PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Abiogenesis is not...
       spontaneous generation

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One misunderstanding that some Creationists seem to have is between the ideas of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.  They often point to the experiments that Louis Pasteur conducted in 1859 to disprove the idea of spontaneous generation - the idea that life can spring forth from non-life.  Curiously, this was the same year Darwin publish his famous book describing natural selection and common descent.

Here's a nice brief history of the idea of spontaneous generation:

History of Spontaneous Generation

Some Creationists claim that by disproving spontaneous generation, abiogenesis is also disproved.

Nonsense!

Abiogenesis is not about spontaneous generation!  Abiogenesis concerns itself with how simple organic molecules can combine to form more complex molecules, and from there into proto-cells, and eventually evolve into living cells.

Abiogenesis is not really such an outrageous idea that some Creationists would have you think.  Simple lipid molecules can automatically arrange themselves in a spherical shape in water.  Amino acids have been shown to be available in meteorites and comets.  Sulfide compounds from volcanos and thermal vents  have been shown to assist in the formation of more complex organics.  Inorganic material, such as clay, may have provided a scaffolding for organic molecules to form.  

The conditions on the primordial earth were vastly different from conditions on earth today.  So you can't just say 'Well, why don't we see abiogenesis happening today?'  Life is already here.  

We don't have all the answers yet.  But the pieces of the puzzle are coming together.  And what of the day when we find life somewhere else?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:54 PM on February 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That day Creationists would have to make some serious upgrades to their fantasies.

About why don't we see life arising again everywhere it has been pointed out (not only by me) in this forum that organic protolife would probably be yummy to the old and always starving life.

We need to conduct experiments on other planets. Stack them with the self-replicating enzymes you mentioned, and some other ingredients on which they could evolve to feast on. That would be something!


(Edited by wisp 2/3/2009 at 12:18 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:11 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, you're blabbing about this subject in other threads. Why don't you dare to discuss it here?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:21 AM on December 12, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
Some Creationists claim that by disproving spontaneous generation, abiogenesis is also disproved.


Well essentially that is exactly what it does, in the absence of a demonstration that abiogenesis occurred long ago and far away over an extended period of time.

How do you plan to show us that abiogenesis happened? You can't just assume it, you know. That is not science. Where is your evidence?

Orion
Abiogenesis is not about spontaneous generation!  


Yes it is! Abiogenesis is just a nicer more cosy word for 'it happened so slowly and so long ago that any disproof of spontaneous generation can't touch our next best plausible story."

Once again, show me the evidence that life arose spontaneously, slow or fast, long ago and far away. I'd like to critique your evidence.
Thanking-you in anticipation.

Orion
Simple lipid molecules can automatically arrange themselves in a spherical shape in water.


As can soapy water arrange itself into spherical bubbles. That does not automatically presuppose that time and chemistry will produce the other necessary ingredients.
Do you see my point???

Orion
Amino acids have been shown to be available in meteorites and comets.


We can produce most amino-acids too you know, but they are still having trouble arranging themselves into the simplest life form by pure chemistry.
Do you see what I mean???

Orion
Sulfide compounds from volcanos and thermal vents  have been shown to assist in the formation of more complex organics.


And it's just a pure leap of faith from that point.
Any life been produced from that wondrous imaginary starting point yet?

Orion
The conditions on the primordial earth were vastly different from conditions on earth today.


Any evidence for that? Or is that just part of the wonderful story of life from chemical miracles?

I think that part of the story is the excuse for why we can't get life to arrange itself now.The conditions are all wrong, and we can't work out what they were back then. We just know they were different then, because nothing we do now produces life at all.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive...

Orion
We don't have all the answers yet.


Well at least you're right about that. Perhaps it'd help if you'd observe that you have the preconceived assumption of naturalism and no answers at all.
We know that life arose naturally because there is no creator.
We know that life arose naturally because it just has to be so.
We know life arose naturally because we're sure it couldn't have taken organization and planning, even despite the fact that all our organization and planing up to this point can't seem to produce life at all.

Whew, this is all looking so sad!

Orion
But the pieces of the puzzle are coming together.


No they're not - but your imaginary stories sure are collecting nicely.




(Edited by Lester10 12/13/2010 at 04:01 AM).


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:56 AM on December 13, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, the earth is billions of years old.  You cannot accept that fact.  So I find it useless to pursue the other arguments with you if you can't embrace basic concepts of science.  You have closed your mind to any sort of rational thought and reasoning.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:10 AM on December 13, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
Lester, the earth is billions of years old.  You cannot accept that fact.


Orion, I hate to burst your little bubble of delusion but radiometric dating is the only dating method that gets old dates out of the data and the only reason it manages that,  is because of the unprovable assumptions that are made.

Truth is there hasn't been enough time for evolution to have happened according to a lot of other dating techniques. I understand your need for radiometric dating to be true but today's the first day of the rest of your life and this is as good a day as any for you to start facing reality.

You seem to have essentially (or absolutely) skirted the issue of evidence for your claims that life only requires chemistry. Have you nothing to offer in defence of that little but popular delusion? Hmm... you're not having a good day but perhaps when you come out from behind the cloud you will start to see the sunshine.

Orion
I find it useless to pursue the other arguments with you if you can't embrace basic concepts of science.


Basic concepts or basic assumptions?

Orion
You have closed your mind to any sort of rational thought and reasoning.


Perhaps you should concentrate on getting the pole out of your own eye? I see a very large wood chip protruding from your left eyeball.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:30 AM on December 13, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Orion
Lester, the earth is billions of years old.  You cannot accept that fact.

Lester:
Orion, I hate to burst your little bubble of delusion but radiometric dating is the only dating method that gets old dates out of the data and the only reason it manages that,  is because of the unprovable assumptions that are made.

Nonsense Lester.  Anyone reading your replies can see that you are making empty assertions without providing any substance to back up those assertions.  That's all you ever do.  That's all you can ever do because there is no scientific basis of backing up you assertions.  

It takes more than blithely saying 'radiometric dating doesn't work'.  Why doesn't it work?  The basis of radiometric dating are based on observed physical and chemical properties of atoms.  

See, it's not just evolution you have a problem with... it's anything that contradicts your fallicious creationist views.  

So how about if you tell us why radiometric dating flawed instead of just saying that it is.  


Truth is there hasn't been enough time for evolution to have happened according to a lot of other dating techniques.


And what other dating techniques are you referring to?


I understand your need for radiometric dating to be true but today's the first day of the rest of your life and this is as good a day as any for you to start facing reality.


And what reality should I face up to, Lester?

Again, give us the reasons why radiometric dating is flawed.  That would be quite a feat, since you would have to overthrow basic principles in nuclear physics, chemistry, and the atomic theory.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:05 AM on December 13, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
Anyone reading your replies can see that you are making empty assertions without providing any substance to back up those assertions.  That's all you ever do.  That's all you can ever do because there is no scientific basis of backing up you assertions.  


Anybody interested in these arguments knows that radiometric dating is contentious. Those who care about the truth deliberate over those arguments and see the assumptions. Those who prefer the delusion pretend that there are no assumptions involved in radiometric dating. If they dare to admit that there are assumptions involved, they accept that the assumptions are valid for the sake of their precious worldview. The truth is that the assumptions are not verifiable nor can they be trusted since rocks of known age invariably come up with incorrect old age dates. This shows quite clearly that where verification is possible, radiometric dating (with the exception of short term carbon dating which has to be adjusted according to known verifiable historical dates) fails.

Why would we trust such a technique except for the reason that some people want to, in order to prop up their fairytales?

Do you admit that radiometric dating utilizes unverifiable assumptions???




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:15 AM on December 14, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:15 PM on December 13, 2010 :
Orion
Anyone reading your replies can see that you are making empty assertions without providing any substance to back up those assertions.  That's all you ever do.  That's all you can ever do because there is no scientific basis of backing up you assertions.  


Anybody interested in these arguments knows that radiometric dating is contentious.


So you say.

Those who care about the truth deliberate over those arguments and see the assumptions. Those who prefer the delusion pretend that there are no assumptions involved in radiometric dating.


The major assumptions being that radioactive decay is (with a few rare, explainable, and easily disregarded cases) constant, and that no supernatural intervention has taken place to cause false indications.

If they dare to admit that there are assumptions involved, they accept that the assumptions are valid for the sake of their precious worldview.


Care to provide some evidence otherwise?

The truth is that the assumptions are not verifiable nor can they be trusted since rocks of known age invariably come up with incorrect old age dates.


Why don't you trot out some old chestnuts about dating ultramafic inclusions or xenoliths?  Demonstrate for us again that your only talent is mining creationist websites for articles that you don't understand.  Why doesn't the RATE report use that line of reasoning?  Possibly they understand that the idea that xenoliths and the lava they are encased it aren't expected to have the same date?  They admit to evidence for hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay, they can only explain it by falling back to a miracle.  But then again, they have some vestige of intellectual honesty remaining.

This shows quite clearly that where verification is possible, radiometric dating (with the exception of short term carbon dating which has to be adjusted according to known verifiable historical dates) fails.


It shows clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about, why don't you make a big contribution to RATE 2?  



Do you admit that radiometric dating utilizes unverifiable assumptions???


Tell us how to measure whether or not a miracle has occurred.







(Edited by Apoapsis 12/14/2010 at 09:57 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:55 AM on December 14, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Anybody interested in these arguments knows that radiometric dating is contentious.
Apoapsis
So you say.


So does everybody that knows anything about this argument. Do you find this surprising?


Lester
Those who prefer the delusion pretend that there are no assumptions involved in radiometric dating
Apoapsis
The major assumptions being that radioactive decay is (with a few rare, explainable, and easily disregarded cases) constant, and that no supernatural intervention has taken place to cause false indications.


Well we know that the rate of radioactive decay has not necessarily always been constant. We only know what we can measure now.
We also know that there are ways to alter the rate, so cannot categorically deny the possibility that the rate has been different in the past.
That would not interest you though, because your old earth story relies on a constant rate of decay as well as no past incidences that might have caused an upset in those assumptions. It's no wonder you prefer not to recognize those assumptions as anything of importance.

Lester
If they dare to admit that there are assumptions involved, they accept that the assumptions are valid for the sake of their precious worldview.
Apoapsis
Care to provide some evidence otherwise?


The evidence is all over the place. Every time different minerals give different dates in the same rock. Every time carbon dating shows up positive for thousands of years in organic material locked in rocks supposed to be hundreds or thousands of millions of years old.
Every time young rocks date really old.

Excuses, excuses, excuses follow. Plausible stories for which date is correct and which ones are incorrect and why.
The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks and that's really how it all works in the end.

As I say this, I am not saying that this is done with malicious intent but it is done with religious faith in the story of life which evolutionists have concocted to replace the intelligent creator that science used to believe in.

Apoapsis
It shows clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about


Or else you are blind to the faith aspect of your religion.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:20 AM on December 15, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:20 AM on December 15, 2010 :

Well we know that the rate of radioactive decay has not necessarily always been constant.


