among others); do not recognize the need for spiritual acknowledgement.

In this, the year 2005, almost 2006, one cannot ask that Creation be taught in schools. This would be unfair to those who do not believe in the Abrahamic God. On the other hand, if one believes in a Creator - it would be unfair for scientists to say that there is no Creator, and disallow the teaching of such.

So what do we do? The only logical thing to do is to leave God out of it. Let each individual persue the God of his/her choice. But do not destroy their chances of finding that God. Do not reduce their chance of finding their God to the chance of evolution, a mathematical impossibility.

Intelligent Design tries to leave God out of it. It tries to show in a scientific way, how complex we and our universe are. We cannot, and most certainly do not, know everything. We cannot know what lies beyond death. No one has the right to take away the hope of every child that seeks it.

The Bible, or churches, synagogues, and other temples of faith, do not seek to explain God in a scientific way. They base it on spiritual teachings and faith. Intelligent Design seeks to explain our universe in a scientific way.

I see no agenda and no conflict with science. Truth is truth no matter where it comes from.

Religion will eventually come to realize their mistakes, painful as it is.
Science, will also come to realize theirs, painful as it is.

Surely you must understand that studying the brain does not make you a thinker. Surely you must understand that studying a pool of water does not make you a swimmer. Spirituality is an experience that billions of people have and will continue to have. You may not have had this experience. That doesn't give you (a small minority) to dictate to a huge majority what we shall and shall not believe.

Here's what I envision in a classroom in the near future (no it's not a vision):

1. Evolution is taught as a theory
2. Intelligent Design is taught as a theory
3. Religions of the world are taught in a history class

I don't think this is unreasonable. I wholeheartedly and honestly believe that if every scientist put their heads together and studied the Creation, it's function and design; that more diseases would be cured. I believe Creation holds the key to every problem that mankind has. I believe that God's Kingdom was established in 70AD at the destruction of Jerusalem. When you believe that, you look at the promises of Revelation in a whole new light. You now know you have the power to make them happen. Using your God given talent/power and solving these problems stores up treasures in heaven for yourself.

We are the reason we suffer, not God. We must accept personal responsibility for our thoughts, words and deeds. There are no demons. Satan has been destroyed.

I know you won't believe all that, but that's what I believe.

Sincerely,





RealityCheck
11th December 2005 - 12:35 AM
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 11 2005, 12:01 AM)
RealityCheck:

Your simple assertions, without justification followed by childish derogatory comments are starting to bore me, I don't have time for it any more, if you want really want to argue the fact, then start using them and stick to them. From now on every time you post an assumption or an unsubstantiated comment, I will justify why the assumption has no bearing on a valid argument or it will be added to my tally of wrong scientific statements, deductions, topic irrelevant and anything else to show the others how little you apparently know.

Driving good people off this forum with you childish behavior does not make you or your ideas right and I'm not going away.  It is hard to filter out the few valid point you've made amongst the piles of trash, there are people reading this forum that want to learn and you are depriving them of that right.

So clean it up or shut it up.

I also have been guilty and I apologise to the reads and it will happen no more.

.
.
S. Bilderback.

Do you include yourself when you say "good people"? If so, what is your definition of a "people" who pretends to "knowledge" they don't have?...and who persists in 'debating' here using obviously incorrect 'scientific' arguments based on 'half-truths' and otherwise distorted facts?...and who, when challenged to put up or shut up themselves, try to evade and complain and any other thing BUT supporting their unfounded contentions and assertions made without the LEAST INTENTION OF HONEST DEBATE on the true merits of the matter at hand?....but instead try to pass off 'superstitious' mumbo jumbo and misunderstood science (your pseudo-science) as objective evidence/argument?

Please take your own advice. Anyone who visits here will see that 'debate' doesn't equate with everyone here having to endure without demur any poster bringing with them TOTAL/WILFUL IGNORANCE AND DECEIT while pretending they want to 'genuinely' engage in 'honest' scientific debate...you and others like you obviously wouldn't know what genuineness or honesty in debate was. Again, take your own advice and stop embarrassing yourself and your family name any further. People here are INTELLIGENT, not superstitious idiots...this is NOT 'fertile' ground for your kind of half-baked ignorance-peddling, “teacher”.

