Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 9:08 PM
34 online now:
AZPaul3, LamarkNewAge, Tanypteryx (3 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,505 Year: 3,542/19,786 Month: 537/1,087 Week: 127/212 Day: 43/14 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
28NextFF
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 256 of 415 (504530)
03-30-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by traste
03-23-2009 11:41 PM


Re: Re; Pasteur showed that. life came from life
What do you think should I do that?

I don't think you should, I think you are doing that.

You go from ...

Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterelized water protected from contamination.

... which is a reasonable description of the gist of the experiments, to claiming that this disproves an abiogenetic origin of life. If the abiogenetic theory in question was based around life arising in 'sterelized water protected from contamination' then you would have made a cogent point, as none of them are you are making an unsupportable conflation between the form of spontaneous generation Pasteur's experiments addressed and naturalistic theories of origins.

The only basis for this conflation is the semantic overlap where the word abiogenesis has been used both to describe spontaneous generation and modern naturalistic theories of the origin of life. Without making an actual argument showing that these two precepts are identical in more than sharing a name or by showing how Pasteur's experiments have anything to do with modern scientific studies of abiogenesis (in terms of naturalistic theories of life's origins) you are simply making a bald assertion with absolutely no supporting evidence.

TTFN,

WK

P.S. Please learn how to use the markups for quotes, it would make your posts much easier to follow, if you click on the 'peek' button just below this post on the right hand side you will see how.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by traste, posted 03-23-2009 11:41 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by traste, posted 05-27-2009 2:01 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2791 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 257 of 415 (504546)
03-30-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by traste
03-30-2009 8:09 AM


You've Forced My Hand
I don't see any experiment refute that thing.
I am unable to respond because I am unable or unwilling to put in the effort to determine what "that thing" is.

An engine formed by blind force is ridicoulousssss!!!!!
Yes, it is. That is why it doesn't work as an analogy to anything anyone is saying. The first life was not a random event. Atoms and molecules won't join up in any ol' fashion as a box of auto parts will. O2 and 2H2s will with almost no encouragement form into 2H2O.


Peek for the hidden message.
Also your arguments bear the acronym PRABTS
Pratt works because it is an homonym of the English word "Prat: an incompetent, stupid, or foolish person; an idiot." If "PRABT" is Bulgarian for "eater of dingleberrys" I shall be truly stung.

However, I didn't want to have to go there but… The acronym that applies to you is PROHTMTMFTBOTWTTENPNK: Points Refuted One Hundred Times More Then Mine, From The Beginning Of The World To The End, Padlock — No Key. Snap!


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 254 by traste, posted 03-30-2009 8:09 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by traste, posted 06-28-2009 8:44 PM lyx2no has responded

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1176 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 258 of 415 (504556)
03-30-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Peg
03-24-2009 12:07 AM


Lets say we pull a fish out of a fishtank and allow it to suffocate, why can't we breath life back into it again even if all its organs are in completely intact?

Once blood stops flowing, cellular death begins. Some cells take longer than others but once this process starts, organs start to shut down and soon after decomposition begins (by all the bacteria/microbes living in and on the body). It is brain/cellular death that is currently irreversible mainly due to the sheer numbers of cells that exist in the body. If we could somehow reverse the cellular damage and the brain death very quickly before decomposition begins, than yes this could be a possibility. However, with our current technology it is impossible.

Life is more then just chemical elements, environment and physics.

Can you provide tangible, verifiable evidence supporting your statement?


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Peg, posted 03-24-2009 12:07 AM Peg has not yet responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 259 of 415 (504988)
04-06-2009 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by traste
03-23-2009 11:41 PM


Reasteur limited impact on Mole bio
Hello traste,

It is not easy to bring the work of Pasteur into current bio-chemical discussions even though this is a clear connection for some creationists.

The reason that this conversation has not proceeded seems to me to be due to the changed reception of "evolution" following the De Vries' contribution and Mendel's rediscovery followed by the work of "Morganists" to say absoultely nothing about the changes in current thought since "Watson and Crick."

