Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2017 4:49 PM
391 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,910 Year: 13,516/21,208 Month: 2,998/3,605 Week: 340/933 Day: 82/154 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 106 of 169 (525316)
09-22-2009 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by traste
09-22-2009 12:59 AM


Re: you are ignorant
It is not out of context,what Iam implying is that mutation is not beneficial, since out of 1000 only only one is succesful,that is the real reason why I qoute Sagan.

No, no that was not what your original post said or implied.

This is what you originally said in Message 91

Traste writes:

That process is not really good, infact astronomer Carl Sagan once said mutation is "lethal".

Your implication here is that Sagan was saying all mutations were lethal. You can try to claim otherwise but that is the clear implication of what you said. You would not have mentioned it if you did not want it to be taken that way.
Oh were you able to find the original source for him saying that. I do not see that you ever provided one. I am not saying you don't have one but I would love to see the context.

I know also that qoute,he is implying that mutation serve as a "raw material for evolution" but they cannot because most of them as he wrote are "lethal"

How does the fact most mutations are lethal mean that they cannot be the raw materials for evolution? Please explain how this works. I mean more than just you assert it is so. I guess evidence is what I mean.

Does the qoute most of them are "lethal" means to you all mutations are lethal? Or you are just so defensive that is why you cannot comprehend properly.

Your habit of making personal attacks when you cannot make an argument is getting very wearying. Do you think maybe you can support your arguments instead of lashing out? You have been caught misrepresenting Carl Sagan and have yet provided no evidence to show your side. You might want to try to or acknowledge you argument was flawed. Or maybe you might want to just lash out with personal attacks again.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by traste, posted 09-22-2009 12:59 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by traste, posted 09-23-2009 10:52 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 107 of 169 (525318)
09-22-2009 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by traste
09-22-2009 12:02 AM


Re: you are ignorant
Why should I give you the complete source if after all you just call them bullshit for the simple reason that you dont like?

So you have no source. Typical.

In this reply to Huntard and your reply to Dr. Adequate you provide no evidence or even a hint of an argument.

Why not research about the law of recurrent variation so that you will know.

You do know there is no scientific law called this don't you. If you have any evidence such a scientific law exists please present it.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by traste, posted 09-22-2009 12:02 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 12:41 AM Theodoric has responded
 Message 122 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 4:33 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 2551 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 108 of 169 (525606)
09-23-2009 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Theodoric
09-22-2009 10:09 PM


Re: you are ignorant
Theodocric wrote:

Your implication here is that Sagan was saying all mutations were lethal. You can try to claim otherwise but that is the clear implication of what you said.

Forgive me, if I , forgot to wrote the word "most"

Your habit of making personal attacks when you cannot make an argument is getting very wearying. Do you think maybe you can support your arguments instead of lashing out? You have been caught misrepresenting Carl Sagan and have yet provided no evidence to show your side. You might want to try to or acknowledge you argument was flawed. Or maybe you might want to just lash out with personal attacks again.

Theodocric, I have an outmost respect for those people who argue properly, I mean those people who do not employ ad hominem attacks to depend there position,look at Lynx2no he was addicted to it. Because of that I have a very little respect for him and those people who follow the same way of reasoning. So dont put all the blame to me, when sometimes I employ ad hominem attack,as I said to Lynx2no I, only dance with them. In the mean time I am very busy with my mathimatical research,that is the real reason why I cannot reply immediately. Soon we can debate this issue cogently and equitably,it doesnt mean however that Iam incapable of debating this issue cogently and equitably, becuase I did really employ it.

Let's debate this issue as real intellectual men, ad hominem attack is no help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Theodoric, posted 09-22-2009 10:09 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Theodoric, posted 09-24-2009 9:06 AM traste has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 109 of 169 (525689)
09-24-2009 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by traste
09-23-2009 10:52 PM


Re: you are ignorant
Forgive me, if I , forgot to wrote the word "most"

Why did you make no attempt to change this until you were called on it? And then even then claim you were correct. I am sorry, but you have misrepresented quotes and facts many times on this forum. Of course I am going to point out something you say is not true. I, and others I am sure, are still waiting for a reference to the original Sagan quote you claim. I am quite sure I know the original, but do you? Or is it just a flippant creationist line that you got somewhere.

Soon we can debate this issue cogently and equitably,it doesnt mean however that Iam incapable of debating this issue cogently and equitably, becuase I did really employ it.

I have no clue what the end of this sentence means.

