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
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 13 14 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Naturally arising information, who ever denied this?


How do you know it is naturally arising? You are assuming that it is naturally arising actually. There is a big difference.Like I said, presuppositions and all....
As a general rule, wherever there is information, there is intelligence that brought about the information. Evolutionists however think this does not work for information in living systems but how can they know this?

Be specific, what's the problem with RNA arising naturally?


Show me the repeatable experiment where RNA made itself - remembering that you can't have a protected environment and you can't exclude oxygen if you want to make it 'plausible' because this had to happen in a 'primordial soup.' No help for the RNA please.

Plausability is based on repeatable experiments.


No you're wrong. Most of the plausible stories I hear from evolutionists are not repeatable nor observable, they are only, according to evolutionists, believable.

You can't seem to understand how science works!


Evolution is, for the most part, not your usual science because unlike observational science, it all happened a very long time ago. Wishful thinking therefore substitutes very often for the rigorous testing that one expects from 'science.'

Wrong, it comes down to evidence, scienists have it, creationists don't.


Wrong, we all have the same evidence. You just generally have more extrapolations from the 'evidence' than we are prepared to accept.
 


-------
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: 04:19 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you know it is naturally arising? You are assuming that it is naturally arising actually. There is a big difference.Like I said, presuppositions and all....

No, as this article show, we know HOW it arises naturally, we see the processes.  From the article:

"It will also mean that for the first time a plausible explanation exists for how an information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on the primitive earth."

So it's not an assumption, it has a plausible answer, which is more than you have.

As a general rule, wherever there is information, there is intelligence that brought about the information.

The only intelligence that has brought about information is man, that's it, we have evidence of nothing else.  So your general rule is nothing but a fairy tale.

Show me the repeatable experiment where RNA made itself - remembering that you can't have a protected environment and you can't exclude oxygen if you want to make it 'plausible' because this had to happen in a 'primordial soup.' No help for the RNA
please.


This is exactly what  John Sutherland has done with this experiment, where is your critique?  And who cares about oxygen, plenty of chemical reactions occur without it.  Why would the formation of RNA need oxygen???

No you're wrong. Most of the plausible stories I hear from evolutionists are not repeatable nor observable, they are only, according to evolutionists, believable.

No you are absolutely wrong, take this experiment, for example.  Repeatable, testable.  Like every other fact we show you, you ignore it.  Abiogenesis is plausible because the evidence indicates that.  RNA forming naturally solely by natural processes is plausible because the evidence shows us it is, because experiments like this prove it is.  

Evolution is, for the most part, not your usual science because unlike observational science, it all happened a very long time
ago.


Evolution is no different than any other branch of science, evidence is examined, experiments are conducted, results are checked and double checked, conclusions are drawn and tested.  That it happened a long time ago means nothing, we still have the evidence to examine.  Like I said, you don't understand how science works.

Wrong, we all have the same evidence. You just generally have more extrapolations from the 'evidence' than we are prepared to
accept.


Nope, science examines the evidence, tests the evidence.  Creationists ignore the evidence in order to support their fairy tales.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:22 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It will also mean that for the first time a plausible explanation exists for how an information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on the primitive earth."
Well at least they admit that there is such a thing as information that needs to be explained.
At least my ass.

The problem here is that you use that word as if you (or someone else) already defined it.

Obviously scientists mean something that can arise naturally. While you don't.

Unfortunately the usual problem with evolutionists' palusible stories is that not everyone finds them plausible.
So people in mental institutions are a problem to science?

In fact we usually think that evolutionists are too easily satisfied with stories only they find plausible and the reason is that they believe it must have happened from the beginning so they have a 'credulity advantage'. (it is an asset in a fictional sense)
Remember that you believe that the Sun stopped in the sky, that Yahweh used to stroll about the Garden of Eden, that we know right from wrong after eating a fruit, talking snakes, giants, unicorns, a girl turning into a salt statue, etc, etc, etc. Shame on you. Wash your mouth before saying things like this.

