Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   faith based science?
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(3)
Message 31 of 171 (676608)
10-24-2012 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 7:57 AM


Re: Maddenstein
Who are we? Relying on authority? You yourself know nothing. Buy a telescope, watch the sky, learn to calculate the peculiar galaxy velocities going towards the formation of such clusters as the Sloan Great Wall and others and then talk about how long the process may have taken.
So you are saying that the concensus that we start measuring time from about 13.5 billion years ago is wrong: I get that.
What you have failed to do is to provide any evidence to justify your assertion. I don't understand why you can't do this.
Why don't you start a topic about this contention? And then you could stop walking all over otherwise interesting threads with you big stinking, repellent, shit covered nonsensical boots.

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 30 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 7:57 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 2:41 PM Larni has replied

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


Message 32 of 171 (676658)
10-24-2012 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Larni
10-24-2012 9:45 AM


Re: Maddenstein
Larn, the consensus-nonsensus claim that the existence as a whole possesses the property of duration is not right or wrong by evidence or absence of it, it's just plain impossible by definition.
My job is to analyse such absurd claims, to defend the nonsense is up to those who parrot it.
Just consider the enormity of your chutzpah. The bigbangist cosmogony's proposals imply that all the atoms in existence could be compressed to take up the volume orders of magnitude smaller than a proton. And you suggest I provide evidence that this is not possible?
I suggest you get yourself a lab, take a few protons and try to squeeze them into the volume of one. Keep the cat posted about your successes in such an endeavour. And remember we are talking not a bunch of protons but all the protons in existence concentrated into less than one. Think about that.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 10-24-2012 9:45 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2012 2:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 10-24-2012 5:03 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 33 of 171 (676659)
10-24-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 2:41 PM


Re: Maddenstein
Larn, the consensus-nonsensus claim that the existence as a whole possess the property of duration is not right or wrong by evidence or absence of it, it's just plain impossible by definition.
And its also impossible by definition for light to behave as both a particle and a wave. But it does. Being impossible by definition doesn't constrain reality. Reality, it turns out, is really fucking weird.
And people deal with that in different ways. Your way seems to be to deny that scientists know anything at all and are just wrong about most things. Its a good thing that you believing ridiculous stuff doesn't halt the progress that science continues to make... put a man on the moon n'everything. Gawsh, those scientists are so dumb

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 2:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 5:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 171 (676668)
10-24-2012 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AdminModulous
10-23-2012 8:38 AM


Re: engage with people who are not actually insane.
I can't say I'm thrilled with this post as a moderator or personally. As someone that has done some work in mental health awareness and de-stigmatization it makes me a little uncomfortable to see a dismissal of someone in this manner.
Well, I would say that it is one thing to want to destigmatize poor mental health and another thing to agree with the delusions of the people who suffer from it.
I spent some months, maybe about a year, lodging with a medicated schizophrenic. I'll destigmatize him all you like, he was OK, I wasn't worried by his condition. On the other hand, I did explain to him that his persistent beliefs that the Rastafarians were out to get him was a symptom of his disorder, that in fact as he admitted, no Rastafarian had hurt him ever, that he acknowledged that he was schizophrenic, that he knew perfectly well that one of the symptoms of schizophrenia was the formation of irrational paranoid delusions, and that his beliefs about Rastafarians were in fact a symptom of his condition. To the extent that I convinced him of this, I was not stigmatizing him, I was doing him a favor.
If we just stand helpless before their madness, then we should just kindly pat them on the head and say: "There there, I will stop the Rastafarians from killing you." But I think that I should not stand helpless before their madness. Something could be done, they could in principle be convinced on intellectual grounds that their delusions are symptoms of insanity.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AdminModulous, posted 10-23-2012 8:38 AM AdminModulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 6:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 35 of 171 (676680)
10-24-2012 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 2:41 PM


Re: Maddenstein
Larn, the consensus-nonsensus claim that the existence as a whole possesses the property of duration is not right or wrong by evidence or absence of it, it's just plain impossible by definition.
Really?
Ok.
You win.
My parting shot is thus: you stupid, fucking, twat.
Edited by Larni, : Cleaned up for the PG-13 certificate.