WE know no such thing.  You need it to be true despite no evidence for it, and a vast amount of evidence against it.  To quote Larry Vardiman about the RATE project:"Of greater concern to both supporters and skeptics of the RATE project is the issue of how to dispose of the tremendous quantities of heat generated by accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood. The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth."

We only know what we can measure now.


I have measured some, have you?

We also know that there are ways to alter the rate, so cannot categorically deny the possibility that the rate has been different in the past.


Altered rates are not a problem for any isotopes used for radiometric dating.  Period.

How do you get rid of the heat Lester?  RATE calls for a miracle.  Why not just declare that the world was formed last Thursday and all of us created with extant memories of a non-existent prior existence?  If you need to rely on miracles to prop up your worldview, why not go all out?

That would not interest you though, because your old earth story relies on a constant rate of decay as well as no past incidences that might have caused an upset in those assumptions. It's no wonder you prefer not to recognize those assumptions as anything of importance.


Still waiting for some real evidence instead of creationist mumbling.  RATE admits that constant decay rates match the physical evidence better than accelerated decay.  Do you know more than they do?

The evidence is all over the place. Every time different minerals give different dates in the same rock.


If somebody tries to sell you a bag of flour contaminated with dirt, do you reject it?

Every time carbon dating shows up positive for thousands of years in organic material locked in rocks supposed to be hundreds or thousands of millions of years old.


What are the error bars on the measurement?  What is the threshold sensitivity of the equipment?

Every time young rocks date really old.


Trotting out the xenoliths again?  If this was such a good argument, why doesn't RATE use it?  Obviously you are more of an expert than they are, why don't you sign on with them and collect some cash?

Excuses, excuses, excuses follow. Plausible stories for which date is correct and which ones are incorrect and why.
The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks and that's really how it all works in the end.


What fossils are used to date meteorites?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:55 PM on December 15, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Well we know that the rate of radioactive decay has not necessarily always been constant.

Apoapsis
WE know no such thing.


You personally, perhaps not.
However, a few indicators that this is most likely so are:
C14 data contradicting 'millions of years'.

Radiohalos in granite plutons show that at least 100 million years worth of nuclear decay if current rates are assumed.

Presence of helium still within rocks which according to the known diffusion rate should have leaked out long ago given hypothetical long age dates.

Lester
We only know what we can measure now.
Apoapsis
I have measured some, have you?


That's really wonderful Apoapsis. And your point is... that I should ignore all anomalies pointed out by your opponents in this argument because your philosophy overrides my interest in the problems?
I know your bias and I know your presuppositions. I have seen the purposeful blindness in your camp. Imagine if Galileo had ignored the anomalies and followed the pied piper? New and interesting discoveries are most often made by following the anomalies rather than the party line.

My interest is in the truth and why evolutionists are fighting against it tooth and claw in an attempt to disallow anything but their particular religious view.
I will continue to follow the anomalies and you can continue to bury your head in the sand.

Apoapsis
Altered rates are not a problem for any isotopes used for radiometric dating.  Period.


They are because the entire technique depends on that assumption.

Apoapsis
If you need to rely on miracles to prop up your worldview, why not go all out?


You mean like your worldview's big bang from nothing and nowhere; your life from pure chemistry without an organizer for the code which we know exists? Those sorts of miracles prop up your worldview so why don't you just admit that you have a whole lot of faith of your own and stop pretending that you are the solid scientist.

Apoapsis
RATE admits that constant decay rates match the physical evidence better than accelerated decay.


No they don't. They're the ones that found the concentrated helium in the rocks. That does not match constant decay rates. Their whole point is to find the problems and work out the contradictions in the interests of science and the truth.

Lester
The evidence is all over the place. Every time different minerals give different dates in the same rock.
Apoapsis
If somebody tries to sell you a bag of flour contaminated with dirt, do you reject it?


That's a really lousy excuse Apoapsis; one of many that appear in evolutionists' writings. Whenever the dates don't correlate with what they want, it is often attributed to contamination. Why do they know it is contaminated? Because the dates don't match their prejudice.
Obviously contamination is not like dirt in the flour or nobody would send it in for testing in the first place. The contamination is only 'determined' after the testing in order to end up with a story that allows the fossils to rule. It's all in the bias.

Lester
Every time carbon dating shows up positive for thousands of years in organic material locked in rocks supposed to be hundreds or thousands of millions of years old.
Apoapsis
What are the error bars on the measurement?  What is the threshold sensitivity of the equipment?


Those are excuses, not explanations.

Lester
Every time young rocks date really old.

Apoapsis
Trotting out the xenoliths again?  


Excuses again Apoapsis? Must it be blamed on xenoliths every time it happens? Nothing else you have to offer?
















-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:45 AM on December 16, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




Lester
Well we know that the rate of radioactive decay has not necessarily always been constant.
 
Apoapsis
WE know no such thing.

Lester
You personally, perhaps not.
However, a few indicators that this is most likely so are:
C14 data contradicting 'millions of years'.

Radiohalos in granite plutons show that at least 100 million years worth of nuclear decay if current rates are assumed.

Presence of helium still within rocks which according to the known diffusion rate should have leaked out long ago given hypothetical long age dates.


Lester, too bad you don't read about work done by real scientists, otherwise you would jump all over the recent publishings a few months ago about possible solar activity on decay rates.  The jury is still out on this though, so don't get too excited.  And the variance observed is only a fraction of 1 %, not enough to impact radiometric dating techniques.

But you're too busy reading garbage by Humphreys and others.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:15 AM on December 16, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
Lester, too bad you don't read about work done by real scientists


Are only people that agree with your bias considered to be scientists?
What about all the others that disagree? Should we take their degrees away if they dissent from peer pressure?
Is this communism or science?

Orion
And the variance observed is only a fraction of 1 %, not enough to impact radiometric dating techniques.


But we still have all the other unverifiable assumptions. Let's not forget..




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:14 AM on December 16, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:45 PM on December 15, 2010 :
Lester
We only know what we can measure now.
Apoapsis
I have measured some, have you?


That's really wonderful Apoapsis. And your point is... that I should ignore all anomalies pointed out by your opponents in this argument because your philosophy overrides my interest in the problems?


My point is that you continually demonstrate that you have no background to enable you to evaluate claim of internet creationists.


Apoapsis
Altered rates are not a problem for any isotopes used for radiometric dating.  Period.


They are because the entire technique depends on that assumption.


No, it's because that's what the evidence indicates.  Where did the heat go Lester?  RATE needs a miracle to get rid of it, is that what you are claiming too?  They admit to evidence of hundreds of millions of years of decay.  What do you know that they don't?


Lester
The evidence is all over the place. Every time different minerals give different dates in the same rock.
Apoapsis
If somebody tries to sell you a bag of flour contaminated with dirt, do you reject it?


That's a really lousy excuse Apoapsis; one of many that appear in evolutionists' writings.


You have yet to display any ability to tell bad writing from good, so I suppose there is no reason to expect you to be any more discerning when you go to the store and they sell you a bag of half flour/half dirt.

Lester
Every time carbon dating shows up positive for thousands of years in organic material locked in rocks supposed to be hundreds or thousands of millions of years old.
Apoapsis
What are the error bars on the measurement?  What is the threshold sensitivity of the equipment?


Those are excuses, not explanations.


Spoken like someone who would use a car odometer to measure the clearance of the engine bearing.

Lester
Every time young rocks date really old.

Apoapsis
Trotting out the xenoliths again?  


Excuses again Apoapsis? Must it be blamed on xenoliths every time it happens? Nothing else you have to offer?


What fossils are used to date meteorites Lester?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:50 AM on December 16, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While we're on the subject of rocks, the majority of the minerals found on earth were formed as a result of life's evolution over time.  

From here:
Mineral Kingdom Has Co-Evolved With Life, Scientists Find


Evolution isn't just for living organisms. Scientists at the Carnegie Institution have found that the mineral kingdom co-evolved with life, and that up to two thirds of the more than 4,000 known types of minerals on Earth can be directly or indirectly linked to biological activity.
.
.
.
All the chemical elements were present from the start in the Solar Systems' primordial dust, but they formed comparatively few minerals. Only after large bodies such as the Sun and planets congealed did there exist the extremes of temperature and pressure required to forge a large diversity of mineral species. Many elements were also too dispersed in the original dust clouds to be able to solidify into mineral crystals.

As the Solar System took shape through "gravitational clumping" of small, undifferentiated bodies—fragments of which are found today in the form of meteorites—about 60 different minerals made their appearance. Larger, planet-sized bodies, especially those with volcanic activity and bearing significant amounts of water, could have given rise to several hundred new mineral species. Mars and Venus, which Hazen and coworkers estimate to have at least 500 different mineral species in their surface rocks, appear to have reached this stage in their mineral evolution.

However, only on Earth—at least in our Solar System—did mineral evolution progress to the next stages. A key factor was the churning of the planet's interior by plate tectonics, the process that drives the slow shifting continents and ocean basins over geological time. Unique to Earth, plate tectonics created new kinds of physical and chemical environments where minerals could form, and thereby boosted mineral diversity to more than a thousand types.

What ultimately had the biggest impact on mineral evolution, however, was the origin of life, approximately 4 billion years ago. "Of the approximately 4,300 known mineral species on Earth, perhaps two thirds of them are biologically mediated," says Hazen. "This is principally a consequence of our oxygen-rich atmosphere, which is a product of photosynthesis by microscopic algae." Many important minerals are oxidized weathering products, including ores of iron, copper and many other metals.

Microorganisms and plants also accelerated the production of diverse clay minerals. In the oceans, the evolution of organisms with shells and mineralized skeletons generated thick layered deposits of minerals such as calcite, which would be rare on a lifeless planet.

"For at least 2.5 billion years, and possibly since the emergence of life, Earth's mineralogy has evolved in parallel with biology," says Hazen. "One implication of this finding is that remote observations of the mineralogy of other moons and planets may provide crucial evidence for biological influences beyond Earth."


Makes perfectly good sense from an evolutionary perspective and an earth that is billions of years old.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:42 AM on December 16, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All the chemical elements were present from the start in the Solar Systems' primordial dust, but they formed comparatively few minerals. Only after large bodies such as the Sun and planets congealed did there exist the extremes of temperature and pressure required to forge a large diversity of mineral species. Many elements were also too dispersed in the original dust clouds to be able to solidify into mineral crystals.


This is a story Orion. It follows the story of the big bang from nothing at all. Can you recognize the difference between this fable and experimental science? Nobody was there and yet the story is told boldly and with no sense of shame on the presumption that no prior intelligence was required for the existence of matter.

Do you see that your story may be right or it may be wrong but it is still just a story right now and it is being presented as though it were scientific fact?
Think about it.  





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:26 AM on December 16, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:26 AM on December 16, 2010 :
All the chemical elements were present from the start in the Solar Systems' primordial dust, but they formed comparatively few minerals. Only after large bodies such as the Sun and planets congealed did there exist the extremes of temperature and pressure required to forge a large diversity of mineral species. Many elements were also too dispersed in the original dust clouds to be able to solidify into mineral crystals.