Let's debate this issue as real intellectual men, ad hominem attack is no help.

I have never claimed to be an intellectual and I am very wary of those who feel the need to claim themselves as such.

It is actually amusing when someone, that obviously does no know or understand a subject, tries to be condescending. You might try a little less of that, but then again it gives you an excuse to attack people instead of actually debating them.

How about replying to the substance of posts. Might make people less irritated by you.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by traste, posted 09-23-2009 10:52 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by traste, posted 10-18-2009 10:43 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 2551 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 110 of 169 (531578)
10-18-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Theodoric
09-24-2009 9:06 AM


Re: you are ignorant
Thedocric wrote:

Why did you make no attempt to change this until you were called on it?

As I said ,I forgot.

And then even then claim you were correct.

But my implication is most mutations were lethal,not all.

I am sorry, but you have misrepresented quotes and facts man
times on this forum.

0h, that's cute.Try to point one except the quote from Sagan.

Of course I am going to point out something you say is not true

Not true for you maybe,but there explanation is conflicting,that is cute too.

I have never claimed to be an intellectual and I am very wary of those who feel the need to claim themselves as such.

Yet,you get mad at those people who dont share your beliefs.

It is actually amusing when someone, that obviously does no know or understand a subject, tries to be condescending. You might try a little less of that, but then again it gives you an excuse to attack people instead of actually debating them.

I guess I point out that mutation is a process that break genes so easily, if it means nothing for you I cannot help you. Why not try to minimize Lynx2no's add hominem attack??

Edited by traste, : improving text


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Theodoric, posted 09-24-2009 9:06 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 2551 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 111 of 169 (532997)
10-28-2009 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Theodoric
09-22-2009 10:20 PM


Re: you are ignorant
Theodoric wrote:

So you have no source. Typical.

I'll already give my reason, why I will not.

You do know there is no scientific law called this don't you. If you have any evidence such a scientific law exists please present it.

Actually it exist and it's not alone,the others are the cell theory,the law of biogenesis,and many others. But those things for you and other poponents evolution doesnt exist, because for you and for other proponents of evolution there is no other explanation of the origin of life other than unguided material process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Theodoric, posted 09-22-2009 10:20 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2009 9:43 AM traste has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 112 of 169 (533031)
10-28-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by traste
10-28-2009 12:41 AM


Scientific laws
Actually it exist and it's not alone,the others are the cell theory,the law of biogenesis,and many others. But those things for you and other poponents evolution doesnt exist, because for you and for other proponents of evolution there is no other explanation of the origin of life other than unguided material process.

Do you actually know how science works? One person cannot suddenly claim there is a law.

Please provide evidence that there is a scientific law called "law of recurrent variation".

Since you have no sources for other assertions I do not expect much evidence for this claim either.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 12:41 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by traste, posted 11-01-2009 4:34 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 2551 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 113 of 169 (533566)
11-01-2009 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Theodoric
10-28-2009 9:43 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Thedoric wrote:

Do you actually know how science works? One person cannot suddenly claim there is a law.

What I know is scientific method. It begins with observation,gather data and formulate a hypthosis and test the hyphothesis againts those data over and over again, it the hyphthesis doesnt suit it should be abandoned. Since today we observed only that living things came only fron living things that only shows that the law of biogenesis is really a law.In addition since since we dont observed that an organism change into as what Darwin claimed,that also shows that law of reccurent variation is really a law.

Please provide evidence that there is a scientific law called "law of recurrent variation".

Next month I will give you an information about it.

Since you have no sources for other assertions I do not expect much evidence for this claim either

Can you wait for next month? Right now Iam still looking for a job,Iam a little bit busy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2009 9:43 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2009 4:56 AM traste has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15927
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 114 of 169 (533567)
11-01-2009 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by traste
11-01-2009 4:34 AM


Re: Scientific laws
What I know is scientific method. It begins with observation,gather data and formulate a hypthosis and test the hyphothesis againts those data over and over again, it the hyphthesis doesnt suit it should be abandoned. Since today we observed only that living things came only fron living things that only shows that the law of biogenesis is really a law.

Since we know that at one time there were no living things, and since we know that there are living things now, we know that the "law of biogenesis" is not really a law.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by traste, posted 11-01-2009 4:34 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 1:55 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 119 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 1:26 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 2551 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 115 of 169 (534416)
11-08-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2009 4:56 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Dr Adequate wrote:

Since we know that at one time there were no living things, and since we know that there are living things now, we know that the "law of biogenesis" is not really a law.