If you were REALLY genuine and honest in wanting to debate the subject and not the person, then you would be calling up all the posts made by BOTH sides in these threads and determining what has ALREADY been asked and answered and what has not. I think you will find that most, if not ALL, of your own ‘brilliant’ points have been covered. Whatever you think has NOT been covered, you are welcome to put here, BUT ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A SCIENCE DEBATING FORUM first and foremost...where all assertions (in line with something called “the SCIENTIFIC METHOD”...of which you may have heard) are subject to challenge based on FACT and objective evidence...and NOT on mere “I say so” or superstitious anecdotes. Oh, and one more thing...we DON’T PRETEND TO KNOWLEDGE WE DON’T POSSESS. If you are shown to be ‘incorrect’, you have the opportunity to amend your stance accordingly: just saying “because the bible tells me so!” is not a valid defense in such circumstances. If you are prepared to debate honestly and genuinely, then ALL are welcome; but if you are NOT, then inevitable discovery and disgrace will be on YOUR head and not others who are doing their duty in the name of reason and science and humanity’s survival into the far distant future.

Sincerely,

RealityCheck.
.
RealityCheck
11th December 2005 - 12:51 AM
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 11 2005, 12:17 AM)
RC,

I am not pretending to be SoLoved and nor have I ever typed verbatim statements from SoLoved - only conveyed thoughts in my own words, as I have alread said.  I no longer post any messages from SoLoved nor will I post and messages from him/her in the future - without at least saying that such message is from him/her.  I also do not post as 'guest', just for the record (unless I make a mistake).

I follow my own agenda, if there is such a thing.

I don't know anything about a 'wedge document' - please explain where this can be found.  If you're wondering how I feel about Intelligent Design - then here it is.  I would like the idea of God to be taught in school.  I am not actively fighting for this, other than stating my opinions in such forums as this.  I have been known to be politically active, but not on any subject related to God, ID/CS, or evolution. 
I am disappointed, saddened, and grieved, that the government, the educational system, and science (among others); do not recognize the need for spiritual acknowledgement. 

In this, the year 2005, almost 2006, one cannot ask that Creation be taught in schools.  This would be unfair to those who do not believe in the Abrahamic God.  On the other hand, if one believes in a Creator - it would be unfair for scientists to say that there is no Creator, and disallow the teaching of such.

So what do we do?  The only logical thing to do is to leave God out of it.  Let each individual persue the God of his/her choice.  But do not destroy their chances of finding that God.  Do not reduce their chance of finding their God to the chance of evolution, a mathematical impossibility.

Intelligent Design tries to leave God out of it.  It tries to show in a scientific way, how complex we and our universe are.  We cannot, and most certainly do not, know everything.  We cannot know what lies beyond death.  No one has the right to take away the hope of every child that seeks it.

The Bible, or churches, synagogues, and other temples of faith, do not seek to explain God in a scientific way.  They base it on spiritual teachings and faith.  Intelligent Design seeks to explain our universe in a scientific way. 

I see no agenda and no conflict with science.  Truth is truth no matter where it comes from.

Religion will eventually come to realize their mistakes, painful as it is.
Science, will also come to realize theirs, painful as it is.

Surely you must understand that studying the brain does not make you a thinker.  Surely you must understand that studying a pool of water does not make you a swimmer.  Spirituality is an experience that billions of people have and will continue to have.  You may not have had this experience.  That doesn't give you (a small minority) to dictate to a huge majority what we shall and shall not believe. 

Here's what I envision in a classroom in the near future (no it's not a vision):

1.  Evolution is taught as a theory
2.  Intelligent Design is taught as a theory
3.  Religions of the world are taught in a history class

I don't think this is unreasonable.  I wholeheartedly and honestly believe that if every scientist put their heads together and studied the Creation, it's function and design; that more diseases would be cured.  I believe Creation holds the key to every problem that mankind has.  I believe that God's Kingdom was established in 70AD at the destruction of Jerusalem.  When you believe that, you look at the promises of Revelation in a whole new light.  You now know you have the power to make them happen.  Using your God given talent/power and solving these problems stores up treasures in heaven for yourself.

We are the reason we suffer, not God.  We must accept personal responsibility for our thoughts, words and deeds.  There are no demons.  Satan has been destroyed. 

I know you won't believe all that, but that's what I believe.

Sincerely,

.
.
Dear Mess,

I think you have mistaken PhysorgForums for a 'church' or 'evangelical christian' website. Please be aware that people do not come here to be 'converted' one way or the other. They come here to debate and discuss like intelligent people, all that science has to say about the objectively-observed reality. They do NOT come here to be sermonised to or be proselytised for one particular religion or another. Do you understand this?...if so, nod your head. Excellent!

In this light, your above post is SO replete with misapprehensions and invalid assertions and vague wishes that it would take too much life time to itemise and rectify. I suggest that, since it is your mess, you clean it up for yourself, using the newly-acquired understanding got from the first paragraph of this reply to yours above.

Good luck. Sincerely,

RealityCheck.
PS: Anyone 'looking to find god' can do no better than to steer away from obvious incompetents in that sphere of personal endeavour.
Messenger
11th December 2005 - 01:02 AM
QUOTE
I think you have mistaken PhysorgForums for a 'church' or 'evangelical christian' website. Please be aware that people do not come here to be 'converted' one way or the other. They come here to debate and discuss like intelligent people, all that science has to say about the objectively-observed reality. They do NOT come here to be sermonised to or be proselytised for one particular religion or another. Do you understand this?...if so, nod your head. Excellent!