This is a story Orion. It follows the story of the big bang from nothing at all. Can you recognize the difference between this fable and experimental science? Nobody was there and yet the story is told boldly and with no sense of shame on the presumption that no prior intelligence was required for the existence of matter.

Do you see that your story may be right or it may be wrong but it is still just a story right now and it is being presented as though it were scientific fact?
Think about it.  


Let's see what the RATE committee has to say:The plate tectonics revolution of the 1960s brought to the geochemistry community, given the implied convective stirring taking place within the earth's mantle, the awareness that magmatic rocks from the seafloor and from ocean islands represent an important chemical probe into the earth's deeper interior.  Detailed analysis of such rocks, especially their trace element chemical compositions, over the last three and a half decades has revealed a great wealth of insight concerning the composition and probable history of our planet.  In particular, it has revealed that the Earth seems to be made from the same recipe of higher melting temperature elements as observed in the Sun, as well as in most meteorites.  Moreover, there seems to be a strong case that the earth has undergone significant chemical differentiation during its history.

Obviously Lester is more knowledgeable than Baumgardner.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:26 AM on December 16, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:56 AM on December 13, 2010 in the thread Life based on other elements?
bacteria replace phosphorus with arsenic
What did Pasteur disprove? Germs appearing in meat broth.

How does that disprove the second hypothesis?
Your second hypothesis remains imaginary in the absence of evidence. You need to demonstrate that it is true. So where is your demonstration?
That's not an answer.

YOU brought Pasteur up. I didn't bring up any evidence for Abiogenesis in this thread. I said nothing about it. Now, please, address what you dodged.
I take it you mean how does Pasteur's disproof of spontaneous generation disprove abiogenesis?
Yes, Lester. It's right there.
Well, it shows that life doesn't arise naturally.
No more than it shows that it doesn't arise supernaturally.

Did you get that?

Let me repeat it: Pasteur's experiments didn't disprove abiogenesis any more than they disproved magic sky daddies blinking life into existence.



You hypothesise
*Hypothesize.
that, given time, life would nonetheless arise naturally in a process called abiogenesis (the extended version of spontaneous generation). So I am asking for the evidence. Where is it?
You don't even know what "life" means, so what would it mean to offer you evidence for something you don't understand?

You are making a faith statement and somehow trying to pretend that that is science.
What faith statement? That life is all about chemistry?

It is a fact.

Science has to do with the observable and the repeatable.
It has been repeatedly observed that life is chemistry, and that you always lose.

Can you give me something scientific to back your hypothesis???
Yes: Life is chemistry.

Since we all know you don't have a demo for us then are we agreed that your viewpoint is based on faith in chemistry's ability to produce life spontaneously otherwise known as spontaneous generation?
No faith required. Chemistry still does the trick.
And your evidence is ...
What do you mean?

If you think you came about by a magic spell, i think i'm done with you.

I know you'll just vanish when you get spanked, as usual. And then you'll repeat the same PRATT in a new thread, like this one.
I really do hope you're going to present the evidence for abiogenesis and not simply try to avoid it as you are currently attempting to do.


Life is chemistry.

There are lots of steps prior to life out there that are excellent evidence for abiogenesis, but we don't actually need them for abiogenesis to be the null hypothesis.

Abiogenesis means that life (which you don't know squat about) first arose by chemistry, just like it kept doing it for billions of years afterwards.

To me it's as if you were asking me evidence that lava used to be hot in the past. Yeah, we do have it, but who says we need it to assume it was always hot?

Like I said before and I repeat: 'It's a cute story but entirely faith-based. '
Saying and repeating stuff is so very easy...

Chemistry is the only known source for life
Correction, chemical reactions occur according to known chemical principles. Life has never been demonstrated to occur due to chemical laws.
You are chemistry. Get over it.

If that were so, you would be able to point me to the demonstration of simple chemical reactions producing life.
Simple chemical reactions? Why no. Why would i try to demonstrate something i don't claim?

You're pathetic.

At the very least give me the demo of coded DNA arising due to simple chemical reactions.
At the very least stop making straw man fallacies or go away and never come back.

Ahem... You said "it's not just chemistry". That's a claim. You won't defend it. You lose.
There once again, one can't prove a negative.
Ahem... You said "it's not just chemistry". That's a claim. You won't defend it. You lose.
Show me that it IS just chemistry. You won't defend it. You lose
Are you asking for me to show you every single aspect of life in this thread?

It looks like it's up to you to bring up any supernatural aspect to it.

You tried, remember? You used to say that life violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Whatever happened to that demonstration?

Your sure can sound stupid when it suits you as you attempt to inappropriately hand over the burden of proof, huh Wisp???
The burden of proof is on you.

I'm saying that there is nothing else but chemistry. If i were to show that to you i would have to show you every single chemical reaction in the whole living world.

You're saying that there IS something else but chemistry. Well, show me.

Come if it's just chemistry, show me.
How do you propose for me to show you that?

Well, Lester, i present you the planet Earth.


Chemistry is all there is to life (well, and physics). You can revise it entirely. If you can find anything else but chemistry, and physics, and all that's known to men, you let us know.

HAVE FUN! ^_^

I'll even give you an unfair head start -you can intelligently organize the chemicals to produce life.
How generous.
It'll be cheating a bit but I'll accept it when life pops out as the appropriate chemicals are put together in one place.
Deal???
As i've already pointed out, you don't even know what life is.

As YOU have already pointed out, if such a thing ever happened you'll use it as evidence for intelligent design.

As EVERYBODY has pointed out, abiogenesis is not about life popping out. YOUR religion is about that.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:51 PM on December 16, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:37 AM on December 14, 2010 in the thread Life based on other elements?:
Firechild
No, that's not what Pasteur showed. Perhaps you should read up on it a bit more since you use it in your arguments so often. Pasteur showed that entire pre-existing organisms do not just pop up out of nowhere in such short times.
In actual fact, Pasteur demonstrated that life only comes from pre-existing life.
So he proved Creationism wrong?

Why thank you for the admission.

In other words, it does not just pop up spontaneously
Therefore he didn't disprove Abiogenesis, since it's not about anything "popping up".
or spontaneously generate.
Leaving tags aside, he demonstrated that life doesn't pop up. Abiogenesis solves that problem, and your conjecture about things popping up from the will of a magic sky daddy was disproved.

That being so, evolutionists like to imagine that life still does arrive spontaneously
Present tense.
(spontaneous generation),
Dishonest tag.
only very slowly and very long ago in the undemonstrable past.
Now it's about the past.

That is a faith statement and it is thus their religious belief.
"Lava was always hot".

Was that a faith statement, Lester?

I hope you do answer.

They believe that pure chemistry produces life
And physics, of course. It's not like chemicals are divorced from their physical properties.
under certain unknown circumstances
On Earth it did happen under certain circumstances (about which we don't know everything, and we probably never will). That doesn't mean that's the way it HAD to be, or that that's the way it happened or happens in the rest of the Universe. I'm pretty certain that there are lots of different circumstances that can give rise to life.

and they believe that one day they will know the secret of how it happened.
I don't.

Our knowledge keeps growing and growing, but it will never be complete. Honest people admit this. It's the religious nutjobs who claim to know "
THE TRUTH" (even though reality doesn't agree; even though their "truth" contains internal inconsistencies).

Science is comfortable accepting that not everything is known. That's what Science is actually all about: investigating what we don't know.


In the meantime they want me to believe that it happened, taken entirely upon their word.
Ahem... You?

No, Lester. Nobody cares about you.

I actually think you KNOW Evolution is real (and that's why you resort to dishonest arguments which you know are bogus).

I'm just here refuting the BS you wish you could sell to other people. Not to convince you of anything.

They are doing a great job convincing you but not everyone is convinced.
That's also true about the Earth not being flat.

Well, what can you do. As human knowledge advances some people are inevitably left behind.

The fact that they try to make their religion get accepted as 'science' is the biggest hoax of all, since they are riding on the reputation and coat tails of science while providing none of the requisite evidence.
What is the requisite evidence?

Oh, yeah... I remember... Life popping out in an instant (which is a straw man), or people making it (which you have admitted you'll use as evidence for ID).

The actual evidence is there, but you're not man enough to face it.
  • Cody, G. D. et al. 2000. Primordial carbonylated iron-sulfur compounds and the synthesis of pyruvate. Science 289: 1337-1340. See also Wächtershäuser, 2000 (below).
  • Ferris, J. P., A. R. Hill Jr., R. Liu and L. E. Orgel. 1996. Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces. Nature 381: 59-61.
  • Kuzicheva, E. A. and N. B. Gontareva. 1999. The possibility of nucleotide abiogenetic synthesis in conditions of 'KOSMOS-2044' satellite space flight. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 393-396.
  • Orgel, L. E. 1998. Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 227-34.
  • Rode, B. M., H. L. Son and Y. Suwannachot. 1999. The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 29: 273-86.
  • Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154: 377-402. http://www.gla.ac.uk/Project/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_articles.htm
  • Schueller, Gretel. 1998. Stuff of life. New Scientist 159(2151) (12 Sep.): 31-35, http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/astrobiology/stuffof.jsp


And even though the evidence is there, i still maintain that we don't need it for Abiogenesis to be the undisputed null hypothesis. We don't need evidence that Abiogenesis is true, anymore than we need evidence that lava was always hot, or that water always boiled at 100ºC under 1 atmosphere of pressure. We're just curious about how Abiogenesis happened here on Earth, and how it can happen elsewhere.

If you want to challenge the null hypothesis by introducing magic, then go ahead and show us magic. Put up or shut up.

Firechild
By saying "it's not just chemistry" you are making a positive claim that it IS something else. There you go Lester, you now have a positive claim to defend. Now is your time to bring in the evidence.
My evidence consists of at least 60 years of OOL experimentation that shows quite clearly that not only does life require organization
D'oh. Who says otherwise?
but that life is not just chemistry.
Try a little experiement for fun.
Catch a frog.
Put it in a blender.
Connect it to an energy outlet.
Press go.
Now you have a blended frog. It has all the ingredients for life and these ingredients are concentrated. You now have millions of non-living parts.
Um... Chemistry and Physics then? Is that it? Is that the extra element? Physics?

Who  or what is going to organize those proteins and fats and carbohydrates etc.  into life?
Nobody.

Can you man up, you pathetic dishonest loser, and leave your straw men aside? Because nobody says frogs came about by joining frog parts.

Do you imagine that these things just happen?
No, and you know it. So why do you even ask?

If they did, we would have seen chemistry produce something living over the past 60 odd years of experimentation.
Straw man: Nobody says it's likely to happen in 60 years in Petri dish sized environments.

How many years does it require for you to admit that magical beings don't conjure living things up?

Why is it that those experiments disprove abiogenesis but not creationism? Can you explain why?

