Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science rejects Abiogenesis
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 40 (18576)
09-30-2002 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bart007
09-29-2002 6:38 PM


Nice convienent save. But as for the dates the web sites were posted and the day your message was posted, not credible. The similarities in almost word for word and also content for content is too coincidental. Mathematically possible? Sure, but not likely. Still does not get you off the hook buddy.
Keep squirming, you just might be able to work yourself off the hook if no one is looking.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bart007, posted 09-29-2002 6:38 PM Bart007 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 10:27 PM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 40 (18578)
09-30-2002 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
09-29-2002 7:20 PM


minnemooseus,
Is there any evidence that different laws might have been in effect in these time periods we are talking that would allow for spontaneous generation. Obviously the laws had to be different?
I need this for research, some creationists were quoting that the physical laws were always the same. Laws of thermodynamics.
What is your take on this question, and to the others any help from either side would be great.
Waiting for your reply.
Besides good post.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day
[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 10-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2002 7:20 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-30-2002 9:28 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 40 (18646)
09-30-2002 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by derwood
09-18-2002 11:36 AM


Bart007 wrote: "In 1981 [A.E, Wilder-Smith] wrote "The Natural Sciences know Nothing about Evolution". In 1993 he wrote: "The Time Dimension: Its Relationship to the Origin of Life". I highly recommend you get these books ..."
SLPx "Yes, a creationoist, Wow. I am impressed that an avowed creationist would write a book with such an asinine title."
Let us test whether or not the title of that 1st book I mentioned is, as you put it, "Asinine".
You probably believe that science has established Evolution (i.e. all creatures extant and extinct share a common ancestry)as a fact. If you do not believe this, please set the record straight.
If so, then you must know that science knows a lot about evolution and it is extremely affirmative.
Perhaps you can share something specific that science knows about Evolution that affirms Evolution. If you can come up with, let say, 3 or 4 that science KNOWS about Evlution, then perhaps we can agrre that Wilder-Smith's Title was Asinine. But let's focus on one at a time.
SLPx wrote: "I suggest that you read some non-biased, intelligent sources. And re-read them. And keep re-reading them unitl you understand how ridiculous, dishonest, and incompetent creationist propagandists are."
Debate me. Let's see if I'm a "... ridiculous, dishonest, and incompetent creationist...". But if your gifted at ridicule, browbeating, and insults; and ad-hominem attacks and other sophistries are all you are about, then it's best you do not reply at all. Otherwise, I welcome your comments, thoughts and arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by derwood, posted 09-18-2002 11:36 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 09-30-2002 9:03 PM Bart007 has replied
 Message 31 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 4:35 PM Bart007 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 40 (18648)
09-30-2002 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Bart007
09-30-2002 8:43 PM


"Perhaps you can share something specific that science knows about Evolution that affirms Evolution. If you can come up with, let say, 3 or 4 that science KNOWS about Evlution, then perhaps we can agrre that Wilder-Smith's Title was Asinine. But let's focus on one at a time."
--I don't think SLPx Will have any difficulty providing you with this data..I sure wouldn't. I am also in wonder of why and how this provision of data regarding the ToE has anything to do with whether or not a title of a book is silly or stupid.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 8:43 PM Bart007 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 10:31 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 20 of 40 (18650)
09-30-2002 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by acmhttu001_2006
09-30-2002 2:34 AM


quote:
Is there any evidence that different laws might have been in effect in these time periods we are talking that would allow for spontaneous combustion.
Spontaneous cumbustion? Why do I get the feeling that you've been hanging out with the string section, snorting the bow rosin?
quote:
Obviously the laws had to be different?
That was back before the anti-smoking laws came into effect, but I suspect it was still frowned on to burst into flame on a whim.
quote:
I need this for research, some creationists were quoting that the physical laws were always the same.
On a serious note, it's the creationist side that is sometimes being found trying to bend the laws of physics. All in all, I think we need a more specific querry.
quote:
What is your intake
You offering to buy me a beer?
quote:
and to the others any help from either side would be great.
Or has she been pocessed by the spirit of Brad.
Moose, operating in the wise-ass mode
------
Note by edit: Anne has edited the message this is a reply to, such that it now makes greater sense (See her note below). I rather wish I had preserved the original. Maybe it's hiding somewhere in my disc cache - Moose
------
Found it!
quote:
minnemooseus,
Is there any evidence that different laws might have been in effect in these time periods we are talking that would allow for spontaneous combustion. Obviously the laws had to be different?
I need this for research, some creationists were quoting that the physical laws were always the same.
What is your intake, and to the others any help from either side would be great.
Waiting for your reply.
Besides good post.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-30-2002 2:34 AM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-01-2002 2:12 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 40 (18653)
09-30-2002 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
09-29-2002 7:20 PM


