|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Transition from chemistry to biology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Show them what, exactly? When critiquing one's use of language, please ensure one's own is exemplary Ah! you misunderstand. I was going to trot out a few patients from Bedlam that share traste's language skills. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
You are correct Iam young,but Im not young to understand.The problem with all(supporters of evolution)is that they just easily dissmissed any problems that evolutionary theory confronts,calling every people who presented that problem as,idiot,ignorance of the topic,just liked what you did.And I accept I did not come to terms with the mathemathics you talk about,but just for the sake of this argument I will try and study those in my own.By the way you,have a very different view you said order not random.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The problem with all(supporters of evolution)is that they just easily dissmissed any problems that evolutionary theory confronts,calling every people who presented that problem as,idiot,ignorance of the topic,just liked what you did.
Perhaps the problem is that creationists approach evolution using religious belief instead of evidence, and they expect that scientists will accept their beliefs without evidence--when there are mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. Sorry, that's not going to fly. If you wish to make a difference in science, you need to being scientific evidence. Mathematicians are not scientists, and their calculations and models in this field are only useful when they accurately model and describe the natural world. If they fail to model all of the biological variables correctly, their models are useless to science. Of course, those models will still be used by creationists because they like the results, and they don't care about the accuracy of the models as long as they support their a priori religious beliefs. You don't like creationists being called ignorant, etc.? Perhaps if creationists studied science and produced scientific evidence, that wouldn't happen. Unfortunately, creationists are more likely to distort and misrepresent science in order to try and make it serve their ends. And unfortunately, most creationists are unwilling to study science because they are convinced that it is wrong, and why study something that is wrong? When you substitute belief for evidence, you are liable to run into problems with science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
You are correct Iam young,but Im not young to understand. You are not to young to understand what?
The problem with all(supporters of evolution)is that they just easily dissmissed any problems that evolutionary theory confronts,calling every people who presented that problem as,idiot,ignorance of the topic,just liked what you did. The issue here is that people don't get to tell scientist what is right or wrong about their specific fields of expertise. Only someone in the field can give a proper conclusion of the evidence observed. These people are called scientist. Within the scientific community there is NO issue that makes evolution a tentative theory. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3442 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday,
traste writes: You are correct Iam young,but Im not young to understand.The problem with all(supporters of evolution)is that they just easily dissmissed any problems that evolutionary theory confronts,calling every people who presented that problem as,idiot,ignorance of the topic,just liked what you did.And I accept I did not come to terms with the mathemathics you talk about,but just for the sake of this argument I will try and study those in my own.By the way you,have a very different view you said order not random. Traste -When using English, it is accepted practice to have a SPACE after punctuation marks. Your posts are a little hard to read because you don't. Please fix this. K.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
[qs]You are not to young to understand what?[q/s]
What do you think?
[qs] The issue here is that people don't get to tell scientist what is right or wrong about their specific fields of expertise. Only someone in the field can give a proper conclusion of the evidence observed. These people are called scientist [q/s]. You are correct.Some scientist found evolution in error.Actually evolution is a science powered by ambitious people whose main interest is fame and publication of their works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Sort of makes my, point don't you think
I dont remember that you make any point.Your fulsome reply suggest to me that you are a person of low moral fiber and incapable of good character. What evidence would you require of me to prove to you that your English isn't top notch And what type of evidence would you like me to show to you that you are both intellectually and morally dwarf? You keep swearing at me in Bulgarian and I'll report you Is this another lie? Show me a house with a metabolism and reproductive cycle and I see what I can do for you Is metabolism the only thing you know?How about anabolism and catabolism?Of course these are just some of the cell activities,yet it does not explain how the cell began from nothing.Why asked for a haus, the cell has metabolism and let us see if you can build acaricature from it under plausible condition.HAHAHAHAHAHAHA......HAHAHAHA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Ah! you misunderstand. I was going to trot out a few patients from Bedlam that share traste's language skills
I think you do a good job if you trot yourself first.Hahahahahaha.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alaninnont Member (Idle past 5436 days) Posts: 107 Joined: |
It seems to me that the discussion is drifting off topic.
Pasteur's hypothesis was that all life arises from other life. As far as I know, this hypothesis has not been successfully challenged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Pasteur's hypothesis was that all life arises from other life. As far as I know, this hypothesis has not been successfully challenged. If all life arises from other life then life has to have existed forever. We know that in the distant past, it was impossible for life to exist in the universe. Therefore, life could not have existed forever. Ergo, not all life arises from other life. Even if God himself created the first life, he would have created it from non-life. It still would have been a transition from chemistry to biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alaninnont Member (Idle past 5436 days) Posts: 107 Joined: |
I don't know what Pasteur's belief's were on a creator but I don't think that's what he was addressing. More specifically then,
All life on earth arises from other life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Pasteur's hypothesis was that all life arises from other life. No it wasn't. His hypothesis was that microbial contamination was due to bacteria already present in the container. His experiments were not set up to show that life could never arise from non-life, only that pre-existing bacterial contamination was the best explanation for spoiling foodstuffs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
All life on earth arises from other life. If all life on Earth arises from other life then life has to have existed forever on Earth. We know that in the distant past, it was impossible for life to exist Even if God himself created the first life on Earth, he would have created it from non-life. It still would have been a transition from chemistry to biology on Earth. ABE: If you want to retreat to panspermia, then you've gone outside the scope of Pasteur and are instead talking about something else.
I don't know what Pasteur's belief's were on a creator but I don't think that's what he was addressing. What he was addressing was the now outdated idea called Spontaneous Generation, "an obsolete theory regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from Univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s)".
quote: Edited by Catholic Scientist, : See ABE Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science" He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alaninnont Member (Idle past 5436 days) Posts: 107 Joined: |
I see your point but I also think there is a connection and have a sneaking feeling that you're trying to avoid it so I'll phrase the question to you.
I propose that all life on earth begins from other life. Do you agree or disagree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
I propose that all life on earth begins from other life. Do you agree or disagree?
Given the finite history of our universe it is impossible for all life to have come from other life, and this includes the Earth. So I would have to disagree.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024