So, Firechild, I have all the evidence that shows that life is NOT just chemistry.
Chemistry and Physics then?

Chemistry is just applied Physics anyway.


(Edited by wisp 12/16/2010 at 6:04 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:38 PM on December 16, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:30 AM on December 13, 2010 :
Truth is there hasn't been enough time for evolution to have happened according to a lot of other dating techniques.


I note that despite being asked to provide an example, as you so often do, you simply ignored that request in your response.

Provide an example for discussion or retract that claim as an act of desperation.

Failure to do either will not be a favorable response for your reputation.



(Edited by derwood 12/17/2010 at 5:27 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:40 AM on December 17, 2010 | IP
catstye cam

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp wrote....To me it's as if you were asking me evidence that lava used to be hot in the past. Yeah, we do have it, but who says we need it to assume it was always hot?


You can assume that lava was always hot because you can see that that is what happens now, and you also understand the process by which it is formed .
And unless there is evidence to the contrary, then you assume-reasonably-that it has always formed in the same way and it has always been hot.
But in the case of abiogenesis, you are looking for the emergence of life from non-life....and the problem with that is that, unlike lava formation, there are no instances of it happening now that you can observe.
It is therefore unreasonable to assume that  it happened in the past if you can't see it happening in the present, either naturally or in a lab.

As for that picture of 'The Empty Cage'....it is a total waste of time.
Why should God create something to put in that cage?
He has already created the entire universe  for you to reflect upon.
On top of that He has sent you messangers and prophets so that you would be in no doubt about what He requires from you.

And since you have rejected all of that, what makes you think that the sudden appearance of a creature or anything else in that little cage will make any difference to you?


 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 12:39 PM on December 17, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Catstye Cam:
But in the case of abiogenesis, you are looking for the emergence of life from non-life....and the problem with that is that, unlike lava formation, there are no instances of it happening now that you can observe.
It is therefore unreasonable to assume that  it happened in the past if you can't see it happening in the present, either naturally or in a lab.


Consider this: were conditions on earth the same 4 billion years ago as they are today?

In the process of Life's emergence here on earth, and subsequent evolution and radiation, Life has dramatically and radically changed earth's environment.  

As for OOL research - I see that we are making quite a bit of progress in understanding how it could have happened.  

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:27 PM on December 17, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WispWhat faith statement? That life is all about chemistry?

It is a fact.


That is a faith statement -' life is all about chemistry.' So why doesn't life arise without the coded messages in the genetic material and where did that come from?

Chemistry doesn't make code. There is no preferential bonding of nucleotide bases so how did they line up to produce coding for specific proteins?

Wisp
Leaving tags aside, he demonstrated that life doesn't pop up. Abiogenesis solves that problem


Solves the problem? What -with imagination?

Wisp
"Lava was always hot".

Was that a faith statement, Lester?

I hope you do answer.


'Lava was always hot' is a somewhat different type of statement to 'life arose out of pure chemistry long ago and far away.'

Can you see the difference?

Lester
They believe that pure chemistry produces life under certain unknown circumstances
Wisp
On Earth it did happen under certain circumstances (about which we don't know everything, and we probably never will).


Just as long as you can imagine that it happened without any organization, with no plan. That's faith Wisp.

The code naturally arose in the correct order to produce specific proteins of specific shapes that interact with specific other proteins that just happen to be complementary in shape and attractions such that interactions occur that are required for life. With no plan. Magic!

Wisp
I'm pretty certain that there are lots of different circumstances that can give rise to life.


On what grounds are you pretty sure Wisp? On the grounds that you're pretty sure there's no intelligence required to organize the parts?O the grounds that you imagine that chemistry is responsible even if we can't get chemistry to come anywhere near producing life? On the grounds that DNA exists and you have no idea how? Strong faith Wisp.

Wisp
Our knowledge keeps growing and growing, but it will never be complete. Honest people admit this.


It seems to me that where they lack knowledge, they make up for it with imagination which is not quite science, is it.

Honest people don't exclude the possibility of. intelligent planning a priori.

Honest people recognize the bias and don't try to force the purposeless universe on unsuspecting children in the name of science.

Honest people would say there are two major possiblities -planned and purposeful or unplanned and purposeless.

Honest people would want the evidences for and against both faith positions to be heard.

Honest people recognize their philosophy and distinguish it from their science.

I would like evidences for and against evolution to be heard. What do you think Wisp?

Wisp
It's the religious nutjobs who claim to know "THE TRUTH" (even though reality doesn't agree; even though their "truth" contains internal inconsistencies).


Well then you have perfectly described yourself as a religious nutjob Wisp. Congratulations for recognizing a proper definition, firmly placing yourself in that category. You claim that evolution definitely occurred (the truth) and you ignore all the internal inconsistencies that are screaming at you.

Should we teach the evidence for and against both sides Wisp? Or only your philosophy?

Wisp
Science is comfortable accepting that not everything is known. That's what Science is actually all about: investigating what we don't know.


I agree with that Wisp. For instance we can still learn a lot about Wasps. They exist and we can learn all about how they work anatomically, physiologically, biochemically... But why waste funding making up stories about how they might have evolved wings long ago and far away when there is no way of verifying such stories nor that it is even true in the first place? So, yes, science is good, not everything is known. We should carry on learning everything we can.

Lester
In the meantime they want me to believe that it happened, taken entirely upon their word.
Wisp
Ahem... You?

No, Lester. Nobody cares about you.


Ahem...me and everybody else on the planet Wisp. you want us all to believe in evolution. Admit it, you want to force your religious views on the entire world in the name of science and progress. That is what you are defending here, isn't it?
As for me, I am standing for examining all the evidence in the interests of the very great possibility that evolution is untrue. I'm presenting the opposing evidence to make people aware that there is some, even though they need to look for it and won't find it presented at school for the most part.

Once people are presented with arguments for both sides and understand that evolution is questionable at best, then my job is done. After that they are quite welcome to believe what they want because I cannot help them if they prefer the evolution philosophy. At least they know that it is not the evidence that is forcing them to believe it.

Wisp
I actually think you KNOW Evolution is real (and that's why you resort to dishonest arguments which you know are bogus).


I actually know that evolution is not real and that you are deeply deluded. Although you have no evidence that chemistry alone produced life, you like to believe that it did do that all on its own. Dream on Wisp!

Wisp
I'm just here refuting the BS you wish you could sell to other people. Not to convince you of anything.


Give me five Wisp! We're both here for the same reason, both convinced that we are right. Only difference is that I’m for teaching both sides, and you’re into communistic indoctrination. For you the questioning of your preferred religion is not an option and you are happy to ignore any evidence against your position and try to convince others that there is no contrary evidence worth considering.
That is dishonest.

wisp
The actual evidence is there, but you're not man enough to face it.
 Cody, G. D. et al. 2000. Primordial carbonylated iron-sulfur compounds and the synthesis of pyruvate. Science 289: 1337-1340. See also Wächtershäuser, 2000 (below).
 Ferris, J. P., A. R. Hill Jr., R. Liu and L. E. Orgel. 1996. Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces. Nature 381: 59-61.
 Kuzicheva, E. A. and N. B. Gontareva. 1999. The possibility of nucleotide abiogenetic synthesis in conditions of 'KOSMOS-2044' satellite space flight. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 393-396.
 Orgel, L. E. 1998. Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 227-34.
 Rode, B. M., H. L. Son and Y. Suwannachot. 1999. The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 29: 273-86.
 Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154: 377-402. http://www.gla.ac.uk/Project/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_articles.htm
 Schueller, Gretel. 1998. Stuff of life. New Scientist 159(2151) (12 Sep.): 31-35, http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/astrobiology/stuffof.jsp


Cute Wisp. But no evidence for life being pure chemistry. Where did DNA arise from. It doesn’t occur naturally. Where did the coding come from? Why can’t we make it arise naturally?

Wisp
i still maintain that we don't need it for Abiogenesis to be the undisputed null hypothesis.


Your religion should be the undisputed null hypothesis! Really? No evidence, just the null hypothesis?

Wisp
We don't need evidence that Abiogenesis is true, anymore than we need evidence that lava was always hot, or that water always boiled at 100ºC


Lava is always hot. Demonstrable.
Water boils at 100. Demonstrable.
Abiogenesis is true. Wisp’s religious opinion.

Can you see the difference at all???!!!


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:49 PM on December 17, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:20 AM on December 15, 2010 :

The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks and that's really how it all works in the end.


What fossils are used to date meteorites????



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:33 AM on December 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good one, Apoapsis.

Quote from Lester10 at 02:55 AM on December 15, 2010 in the thread Life based on other elements?
Firechild
To do such an experiment would demonstrate nothing more than gullibility. You always ask for observable evidence of formation of life, can you produce any observational evidence of a creator.
Yes, actually I can.
Suuure.
Look around you and you'll see the creation.
The thing is that you have no reasons to say such a thing.

You could also say you have evidence for ghosts, and when asked you could say that we're sorounded by them.

No, Lester. Your religious beliefs are not evidence.

Design requires a designer.
If that's true, then you have to demonstrate that there's design.

And the way to do it is not quoting people. It's demonstrating a designer.

Good luck.

Coding requires intelligent input and that is what we have in DNA.
If that's true, then you have to demonstrate the coding.

There was a thread about that. You cowardly run away. What, do you have anything else to add?

There is no chemical preference in the lineup of nucleotide bases in DNA and yet we have strings of meaningful coding.
How do you know about meaning?

Do we have to take your word for it?

If you have something on that, it sounds like it merits a thread of its own!

These strings code for proteins which fold very specifically into purposeful 3-d conglomerations which have PURPOSE in complex design  and in complicated and very precise, purposeful biochemical pathways -all of these are required for LIFE.
Um... And how do you know about their purpose?

I have no problem accepting precision.

Look:

This print matches something we can easily identify, with precision.

Does that mean the print has a purpose?

I mean... There is no preference in the lineup of those muddy molecules to produce this meaningful structure.

What? You don't understand mud language? It says "dog".

In actual fact, it's even MORE precise than that. It says "dog's foot". And you and i know that more precision means more intelligence. It's more impressive. Right?

Life is made up of a vast number of non-living parts, chemicals.
Let me remind you that you don't even know what life is. That fire is alive under your definition.
They are put together purposefully by bla bla bla
Uh oh! Unsupported assumption.

You're begging the question. That's exactly what you need to demonstrate. You can't assume it.

That you imagine these chemicals happened to come together by chance and pure chemical reaction is the height of lunacy but you have been trained to believe this lunacy as I once was.
Yeeeah, you were trained... Alright.

Turns out that chemical reactions aren't random. So your comment isn't even worth addressing.

I understand why you believe it
Sure you do. Because it's a fact. And you know it (even if you don't understand much of it).

You can't show me gravity nor energy but you know they are there by the effects that they have. The same with the creator, you know that intelligence was required simply by looking around you at the created things in this world.
Yeah... Who needs to study? Just read your Bible and look around. That's all it takes for you to know the truth. You just feel it deep in your heart.