In this light, your above post is SO replete with misapprehensions and invalid assertions and vague wishes that it would take too much life time to itemise and rectify. I suggest that, since it is your mess, you clean it up for yourself, using the newly-acquired understanding got from the first paragraph of this reply to yours above.


For the umpteenth time ReallyC..., this is the Creation/Evolution section of the science forum. Creation is just as much science as anything else that is considered science. Just because you don't share this opinion - does not mean that others don't. The evidence of this is apparent all over this C/E section.

Please be aware that you are free to ignore me. Please be aware that you can intelligently discuss and debate topics with me. Please be aware that I do not appreciate your sermons on atheism. Do you understand? Good.

I will certainly clean up my own Mess - that's my name you know. That's why I'm so smart, cuz I make such a Mess of everything. I'm the one who destroys all the puzzles - just so I can put them back together the right way.

Thank you very much,

User posted image
Nessus
11th December 2005 - 01:18 AM
Creation is not science. And ID is not a scientific theory.
RealityCheck
11th December 2005 - 01:42 AM
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 11 2005, 01:02 AM)
QUOTE
I think you have mistaken PhysorgForums for a 'church' or 'evangelical christian' website. Please be aware that people do not come here to be 'converted' one way or the other. They come here to debate and discuss like intelligent people, all that science has to say about the objectively-observed reality. They do NOT come here to be sermonised to or be proselytised for one particular religion or another. Do you understand this?...if so, nod your head. Excellent!

In this light, your above post is SO replete with misapprehensions and invalid assertions and vague wishes that it would take too much life time to itemise and rectify. I suggest that, since it is your mess, you clean it up for yourself, using the newly-acquired understanding got from the first paragraph of this reply to yours above.


For the umpteenth time ReallyC..., this is the Creation/Evolution section of the science forum. Creation is just as much science as anything else that is considered science. Just because you don't share this opinion - does not mean that others don't. The evidence of this is apparent all over this C/E section.

Please be aware that you are free to ignore me. Please be aware that you can intelligently discuss and debate topics with me. Please be aware that I do not appreciate your sermons on atheism. Do you understand? Good.

I will certainly clean up my own Mess - that's my name you know. That's why I'm so smart, cuz I make such a Mess of everything. I'm the one who destroys all the puzzles - just so I can put them back together the right way.

Thank you very much,

User posted image
.
.
.
Mess.

(1) Do you post such irrelevant graphics because you are 'fascinated' by 'image' and 'idolatry' of 'two-dimensional' cartoon/celebrity characters? Or will anything do in the hope that no-one will notice the lack of 'true' substance in your posts?

(2) Messtaken:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I think you have mistaken PhysorgForums for a 'church' or 'evangelical christian' website. Please be aware that people do not come here to be 'converted' one way or the other. They come here to debate and discuss like intelligent people, all that science has to say about the objectively-observed reality. They do NOT come here to be sermonised to or be proselytised for one particular religion or another. Do you understand this?...if so, nod your head. Excellent!

In this light, your above post is SO replete with misapprehensions and invalid assertions and vague wishes that it would take too much life time to itemise and rectify. I suggest that, since it is your mess, you clean it up for yourself, using the newly-acquired understanding got from the first paragraph of this reply to yours above.


For the umpteenth time ReallyC..., this is the Creation/Evolution section of the science forum. Creation is just as much science as anything else that is considered science. Just because you don't share this opinion - does not mean that others don't. The evidence of this is apparent all over this C/E section.

Please be aware that you are free to ignore me. Please be aware that you can intelligently discuss and debate topics with me. Please be aware that I do not appreciate your sermons on atheism. Do you understand? Good.

I will certainly clean up my own Mess - that's my name you know. That's why I'm so smart, cuz I make such a Mess of everything. I'm the one who destroys all the puzzles - just so I can put them back together the right way.

Thank you very much,

User posted image
.
.
.
Mess.

(1) Do you post such irrelevant graphics because you are 'fascinated' by 'image' and 'idolatry' of 'two-dimensional' cartoon/celebrity characters? Or will anything do in the hope that no-one will notice the lack of 'true' substance in your posts?

(2) Messtaken: Creation is just as much science as anything else that is considered science.


No. This may be a 'wish' of yours, but it is not 'substantiated' fact as you disingenuously try to claim. There's Dishonesty for you, right there. QED.

(3) Messtaken:
QUOTE (Messenger+)
Please be aware that you are free to ignore me.  Please be aware that you can intelligently discuss and debate topics with me.  Please be aware that I do not appreciate your sermons on atheism.


