Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 8:58 PM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,200 Year: 15,236/19,786 Month: 1,959/3,058 Week: 333/404 Day: 51/96 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 281 (675734)
10-15-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-15-2012 10:41 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
For it's not just about inert chemicals self-assembling into living motions, it's about inert atoms creating death out of nothing.

There's nothing different about a calcium atom in one of my bones while I'm alive or after I'm dead. Its just a metal atom either way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 10:41 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 11:09 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 56 of 281 (675736)
10-15-2012 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-15-2012 11:09 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
You got exactly what I mean, Vatican. Death is nothing to the atom. Nothing at all to avoid.

Atoms don't evolve. Self-replicating molecules could though. And they could build up enough complexity to be considered alive. The sky's the limit from there.

Vatican

Don't be a dick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 11:09 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 60 of 281 (675740)
10-15-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-15-2012 11:50 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
The only rule in the grammar of life is death avoidance though.

Wrong. Reproducing is important too.

Death is not an acquired habit, it is inherited.

That's the stupidest thing I've read in a while.

That don't even make no sense!

Life is not to be created, it can only continue.

Wrong. That would require life to have existed forever. We know that there are times when life did not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 11:50 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has 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

  
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

  
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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 96 of 281 (675853)
10-16-2012 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Larni
10-16-2012 12:05 PM


Does Alfred M remind any other old timer of Brad?

Sort of, but not really.

Brad seemed to want to get his point across but simply was unable to do it. Alf seems to want to obfuscate his point in his attempts to discredit knowledge.

Both result in not making any sense, but Brad lacked the malicious intent that Alf gives off.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Larni, posted 10-16-2012 12:05 PM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-16-2012 4:12 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 281 (675863)
10-16-2012 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-16-2012 4:12 PM


Re: brains washed thin
Wut?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-16-2012 4:12 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 281 (725126)
04-24-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Ed67
04-24-2014 11:34 AM


Re: Not everything is random
They realized (and publicized) that there is no chemical force that influences the sequence of the 4 bases on the helix. It is completely independent of chemistry.

Can you point to that publication?

The code found in the nucleic acid base-pairs is pure information; not chemistry.

The letters in the "code" are notations of chemicals. A is a chemical, T is a chemical, C is a chemical, and G is a chemical. Its all chemicals.

No chemical forces can have any effect on the sequence of base-pairs, much less properly sequence the base-pairs to provide the instructions to build proteins and all other features of an organism.

How can chemical forces not have effects on chemicals?

And the proteins aren't built by instructions, they just follow a string of spontaneous chemical reactions.

The DNA transcribes into RNA, and RNA makes amino acids because of its shape. Those amino acids then combine into proteins because of their shapes. It all just follows chemical forces.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:34 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 281 (725128)
04-24-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Ed67
04-24-2014 11:43 AM


Re: One Fell Swoop? Why not?
You mean, that's not how Darwinists believe EVOLUTION works,

Which makes you wonder why someone would try to discount evolution by providing a calculation for something that evolution doesn't claim.

However, in view of the evidence, I submit that 'one fell swoop' is an inference to the best explanation for life's origin.

Except, we've just seen the calculation for how that is impossible.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:43 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 281 (725136)
04-24-2014 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Ed67
04-24-2014 11:52 AM


Re: Not everything is random
Their results were published in Nature magazine in the 50's. You can probably find it in a large library. Again, this is basic stuff - common knowledge that is disseminated in high school biology class.

That's a lot of words to say "no".

And Chicks publications are not disseminated in high school biology. Nor is the "knowledge" you are claiming common. If it was, you could easily point to it.

The code found in the nucleic acid base-pairs is pure information, TRANSMITTED BY MEANS OF CHEMISTRY.

But its no more pure information than the formation of salt from sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid that is transmitted by means of chemistry.

NaOH + HCl --> NaCl + H2O

If that doesn't elicit the need for a code writer then neither should DNA.

And really, how can something be pure information when it is also a string of chemicals?

Even the contents of this message isn't pure information, as its made up of pixels on your screen.

There's no such thing as pure information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:52 AM Ed67 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