The millions of non-flying parts of a Jumbo jet are useless for flying without intelligent organization.
Jumbo jets don't reproduce.
The same for every living organism. None of them are simple -not one.
1) "Simple" and "complex" are human tags.
2) That's not the issue here.

Every living organism has encoded DNA that determines how the parts must look and how they must be put together for life. That is my evidence.


Now you please show me pure chemistry producing encoded DNA.
DNA is produced by life, which is pure chemistry.

There you go.

You know what the ingredients are so throw them together and let's see chemistry work all on its own.
That's not how it works.

I bet you knew and were being dishonest.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:16 AM on December 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from catstye cam at 2:39 PM on December 17, 2010 :
To me it's as if you were asking me evidence that lava used to be hot in the past. Yeah, we do have it, but who says we need it to assume it was always hot?
You can assume that lava was always hot because you can see that that is what happens now,
You can assume life was always chemistry because you can see that is what happens now.
and you also understand the process by which it is formed .
We also understand the process by which life multiplies and changes, and that doesn't apply just to life. We also have prions and viruses. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to draw an impenetrable wall between life and non-life.

Life has metabolism, homeostasis, possesses a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, and reproduce (and populations have the capacity for adaptation, which derives from reproduction, and is not limited to life).

The first living being came from something that almost qualified, but not quite.

I know what came first: reproduction. The ability to make copies of itself. The second would be homeostasis, without which it can't get more complex.

Catstye, do you believe that viruses were intelligently designed?

And unless there is evidence to the contrary, then you assume-reasonably-that it has always formed in the same way and it has always been hot.
Ditto, about life and chemistry.
But in the case of abiogenesis, you are looking for the emergence of life from non-life....and the problem with that is that, unlike lava formation, there are no instances of it happening now that you can observe.
I wasn't talking about Abiogenesis. I was talking about life always having been chemistry.

Do you have any reasons to believe it wasn't always like that? Do you see something supernatural happening with life now?

It is therefore unreasonable to assume that  it happened in the past if you can't see it happening in the present, either naturally or in a lab.
You were born. That won't happen again.

Is it unreasonable to assume that it happened in the past if you don't see it in the present or in a lab?

As for that picture of 'The Empty Cage'....it is a total waste of time.
I know.
Why should God create something to put in that cage?
No reason (same with life on Earth). I was just being an a$s, just like you guys when you demand for Abiogenesis to happen in a Petri dish, or in a friggin' peanut butter jar.


What, you're allowed to be a$ses and we're not?

He has already created the entire universe  for you to reflect upon.
What's asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence.

On top of that He has sent you messangers and prophets so that you would be in no doubt about what He requires from you.
No doubt?

I doubt that.

And since you have rejected all of that, what makes you think that the sudden appearance of a creature or anything else in that little cage will make any difference to you?
I know you religious people always make excuses for your gods, and for reality, since it happens as if your myths were exactly that.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:52 AM on December 18, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

LesterThe millions of non-flying parts of a Jumbo jet are useless for flying without intelligent organization.
Wisp
Jumbo jets don't reproduce


I know. It’s enough for us just to design the Jumbo jet. We have no idea how to program it to reproduce as well. We must be quite retarded next to the designer who designed our genetic program.

Wisp
1) "Simple" and "complex" are human tags.
That's not the issue here.


Complex is not a tag. It has to do with myriads of interconnecting parts in living organisms. Even a so-called ‘simple’ cell is extraordinarily complex.

Wisp
DNA is produced by life, which is pure chemistry.

There you go.


DNA is programmed to produce life. It is reproduced according to a program , it does not produce itself.

Lester
You know what the ingredients are so throw them together and let's see chemistry work all on its own.
Wisp
That's not how it works.


My point. It must not be natural then.

Wisp
You can assume life was always chemistry because you can see that is what happens now.


But life only comes from pre-existing life as far back as we know. So obviously something is wrong if no life is ‘emerging’ from pure chemicals today. Perhaps the first life was created after all? Perhaps some intelligent input went into it? You just can’t escape that possibility, no matter how stupid you want to pretend to be.

Wisp
We also understand the process by which life multiplies and changes


We also know how a wasp works and grows and reproduces BUT we just can’t seem to make one ourselves. No matter how well we put all the requisite parts together, they just don’t come from anything but pre-existing wasps. You have no scientifically defensible reason to suggest that a living organism is JUST chemistry. Saying it is, does not substitute for evidence.

Wisp
The first living being came from something that almost qualified, but not quite.


Fable, myth, philosophy. No evidence for that whatsoever.

Wisp
What's asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence.


Like abiogenesis.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:04 AM on December 18, 2010 | IP
catstye cam

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion  wrote...

Consider this: were conditions on earth the same 4 billion years ago as they are today?

In the process of Life's emergence here on earth, and subsequent evolution and radiation, Life has dramatically and radically changed earth's environment.


OK. So how does that give us the right to assume that abiogenesis happened  in the past, in the way that we assume that lava was always hot, which was what Wisp was suggesting?

As for OOL research - I see that we are making quite a bit of progress in understanding how it could havehappened.


If the aim of those researching this field is to discover how it could have happened, and if their written work presents it in this light...all well and good.
Somehow I don't think that's likely to happen.



 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 1:15 PM on December 19, 2010 | IP
catstye cam

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp wrote....

The first living being came from something that almost qualified, but not quite.


Why don't they do Miller-type experiments with viruses, then?

They could become even more famous than fruitflies.

do you believe that viruses were intelligently designed?

Do you mean, did God design them....yes.


 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 1:45 PM on December 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:49 AM on December 18, 2010 :
What faith statement? That life is all about chemistry?

It is a fact.
That is a faith statement -' life is all about chemistry.'
No, it's a fact. We can provide innumerable demonstrations, and you will never be able to provide any exceptions.

Here:

That's the structure of human hemoglobin. It's chemistry.

Your turn. Show me magic.

So why doesn't life arise without the coded messages in the genetic material
Because reality doesn't have to sustain your superstitions.
and where did that come from?
It doesn't exist.
Chemistry doesn't make code.
Alright. Then DNA is not a code. It's an acid.

Man, you will never win an argument by tagging reality. Facts. Show me facts. Not tags.

There is no preferential bonding of nucleotide bases so how did they line up to produce coding for specific proteins?
When? Where? In your own body?

Leaving tags aside, he demonstrated that life doesn't pop up. Abiogenesis solves that problem.
Solves the problem?
Yes.
What -with imagination?
No need to imagine anything specific. We've learned that life is chemistry. And that's fact, not imagination, as i've shown you.

"Lava was always hot".

Was that a faith statement, Lester?

I hope you do answer.
'Lava was always hot' is a somewhat different type of statement to 'life arose out of pure chemistry long ago and far away.'
Woah! You did answer!

Well, kind of...
Can you see the difference?
No. And if you could see a relevant difference you would have named it.

They believe that pure chemistry produces life under certain unknown circumstances
On Earth it did happen under certain circumstances (about which we don't know everything, and we probably never will).
Just as long as you can imagine that it happened without any organization, with no plan. That's faith Wisp.
Blah blah blah.

You used a straw man. We don't say life arises under certain circumstances. They don't have to be certain (even though there must be some commonalities in the way life arises).

The code naturally arose in the correct order to produce specific proteins of specific shapes that interact with specific other proteins that just happen to be complementary in shape and attractions such that interactions occur that are required for life. With no plan. Magic!
The "
code" (if by that you mean something purposeful) is in your head. So you're using a straw man. We make no claims about such a superstition.

And your projection is pathetic. You accuse us of believing in magic, when only you do.

You believe in deities and witches (and ghosts). You believe in golem spells, magic wands and incantations (they're in your Bible).

Your accusation can very well be paraphrased as "
You believe that life arose by chemistry without magic. Magic!"


It's very sad what a religion can do to a human mind.


I'm pretty certain that there are lots of different circumstances that can give rise to life.
On what grounds are you pretty sure Wisp?
First: Do you admit that you used a straw man?

You always do that.
  • You use a straw man.

  • We expose it, and clarify what we truly say.

  • You then make a softer attack on what we truly say (usually just a dumb question or questions), and forget about your straw man entirely, without ever taking responsibility.



Our knowledge keeps growing and growing, but it will never be complete. Honest people admit this.
It seems to me that bla bla bla bla
I don't care.

Honest people don't exclude the possibility of. intelligent planning a priori.
Huh?

To me it sounds like "
Honest people don't exclude flying spaghetti monsters a priori".

If you propose something, show us evidence for it. We need reasons to include things. If you have none, then shut up.

Honest people recognize the bias and don't try to force the purposeless universe on unsuspecting children in the name of science.
You're crazy.

Science doesn't maintain or deny a purpose in the Universe. It can deny YOUR particular myth, just if it conflicts with Science.
If YOUR particular myth does conflict with Science, well that's too bad. But you can't pretend Science denies purpose to the Universe (even if smart Science-oriented people oftentimes think it doesn't have one).

If you say "
2+2=3 and the Universe has purpose", the field of Mathematics didn't disprove that the Universe may have a purpose. It just debunked your notion. That's all. Deal with it the best you can, but don't try to sell your lies to smart people.

Honest people would say there are two major possiblities -planned and purposeful or unplanned and purposeless.
I propose another division: Either the Universe is a computational simulation made from the transcript from the result of billions of hiperspatial monkeys typing at random, or not.


It either is, or it isn't.

Are you honest enough to admit this dichotomy?

Honest people would want the evidences for and against both faith positions to be heard.
Yes. People would want the evidence for and against both.

And i've seen no evidence against the typing hiperspatial monkey hypothesis nor in favor of the monkey-free hypothesis.

Honest people recognize their philosophy and distinguish it from their science.
Do you recognize that you have a monkey-free philosophy regarding the origin of the Universe and humanity?

I would like evidences for and against evolution to be heard. What do you think Wisp?
Of course.

Take the huge list of threads we've started showing our evidence. Take a look at the list of one item of the threads you started (whose title is "Who's denying the evidence", and didn't include a single shred of evidence), or at the list of pieces of evidence that you named but never supported:
Quote from Lester10 at 10:16 AM on August 7, 2010 in the thread Lester's pieces of evidence:
Evidence for Creation:

Fossil record
Information
Life
Design
Degeneration of Genome via mutation
Limits of variability
Loss of information in Speciation
Irreducible complexity
Intellect
Emotions
History
Dragon legends
Coelocanth survives unchanged for imaginary 400 million years
Living fossils -unchanged for hundreds of millions of years
No evidence for gradualism
No evidence for natural origin of life
No evidence for macroevolution
Emotionalism of evolutionists in protection of their religion
Personal attacks preferred to scientific arguments as evolution modus operandi
Assumptions abound
Just-so stories
Etc etc etc etc


Oh, and against Evolution... I don't think there's any.

But if you do have it, feel free to start a thread. We'll jump right in.