In 1926 Houghton Mifflin Company published "Darwin" by Gamaliel Bradford. The context of this book provides a way to see that Pasteur's work towards "a grand asymmetry" in life *might* be relevant but one would need to get past the cover's quote above a picture of Darwin's hat saying "He made hell a laughing-stock and heaven a dream." By the 70s and after "Rachael Carson" etc, reformed theologians began to analyze GRACE in ways that put MAN IN this world that this book attempted to exposit was the state of culture before/around "Scopes" making humanities' dream IN this world a veritable heaven rather than a state of perpetual humor. This was the post60s life and during this time molecular biology advanced.

There are ways to bring these two differnt times together but it is not a simple thing to expect different generations to agree by simple ocular evidence of writings just as I was able as a child to notice that my Grandparents DID think differently than my PARENTS.

So from a more extended examination of the difference between individual horizons of people's perspecitves either relying on concepts or intuitions and concepts combined one may proceed generally.

Particularly you may read in Bradford's "Darwin"(page 83)

"The natural hypothesis of earlier thinkers was that divien creative power, in whatever shape, had established the different forms of life on the earth pretty much as they exist today. But those who looked more deeply, were inclined to surmise, in view of the close and evident bonds of kinship between all living things, that variety had developed from comparative unity and that the vital impulse, having first appeared in elementary forms, became gradually elaborated into more and more complicated organisms."

The tranisition from chemistry to biology is about whatever these "elementary forms" might be. That Pascal showed some kind of asymetry only shows that whatever is imagined as NOT AN ARBITRARY powered shaping process, the description of the forms should not necessaruly be symmetrical but rather transtive and asymmetrical. That does not seem to be quite enough information to address the complicated associations among bonds developed since Watson and Crick.

But this does not preclude a modern man in the world and God from existing. It may be that the monomorphic ancestor vision that this social view of Darwinism held is simply false but what that assymetry is logically and in detail is as intricate and varigated as Darwin's "entagled bank."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by traste, posted 03-23-2009 11:41 PM traste has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 260 of 415 (506029)
04-21-2009 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by PaulK
02-16-2009 2:18 AM


Re; Im not confused ,you are
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I've already told you Pasteur's experiment was all about the controversy over whether (modern) microorganisms caused decay or were the product of decay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds that you dont really know his experiment,so stop pretending.Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterilized water protected from contamination.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His statement asserted that his experiment conclusively proved that the former was true and that the latter was false
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His statement was proven experimentally.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the nature of the experiment there is simply no way that it could rule out modern ideas of abiogenesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does ruled out abiogenesis and that was the experiment showed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So all you are doing is insulting Pasteur's memory by painting him as a fool who completely failed to understand the limits of his own experiment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll agree to some degree,but his experiment clearly points out that both abiogenesis and spontaneous genaration are fraud science.HAVE FAITH THEN.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2009 2:18 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2009 11:03 PM traste has responded
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2009 1:33 AM traste has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 261 of 415 (506032)
04-21-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by traste
04-21-2009 10:45 PM


Re: Re; Im not confused ,you are
I'll agree to some degree,but his experiment clearly points out that both abiogenesis and spontaneous genaration are fraud science.HAVE FAITH THEN.

This is the Science Forum. But you recommend that we have "HAVE FAITH."

Faith in what? Remember, one of the primary definitions of "faith" is:

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof

So do you have faith in the scientific method or some supernatural entity?

When you can answer this question, you will have chosen whether you are pro-science or anti-science.

Because there is empirical evidence to support the scientific method and its findings. There is no empirical evidence for supernatural beings. (That's where faith comes in.)

When you believe in things without any empirical evidence, while rejecting opposing things for which there is a huge amount of empirical evidence, you can only be described as anti-science.

Edited by Coyote, : minor edit


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by traste, posted 04-21-2009 10:45 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by traste, posted 05-24-2009 11:38 PM Coyote has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 262 of 415 (506045)
04-22-2009 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by traste
04-21-2009 10:45 PM


Re: Re; Im not confused ,you are
quote:

It sounds that you dont really know his experiment,so stop pretending.Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterilized water protected from contamination.

