Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 544 of 687 (524711)
09-18-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by mike the wiz
09-12-2009 2:05 PM


mike the wize responds to me:
quote:
100% of the "facts" show life coming from life, and that every single form is complex.
Huh? Did life only get started today? Are you seriously claiming that the biochemical landscape of today has been precisely consistent for all time?
Question: Are you saying there has always been life somewhere in the universe or do you think that there was a time when there was no life followed by a time when there was life?
If the former, then you are advocating panspermia. Are you?
If the latter, then you necessarily proclaim that life comes from non-life.
You just don't know how.
Which is it, mike? Panspermia or biogenesis?
[Note, that is not a typo.]
quote:
Therefore, are we obliged, through "no facts whatsoever", to believe in rudimentary biological forms.
Huh? The fossil record doesn't exist? We do not see a huge variation in life across the history of this planet? Do we not also a huge chemical shift over the geological history of the planet?
So why should we expect the biochemical landscape of the world has been consistent for the entire time?
Question: Are you saying there has always been life somewhere in the universe or do you think that there was a time when there was no life followed by a time when there was life?
If the former, then you are advocating panspermia. Are you?
If the latter, then you necessarily proclaim that life comes from non-life.
You just don't know how.
Which is it, mike? Panspermia or biogenesis?
[Note, that is not a typo.]
quote:
That is my question.
If you think life has always existed, then you have your answer.
If you think there was a time when life didn't exist followed by a time when life did, then you must conclude that there was some sort of biogenesis.
We just don't know how.
Which is it, mike? Panspermia or biogenesis?
[Note, that is not a typo.]

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 2:05 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 547 of 687 (524716)
09-18-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by ICANT
09-14-2009 10:59 AM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
My question was is there anything alive on earth today that was not produced by life? yes/no is all that is required.
And my response was that your question is non-sensical. At the very least, it is extremely naive for it assumes that things as they are now are how things have always been.
But we know that isn't true. We know that large scale chemical changes have happened on this planet. And we know that this planet has not always existed. The former can be handled by evolution. After all, that's the entire point: As the environment changes, so does life. In fact, there is quite a large amount of evidence that the evolution of life on this planet dramatically changed the chemical makeup of the biosphere. There didn't used to be an oxygen atmosphere...but then the life on this planet started outpouring oxygen and the composition of the atmosphere changed. And with that change, life evolved to take advantage of it.
As for the latter, we're back to the question of panspermia. Are you advocating panspermia? Life on this planet came from elsewhere?
quote:
God is infinite therefore life has always existed.
God is alive?
Then that means god can die. Which means god cannot be infinite. Since we've just contradicted ourselves, that means god is not alive.
quote:
So if you mean from within the universe, then No.
Since god is part of the universe, if life came from god, then there is no contradiction and you are, indeed, advocating panspermia.
quote:
Biogenesis=The theory of biogenesis states that living things can only arise from living things and cannot be spontaneously generated.
Logical error: Equivocation.
Biogenesis=The origin of life from "bio-" meaning "life" and "genesis" meaning "origin."
You seem to be advocating that there has never been a time where there wasn't life. Thus, you are not adovcating the creation of life since it has always existed. Instead, you are advocating panspermia: Life came from elsewhere.
quote:
God gave life to man, as well as all plants and animals, Thus life begat life.
But as established previously, god isn't alive.
But even if we do allow the disproven concept of god being alive, your argument fails unless you are saying that life was biologically spawned from god's body.
Life as we currently see it propagates by reproduction: The cell splits in two.
Are you saying life was made by some sort of parthenogenetic spawning of god? That god ejaculated, had it caught on a piece of wool, sewed it into his thigh, and then had Adam spring out of it?
quote:
According to the theory of biogenesis life can only be produced by life and not by spontaneous generation.
Logical error: Equivocation.
Your use of "biogenesis" is not the same as mine.
Logical error: Red herring.
Spontenous generation has nothing to do with the abiogenesis.
quote:
A life form had to begat the first life form on earth.
Assumes facts not in evidence. In fact, assumes facts that are directly contradicted by evidence.
There was a time when there wasn't life followed by a time when life did exist. Therefore, there had to be some process by which life was created from non-life.
We just don't know how.
quote:
Scientific evidence that there is a life giving being.
Trivially proven true, but irrelevant to your conclusion.
By your own definition, god is not alive.
Therefore, life came from non-life.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:59 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 1:29 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 561 of 687 (524782)
09-18-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by ICANT
09-18-2009 12:33 PM


ICANT writes:
quote:
ICANT'S position on the question at hand. "what do we observe the speed of the light to be in the example?"
The speed of light = 299,792,458 meters per second.
99.9% the speed of light = 299,792,458 meters per second.
.1% the speed of light = 299,792.458 meters per second.
So we observe the light pulling away from us at .1% the speed of light.
But that isn't what we observe. Instead, we see it pulling away from us at 100% of the speed of light.
It's the old joke: If I'm in a car travelling that fast and I turn on the headlights, do they work? And the answer is that yes, they do, precisely as you would expect them to were you not traveling that fast.
The speed of light is a constant and is always measured to be the same velocity no matter your frame of reference.
It's part of the reason why Newtonian physics fails. According to Newtonian physics, if I am on a train traveling at velocity X and I throw something off in the direction of motion at velocity Y, then the velocity of the object with respect to a stationary observer is X + Y while the velocity of the object with respect to me is Y.
But that isn't what we see. Instead, we see the Lorentz transformation. As X and Y approach c, we both see the object moving precisely at c with respect to ourselves.