It's the religious nutjobs who claim to know "THE TRUTH" (even though reality doesn't agree; even though their "truth" contains internal inconsistencies).
Well then you have perfectly described yourself as a religious nutjob Wisp.
I never claimed to know THE TRUTH. So you're either delusional, or lying, or probably both.
Congratulations for recognizing a proper definition, firmly placing yourself in that category. You claim that evolution definitely occurred (the truth) and you ignore all the internal inconsistencies that are screaming at you.
You mean this?
Quote from Lester10 at 10:16 AM on August 7, 2010 in the thread Lester's pieces of evidence:
Evidence for Creation:

Fossil record
Information
Life
Design
Degeneration of Genome via mutation
Limits of variability
Loss of information in Speciation
Irreducible complexity
Intellect
Emotions
History
Dragon legends
Coelocanth survives unchanged for imaginary 400 million years
Living fossils -unchanged for hundreds of millions of years
No evidence for gradualism
No evidence for natural origin of life
No evidence for macroevolution
Emotionalism of evolutionists in protection of their religion
Personal attacks preferred to scientific arguments as evolution modus operandi
Assumptions abound
Just-so stories
Etc etc etc etc


Should we teach the evidence for and against both sides Wisp? Or only your philosophy?
False dichotomy. You lose.

Next PRATT.

Science is comfortable accepting that not everything is known. That's what Science is actually all about: investigating what we don't know.
I agree with that Wisp.
It doesn't really matter. You don't even know what Science is.
For instance we can still learn a lot about Wasps. They exist and we can learn all about how they work anatomically, physiologically, biochemically... But why waste funding making up stories about how they might have evolved wings long ago and far away when there is no way of verifying such stories nor that it is even true in the first place?
We make predictions (yes, i include myself) of future findings based on the Theory of Evolution.

That's how you put a theory to the test.

Why don't you try it with your supernatural conjecture?

In the meantime they want me to believe that it happened, taken entirely upon their word.
Ahem... You?

No, Lester. Nobody cares about you.
Ahem...me and everybody else on the planet Wisp. you want us all to believe in evolution.
You?

1) You already know the fact of Evolution.
2) I still don't care.

Admit it, you want to force your religious views on the entire world in the name of science and progress. That is what you are defending here, isn't it?


When it suits you, it's a philosophy, or a religion, or magic. And, of course, you can't back up any of those.

As for me, I am standing for examining all the evidence in the interests of the very great possibility that evolution is untrue.
You mean this?
Quote from Lester10 at 10:16 AM on August 7, 2010 in the thread Lester's pieces of evidence:
Evidence for Creation:

Fossil record
Information
Life
Design
Degeneration of Genome via mutation
Limits of variability
Loss of information in Speciation
Irreducible complexity
Intellect
Emotions
History
Dragon legends
Coelocanth survives unchanged for imaginary 400 million years
Living fossils -unchanged for hundreds of millions of years
No evidence for gradualism
No evidence for natural origin of life
No evidence for macroevolution
Emotionalism of evolutionists in protection of their religion
Personal attacks preferred to scientific arguments as evolution modus operandi
Assumptions abound
Just-so stories
Etc etc etc etc



I'm presenting the opposing evidence
Is that so?

When? Where?

Or you think that mentioning your amazing evidence amounts to presenting it?
to make people aware that there is some, even though they need to look for it and won't find it presented at school for the most part.
Nor in your posts. Nor anywhere.

You just name it, and your work is done. Right?

Once people are presented with arguments for both sides
When you say "
both sides" you make it sound like a dichotomy that has more to it than my dichotomy about the typing monkeys and the monkey free philosophy.
and understand that evolution is questionable at best, then my job is done.
You're talking about arguments (against straw man caricatures). What about the evidence? Against what we truly say, and in favor of your supernatural conjecture, please.

After that they are quite welcome to believe what they want because I cannot help them if they prefer the evolution philosophy.
I thought it was a religion.

Are you that confused, Les?

At least they know that it is not the evidence that is forcing them to believe it.


I'm tired of talking about talking about evidence.


I actually think you KNOW Evolution is real (and that's why you resort to dishonest arguments which you know are bogus).
I actually know that evolution is not real and that you are deeply deluded.
I don't buy it.

You know Evolution is a fact, but you feel it's an evil fact and other people have to remain ignorant about it.

Although you have no evidence that chemistry alone produced life, you like to believe that it did do that all on its own. Dream on Wisp!
I do have it, and i presented it, even though i don't need it.

Seriously. I don't. It's the default position. It's the null hypothesis. Life is chemistry now, and we have no reason to propose it used to be magic. None whatsoever.

If you say there's anything more to it than that, you show us. Otherwise, you're defeated.

I'm just here refuting the BS you wish you could sell to other people. Not to convince you of anything.


Give me five Wisp! We're both here for the same reason, both convinced that we are right.
I don't buy it.

Even your poor intelligence is enough to see the simple and clear facts we've shown you. You know life is structured as a tree. You admitted it inadvertently when you accepted that ungulates are mammals.

Do you admit that there are two groups of ungulates (odd-toed and even-toed)? Even if you don't, you accepted the description of a detail of the big tree.

You accepted that mammals exist, and they are a branch of animals. You have accepted that marsupials exist, that ungulates exist... Well, that's a tree, whether you like it or not.

You have admitted all of those branches (and many more), whether you like it or not.

And don't even try to deny them now. You'll just look even more stupid.

And don't try a red herring either, saying "
But it doesn't mean Evolution is true". What it does mean is that you've been wrong each time you denied the tree. It also means that the Theory of Evolution does explain a fact which you try to deny.

I have discussions with honest creationists as well. When i show them that they already know the tree, they get surprised. They try to explain it; not to deny what it's obviously true.

I ask them "Do you think your deity likes tree-like patterns?". Sometimes they answer "
Well... That's what it looks like, yeah."

Those are honest people, and i respect them for that, even if they're not very bright.

Only difference is that I’m for teaching both sides, and you’re into communistic indoctrination.
Your classification of "
sides" is moronic. And you couldn't teach any side, because you don't know enough about them.

Your side contains "
kinds". Can you teach us about them?

For you the questioning of your preferred religion
I thought it was a philosophy.
is not an option and you are happy to ignore any evidence against your position and try to convince others that there is no contrary evidence worth considering.
That is dishonest.


You mean this?
Quote from Lester10 at 10:16 AM on August 7, 2010 in the thread Lester's pieces of evidence:
Evidence for Creation:

Fossil record
Information
Life
Design
Degeneration of Genome via mutation
Limits of variability
Loss of information in Speciation
Irreducible complexity
Intellect
Emotions
History
Dragon legends
Coelocanth survives unchanged for imaginary 400 million years
Living fossils -unchanged for hundreds of millions of years
No evidence for gradualism
No evidence for natural origin of life
No evidence for macroevolution
Emotionalism of evolutionists in protection of their religion
Personal attacks preferred to scientific arguments as evolution modus operandi
Assumptions abound
Just-so stories
Etc etc etc etc


Any plans of supporting any of that?

The actual evidence is there, but you're not man enough to face it.
  • Cody, G. D. et al. 2000. Primordial carbonylated iron-sulfur compounds and the synthesis of pyruvate. Science 289: 1337-1340. See also Wächtershäuser, 2000 (below).
  • Ferris, J. P., A. R. Hill Jr., R. Liu and L. E. Orgel. 1996. Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces. Nature 381: 59-61.
  • Kuzicheva, E. A. and N. B. Gontareva. 1999. The possibility of nucleotide abiogenetic synthesis in conditions of 'KOSMOS-2044' satellite space flight. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 393-396.
  • Orgel, L. E. 1998. Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 227-34.
  • Rode, B. M., H. L. Son and Y. Suwannachot. 1999. The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 29: 273-86.
  • Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154: 377-402. http://www.gla.ac.uk/Project/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_articles.htm
  • Schueller, Gretel. 1998. Stuff of life. New Scientist 159(2151) (12 Sep.): 31-35, http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/astrobiology/stuffof.jsp


And even though the evidence is there, i still maintain that we don't need it for Abiogenesis to be the undisputed null hypothesis. We don't need evidence that Abiogenesis is true, anymore than we need evidence that lava was always hot, or that water always boiled at 100ºC under 1 atmosphere of pressure. We're just curious about how Abiogenesis happened here on Earth, and how it can happen elsewhere.

If you want to challenge the null hypothesis by introducing magic, then go ahead and show us magic. Put up or shut up.
Cute Wisp. But no evidence for life being pure chemistry.
You're dumbly asking for evidence for a most basic fact.

If you say there IS anything more to life than chemistry, YOU show it to us.

Show us a teleporting unicorn or something.

Where did DNA arise from.
That's a red herring.

The fact is that DNA is an acid. It's chemistry. If that's what you have against the fact that life is chemical, then you lose.
It doesn’t occur naturally.
Yes, it does. All the time.
Where did the coding come from?
Your imagination.

Unless you mean this:


That's man made.

Why can’t we make it arise naturally?
Sharpshooter's fallacy.

If your parents produced a Lester, why couldn't they produce another one?

Next PRATT!

i still maintain that we don't need it for Abiogenesis to be the undisputed null hypothesis.
Your religion
I thought it was a philosophy.
should be the undisputed null hypothesis! Really?
I don't know if it SHOULD. I know that it is.
No evidence, just the null hypothesis?
Yes.

By the way, we do have the evidence (that we don't need for it to be the null hypothesis).

We don't need it, and we have it anyway.
You need evidence on the contrary, and you have nothing.

So sad...

We don't need evidence that Abiogenesis is true, anymore than we need evidence that lava was always hot, or that water always boiled at 100ºC
Lava is always hot. Demonstrable.
I said "WAS always hot".

And life is always chemistry. Demonstrable.

Water boils at 100. Demonstrable.
Hahaha! You ignorant hillbilly!

Water doesn't always boil at 100ºC. You misquoted me.

Abiogenesis is true. Wisp’s religious opinion.
"Abiogenesis" is a human tag for an arbitrary part of the same process, which started with heredity.

THAT's what i'm interested in. And it happened long before life. And this is obvious because some non living chemical processes do present this trait as well.

Can you see the difference at all???!!!
No. And if you could, you would show it.



DODGING TIME!


In actual fact, Pasteur demonstrated that life only comes from pre-existing life.
So he proved Creationism wrong?


They are doing a great job convincing you but not everyone is convinced.
That's also true about the Earth not being flat.


Firechild
By saying "it's not just chemistry" you are making a positive claim that it IS something else. There you go Lester, you now have a positive claim to defend. Now is your time to bring in the evidence.
My evidence consists of at least 60 years of OOL experimentation that shows quite clearly that not only does life require organization
D'oh. Who says otherwise?
but that life is not just chemistry.
Try a little experiement for fun.
Catch a frog.
Put it in a blender.
Connect it to an energy outlet.
Press go.
Now you have a blended frog. It has all the ingredients for life and these ingredients are concentrated. You now have millions of non-living parts.
Um... Chemistry and Physics then? Is that it? Is that the extra element? Physics?