My memory is that Pasteur used soup, not distilled water. And of course if he HAD used distilled water the results would have been completely unsurprising - even at the time. Nobody would remember it as important.

These sites confirm my memory:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.php
(Stating that he used "meat broth")

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm
(a more detailed description of the experiment and what it showed)

and here
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/b.gardner/pasteur.htm

None mention a relevant experiment using distilled water

So now we know who was really "pretending".

quote:

His statement was proven experimentally.

And your point is ?

quote:

It does ruled out abiogenesis and that was the experiment showed.

No, it only ruled out abiogenesis under conditions and timescales sufficiently similar to those in the experiment. That is a limit of the experimental method.

quote:

I'll agree to some degree,but his experiment clearly points out that both abiogenesis and spontaneous genaration are fraud science.HAVE FAITH THEN.

By which you mean that you think that you can use Pasteur's experiment as an excuse to slander honest scientists .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by traste, posted 04-21-2009 10:45 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by traste, posted 05-25-2009 12:22 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3232 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 263 of 415 (506056)
04-22-2009 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Peg
03-24-2009 12:07 AM


Peg writes:


Lets say we pull a fish out of a fishtank and allow it to suffocate, why can't we breath life back into it again even if all its organs are in completely intact?


Why can't you un-cook an egg? The death of any organism triggers an immediate chemical reaction toward decomposition, as the cells are starving themselves to death for want of energy. If this were not the case, then the successful Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation of a patient that has had absent vital signs for >6 minutes shouldn't cause any brain damage at all. It does, thus your argument is null.

Edited by Michamus, : Corrected CPR analogy for clarity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Peg, posted 03-24-2009 12:07 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 264 of 415 (509779)
05-24-2009 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Coyote
04-21-2009 11:03 PM


Re: Re; Im not confused ,you are
Coyote writes:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Science Forum. But you recommend that we have "HAVE FAITH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply: Yeah,I know faith in evolution because as time goes on evidences continue to increase in opposotion to the theory.Has science produced molecular machines by measns of natural selection?No!Has science produced intermidiate forms of organism?Again,we have to say no.

Coyote writes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith in what? Remember, one of the primary definitions of "faith" is:

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof
So do you have faith in the scientific method or some supernatural entity?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reply: I do have faith in the scientific method,but since evolution does not followed the scientific method,I cannot accep it as scientific.You write "Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof".This definition of faith rightly suit to the proponents of evolution since they themselves have serious doubt of it.For example many scientists signed a document questioning the creative power of natural selection,yet when evolution is under assault in public they same scientists come to protect it. Does it not sound to you very funny.hahahhahahhahaha!!!!!!!!

Coyote writes:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you can answer this question, you will have chosen whether you are pro-science or anti-science.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply: Given that proponents of evolution have not provide tangible evidence to support their claimed,they placed themselves as anti science.Evolution is based on preconceived philosophical ideas("faith based on what the world is like")rather on emperical evidence(facts aquired on experiment and observation).This issue is easy to settle if and only if proponents of evolution have to be honest to theirselves.Has science produced experimental confirmation that in the presence of energy from the sun and perhaps by lightning or exploding volcanoes some mindless matter moved organized theirselves and eventually became life as we know it?

Coyote writes:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because there is empirical evidence to support the scientific method and its findings. .)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply: Does evolution followed the scientific method? Observation is one of the materials of the scientific method,when Darwin said that organism evolved was he present? In fact if the rule of science are to observed what happened and to test what can be reproduced,then evolution cannot be considered a genuine scientific theory at all.

Coyote writes:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no empirical evidence for supernatural beings. (That's where faith comes in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply: Can you see the wind?Can you see gravity?Can you see radiation?These are just some of the things that cannot see but still we believe.The existence of supernatural beings are supported by evidence too.