Meantime, they say we 'argue from incredulity'
We say 'from ignorance', but ok.

and we say their plausible story telling shows how much wishful-thinking plays a part in what they are prepared to accept.
Yeah, you do say silly things like that.
So?

They are in fact far too credulous altogether. It all comes down to philisophical presuppositions coloring the landscape.
Blah blah blah not presenting anything against Evolution blah blah blah...

Evolution is, for the most part, not your usual science because unlike observational science, it all happened a very long time ago.
Why do you mean by 'observational science'? Something as vague as 'information'?

Every science is observational science.
OR observational science does not exist.

In any case, if you manage to define 'observational science' as something that does exist, it wouldn't exclude things that happened a very long time ago.
We can NOW analyze the rays of light from distant stars. We see them NOW as they were a long time ago.

It's pretty much the same as analyzing NOW fossils of things that lived a long time ago.

No you're wrong. Most of the plausible stories I hear from evolutionists are not repeatable nor observable, they are only, according to evolutionists, believable.
Nevermind the stories. Let's talk about predictions. Like the Tiktaalik.

How did we manage to predict it?

- - -
Demon38
And who cares about oxygen, plenty of chemical reactions occur without it.  Why would the formation of RNA need oxygen???
Nono, he believes that the primordial environment was abundant in harmful oxygen, or something like that. His necessity is that oxygen was NOT present.

I don't know (frankly i don't care much) about the primordial condition, but it doesn't sound like there was oxygen in the water, in a time when algae didn't exist.



-------
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: 07:13 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we know HOW it arises naturally


No we don't, you must have misread the article. It surmises and supposes and imagines. It needed intelligent input to put together all the many arrays of chemicals that they had to test in so many different ways over a period of 10 years in order to get any nucleotides at all. Now they have a possible scenario which does not come close to working out how a membrane protected all these chemicals from being destroyed by oxygen as fast as they were formed,  nor how the left- hand, right- hand problem could have been erased from the very enormous problems they face. This hypothetical nucleotide combo that could hypothetically zip itself together also had to reproduce itself with it's non-existant genetic information that it had at the time.It also needed an energy source so ATP would have just happened to be around at the time and ready to leap into action presumably.
Did you notice that not all the chemists were as impressed as others who were presumably more credulous about the tale. As for the Titan story, I nearly choked on that one.

My assumption is that we are here on this planet as a fundamental consequence of organic chemistry,” Dr. Sutherland said


What did I say about evolutionists and their assumptions -there it is -he is a naturalist -his philosophy of life makes it easy for him to accept what has never been demonstrated, as a fundamental starting point. He has to assume that or he never would have wasted 10 years of his life trying to play God. He has conviction which is not to say he is wrong to believe such a thing just that he is working from a faith position that says chemistry and natural law can do it all on their own.Once you accept that philosophy, it is so much easier to see plausibility wherever evidence is lacking and then to use that in place of real repeatable observable science.

Robert Shapiro...said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.”


There's always a lot of fantasy elements in evolutionary plausibilities -I look for them whenever I hear these stories. They are sometimes well hidden but they know that if they talk outright BS they'll be caught out ,so you can usually find them if you search.

If Dr. Sutherland’s proposal is correct it will set conditions that should help solve the many other problems in reconstructing the origin of life.


There you go, I told you, just look around and you’ll see that nothing has actually been demonstrated and the story is FAR from over.




-------
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: 08:31 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No we don't, you must have misread the article. It surmises and supposes and imagines. It needed intelligent input to put together all the many arrays of chemicals that they had to test in so many different ways over a period of 10 years in order to get any nucleotides at all.
ONLY 10 YEARS???? Woah!! Amazing!!!!

Imagine what could be done in an Earth-sized lab, composed by multiple changing environments, light/darkness cicles, and millions of years!!!!

Edit: And no religions too.