minnemooseus: "Abiogenesis theory is certainly based on a lot of ifs and maybes of what was the early earth's environment."
Actually, Stanley Miller used the most ideal atmosphere (developed by scientists Oparin and Haldane) for producing life's building blocks by natural cause, and he did his experiment under the most ideal conditions. As discussed in the first two posts of this thread, his experiment demonstrated how highly implausible any scenario for the origin of life by natural causes is. Then I added many more discoveries since Miller's experiments that exponentially increase the improbability of the "Origin of life by natural causes" (i.e. the spontaneous generation of life.)
I was far from finished, I could have gone on with more science that is also fatal to any belief in concept of the spontaneous generation of life.
For example, even if one were to get the proper mix of only the twenty amino acids that are found in living organisms, and even if all of them are left handed, the precision of the order of amino acids must occur for folding to occur is enormously precise. Hubert Yockey demonstrated in 1979 and 1980 that for evey amino acid (i.e. peptide) chains of 100 amino acids long (which is a fairly short peptide chain) only one combination will fold for every 10^65 possible combinations the 20 amino acids can occur. Yockey's theoretical analysis was confirmed a decade later by a team from MIT led by Robert Sauer who demonstrated than when amino acids were substituted in the 92 amino acid chain protein - lambda repressor - only 1 would fold for every 10^63 combinations that does not fold. This is hard science in action.
The evidence from science that falsifies the "spontaneous generation of life" is far far massive than the evidence from from science that falsifies the flat earth theory. The fact that so many otherwise very intelligent people still cling to a belief in the spontaneous generation of life can only be accounted for on philosophical grounds and in defense of a materialistic worldview.
minnemooseus writes: "It is a study of what might have happened, but I can't see abiogenesis ever being "proven beyond a reasonable doubt", as evolution has (of course an opinion that many creationists don't agree with)."
Of course.
But with the spontaneous generation of life being falsfied by science, the only intelligent alternative is Creation by an Intelligent, Wise Creator. Fpr as scientist Michael Polyani and others point out, what natural causes can not do, intelligent causes can do. It takes intelligence and know how to impose boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chance to achieve a preconceived result. Matter and energy has no such intelligence, know how, or preconcieved ideas and goals.
Matter and energy can not do this because the information of a living cell is not contained in any of the individual molecules or atomic particles that form a cell, rather it lies in the configuration of their very specifed (Yocket-Sauer etc.)their arrangement.
As for the alleged 'fact of Evolution':
I do not believe that any evolutionist can point to any specific date when they can say that science has henceforth demonstrated Evolution to be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".
I do not believe any evolutionist can point to any scientific evidence that demonstrates Evolution has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" and is henceforth neither open to any further questioning as to its' validity.
minnemooseus writes: "To put it differently:
"We have the "fact" of evolution - The theory of evolution is the best effort to explain the mechanisms."
Explain what mechanisms?
minnemooseus writes: "We do NOT have the "fact" of abiogenesis - But it is one of the possible starting points, from which evolution happened. The theory of abiogenesis is the best effort to explain the mechanisms of a possible "non-fact"."
minnemooseus writes: "So once again it is stated: "Even if the current state of abiogenesis theory is falsified, the fact of evolution remains the same"."
minnemooseus writes: "No claims what-so-ever, of being a biologist, biochemist, or biowhateverist,
Moose"
One can claim anything. It is another matter producing the scientific evidence on which such a claim of "fact" is based.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2002 7:20 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-30-2002 10:23 PM Bart007 has not replied
 Message 26 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-01-2002 1:12 AM Bart007 has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 40 (18654)
09-30-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by acmhttu001_2006
09-30-2002 2:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
To the author of this topic,
Yep, not a good thing. When I started, I made the same dumb mistake. Give credit for the sources so we can check these. Becuase, how do we know you are not just saying things to agree with what you think? How do we know if you are or are not manipulating science to fit your own definitions?
Until sources are cited, I will assume the two beginning posts are false, for there is not way that we can back them up or validate them. And it there is not way, then you are to discard them.
Need sources. Not a good practice not quoting sources.

Hello Anne Mcquire
I appreciate your "kind" rebuke. I'm sure it's not the last mistake I make.
I have already corrected my faux pas. I edited my original post and added A. E. Wilder-Smith to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-30-2002 2:25 AM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-01-2002 2:15 AM Bart007 has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 23 of 40 (18657)
09-30-2002 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Bart007
09-30-2002 9:57 PM


Re: The "fact" of evolution.
I used this sites search utility to find my previous postings of
5 , , which is Steevie Gould's essay on the matter.
My more significant posting on the matter can be found at:
http://EvC Forum: Using the Bible as fact... -->EvC Forum: Using the Bible as fact...
A lesser posting can be found at:
http://EvC Forum: Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000 -->EvC Forum: Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000
At both those topics, the subject seems to be rather off topic.
Maybe the short, dead topic "Fossils..." at
EvC Forum: Fossils...
might be a good place for the "fact" of evolution debate to continue.
Moose
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 9:57 PM Bart007 has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 40 (18658)
09-30-2002 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by acmhttu001_2006
09-30-2002 2:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Nice convienent save. But as for the dates the web sites were posted and the day your message was posted, not credible. The similarities in almost word for word and also content for content is too coincidental. Mathematically possible? Sure, but not likely. Still does not get you off the hook buddy.