Coyote writes:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you believe in things without any empirical evidence, while rejecting opposing things for which there is a huge amount of empirical evidence, you can only be described as anti-science
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply: To tell you frankly the evidence for evolution exist only in the world of illusion.When proponents of evolution present evidence they are very selective,for example they always present the antibiotic resistant of some bacteria,as a proof for evolution and simple minded peson readily accepted the idea.But it does not prove that organism evolve given that evolution claimed intermediate forms,yet we do not found intermidiate forms of those bacteria.

Edited by traste, : misplaced sentenced

Edited by traste, : misplaced sentence

Edited by traste, : misplaced sentence

Edited by traste, : misplaced sentence

Edited by traste, : Improving texts


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2009 11:03 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by AdminNosy, posted 05-24-2009 11:59 PM traste has not yet responded
 Message 266 by Theodoric, posted 05-25-2009 12:02 AM traste has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 265 of 415 (509782)
05-24-2009 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by traste
05-24-2009 11:38 PM


Following the protocols
When you are replying to a message please use the little green reply button on the bottom right of that message. This allows the system to send a notification to the author of the message you are replying to and allows for easier navigation.

Also please review dbCodes help (to the left of the edit box you type into when you reply.) Use the qs codes in there to make your reply easier to follow.

Instead of dbCodes help you can simply use the peek button on the bottom of any post to see how it was coded.

Thanks for the cooperation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by traste, posted 05-24-2009 11:38 PM traste has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5953
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 266 of 415 (509783)
05-25-2009 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by traste
05-24-2009 11:38 PM


Re: Re; Im not confused ,you are
I have no idea what you are trying to say or who you are trying to say it to. Maybe reply button or db codes if it isnt too much of a bother.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by traste, posted 05-24-2009 11:38 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by traste, posted 05-25-2009 12:25 AM Theodoric has responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 267 of 415 (509784)
05-25-2009 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by PaulK
04-22-2009 1:33 AM


Re: Re; Im not confused ,you are
My memory is that Pasteur used soup, not distilled water. And of course if he HAD used distilled water the results would have been completely unsurprising - even at the time. Nobody would remember it as important
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore your memory is so bad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None mention a relevant experiment using distilled water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reference you give did not mention,yet Pasteur mention.Therefore who are liars?It is clear that you and the site you offer as reference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So now we know who was really "pretending?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You and the so called honest scientist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And your point is ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've already give my point have you not remember?Ohhhhh,I see your memory is so bad.hahahhaha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it only ruled out abiogenesis under conditions and timescales sufficiently similar to those in the experiment. That is a limit of the experimental method
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasteur experiment based on conditions that organisms supposedly evolved,if you rearranged history you can justify your claimed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

By which you mean that you think that you can use Pasteur's experiment as an excuse to slander honest scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Im not a slanderer of science,in fact given that proponents of evolution pay closed attention to science fiction they became the slanderer of science.Many of them including you sacrifice scientific integrity in order to defend what they like to believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2009 1:33 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 268 of 415 (509785)
05-25-2009 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Theodoric
05-25-2009 12:02 AM


Re: Re; Im not confused ,you are
Ive,already try those suggestions but it doesnt worked.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Theodoric, posted 05-25-2009 12:02 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Theodoric, posted 05-25-2009 12:29 AM traste has not yet responded
 Message 270 by AdminNosy, posted 05-25-2009 1:02 AM traste has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5953
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 269 of 415 (509787)
05-25-2009 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by traste
05-25-2009 12:25 AM


Re: Re; Im not confused ,you are
Well I guess I will just ignore your posts. If you can not be considerate to follow forum rules or use the tools available to make discussion easier then you are not worth me wasting my time trying to decipher what ever bs you are posting.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by traste, posted 05-25-2009 12:25 AM traste has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 270 of 415 (509789)
05-25-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by traste
05-25-2009 12:25 AM


Slow down!
If you continue as you are, traste, you will start to receive short suspensions.

It might be a good idea to stick to only 1 or 2 threads for now so you can consider your posts more carefully.

You are also expected to support any claims you make. You have been posting a great deal of utterly wrong assertions without any support for them.

This will stop soon or you will have your posting slowed down for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by traste, posted 05-25-2009 12:25 AM traste has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
28NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019