Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4793 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 226 of 415 (499094)
02-16-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by cavediver
02-16-2009 4:04 PM


Re: The Spat's Phat But
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by cavediver, posted 02-16-2009 4:04 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by traste, posted 03-17-2009 2:04 AM lyx2no has not replied
 Message 248 by traste, posted 03-23-2009 10:58 PM lyx2no has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5219 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 227 of 415 (499523)
02-18-2009 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by cavediver
02-14-2009 7:13 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 7:13 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2009 12:02 AM traste has not replied
 Message 229 by onifre, posted 02-19-2009 3:09 PM traste has replied
 Message 230 by Kapyong, posted 02-19-2009 5:41 PM traste has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 228 of 415 (499524)
02-19-2009 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by traste
02-18-2009 11:43 PM


Science vs. religion
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by traste, posted 02-18-2009 11:43 PM traste has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 229 of 415 (499642)
02-19-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by traste
02-18-2009 11:43 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by traste, posted 02-18-2009 11:43 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by traste, posted 03-17-2009 1:04 AM onifre has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3519 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 230 of 415 (499665)
02-19-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by traste
02-18-2009 11:43 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by traste, posted 02-18-2009 11:43 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5219 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 231 of 415 (503244)
03-17-2009 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by onifre
02-19-2009 3:09 PM


to understand science
[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 ob
served. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by onifre, posted 02-19-2009 3:09 PM onifre has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5219 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 232 of 415 (503249)
03-17-2009 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by lyx2no
02-16-2009 2:37 AM


Re: A Passel of PRATTS
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 a
caricature from it under plausible condition.HAHAHAHAHAHAHA......HAHAHAHA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by lyx2no, posted 02-16-2009 2:37 AM lyx2no has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5219 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 233 of 415 (503250)
03-17-2009 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by lyx2no
02-16-2009 4:52 PM


Re: The Spat's Phat But
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by lyx2no, posted 02-16-2009 4:52 PM lyx2no has not replied

alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5513 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 234 of 415 (503364)
03-18-2009 9:44 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 10:46 AM alaninnont has replied
 Message 237 by Taq, posted 03-18-2009 2:56 PM alaninnont has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 415 (503374)
03-18-2009 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by alaninnont
03-18-2009 9:44 AM


Piece of cake
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by alaninnont, posted 03-18-2009 9:44 AM alaninnont has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by alaninnont, posted 03-18-2009 2:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5513 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 236 of 415 (503392)
03-18-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2009 10:46 AM


Re: Piece of cake
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 10:46 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 3:15 PM alaninnont has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 237 of 415 (503393)
03-18-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by alaninnont
03-18-2009 9:44 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by alaninnont, posted 03-18-2009 9:44 AM alaninnont has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 415 (503398)
03-18-2009 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by alaninnont
03-18-2009 2:46 PM


Strike two
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 in the universe on Earth. Therefore, life could not have existed forever on Earth. Ergo, not all life on Earth arises from other life.
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:
Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon. The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified.
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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by alaninnont, posted 03-18-2009 2:46 PM alaninnont has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by alaninnont, posted 03-18-2009 4:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5513 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 239 of 415 (503409)
03-18-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2009 3:15 PM


Re: Strike two
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 3:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Taq, posted 03-18-2009 4:53 PM alaninnont has not replied
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 4:57 PM alaninnont has not replied
 Message 242 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2009 4:58 PM alaninnont has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 240 of 415 (503413)
03-18-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by alaninnont
03-18-2009 4:31 PM


Re: Strike two
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by alaninnont, posted 03-18-2009 4:31 PM alaninnont has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 5:00 PM Taq 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