Your implication here is that life just emerged,well that is Abio genesis genesis the new mask of spontaneous generation, abiogenesis is not yet a theory they are just competing ideas so far no one has succeded since abiogenesis is not observable today nor it is observable yesterday this only shows that you are an arrogant because you believe in an unobservable things ,what I mean is things with out related evidence . I agree that "at one time" there is no life in this planet I also believe that at one time there is no car, but I cannot believe that car just emerged, nor I believe that organization, elegance simplicity we observe in living things just emerged, why I don't believe is not a matter of personal incredulity,but its a matter of lacked of evidence.

Edited by traste, : wron spelling

Edited by traste, : add words

Edited by traste, : correcting words


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2009 4:56 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by hooah212002, posted 11-08-2009 4:24 AM traste has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 313 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 116 of 169 (534423)
11-08-2009 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by traste
11-08-2009 1:55 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Let me point you here: http://www.physorg.com/news176721370.html

from the article:

Physorg writes:

"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth."

Physorg writes:

Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed, explained Sandford.

Now, while it may not be concrete, it is evidence that simple elements can be formed into the necessary building blocks for life: steps necessary for Abigenesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 1:55 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by traste, posted 11-26-2009 1:45 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 118 by traste, posted 11-26-2009 2:19 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
traste
Member (Idle past 2551 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 117 of 169 (536957)
11-26-2009 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by hooah212002
11-08-2009 4:24 AM


Re: Scientific laws
quote:

:

"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth."

So you are referring to the RNA world theory. The RNA world theory states that RNAis the first self replicating molecule, but this theory as one scientist puts it" is fatally flawed because it failed to explained where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecule." In addition RNA cannot function independently without the help from the 2 macromolecules the protein and DNA the three must work together in order to produce life as one article in the new scientist puts it " just take any one of the three and life will grind to a halt" I hope I educate you.

Edited by traste, : add words


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by hooah212002, posted 11-08-2009 4:24 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2009 3:42 AM traste has responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 2551 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 118 of 169 (536961)
11-26-2009 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by hooah212002
11-08-2009 4:24 AM


Re: Scientific laws
qoute:

Physorg writes:

Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed, explained Sandford.

Now, while it may not be concrete, it is evidence that simple elements can be formed into the necessary building blocks for life: steps necessary for Abigenesis.

Actually the widely accepted idea of how life began here on earth is the idea of Stanley Miller, his experiment was widely cited by many biology books as an ultimate explanation of how life began through Darwinian mechanism. In 1953 Miller prepared necessary ingredients which he though can produce life, sealed it in a flask and passed and electric spark. A week after he found a "reddish goo" which he found to be rich in amino acids "an essence of protein". Origin of life of scientist felt optimistic of this result because they believe it reflects the first part of Alexander Oparin's molecular drama but almost40 years later those optimism die. Why? The journal scientific american reported that " over the past decades or so doubts have grown about Urey and millers assumption regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiment and computerized reconstruction of the atmosphere suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun which is today is blocked by atmospheric zone would have destroy hydrogen based molecules in the atmosphere, such an atmosphere would not have been conducive to the synthesize of amino acids and others precursors of life.

If you really believe that evolution is correct I want you pay to closed attention to the following report"

The journal new scientist in reported that " an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argued that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials"

I really wonder why those people keep on pronouncing that evolution is correct, which in fact they themselves have serious doubts.

Edited by traste, : add words


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by hooah212002, posted 11-08-2009 4:24 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2009 3:35 AM traste has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2338 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 119 of 169 (537109)
11-27-2009 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2009 4:56 AM


Re: Scientific laws
DrAdequate writes:

Since we know that at one time there were no living things, and since we know that there are living things now, we know that the "law of biogenesis" is not really a law.

thats what people believed about rotting meat

meat is fresh, it begins to rot then suddenly life appears (bugs n maggots and flies)

therefore rotting meat produces life

I thought they had worked that one out???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2009 4:56 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 120 of 169 (537120)
11-27-2009 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by traste
11-26-2009 2:19 AM


Re: Scientific laws
The journal new scientist in reported that " an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argued that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials"

Yeah, of course it did Traste - I cannot believe the endless stream of crap you produce. Do you have a reference to this at all???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by traste, posted 11-26-2009 2:19 AM traste has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:05 AM cavediver has responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017