Who  or what is going to organize those proteins and fats and carbohydrates etc.  into life?
Nobody.

Can you man up, you pathetic dishonest loser, and leave your straw men aside? Because nobody says frogs came about by joining frog parts.
Apparently, no, you can't, so you dodged it.
Do you imagine that these things just happen?
No, and you know it. So why do you even ask?

If they did, we would have seen chemistry produce something living over the past 60 odd years of experimentation.
Straw man: Nobody says it's likely to happen in 60 years in Petri dish sized environments.

How many years does it require for you to admit that magical beings don't conjure living things up?

Why is it that those experiments disprove abiogenesis but not creationism? Can you explain why?

So, Firechild, I have all the evidence that shows that life is NOT just chemistry.
Chemistry and Physics then?

Chemistry is just applied Physics anyway.


(Edited by wisp 12/19/2010 at 11:07 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:03 PM on December 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, and you admit that humans are alive and that we're placental mammals, so you know where to put us in that graphic.

You don't admit that we're primates (for some reason stupid enough to admit we're mammals but not that we're animals), so primates go as a separate branch also stemming from placental mammals, and then branching off.

You have admitted to all of this.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:13 PM on December 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from catstye cam at 3:45 PM on December 19, 2010 :
The first living being came from something that almost qualified, but not quite.
Why don't they do Miller-type experiments with viruses, then?
What would you like for them to develop so that you'd call them "alive"?

I know what they lack. Do you? Is it really important? If you think viruses are intelligently designed (as you say down there), why does it matter?

Why do you make arguments about the origin of life as if it was an important point, when you believe that much simpler things are intelligently designed as well?

do you believe that viruses were intelligently designed?
Do you mean, did God design them....yes.
Looks like he didn't love us that much then.

So... Prions too, right? They reproduce, they evolve, they infect... They have all the "information" needed to do all that. So they must be intelligently designed as well. Correct?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:07 AM on December 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:04 AM on December 18, 2010 :
The millions of non-flying parts of a Jumbo jet are useless for flying without intelligent organization.
Jumbo jets don't reproduce
I know.
Then why do you mention them?

Oh, right... The dishonesty.

It’s enough for us just to design the Jumbo jet.
Life is nothing like Jumbo jets.
We have no idea how to program it to reproduce as well.
Do you expect me to answer to this stupidity?
We must be quite retarded next to the designer who designed our genetic program.
1) "Simple" and "complex" are human tags.
2) That's not the issue here.
Complex is not a tag.
It is a tag. And you decide what qualifies and what doesn't putting an imaginary division anywhere you want.
It has to do with myriads of interconnecting parts in living organisms.
Oh... Myriads! Of course! THAT's how you measure it!


Now that we cleared that up, i have another doubt.

Imagine the least complex thing that would need intelligent intervention according to your well laid out classification. What prevents something almost as complex from gaining a little bit of complexity and exceeding the limit?

I hope it's not the 2LoT!

Even a so-called ‘simple’ cell is extraordinarily complex.
Therefore, magic.

DNA is produced by life, which is pure chemistry.

There you go.
DNA is programmed to produce life.
Wait... And programs need programmers! Woah!

It is reproduced according to a program , it does not produce itself.
If by "
program" you mean something that requires human or superhuman intelligence, i'll ask you to demonstrate the program.

Good luck.

You know what the ingredients are so throw them together and let's see chemistry work all on its own.
That's not how it works.
My point.
Then stop using your straw men.

Oh, right, you're nothing without them...

What you fail to notice is that you're nothing with them either.

It must not be natural then.
Try to make that syllogism more clear next time.

You can assume life was always chemistry because you can see that is what happens now.
But life only comes from pre-existing life as far back as we know.
No deities, mind you.
So obviously something is wrong if no life is ‘emerging’ from pure chemicals today.
When something is only obvious for the morons, you have to wonder...

Man, your PRATT is tiresome. Here:
Quote from wisp at 02:11 AM on February 3, 2009 IN THIS VERY FRIGGIN THREAD:
About why don't we see life arising again everywhere it has been pointed out (not only by me) in this forum that organic protolife would probably be yummy to the old and always starving life.

We need to conduct experiments on other planets. Stack them with the self-replicating enzymes you mentioned, and some other ingredients on which they could evolve to feast on. That would be something!


Perhaps the first life was created after all?
By someone who made it look like he didn't exist?

Yeah, perhaps. But unless you present something to support that conjecture, there's no need to talk about it.

Perhaps some intelligent input went into it?
Ditto.
You just can’t escape that possibility, no matter how stupid you want to pretend to be.


When you have something to present, we can talk about it. Meanwhile,

We also understand the process by which life multiplies and changes
We also know how a wasp works and grows and reproduces BUT we just can’t seem to make one ourselves. No matter how well we put all the requisite parts together, they just don’t come from anything but pre-existing wasps.
What are "wasps"?

Are you talking about a kind?

Anyway, wasps came from preexisting hymenoptera, which came from preexisting neoptera insects, which came from preexisting arthropods.

And you can go up the branch too. Wasps diversified. A lot. One population of wasps evolved into ants.

And if you say "
No, because wasps are wasps and ants are ants", you're once more talking about human tags.

This is called "velvet ant":


It's a wasp. And it's called "velvet ant". So it's an ant that came from wasps!

You lose even at the language level!

You have no scientifically defensible reason to suggest that a living organism is JUST chemistry. Saying it is, does not substitute for evidence.
You silly infant!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry

Biochemistry is the study of chemical processes in living organisms. Biochemistry governs all living organisms and living processes. By controlling information flow through biochemical signalling and the flow of chemical energy through metabolism; biochemical processes give rise to the seemingly magical phenomenon of life. Much of biochemistry deals with the structures and functions of cellular components such as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids and other biomolecules although increasingly processes rather than individual molecules are the main focus. Over the last 40 years biochemistry has become so successful at explaining living processes that now almost all areas of the life sciences from botany to medicine are engaged in biochemical research. Today the main focus of pure biochemistry is in understanding how biological molecules give rise to the processes that occur within living cells which in turn relates greatly to the study and understanding of whole organisms.

Contents

   * 1 History
   * 2 Monomers and polymers
         o 2.1 Carbohydrates
         o 2.2 Lipids
         o 2.3 Proteins
         o 2.4 Nucleic acids
   * 3 Carbohydrates
         o 3.1 Monosaccharides
         o 3.2 Disaccharides
         o 3.3 Oligosaccharides and polysaccharides
         o 3.4 Use of carbohydrates as an energy source
               + 3.4.1 Glycolysis (anaerobic)
               + 3.4.2 Aerobic
               + 3.4.3 Gluconeogenesis
   * 4 Proteins
   * 5 Lipids
   * 6 Nucleic acids
   * 7 Relationship to other "molecular-scale" biological sciences
   * 8 See also
         o 8.1 Lists
         o 8.2 Related topics
   * 9 Notes
   * 10 References
   * 11 Further reading
   * 12 External links


You're so lost in your delusion...

The first living being came from something that almost qualified, but not quite.
Fable, myth, philosophy. No evidence for that whatsoever.
No problem with that whatsoever.

And you could never point out any problems to it, since you don't even know what life is.

You're THAT clueless.

What's asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence.
Like abiogenesis.
Life is chemistry. "Abiogenesis" is just the human tag with which we name a stage of a process that always consisted of chemistry.

And we say this because we have no reasons whatsoever to believe it ever was anything else but chemistry, as it's still chemistry today.

Now let's see your dodges:


Quote from wisp at 05:16 AM on December 18, 2010 :
Quote from Lester10 at 02:55 AM on December 15, 2010 in the thread Life based on other elements?
Firechild
To do such an experiment would demonstrate nothing more than gullibility. You always ask for observable evidence of formation of life, can you produce any observational evidence of a creator.
Yes, actually I can.
Suuure.
Look around you and you'll see the creation.
The thing is that you have no reasons to say such a thing.

You could also say you have evidence for ghosts, and when asked you could say that we're sorounded by them.

No, Lester. Your religious beliefs are not evidence.

Design requires a designer.
If that's true, then you have to demonstrate that there's design.

And the way to do it is not quoting people. It's demonstrating a designer.

Good luck.

Coding requires intelligent input and that is what we have in DNA.
If that's true, then you have to demonstrate the coding.

There was a thread about that. You cowardly run away. What, do you have anything else to add?

There is no chemical preference in the lineup of nucleotide bases in DNA and yet we have strings of meaningful coding.
How do you know about meaning?

Do we have to take your word for it?

If you have something on that, it sounds like it merits a thread of its own!

These strings code for proteins which fold very specifically into purposeful 3-d conglomerations which have PURPOSE in complex design  and in complicated and very precise, purposeful biochemical pathways -all of these are required for LIFE.
Um... And how do you know about their purpose?

I have no problem accepting precision.

Look:

This print matches something we can easily identify, with precision.

Does that mean the print has a purpose?

I mean... There is no preference in the lineup of those muddy molecules to produce this meaningful structure.

What? You don't understand mud language? It says "dog".

In actual fact, it's even MORE precise than that. It says "dog's foot". And you and i know that more precision means more intelligence. It's more impressive. Right?

Life is made up of a vast number of non-living parts, chemicals.
Let me remind you that you don't even know what life is. That fire is alive under your definition.
They are put together purposefully by bla bla bla
Uh oh! Unsupported assumption.

You're begging the question. That's exactly what you need to demonstrate. You can't assume it.

That you imagine these chemicals happened to come together by chance and pure chemical reaction is the height of lunacy but you have been trained to believe this lunacy as I once was.
Yeeeah, you were trained... Alright.

Turns out that chemical reactions aren't random. So your comment isn't even worth addressing.

I understand why you believe it
Sure you do. Because it's a fact. And you know it (even if you don't understand much of it).

You can't show me gravity nor energy but you know they are there by the effects that they have. The same with the creator, you know that intelligence was required simply by looking around you at the created things in this world.
Yeah... Who needs to study? Just read your Bible and look around. That's all it takes for you to know the truth. You just feel it deep in your heart.


(Edited by wisp 12/20/2010 at 01:13 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:11 AM on December 20, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
That is a faith statement -' life is all about chemistry.'

Wisp
No, it's a fact. We can provide innumerable demonstrations, and you will never be able to provide any exceptions.


Once life exists, it operates biochemically. That does not explain how it arose in the first place.
OOL experimentation demonstrates very clearly that life does not arise from chemistry. No-one has ever managed to produce life from scratch with chemicals.
Wherever life exists there is genetic material encoded for life.
Where did it come from?
Chemistry has never made encoded DNA or RNA arise naturally.

So you are talking nonsense as usual.

Wisp
"Abiogenesis" is just the human tag with which we name a stage of a process that always consisted of chemistry.

And we say this because we have no reasons whatsoever to believe it ever was anything else but chemistry, as it's still chemistry today.


So show me life arising naturally with pure chemistry or admit that you have FAITH that it did.