(Edited by wisp 5/15/2009 at 08:50 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: 08:46 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obviously scientists mean something that can arise naturally. While you don't.


Well the problem is that everything in our experience shows us that where there is information, if you trace it to its source, there is always a mind behind it. Evolutionists  assume perversely that this is a special case -it's all in the philosophy.

So people in mental institutions are a problem to science?


HAHA! Clever Wisp.

Every science is observational science.
OR observational science does not exist.


Not in the case of evolution -think Wisp think -have you seen monkeys turning into men lately?(observation) Can you repeat the experience?(repetition)

We can NOW analyze the rays of light from distant stars. We see them NOW as they were a long time ago.


Can you see the monkeys turning into men? the dinos turning into birds?

It's pretty much the same as analyzing NOW fossils of things that lived a long time ago.


We can observe the fossils but that is not the same as observing the effects of gravity...I think you know that. We still have to interpret what we observe and your interpretation will be WAY different to mine.

Let's talk about predictions. Like the Tiktaalik.


Oh please, your tiktaaklik story -maybe we should analyze that story next -there are probably some elements to that story you have failed to notice but did you get the overall picture?  -Billions of fossils, a handful of so-called intermediates -much excitement! Not a very plausible arrangement. Evolutionists don't fail to get excited by their rare and thrilling 'intermediates' while ignoring the big picture.











-------
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: 08:57 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Imagine what could be done in an Earth-sized lab, composed by multiple changing environments, light/darkness cicles, and millions of years!!!!


....and without the millions of years?



-------
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: 09:01 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Without the millions of years, nothing. You would be right about intelligent design. Or magic. Something definitely supernatural.

The Bible would still be wrong, but so would i. Dead wrong.
ID would have a lot of credibility to me.

To paraphrase Tim Minchin, i would be embarrassed as hell, but i would run through the streets yelling "It's a miracle!".

You show me the evidence for that, and when i recover from the shock i'll take a compass and carve "Fancy that" on the side of my cock.


(Edited by wisp 5/15/2009 at 09:15 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: 09:07 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There's no evidence that there wasn't millions of years.


-------
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: 09:42 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

when i recover from the shock i'll take a compass and carve "Fancy that" on the side of my cock.


That's the way Wisp -make a full production of it. Nice!

Apoapsis
There's no evidence that there wasn't millions of years.


Well that's a bit of a negative way of putting it. It's easier to say "there's no evidence that there was."



-------
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: 11:45 AM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But there is.


-------
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: 1:32 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But there is.


No, there isn't.


-------
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: 2:38 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Apoapsis
There's no evidence that there wasn't millions of years.
Well that's a bit of a negative way of putting it.
You're right. But everything can be put in a negative way.

You're basically saying that we're the ones that make the statement (that the Earth is old) so the onus is on us.
And you're right again. And we did present abundant evidence (plaque tectonics, ice capes, radioactive isotopes, astronomy, dendrochronology, etc, etc, etc).

You're making a positive statement too. That the Earth is unbelievably young!

(Hum, sorry about the unnecessary adverb. Scratched.)

So where's YOUR evidence?

You just say "What if light moved quicker in the past? And the isotopes decayed quicker too? And everything was just as quick as to squeeze 3 billion years worth of events into 6k years worth of biblical history?"



-------
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: 3:00 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The earth can be trivially but tediously demonstrated to be greater than 150,000 years old by counting visual ice layers.  Isotope layering of O16/O18 caused by summer/winter changes in ocean temperature demonstrate these to be yearly layers.




-------
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: 3:40 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:22 AM on May 15, 2009 :

Well at least they admit that there is such a thing as information that needs to be explained.


What do you mean by 'information'?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:11 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:19 AM on May 15, 2009 :

How do you know it is naturally arising? You are assuming that it is naturally arising actually. There is a big difference.Like I said, presuppositions and all....
As a general rule, wherever there is information, there is intelligence that brought about the information.