He who ignores a present source of ignorance is doomed. And how many times must one try to have an intelligent discussion/debate with someone whose only intent appears to be proselytising, lying, twisting and insulting others' intelligence?....when should they instead concentrate on exposing such deceitful types who come here and make a mockery of true science with their regurgitated ID/CS 'pseudo-science'? And why should I in my turn be expected to appreciate condescending sermons and bibble-babble about 'faith' replacing science and reason as 'the way forward'? There's Hypocrisy for you, right there. QED.

(4) Messtaken:
QUOTE (Messenger+)
I will certainly clean up my own Mess - that's my name you know.  That's why I'm so smart, cuz I make such a Mess of everything.  I'm the one who destroys all the puzzles - just so I can put them back together the right way.

But DO you clean up after yourself? I have yet to see 'evidence' of it. And DO you put the 'destroyed puzzles' back together the 'right' way? What makes YOU so 'inerrant', heh? There's unwarranted Pride and Arrogance for you, right there. QED.
.
.
Do the right thing and we'll start over with a clean slate. Persist in such UN-true-christian behaviour and you only confirm the opinion I have of you as a well-meaning but nevertheless extremely dangerously wilful ignoramus in all things REAL.

And for your final information: Just as your 'religion' makes it a 'duty' for you to attempt to proselytise indiscriminately; so does science and the scientific method make it our duty to engage and resist any attempt at destroying reason and light and the body of scientific knowledge so hard-won against all the powers of ignorance to date...only we do our duty with more intelligence and discrimination.

Sincerely,

RealityCheck.
.
newguy
11th December 2005 - 02:08 AM
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Do you post such irrelevant graphics because you are 'fascinated' by 'image' and 'idolatry' of 'two-dimensional' cartoon/celebrity characters? Or will anything do in the hope that no-one will notice the lack of 'true' substance in your posts?


RealityCheck: I think his use of the Elvis Presley graphic was directly linked to his "Thank you very much" at the end of his post. When Elvis was alive, he would commonly say: "Thank you...Thank you very much." This phrase is still commonly quoted to this day by Elvis impersonators. Just an FYI. Oh my! I'm starting to understand the way he thinks! IS THERE AN EXORCIST IN THE HOUSE?!? Oh yeah. I'm one. Never mind. Later...
newguy
11th December 2005 - 02:25 AM
All: Let me "rebuke" myself. I shouldn't make light of "exorcisms"(I'm talking Biblically based ones, not like the movies) as I just did in my last post. If I could personally have any desire granted as far as "the church" is concerned, then it would probably be that the "Christians" cleaned themselves up to a point where God could genuinely use them and confirm His Word with signs and wonders following. That is the way that it is supposed to be. If God's people were truly healing the sick, casting out demons, raising the dead, etc., that would probably be all the "evidence" that many people would need to "see". But alas, manger scenes(idolatry), fights to retain the phrase "Merry Christmas"(totally pagan holy day/holiday), ID in classrooms(Christians should be training their own children), and the like have captured(literally) the hearts and minds of "God's people". Would to God that someone, anyone, would truly seek His face. Anyhow, I "repent" of my lightness.
birdan
11th December 2005 - 02:33 AM
It seems apparent to me after reading most of these posts that S. Bilderback is not of the ID/CS camp, but seems to be from the 'aliens did it' side of the fence. Biogenesis = alien droppings. I have no idea where his 'musings' go from there, but am assuming that since he seems keen on early life formation having some sort of 'motivation', that the evolutionary process also has some sort of E.T. 'motivation'.

How close am I, S. Bilderback?
S. Bilderback
11th December 2005 - 02:35 AM
QUOTE
You are the one lying about things you should understand. Biogenesis and evolution are two entirely seperate areas of study, Ihave explained this over and over but you continue to lie.


Grumpy:

You are wrong on this one, separated studies, yes, entirely, no.

There are two groups of of specialist but their work is interdependent, your argument is like saying chemistry and physics are not inter related - many of their aspects are dependent on each other.

End of argument!

One for Messenger!
S. Bilderback
11th December 2005 - 02:43 AM
QUOTE (birdan+Dec 11 2005, 02:33 AM)
It seems apparent to me after reading most of these posts that S. Bilderback is not of the ID/CS camp, but seems to be from the 'aliens did it' side of the fence. Biogenesis = alien droppings. I have no idea where his 'musings' go from there, but am assuming that since he seems keen on early life formation having some sort of 'motivation', that the evolutionary process also has some sort of E.T. 'motivation'.

How close am I, S. Bilderback?

On this forum I follow the science and only the science - my "opinions" posted are only to introduce new thoughts and alternative possibilities. It does not mean that I believe them.
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.