You have the mind of an evolutionist Anne C. Mcquire . Only an evolutionist can think and suggest that the possibilty of two lengthy posts, written by two different people, and that match almost word for word, and both claiming theirs to be originals, is "Mathematically possible".
SLPx, said I copied from a "Thompson" fellow. Who are you claiming I copied from, Anne.?
Anne C. McQuire writes: "Keep squirming, you just might be able to work yourself off the hook if no one is looking."
Why Anne, you do me wrong to treat me so discourteously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-30-2002 2:32 AM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 4:21 PM Bart007 has replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 40 (18659)
09-30-2002 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TrueCreation
09-30-2002 9:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Perhaps you can share something specific that science knows about Evolution that affirms Evolution. If you can come up with, let say, 3 or 4 that science KNOWS about Evlution, then perhaps we can agrre that Wilder-Smith's Title was Asinine. But let's focus on one at a time."
--I don't think SLPx Will have any difficulty providing you with this data..I sure wouldn't. I am also in wonder of why and how this provision of data regarding the ToE has anything to do with whether or not a title of a book is silly or stupid.

Hello True Creatioon
If you can help SLPx, "TrueCreation" please do so. I am curious as to what your proposed scientific evidence may be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 09-30-2002 9:03 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 4:24 PM Bart007 has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 26 of 40 (18673)
10-01-2002 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Bart007
09-30-2002 9:57 PM


I have previously commented on the "fact" of evolution part, but I thought I should say something on the abiogenesis part.
Essentially, I view abiougenesis research as being a trite, esoteric pursuit. I really don't care how life on earth started. The fact is, somehow it started. At least the research doesn't cost hoards of money to do, unlike the (IMO) dubious space station project, or the now shot down supercollider project down in Texas.
The essence of the intent of my posting, is that there is no evidence of abiogenesis having happened. I don't expect that any such evidence will ever be found. I can't even visualize what the evidence could be, other than it would be very small, and buried in multi-billion year old rocks. Relative to that situation, finding a specific needle somewhere on the earth's surface would be easy.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 9:57 PM Bart007 has not replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 40 (18679)
10-01-2002 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Minnemooseus
09-30-2002 9:28 PM


minnemooseus,
I was up late last night, not used to being up that late. Do not know what I was typing until I reread my message tonight, and then I saw you had replied to it. Before scrolling down, I think to myself, oh boy, this ought to be good. And sure enough I was not disappointed.
I am so sorry, I was very tired. The message has been re-edited. Out of all the posts that have really made me laugh, this has to be the one.
The spirit of Brad, oh heck no. Just wanted to see what "scientific" things the other side had to offer. I am getting frustrated, as they cannot directly answer some of my questions nor other questions that are raised by others.
Anyways, thanks for posting. I knew you had fun with this one. And I am sure that we all needed a good laugh.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-30-2002 9:28 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 10-24-2002 5:40 PM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 40 (18680)
10-01-2002 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Bart007
09-30-2002 10:09 PM


Thanks,
And yes I did go and check out the source. Have some to think about it, before discussing this with you.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 10:09 PM Bart007 has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 29 of 40 (19004)
10-03-2002 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Bart007
09-30-2002 10:27 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bart007:
SLPx, said I copied from a "Thompson" fellow. Who are you claiming I copied from, Anne.?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Your reading comprehension is inversely proportional to your overconfidence.
I never said any such thing, as I have reiterated and should have been obvious.
I found several sentences from your original bombast in the posts of others made some time ago - verbatim.
As should have been painfully obvious, I wrote that I had 'shamelessly stolen' Tim Thompson's words - that is, I made a blatant attribution to the original author of what I posted.
Please at least re-read the posts in question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 10:27 PM Bart007 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Bart007, posted 10-03-2002 6:23 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 30 of 40 (19005)
10-03-2002 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Bart007
09-30-2002 10:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Bart007:
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Perhaps you can share something specific that science knows about Evolution that affirms Evolution. If you can come up with, let say, 3 or 4 that science KNOWS about Evlution, then perhaps we can agrre that Wilder-Smith's Title was Asinine. But let's focus on one at a time."
--I don't think SLPx Will have any difficulty providing you with this data..I sure wouldn't. I am also in wonder of why and how this provision of data regarding the ToE has anything to do with whether or not a title of a book is silly or stupid.

Hello True Creatioon
If you can help SLPx, "TrueCreation" please do so. I am curious as to what your proposed scientific evidence may be.

Wow. The overconfidence of the engineer creationist is matched only by its arrogance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 10:31 PM Bart007 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