Yes, when dealing with human contrivances.  We use metaphorical language ot describe things in terms that make them easier for us to deal with and understand.

Is it your position that metaphorical language is an accurate depoiction of reality?

That the sun really does 'rise'?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:13 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good analogy.

Well, it's hardly an analogy. It's a pretty accurate comparison.



-------
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: 9:31 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No we don't, you must have misread the article. It surmises and supposes and imagines. It needed intelligent input to put together all the many arrays of chemicals that they had to test in so many different ways over a period of 10 years in order to get any nucleotides at all.

Yes but they were trying to replicate natural processes.  It was our intelligence TRYING to recreate  a natural process.  That's how science works, we use our intelligence to try and recreate how nature works.  Is it your claim that ALL natural processes that we have come to understand are DIRECTLY caused by a greater intelligence??  Water evaporating is directly caused by a higher intelligence because we can only recreate it with our intelligence???  You can't be making such an assinine claim, are you???  As I said, you really don't understand science at all.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:15 PM on May 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 4:11 PM on May 15, 2009 :
What do you mean by 'information'?


Information is what doesn't increase when you have a mutation.

That's the only real answer you'll ever get.

"We all have the same data."  Yeah, right.


(Edited by Apoapsis 5/16/2009 at 12:29 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: 12:27 AM on May 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent replies, you guys!


-------
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: 1:03 PM on May 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That was a very interesting article.  I wouldn't mind reading the whole thing in Nature, if I had access to it.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:56 PM on May 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
What do you mean by 'information'?


It is a non-material entity that is weightless  and has five levels - statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Without all five levels of order, there is no information.

Demon 38
It was our intelligence TRYING to recreate  a natural process.  That's how science works, we use our intelligence to try and recreate how nature works.


So are we sure it is natural if we need to use so much time and intelligence to produce it. If it is something that happens naturally, why doesn't it happen anymore. Isn't it at least possible that intelligence was a requirement for its existence?


-------
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: 02:17 AM on May 17, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So are we sure it is natural if we need to use so much time and intelligence to produce it. If it is something that happens naturally, why doesn't it happen anymore. Isn't it at least possible that intelligence was a requirement for its existence?

Because nature is complicated!  That's why we need to use so much time and money to reproduce it!  And life just might be spontaneously creating itself to this day, we just haven't found it yet.  It could be happening on other planets, heck, it might still be happening on this planet and getting gobbled up by already existing life.  No because we see the processes that produce the building blocks of life and no intelligence has been required to guide them so far.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:26 AM on May 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:17 AM on May 17, 2009 :
Derwood
What do you mean by 'information'?


It is a non-material entity that is weightless  and has five levels - statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Without all five levels of order, there is no information.


You know, I've seen Werner Gitt in person - I even had the opportunity to shake his hand and ask him questions.

He admitted that at the statistical level, it is trivial to increase information via natural means.  And in DNA, that level is the nucleotide sequece, i.e., mutations at the very least can change the information.  I asked him why then, if the lower levels of information can change and increase, and the upper levels are DEPENDANT upon the statistical level, how was it that the upper levels of information cannot increase via natural means.

He literally scratched his chin, stared at the ground, paced across the room, and refused to answer my question.

As you are impressed with Gitt's notions of information in the genome, perhaps you can explain, in your own words, what the equivalent biological process/entity/structure/molecule is to, say, semantics?

 




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:11 AM on May 17, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What do you mean by 'information'?
It is a non-material entity that is weightless  and has five levels - statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Without all five levels of order, there is no information.
It seems that we can never guess what you mean...

I'd say that DNA can't possibly have semantics or syntax (i don't know what the rest is). But you probably define "syntax" and "semantics" as something present in the DNA... Go figure.

So are we sure it is natural if we need to use so much time and intelligence to produce it.
Yeah, we pretty much are.
And it's NOT so much time. And it's definitely a very limited space.

Intelligence seems to be needed to produce it in a VERY SHORT time, and in a VERY LITTLE space.

