Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
26 online now:
AZPaul3, jar (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
Panda
Member (Idle past 1967 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 61 of 281 (675744)
10-15-2012 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Larni
10-15-2012 11:29 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Larni writes:

People only do that to try to sound clever or because they are hopeless twats.


They are not mutually exclusive criteria...

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Larni, posted 10-15-2012 11:29 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 62 of 281 (675745)
10-15-2012 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Blue Jay
10-15-2012 11:48 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
No, an ocean is self-sustaining like any inert process, a virus avoids death. It's smart. It's got memory better than yours. That means it can initiate an action as soon as it meets the host. That is the principle divide between the alive and the inert. Anything inert is always one step behind something else either alive or equally inert. Needs to be pulled. What is alive keeps abreast of all else. It's not the question of individual survival. All individual life dies sooner or later. It's a question of memory and being a part of a system. Note that I said a system of death escaping machines. Lonely proto-cell of one kind is impossible. So it has to be no simpler than that. Therefore the alive does not evolve from the inert. The two can only co-exist. Always.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Blue Jay, posted 10-15-2012 11:48 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 10-15-2012 1:22 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 86 by Aware Wolf, posted 10-16-2012 10:46 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 63 of 281 (675746)
10-15-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2012 11:55 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Reproducing is death avoidance par excellence.
That life had originated and does not exist always is not anything you know. That's only a belief you've acquired from your bigbangist priest.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 11:55 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 2:17 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 64 of 281 (675751)
10-15-2012 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-15-2012 11:50 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Are you taking the piss? Your taking the piss, arn't you?

You must be taking the piss.

Well played.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 11:50 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 65 of 281 (675752)
10-15-2012 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-15-2012 12:31 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
It's got memory better than yours.

Support this with evidence, not drivel.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 12:31 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-16-2012 7:25 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 281 (675755)
10-15-2012 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-15-2012 12:48 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Reproducing is death avoidance par excellence.

That's stupid. But when I'm fucking my girlfriend tonight, I'll just keep reminding myself: "Just trying not to die... just trying not to die"

That life had originated and does not exist always is not anything you know.

Sure it is; There was a point in time in the past when life was unable to exist.

That's only a belief you've acquired from your bigbangist priest.

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

You're just making up bullshit. And its not even clever or interesting.

You're really old, aren't you? I feel like I'm talking to my grampa.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 12:48 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 2:50 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 67 of 281 (675759)
10-15-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2012 2:17 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Irrelevant what you are thinking when fucking your girl. When she'll dump you, you will be in deadly pain to illustrate what I say.
A point in time is a point in space. That goes in every relative direction. So which direction was your putative point where life was absent? You again parrot the bigbangist nonsense. Start thinking for yourself. Parroting is not anything young and fresh
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 2:17 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2012 3:02 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 3:08 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 281 (675761)
10-15-2012 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-15-2012 2:50 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
So you're a crackpot about biology too? I might have guessed. In fact, I did. When I saw that you'd posted on this thread, I thought to myself: "A.M. will once again have degraded himself by drooling out stupid nonsense in public". And I was right. I must confess, I didn't guess just how stupid it would be.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 2:50 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 3:56 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 281 (675763)
10-15-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-15-2012 2:50 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Irrelevant what you are thinking when fucking your girl. When she'll dump you, you will be in deadly pain to illustrate what I say.

Its like you're not even trying to make sense anymore.

A point in time is a point in space. That goes in every relative direction. So which direction was your putative point where life was absent?

It was in the past. Billions of years ago in the early universe. Life simply couldn't have existed.

You again parrot the bigbangist nonsense. Start thinking for yourself. Parroting is not anything young and fresh

Actually, its called learning. You should give it a try sometime... no, wait, you're an old dog - you ain't gonna learn shit.

So whatever, you're kind will die off soon enough and we won't have to be bothered by you anymore.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 2:50 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 3:34 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 70 of 281 (675765)
10-15-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2012 3:08 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Which past? Learn relativity and proper physics for a change. If B and C are equidistant in time from A may not mean B and C are contemporary objects. They might be billions light years in each other's past. Inflation and expansion don't cut it as an excuse as those are magical explanations. Space is not an object so it cannot move. Sorry.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 3:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 3:52 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 73 by Larni, posted 10-15-2012 4:02 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 281 (675766)
10-15-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-15-2012 3:34 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Which past?

The one behind us. The one that's in the direction of the time when I posted my previous message to you. "Earlier"

Learn relativity and proper physics for a change.

No, seriously:

That's rich coming from you.

If B and C are equidistant in time from A may not mean B and C are contemporary objects.

That doesn't make any sense.

They might be billions light years in each other's past.

I'm talking about the Universe's past. Back when life was unable to exist. And how that means that life cannot be eternal.

So, to the topic: At some point in the emergence of life, there would have been really simple proteins. What do you think the simplest one could be?

Inflation and expansion don't cut it as an excuse as those are magical explanations. Space is not an object so it cannot move.

Unevidence off-topic assertions like these will not be addressed anymore.

Sorry.

I sincerely accept your appology for posting ridiculous off-topic nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 3:34 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 72 of 281 (675767)
10-15-2012 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
10-15-2012 3:02 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Crackpot about biology? What is that, Inadequate? Crackpots and quackademics are just ad hominids the human monkeys hurl at each other for fun. Irrelevant otherwise. The things are the one and only way they are. The rest is impossible but anybody is welcome to present their case and try to tell which is which and why. That is all. If the big bunk and abiogenesis were in the stars to have happened nothing any one says can change that. If not then, sorry Inadequate, toeing the party-line, will not help it either.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2012 3:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2012 5:52 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 73 of 281 (675768)
10-15-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-15-2012 3:34 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
What does any of that have to do with abiogenesis?

Is English not your mother tongue?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 3:34 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 5:35 PM Larni has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 74 of 281 (675769)
10-15-2012 4:05 PM


Topic Reminder
I'm not going to step in as moderator, I'm just posting a topic reminder. Could participants perhaps stop responding to points that aren't related to the topic? Could they particularly stop making points about participants, including themselves?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 75 of 281 (675772)
10-15-2012 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2012 3:52 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Sorry, you fail to grasp it. The universal past is absolutely impossible because no universal linear time of your naive bigbangist conception is possible for the reasons of elementary geometry and relativity of simultaneity. I'll try to explain slowly for the last time before I give up on you lot. Distance in time cosmologically is the same as distance in space. Direction is though strictly relative to an arbitrary location. Simple. Draw yourself a circle or sphere to illustrate my point about A, B and C. B and C could be at the same distance both in time and space from A while the distance separating B and C from each other again both in time and space may vary depending on the angle the lines connecting B and C to A meet at. Time is relative. No bang is possible for that reason alone.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 3:52 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Larni, posted 10-15-2012 5:12 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019