Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

Except for the fact that your recounting was vague and anecdotal, and still is since you have still not provided any significant information about the experiment.So far you have given no indication that you have any real familiarity with biology, maybe with the URLs of some creationist websites though. Well you could start by adressing DNA, which is what we were talking about to start off with. You could also provide some evidence of the neccessity for everything to be optically pure, since there are examples of proteins incorporating D-form amino acids (Caparros, et al., 1991). Why? It clearly shows that 100% optical purity is not neccessary for all the processes of DNA replication, which is one vital part of a DNA based life cycle. Have you never heard of glycoproteins? How can you conceiveably claim that there is no interlacing of activities when there are both glycoproteins and ribosomes which have proteins mixed with sugars or RNA, L and D forms interlaced for functionality.So far you have yet to provide a single shred of scientific evidence to substantiate any of your claims. If you want to even pretend to be able to conduct a scientific debate you are really going to have to pull your finger out.TTFN,WK

I dont see how to have a rational discussion with someone who dismisses the major emphasis of the displipline from 1920 to 2000 and continuing, ie,someone who refuses to face the failed efforts of his forefathers to account for how the establishment of the basis for his lifes work in micro and maco evolution is hung on thin air and has absolutely no rational credible basis for belief ... a religion then based on faith. If you care to suspend your integrity, intellectual honesty and cannot admit to the true state of affairs past and prresent then it is totally enigmatic how to proceed with any degree of confidence in the honesty of any remarks you might make.The creator was the original designer and interjected the intelligence, knowhow, knowledge etc. onto non-living matter to create every kind of life and the information based adaptability to exist in changing conditions via the molecular processes, machinery and consciousness of thought in the case of humanity.It was therefore unnecessary to intervene except as necessary in his own determination but not in routine biological or physical processes.Does that help?

I sort my replies in order of stupidity so yours generally take a while to address.Gravity is a force which in the case of the river of water causes it to seek a position of constrained equilibrium in agreement with the physical conditions and constraints. The effect is to convert high potential energy into flowing or kinetic energy and finally into a lower potential energy state in the sea or lake. Oh and entropy is increased in the process as the water is in a less organized state in the lake than as snow crystals in the mountains say.Now lakes, water and snow crystals are not quite on topic but I don't mind giving your team a little physics lesson as I have been doing for years since most of your soft science degrees don't get much past the old rub the glass rod with cat fur and pick up a piece of paper.Let me know when things get a little over your head sweety I am really here to help you get a grip.

If you keep this up I really do fear the Admins are going to be on your tail.TTFN,WK

Evopeach,I wanted to welcome you to EvC, but as I've been reading through your posts I have changed my mind. If you can't check the condescending attitude at the door you won't last long here.I understand the extreme frustration that can come in a heated debate, but your attitude came out loud and clear right from your first post. The people you are addressing here are not snot-nosed little brats spouting off the latest opinion they have been given from The Discovery Channel.If the attitude does not lighten up you will be suspended for increasing lengths of time for each offense.I suggest you take the time to read our Forum Guidelines. You agreed to abide by them when you registered here. No need to respond here, take any concerns or questions to the appropriate thread in my signature box.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

You need to try to improve your posting methods. How did that further the conversation?The rest of your post is pretty much nonsense.I'm going to ask you to try to answer questions in a reasonable and logical manner or your posting privileges will be restricted.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-04-2005 11:34 AM

---

Woo-hoo, 1 for 1. My career as a prophet has started!!!TTFN,WK

Ummm... you have no idea what you are talking about. Biology, genetics, ToE, and bioinfomatics have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with abiogenesis.Abiogenesis is an interesting topic, but wether it's a fact or not does nothing for the ToE. Abiogenisis does not need to be true in order for the ToE to be true.Do you understand?I guess I would like to ask, do you want to discuss the ToE, or Abiogenesis? Ummm... I i have no idea what this paragraph is trying to say and how it relates to my question. Do you think you could spell things out a little clearer? Us lesser mortals need a little help. No, it dosn't. I don't mean to make you lower yourself to our level, your excelence, but do you think you could clarify your position using tiny words better suited to our intelectualy inferior moron brains?This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-04-2005 02:00 PM

quote:

---

My hypothesis and et al clearly is that life and thus evolution are impossible under any scenario except the hybridization of intelligence onto non-living matter to establish the operations of life as we see them without dispute.

---

Actually, your hypothesis is word salad -- you use terms that are vague and inappropriate for the context, and you are clearly being misled by the analogies used in the explanations of the concepts. There is no hypothesis to refute, because your hypothesis is meaningless.

quote:

---

I sort my replies in order of stupidity so yours generally take a while to address.

---

Take all the time you need, dear.-

quote:

---

Gravity is a force....

---

In the same way, the electrostatic force is what drives chemistry (through quantum mechanics). The laws of chemistry govern how the chemical energy contained in ATP is converted to energy, driving the particular chemical reactions that we identify as DNA transcription and DNA replication. Of course, this is a decrease in entropy as well.-

quote:

---

most of your soft science degrees

---

My degrees are in physics and mathematics. What's yours in?-

quote:

---

Let me know when things get a little over your head sweety

---

Thanks, honey, and I'll help you learn a thing or two as well. Are you a native of Oklahoma? The head of the department where I teach and I were just having a conversation about the very poor quality of education in the public schools here in Oklahoma.

Electrostatics and quantum mechanics ... hmmm oh I get it when you rubbed that cat fur on the glass rod you thought of the dead or alive cat problem from QM. Wow clever.Engineering Physics and Systems Engineering I wanted to learn everything in those degrees you mentioned plus the knowledge to apply it to something practical useful and real world.Now go ahead and include long division in your posts, its ok

quote:

---

I wanted to learn everything in those degrees you mentioned....

---

Did you succeed? Can you prove rigorously that for every finite dimensional vector space, each basis has the same cardinality?What about a system composed of two spin 1/2 particles: can you write the state with J=1, M=0 as a superposition of the states where the spin states of the individual particles are given? Can you explain, in terms of the spins of the individual particles, the difference between the J=1, M=0 state and the J=0 state?I won't actually ask you to do so; I'll accept a simple "yes" to these questions (although you're answer will be easier to believe if you would use the phrase "Clebsch-Gordon coefficient" correctly, and use it to relate the three questions).

e\/opeach was teh own3d.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-04-2005 04:28 PM

I've just stumbled upon this thread and I'm intrigued as to where you're sticking your amino acids in your DNA. As far as I'm aware DNA isn't a long string of amino acids. I thought it was a long string of nucleotide bases, not amino acids at all and a really funny thought struck me. When I use the DNA synthesiser to make oligonucleotides and I don't provide any amino acids, I still get DNA oligonucleotides out the other end. When I do PCR and add nucleotide building blocks to my reactions, but don't add amino acids, I still get DNA produced at the end.Heck, I musta bin doing it wrong for...........oh years and years!Or maybe you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.My experience tells me it's the latter.

boot camp is still active?