If it is something that happens naturally, why doesn't it happen anymore.
What does "it" mean, exactly? Advanced forms of life from peanut butter? Complex chemicals? Complex self-replicating chemicals?
Be specific.

Also you don't give any specifics on WHERE.
In the whole Universe?
What makes you say it doesn't happen?
Some sort of negative faith?

Depending on what you mean, it probably DOES happen, it PROBABLY happens, it might happen (but it's not very likely), and it can ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT happen.

New life doesn't happen (on Earth) because (as it has been already answered plenty of times, i wish you started remembering) new life would probably seem quite yummy to old life. New life could not compete with old life (with a billion years of training). Could not pose a threat to old life. Could not possibly defend against old life. Would be engulfed by old life. Would be forked in the ass by old life.

Isn't it at least possible that intelligence was a requirement for its existence?
Evidence tells us it's not.



-------
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: 11:21 AM on May 17, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

*** Abiogenesis *** Jerry Bergman, Ph.D

If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”.  This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles.  Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land.  Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents.  It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios.  This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers.  A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?”  Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:17 PM on May 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:17 PM on May 17, 2009 :
 A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?”  


Why would the first life form be autotrophic?  Seems much more likely that it would be chemoheterotrophic.

When sugar is falling from the sky, why bother to make it?



-------
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: 8:59 PM on May 17, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hahahahaha! I love the "Jerry Bergman, Ph.D" used to impress gullible creationists. xD

In the first sentence this Ph.D strikes me as a moron.

I'm done reading quotes not understood by the quoter (not enough to put it in his own words).

I mean, the quote is silly enough to say it yourself. No need for a Ph.D.



-------
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 May 17, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Molecule of life emerges from laboratory slime

I figured this would be interesting, very very interesting, and at the same time, a big stab at creationism and ID.

Where's your false interpretation of the biogenesis law now?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 03:16 AM on May 18, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:03 PM on May 17, 2009 :
[color=teal]Hahahahaha! I love the "Jerry Bergman, Ph.D" used to impress gullible creationists. xD

In the first sentence this Ph.D strikes me as a moron.


The article was deleted from Wikipedia overnight, but his PhD came from an unaccredited institution that was closed by California officials.

Edit: Still available in cache:

In 1992 Bergman received his first Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, a now-defunct nonaccredited distance learning school. Columbia Pacific University lost its state approval to operate in 1995 and was ordered to close permanently in October 2000 by the State of California. A court invalidated all degrees awarded after 1997 and ordered the student fees refunded. Bergman has written a detailed perspective on the school's fall from grace.

(Edited by Apoapsis 5/18/2009 at 08:49 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: 08:11 AM on May 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:19 AM on May 15, 2009 :
Show me the repeatable experiment where RNA made itself - remembering that you can't have a protected environment and you can't exclude oxygen if you want to make it 'plausible' because this had to happen in a 'primordial soup.' No help for the RNA please.

No need to perform experiments:



Purines and Pyrimidines in the Murcheson meteorite

The stuff can be made in space and survive entering the atmosphere.


Wrong, it comes down to evidence, scienists have it, creationists don't.


Wrong, we all have the same evidence. You just generally have more extrapolations from the 'evidence' than we are prepared to accept.
 


Really?

Which is the less viable extrapolation - that observed physical processes can account for X, or that one of several deities written about in one of several 'holy books' - for Whom there is NO actual evidence - just willed it thus?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:13 AM on May 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:17 PM on May 17, 2009 :
*** Abiogenesis *** Jerry Bergman, Ph.D

If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”.


"Multibillions"?  Really?  Does Bergman actually name any of these billions?

Does he lay out, say, 150 million of the steps he knows must exist?


 This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles.  
Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land.  Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents.  It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios.  This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers.  A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?”  Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions,


What research does Bergman show to support this?


producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.


Thus, the Hebrew tribal deity, bored one day, blew on some dirt and out popped a fully formed human.