   




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:07 AM on December 20, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just found this and thought it might be interesting to read: Early genes in evolution


Because all living organisms inherit their genomes from ancestral genomes, computational biologists at MIT reasoned that they could use modern-day genomes to reconstruct the evolution of ancient microbes. They combined information from the ever-growing genome library with their own mathematical model that takes into account the ways that genes evolve...

The work suggests that the collective genome of all life underwent an expansion between 3.3 and 2.8 billion years ago, during which time 27 percent of all presently existing gene families came into being...

"What is really remarkable about these findings is that they prove that the histories of very ancient events are recorded in the shared DNA of living organisms," says Alm. "And now that we are beginning to understand how to decode that history, I have hope that we can reconstruct some of the earliest events in the evolution of life in great detail."



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 05:22 AM on December 20, 2010 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:14 AM on December 16, 2010 :
But we still have all the other unverifiable assumptions. Let's not forget..


I forget, what are these unverifiable assumptions? I assume one of them is decay rates are constant?



-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 08:11 AM on December 20, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

After all this time, Wisp is denying still that DNA is a code. DNA fits the definition of a code, pure and simple.

Wisp would go so far as to call a chair "just chemicals". "It's not a chair you see, it is simply chemicals that randomly came together so therefore it is just chemical and calling it a chair would not be the correct thing to do"



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 09:06 AM on December 20, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


PC:
After all this time, Wisp is denying still that DNA is a code. DNA fits the definition of a code, pure and simple.


PC - how about you elaborate on your statement and tell us all about how DNA is a 'code'.  Do you infer that because it is referred to as the genetic code that it must be designed by God/Allah/Yahweh/Zeus?  

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:56 AM on December 21, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FencerJust found this and thought it might be interesting to read: Early genes in evolution

Because all living organisms inherit their genomes from ancestral genomes, computational biologists at MIT reasoned that they could use modern-day genomes to reconstruct the evolution of ancient microbes. They combined information from the ever-growing genome library with their own mathematical model that takes into account the ways that genes evolve...

The work suggests that the collective genome of all life underwent an expansion between 3.3 and 2.8 billion years ago, during which time 27 percent of all presently existing gene families came into being...

"What is really remarkable about these findings is that they prove that the histories of very ancient events are recorded in the shared DNA of living organisms," says Alm. "And now that we are beginning to understand how to decode that history, I have hope that we can reconstruct some of the earliest events in the evolution of life in great detail."


I just found this and thought you might find it interesting.

Evolution As Assumption     12/20/2010    
Dec 20, 2010 — Reasoning requires premises: axioms or truths taken for granted.  Notice the premise of reasoning stated in a recent article on Science Daily: “Because all living organisms inherit their genomes from ancestral genomes, computational biologists at MIT reasoned that they could use modern-day genomes to reconstruct the evolution of ancient microbes.”  They used an evolutionary assumption to reason to an evolutionary result.  Isn’t this circular?
   The article was about trying to put together a picture of life before the Cambrian Explosion.  Their reasoning included “the ways that genes evolve: new gene families can be born and inherited; genes can be swapped or horizontally transferred between organisms; genes can be duplicated in the same genome; and genes can be lost.  Only the first in that quartet, though, can sing of innovation.  The other factors can only process or lose existing information.  How, though, are new gene families “born”?  It’s so improbable for a single gene to be “born” by chance (online book), let alone a whole family of genes, that the notion of chance giving birth to a gene is essentially falsified.  Evolutionists cannot merely assume evolution to think that evolution can solve this problem.
   More circularity is evident when they assumed an evolutionary timeline to determine when genes came into existence:

The scientists traced thousands of genes from 100 modern genomes back to those genes’ first appearance on Earth to create a genomic fossil telling not only when genes came into being but also which ancient microbes possessed those genes.  The work suggests that the collective genome of all life underwent an expansion between 3.3 and 2.8 billion years ago, during which time 27 percent of all presently existing gene families came into being.

The article used other phrases to describe complex things “coming into being,” such as “the birth of modern electron transport,” and, “we can speculate that having access to a much larger energy budget enabled the biosphere to host larger and more complex microbial ecosystems.”
   After assuming evolution to trace evolution, they ended by saying they had proved evolution.   Eric Alm (MIT, Harvard) named the sudden discovery of modern electron transport the Archaen Expansion.  “What is really remarkable about these findings is that they prove that the histories of very ancient events are recorded in the shared DNA of living organisms,” he said.  “And now that we are beginning to understand how to decode that history, I have hope that we can reconstruct some of the earliest events in the evolution of life in great detail.”


And the comment at crev.info :

What is remarkable is that intelligent people with PhDs can commit such logical sins with impunity.  You can’t assume evolution, then use the assumption of evolution to trace evolution and prove evolution.  Evolution is the issue at issue!  The Cambrian Explosion has falsified evolution.  Dr. Alm cannot turn around and use the assumption of evolution to try to un-falsify it.  What’s even worse, he completely ignored the criticisms, and invoked chance miracles to fill in the evidential gaps.
   When will evolutionists realize that they cannot invoke miracle words like genes “coming into being” and “arising” and “gaining access to a larger energy budget” and becoming “enabled to evolve larger and more complex systems”?  This is what the charlatans do that skeptic James Randi debunks.  They claim that miracle water can be produced with mental electricity, but it only works if you truly believe in it.  Evolutionary explanations are like a Mobius strip – circular, with a twist.
   There was no independent test of evolutionary theory anywhere in this futile exercise of self-fulfilling prophecy.  Evolution was invoked as a divining rod, as if the spirit of a white-bearded wizard told Eric that with this magical device, he could achieve enlightenment.  Whatever enlightenment he gained was the reflection of flashes of imagination inside his own wilfully blind mind.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:04 AM on December 22, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:56 AM on December 21, 2010 :

PC:
After all this time, Wisp is denying still that DNA is a code. DNA fits the definition of a code, pure and simple.


PC - how about you elaborate on your statement and tell us all about how DNA is a 'code'.  Do you infer that because it is referred to as the genetic code that it must be designed by God/Allah/Yahweh/Zeus?  



"DNA contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes."

A set of complex instructions is at hand here. Show me where instructions self assemble.






-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 07:32 AM on December 22, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 06:32 AM on December 22, 2010 :
Quote from orion at 10:56 AM on December 21, 2010 :

PC:
After all this time, Wisp is denying still that DNA is a code. DNA fits the definition of a code, pure and simple.


PC - how about you elaborate on your statement and tell us all about how DNA is a 'code'.  Do you infer that because it is referred to as the genetic code that it must be designed by God/Allah/Yahweh/Zeus?  



"DNA contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes."

A set of complex instructions is at hand here. Show me where instructions self assemble.


First of all, do you admit that the nucleotide sequence in DNA/RNA can change, as during the course of DNA replication?  


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:44 AM on December 22, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 09:44 AM on December 22, 2010 :
[b]First of all, do you admit that the nucleotide sequence in DNA/RNA can change, as during the course of DNA replication?  




You mean mutations?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 11:40 AM on December 22, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Orion:
First of all, do you admit that the nucleotide sequence in DNA/RNA can change, as during the course of DNA replication?  

PC:
You mean mutations?


Yes, a mutation.  

I would define a mutation as nothing more than a change in the nucleotide sequence in DNA/RNA.  A change in sequence can occur in a copy error during replication, a deletion/addition of a nucleotide, or entire stretches of nucleotide strands.  I'll admit my understanding of genetics is very limited, but this would be a fundamental concept, central to the discussion of evolution.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:10 PM on December 22, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But did you reply in an effort to ascertain if DNA is a code?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 2:01 PM on December 22, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The word 'code' used in 'Genetic Code' or 'DNA code' should not be misinterpreted in the way we normally use the word in everyday life.  DNA is not a code in the sense that it is a system of rules and symbols.  Code is merely a convenient analogy when referring to the DNA or RNA function.

It's like the word 'theory'.  The word 'theory' has a much different meaning in science than the way people use the word in every day life.  In popular usage 'theory' more often implies a guess, or a hunch.  

In science a theory is an explanation of a body of natural phenomena that has been rigorously tested.  A theory is useful in that it can make accurate predictions.  A scientific theory can be modified, or discarded altogether, as new knowledge and information dictate.  

The word theory can also be used loosely by scientists when they are actually talking about a hypothesis - an idea that is still being tested.  However TOE is of the former type as it has been shown to hold true under countless observations and explains exceedingly well the diversity of life on earth that we see today.  The mechanics and details of TOE may change with new knowledge and understanding.  But the main tenets of evolution, that life changes over time and that species share a common ancestor, are known  facts.  

Getting back to DNA, DNA is a extrordinary molecule, no doubt about that.  But I have absolutely no doubt that it has natural origins.  Creationists who claim otherwise have no other explanation than to point to the God of the gaps, which cannot be tested, observed, or inferred by science.  God of the gaps explanations are a dead-end, and useless in science.  

In absense of evidence for a supernatural power science must pursue a natural explanation for natural phenomena.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:21 PM on December 22, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 3:21 PM on December 22, 2010 : 

Getting back to DNA, DNA is a extrordinary molecule, no doubt about that.  But I have absolutely no doubt that it has natural origins.  Creationists who claim otherwise have no other explanation than to point to the God of the gaps, which cannot be tested, observed, or inferred by science.  God of the gaps explanations are a dead-end, and useless in science.  

In absense of evidence for a supernatural power science must pursue a natural explanation for natural phenomena.  


I wonder how it is you have no doubt that it has natural origins?
You do admit that it is "extraordinary".
But since it is a set of instructions, how do you propose it came about? Unless you disagree that it is a set of instructions.



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:16 PM on December 22, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thermodynamics underlies chemistry.  RNA/DNA is chemistry:

Astrobiology. 2009 Jun;9(5):483-90.
A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code.

Higgs PG, Pudritz RE.

Origins Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada. higgsp@mcmaster.ca
Abstract

Of the 20 amino acids used in proteins, 10 were formed in Miller's atmospheric discharge experiments. The two other major proposed sources of prebiotic amino acid synthesis include formation in hydrothermal vents and delivery to Earth via meteorites. We combine observational and experimental data of amino acid frequencies formed by these diverse mechanisms and show that, regardless of the source, these 10 early amino acids can be ranked in order of decreasing abundance in prebiotic contexts. This order can be predicted by thermodynamics. The relative abundances of the early amino acids were most likely reflected in the composition of the first proteins at the time the genetic code originated. The remaining amino acids were incorporated into proteins after pathways for their biochemical synthesis evolved. This is consistent with theories of the evolution of the genetic code by stepwise addition of new amino acids. These are hints that key aspects of early biochemistry may be universal.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:45 PM on December 22, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WOW ***
That sounds like a trip... Did they legalize it it where you are?

But back to reality, this is all information based and by that I mean instructions for coding proteins.
I sense there is knowledge for instructions involved and do you?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:20 PM on December 22, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

PC - how much do you know about biology, chemistry, physics?  

Have you even taken a look at the current research that is taking place the the OOL field?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:44 PM on December 22, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.