Get Windows Media Player"
src="http://www.learner.org/vod/asx/ca-csupomona/Mechanical_Universe_42.asx" name="Player" width="320" height="304" showstatusbar="1">
I recommend the entire The Mechanical Universe series as a good introduction to physics.
Edited by Rrhain, : No autostart on the video.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 12:33 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 562 of 687 (524784)
09-18-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by ICANT
09-18-2009 1:29 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
The question was simple.
The answer just as simple. NO
Oh? How do you know? Tell us, when an asexually-reproducing single cell divides, what happened to the original cell? Is it still alive? Did it "die"?
Are gametes "alive"?
It would appear that we can trace life back all the way to the first life which necessarily arose from something that wasn't alive.
Unless, of course, you are saying that there has never been a time in the entire existence of the universe where there hasn't been life.
In which case, you are advocating panspermia.
quote:
The physical part that dies is nothing but a body that the mind and spirit reside in.
And what is life except the physical part? Are you saying that there is something going on inside the cell other than chemistry?
Was there ever a time in the entire existence of the universe where there wasn't physical life?
quote:
That will be determined as to whether man accepts the free full pardon offered by God.
BZZZZT!
Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, ICANT. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!
Well, Bob, ICANT has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, ICANT gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.
But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.
You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 1:29 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Rahvin, posted 09-18-2009 3:44 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 599 of 687 (525331)
09-23-2009 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 578 by ICANT
09-21-2009 12:05 PM


ICANT writes:
quote:
I just keep looking for the lens cleaner and a few good wipes to clear away a litle of the mud so a little light can shine through, so I won't be so confused.
The first step would be to stop trying to drive when you don't even know what a car is.
An object in uniform circular motion isn't undergoing acceleration? Did you really say that? That physicists the entire world over, depsite having successfully invented the wheel and used it to develop untold numbers of rotary tools, have completely misunderstood circular motion?
You mean bicycle riders actuall fall down when they lean into a turn since there is no acceleration in uniform circular motion?
Acceleration is change in velocity. Velocity, however, is a vector. Therefore, change in velocity does not require a change in speed. Instead, it can be the result of a change in direction.
When a constant force is applied perpendicularly to the direction of motion, an acceleration is experienced perpendicularly and the object moves in a circular path.
Again, ICANT, I highly recommend that you sit down and watch The Mechanical Universe in order to get a basic understanding of simple physics.




Get Windows Media Player"
src="http://www.learner.org/vod/asx/ca-usc/Mechanical_Universe_09.asx" name="Player" width="320" height="304" showstatusbar="1">

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 12:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 9:06 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 619 of 687 (525847)
09-24-2009 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 603 by ICANT
09-23-2009 9:06 AM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
You can't park that bicycle so how can you accelerate it?
Exactly what do you think "acceleration" is?
Defining position, velocity, and acceleration from first principles:




Get Windows Media Player"
src="http://www.learner.org/vod/asx/ca-csupomona/Mechanical_Universe_02.asx" name="Player" width="320" height="304" showstatusbar="1">
Vectors:




Get Windows Media Player"
src="http://www.learner.org/vod/asx/ca-usc/Mechanical_Universe_05.asx" name="Player" width="320" height="304" showstatusbar="1">
Newton's laws:




Get Windows Media Player"
src="http://www.learner.org/vod/asx/ca-usc/Mechanical_Universe_06.asx" name="Player" width="320" height="304" showstatusbar="1">
A very serious question, ICANT. I really want to know the answer to this:
Do you know calculus?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 9:06 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 620 of 687 (525850)
09-24-2009 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 609 by ICANT
09-23-2009 10:25 PM


ICANT writes:
quote:
So we fire a beam of light from this rock we are on, do we have a speedometer hooked to it to tell us how fast it is going?
Yes.
The Michelson-Morley experiment:




Get Windows Media Player"
src="http://www.learner.org/vod/asx/ca-csupomona/Mechanical_Universe_41.asx" name="Player" width="320" height="304" showstatusbar="1">
Velocity and Time:




Get Windows Media Player"
src="http://www.learner.org/vod/asx/ca-usc/Mechanical_Universe_43.asx" name="Player" width="320" height="304" showstatusbar="1">
Again, a very serious question I really want to know the answer to:
Do you know calculus?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 10:25 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024