MUCH more believable...




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:17 AM on May 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 08:11 AM on May 18, 2009 :
Quote from wisp at 11:03 PM on May 17, 2009 :
[color=teal]Hahahahaha! I love the "Jerry Bergman, Ph.D" used to impress gullible creationists. xD

In the first sentence this Ph.D strikes me as a moron.


The article was deleted from Wikipedia overnight, but his PhD came from an unaccredited institution that was closed by California officials.

Edit: Still available in cache:

In 1992 Bergman received his first Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, a now-defunct nonaccredited distance learning school. Columbia Pacific University lost its state approval to operate in 1995 and was ordered to close permanently in October 2000 by the State of California. A court invalidated all degrees awarded after 1997 and ordered the student fees refunded. Bergman has written a detailed perspective on the school's fall from grace.

(Edited by Apoapsis 5/18/2009 at 08:49 AM).



Bergman does have a legitimate PhD - from my alma mater, of all places (Wayne State University) - it is in 'testing methods' or some such thing.  His 'science' degrees are from the mills.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:21 AM on May 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Haha, that was my first guess. Thanks, Apoapsis. I was kinda busy and didn't want to search for it myself.

Zucadragon, the title of your article wasn't very promising, but it's actually very interesting. Thanks!

Creationists engage in selective (and unreasonable) doubt.

They tell us "Are you expecting me to believe that a mutation can add functionality?". I bet they don't tell anything like that to their ministers.



-------
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: 09:21 AM on May 18, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, just attack the Dr., nevermind the content of what he has to say, unless of course, he agrees with you.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:30 PM on May 18, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:30 PM on May 18, 2009 :
Wisp, just attack the Dr., nevermind the content of what he has to say, unless of course, he agrees with you.


Then stop encouraging him and instead only respond the the direct comments to the content.  There are several that you've ignored.



-------
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: 10:32 PM on May 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus
Wisp, just attack the Dr.,
To me he's a guy. And i don't care about him.
nevermind the content of what he has to say,
Do you have anything to say?
unless of course, he agrees with you.
Do you even know if he agrees with you?

You don't show us that you even understand it.

If you do, explain it with your own words.

Otherwise, what's your function in this forum? Self-designated quoter?



-------
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: 10:37 PM on May 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:30 PM on May 18, 2009 :
Wisp, just attack the Dr., nevermind the content of what he has to say, unless of course, he agrees with you.



You must have missed (or maybe just ignored) my post.


Funny how often that happens with YEC types.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:48 AM on May 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Haha, i almost feel sorry for having given gluteus what he thought to be a way out of the replies (his own very accusation of ad hominem).

But i know it doesn't matter. Gluteus only replies to what he thinks he can manage (he has not realized yet that he can't manage anything).

Gluteus, i didn't say that since he was a moron he must be wrong (even if that has a good statistical probability). You don't have to be a moron to be wrong.

I just won't read from that moron.

Post for yourself, or go away already!

Everybody else in this forum has something to say, or at least to ask. The ones that don't, stay away till they do.



-------
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: 12:47 PM on May 19, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, you yourself, who believes in God, had stated that"Our highest authority and judge is Nature" some posts awhile back.  Do you still stand by this? Do I take u at your utmost authoritative word? So which is it God or nature(chance)?

But I digress, b4 you tried to discredit the Dr., his question is "What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?"



(Edited by gluteus_maximus 5/19/2009 at 5:06 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:00 PM on May 19, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, his statement was: A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?”

This is false, I don't know of any abiogenesis researchers who feel that an autotroph was the first living organism.


-------
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: 5:20 PM on May 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, you yourself, who believes in God, had stated that"Our highest authority and judge is Nature" some posts awhile back.  Do you still stand by this? Do I take u at your utmost authoritative word? So which is it God or nature(chance)?
Sigh...

So, wait some days, and pretend that i never answered.

How many times do i have to answer to that silly question?

