Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 132 of 281 (676068)
10-18-2012 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dr Adequate
10-18-2012 9:05 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Inadequate, let's face it. Ascribing an age to the existence as a whole is a silly fallacy. Minkowski and Einstein did not dream of committing such a stupid mistake. You, on the other hand, defend in a public forum the category error the bigbangism is founded upon. So who looks stupid, you or I? Why do you do that? You are a university prof or something and since all other profs around you do the same, you just can't do otherwise. Simple. Take the mirror and face it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2012 9:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Panda, posted 10-18-2012 10:27 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 140 by Taq, posted 10-19-2012 11:06 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 134 of 281 (676077)
10-19-2012 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Panda
10-18-2012 10:27 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Panda's Thumby, bare assertions little impress the feline. Unless you want to join the dumb club you need to explain to the moggy what is so intelligent about attributing age to time and the universe. Come on, give it a try at least. What is the age of time is an idiotic question.. It is asking what is the length of a ruler. 13.7 billion years is a stupid answer to that stupid question. Not any science or philosophy. You do not have to be Einstein to understand that.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Panda, posted 10-18-2012 10:27 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Panda, posted 10-19-2012 6:03 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 137 by Larni, posted 10-19-2012 8:09 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 136 of 281 (676086)
10-19-2012 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Panda
10-19-2012 6:03 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Of course you don't as you like to be associated with the Inadequate.
You both have nothing to say, both know I won't pat you on the backs for that so have to do that job themselves. Simple.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Panda, posted 10-19-2012 6:03 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Panda, posted 10-19-2012 9:24 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 141 of 281 (676147)
10-19-2012 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Dr Adequate
10-18-2012 6:02 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
I do not pretend to know anything apart from that for a death avoiding machine the need of a lively memory of itself is a must. Mind you, it is you who needs to flesh out ghosts, not me.
I do not hold that life must have an origin. You do. Otherwise, that is what Eigen's paradox is all about. That puts paid to the RNA world ghost idea, doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2012 6:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 158 of 281 (676234)
10-20-2012 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Larni
10-18-2012 6:08 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Viral memory is better than yours, Larn, just like I said. The cat explicitly mentioned that strong panspermia was his preferred explanation. Earlier in this thread and in another one specifically on abiogenesis where you participated too and were involved in a usual slanging match with the feline.
The moggy just checked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Larni, posted 10-18-2012 6:08 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 9:46 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 160 of 281 (676236)
10-20-2012 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Panda
10-20-2012 9:46 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
No, Panda's Thumby. In this thread there was no reply to that particular post but in the other one, the replies were acknowledged by the feline, were expressing the usual hostility to the Cheshire's ways and habits of thinking so as usual the whole thing descended into a cussing session with Larn and Dr. Inadequate. Then the thread was closed and locked so the argument had no chance to be even started.
Victories and defeats are irrelevant here, Pandy. The Mother Nature works the one and only way regardless of our opinions.
As I said, unlike is the case with the Big Bunk, I cannot rule the possibility of abiogenesis completely on logical grounds. It seems highly unlikely to have occurred on earth and might be redundant altogether as the Mother might not need to re-invent the always present wheel of life and death but it is still conceivable. After all, both the alive and non-alive are composed of the very same atoms, even if the atoms seem to be configured on different principles.
The only real problem to resolve is irreducible complexity and the only kind of irreducible complexity that resists all possible explanation is that of chicken and egg. Egg is the memory of chicken, chicken is the memory of the egg, and together are making an irreducible system of merry memory go-around.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 9:46 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 11:36 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 161 of 281 (676238)
10-20-2012 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Larni
10-20-2012 3:00 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Time is comparing two or more lengths to a standard cycle. So the relation is diameter to circumference. That takes human memory. So what is the time universally? The same irrational pi standing for the present. All the lengths are distances travelled by relative objects so time is perfectly reducible to motion. Is motion itself human construct of the mind? That's a good and open question. Better than the question what is the age of time which is then the question what is the age of motion. Motion can have direction, it cannot age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Larni, posted 10-20-2012 3:00 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 11:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 164 of 281 (676242)
10-20-2012 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Panda
10-20-2012 4:48 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
No, Pandy. You are surrounded only by the overwhelming evidence that life is present. No evidence that life had begun is surrounding you at all. Vast difference. Stick to the facts and leave conjectures alone and you'll be a good Pandy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 4:48 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Panda, posted 10-21-2012 8:53 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 165 of 281 (676244)
10-21-2012 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Panda
10-20-2012 11:47 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Pandy, if the cat needed a peremptory arbiter of what is and was is not, you would be the last in line for the job. You need to be sharp to do that kind of work but so far you only have shown you are blunt kind of dumb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 11:47 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Panda, posted 10-21-2012 8:59 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 166 of 281 (676245)
10-21-2012 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by onifre
10-20-2012 12:33 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Same difference, Oni. If rephrased along your suggestions, the question is what is the age of duration? Still, the same kind of self-referential and stupid. Genesis writers could be excused for naively asking it, the bigbangists deserve contempt only.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by onifre, posted 10-20-2012 12:33 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by onifre, posted 10-21-2012 12:02 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 169 of 281 (676267)
10-21-2012 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Panda
10-21-2012 8:53 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
What is the evidence life as such had begun you are surrounded with? You see none. You just indulge in repeating other monkeys' interpretations and peddling them as facts. You need to learn the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Panda, posted 10-21-2012 8:53 AM Panda has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 172 of 281 (676283)
10-21-2012 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by onifre
10-21-2012 12:02 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
That is the experience of present. Cause passing into effect experienced as now. Not a duration. Which is comparative needing a standard of reference. Duration as such is an abstraction of all possible durations so may have no age whatever Hawking et al. could tell you to the contrary.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by onifre, posted 10-21-2012 12:02 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by onifre, posted 10-21-2012 7:00 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 177 of 281 (676302)
10-21-2012 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Panda
10-21-2012 8:59 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Yes, Panda's Thumby, I link Bill Gaede and his mates in Rational Science on FB to the cat's discussions on cosmogony with the simian professors here. They love an occasional chuckle at the expense of the prevaricating big-bangist re-ificators.
Bill is a real scientist and straight thinker. The feline does not have to agree with him on everything to say that. He favours indefinite number of instances of abiogenesis over panspermia in the same ageless Universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Panda, posted 10-21-2012 8:59 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Panda, posted 10-22-2012 8:58 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 179 of 281 (676305)
10-21-2012 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Panda
10-21-2012 8:53 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Probably the cat needs to chew and re-chew it all out for you lot.
You can see full evidence of individual life starting from other life and you see ample evidence of individual life ending. That is all. Extrapolating from this that life as such had started rather than it had been continuing as the evidence suggests, and calling that a fact is cheating. Your projection is a legitimate guess and no more. That is the scientific method you need to learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Panda, posted 10-21-2012 8:53 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Larni, posted 10-21-2012 5:20 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 183 of 281 (676323)
10-21-2012 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Larni
10-21-2012 5:20 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Well, Larn, I've told you what is you lot's strong suit. What you do in science is assume your opponent's proposal without reservations. After that you analyse all the logical implications and bring them into the extreme open for all to see.
That is what the ID lot often do with your proposals and they succeed to make you cut a rather poor figure.
What you lot do instead is to keep propping up your own assumptions with equivocations and vague data. How stupid is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Larni, posted 10-21-2012 5:20 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 10-21-2012 8:00 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024