It's you who doesn't answer. Is God the highest authority on porn or not?
I know that question is also silly. It's meant to show the silliness of your question.

For the sixth time (or something like that): When we're talking about biology, God_is_not_the_highest_authority!
That would be Nature!

And if you disagree, and think that God is the highest authority on any ground, then refer to porn. Or shut up already (this would be your best choice).

But I digress, b4 you tried to discredit the Dr.,
You mean "the guy". And i didn't try anything. I didn't even read his name. Why would i read any further?
If you don't understand it enough to say it yourself, why are you even here?
his question is "What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?"
Your guy said that? "For a free living organism to live"?

Woah... What would it take for a free dead organism to live?

And to your question (or the guy's question, i won't bother to read up there), yeah, the evidence suggests that everything that is assembled was assembled by naturalistic means. In my definition of "natural", even what's assembled by humans is natural.

And if someone chooses to leave out man-made stuff in the definition of "natural", the evidence still suggests that everything else was assembled by naturalistic means.

And the "autotrophic free living organism" part is completely irrelevant. Any complete lion was assembled by naturalistic means. No need to be cautious about the size or complexity of the sample.

There. Answered.

Now you: Is God the highest authority on porn?



-------
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: 6:05 PM on May 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
I don't know of any abiogenesis researchers who feel that an autotroph was the first living organism.
Me neither. But it's fun to answer to his actual (silly) question.

Would you deny that autotroph life forms were assembled by naturalistic means? Haha!

The question seems to be engineered to confuse people with its silliness. It's a dumb version of a trick question. But the answer is yes!



-------
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: 6:10 PM on May 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 5:00 PM on May 19, 2009 :

But I digress, b4 you tried to discredit the Dr., his question is "What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?"



(Edited by gluteus_maximus 5/19/2009 at 5:06 PM).


And I had asked if Bergman gave any evidence for any of his claims.  You've been busily ignoring that simple request.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:26 AM on May 20, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38

No because we see the processes that produce the building blocks of life and no intelligence has been required to guide them so far.


What are you talking about? What process do we see that needs no intelligence?

Apoapsis
This is false, I don't know of any abiogenesis researchers who feel that an autotroph was the first living organism.


So what do they think it was and how many parts do you think it would have required minimum to be called life and survive?  



-------
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: 04:07 AM on May 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What are you talking about? What process do we see that needs no intelligence?
Every single biological process. You name it, and we tell you that no intelligence is needed.

So what do they think it was and how many parts do you think it would have required minimum to be called life and survive?

"to be called life"?

Most of us don't care.

None should. Because any division between living and non-living is a fiction, or a convention.



-------
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: 04:17 AM on May 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Every single biological process. You name it, and we tell you that no intelligence is needed.


You think that no intelligence is needed but what if intelligence was needed for the genetic code much like a computer needs a programmer. Once that's done, it runs.



-------
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: 08:24 AM on May 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but what if intelligence was needed for the genetic code
Sigh... Then someone intelligent would have done it.

There's no good reason to consider that "possibility" though.



-------
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: 12:55 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you devalue the critique of Dr Bergman, well noted biologist. Fair enough, What about evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould who stated that even if evolutionary history on earth repeated itself a million times, he doubts whether anything like Homo Sapiens would ever develop again. Like I said
the probability of life arising by chance is so remote that we have to label it an impossibility.


(Edited by gluteus_maximus 5/23/2009 at 9:52 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:48 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould who stated that even if evolutionary history on earth repeated itself a million times, he doubts whether anything like Homo Sapiens would ever develop again. Like I said
the probability of life arising by chance is so remote that we have to label it an
impossibility.


What does Gould saying that he doubts anything like Homo Sapiens evolving again have to do with the probability of life arising????  I'll tell you, absolutely nothing!  Lets see how YOU calculated the odds of life arising...That's right, I knew you couldn't do it (or even expl,ain you're answer!)

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:41 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 13 14 ... 29 30 ]
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.