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 32 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 2:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 4:21 AM Larni has not replied

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


Message 36 of 171 (676683)
10-24-2012 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
10-24-2012 2:47 PM


Re: Maddenstein
That is correct. It is by definition physically impossible to exist as a wave and a tennis ball at once. Waves require medium necessarily. Wave is a moving shape of that medium. Therefore, the description is a metaphor and could be well replaced with other more concrete description better reflecting the physical attributes and architecture of the phenomenon of radiation. No progress of understanding would be hurt and if such an alternative description were used right from the start no development of technology would have been impeded by that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2012 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
eclectic1993
Junior Member (Idle past 4172 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 10-20-2012


(1)
Message 37 of 171 (676714)
10-25-2012 1:10 AM


Hi Everyone,
I've only been a member for a few days and already I enjoy the discussion. As I read I'm beginning to pick up on a few nuances at word usage. This is important to me so that I might understand what each of you mean.
I'll do my best to respond to everyone. It's not my intent to be rude and to ignore postings.
@jar
quote:
If we go back far enough, back when life first showed up here on the Earth, it was just single celled (or maybe even less complex than that). At that point the only possible direction life could go was towards more complex critters.
I call the first life form in the evolutionary process 'protobug'. (Is there an actual name?) Whatever it is, it represents the point at which the abiogenesis crowd passes the baton to the evolutionary crowd. I think protobug could actually go two ways. It could 'acquire' more genetic information so that a successive offspring could be classified as being more advanced. Or it could continue on, with 'loss' of genetic information, killing the species.
@Alfred,
quote:
Panspermia theorists postulate a strikingly different mechanics of change from species to species, etc, if you don't know that.
I had heard of this. However, I didn't know the name, Panspermia. Just took at wikipedia to read some more. Thanks.
@PaulK
quote:
I don't think that such experiments are expected or even intended to give a "quantifiable recipe for creating life". The original Miller-Urey experiment was a stunning breakthrough as it was.
We creationists agree with the breakthrough! It's undeniable.
Creationists wholeheartedly support science with results that are observable and repeatable. You all remember as we were learning this in our biology/chemistry/physics course there was a tendency for ourselves or our classmates to infer something that wasn't substantiated by the evidence. My wife teaches biology labs to high school students and this is still true today.
The Miller/Urey experimental results produced interesting results. However, to state that it gets us closer to creating life is an overstatement. Extrapolating scientific data toward a particular outcome is okay, it simply isn't scientific. You must admit at that time, evolutionists were excited. It gave them 'hope' that life could be created naturally without divine intervention. After 60 years, it still inspires evolutionists.
The focus of abiogenesis researchers, I believe, is to create life. Technically, I believe they only need to 'show' it is possible. Of course, anything short of actually creating life falls short of my expectations. Since life has not been created through this process, there is no scientific reason to believe this is possible.
I reject the notion that life can be created from non-life. There is no compelling evidence to even suggest this is possible. If you are a supporter of abiogenesis (it's intended goal) then you do so by 'faith'. I'm okay with faith-based science.
quote:
So far as I can tell the main arguments to try to support creationism in regard to abiogenesis are either arguments that abiogenesis can't happen (which can only hurt the case for abiogenesis - they aren't positive evidence for creationism)
Paul I do agree with this.
In fact, I can state unequivocally that there is no evidence for divine creation of life, abiogenesis, or even Al's thought of Panspermia.
quote:
I don't really think that there is a creationist equivalent or the Miller-Urey experiment or the RNA World hypothesis (both major advances). So I'd have to say that the evidence clearly favoured abiogenesis on Earth, with panspermia a distant second (thanks to evidence like the Murchison meteorite) and creationism - even Old Earth Creationism - coming in third.
Paul, a hypothesis is a proposal. The problem here, I think, is that you are ranking possibilities without conclusive evidence one way or the other. You are simply "conjecturing" and moving the discussion from science to philosophy. ( I don't mean to offend philosophers). Many university courses combine philosophy and religion.
I'm a Christian, and I like religion as much as the guy on the pew next to me. But regarding this forum, I would prefer to stick to science. Oh yeah! If I don't practice what I preach, please correct me. I'm very thick-skinned and imperfect, and forget what I wrote minutes earlier.
@Taq,
quote:
That would seem to be a statement based on faith. The evidence shows us quite a different result. You and me were both born with about 50 to 100 mutations. How many genetic diseases do you suffer from? I don't suffer from any, and I doubt that you do either. If we multiple this over just the last 10 generations it results in each of us carrying between 500 and 1,000 mutations. Again, I don't have a genetic diseases that I am aware of. It would seem to me that the vast majority of mutations do not result in lethal diseases contrary to your faith based claims.
Alright, I'll retract my statement.
quote:
The problem is that creationists confuse evidence with faith based beliefs. One is not the other.
Evolutionists that reject divine creation or Panspermia have only one recourse, abiogenesis. Since that is not scientific (see my comment above), you might be invoking a philosophical viewpoint. That is faith-based.
@dwise1
quote:
No, that is not what the ToE leans toward. What you are describing there is the "Ladder of Life", an old Lamarckian concept of evolution being a progression from lower life forms to ever higher ones culminating in the Acme of Creation, Man. That is an old, long-discarded view which lives on only in creationists' misconceptions about evolution.
First, thanks for the detailed post. I guarantee I'll take a second read on it.
I remember my science book in the 8th grade. My friends and I would point to the various transitions of man from ape and try to figure out which one we looked liked the most. During the 70s our science books indoctrinated us into the theory of evolution. I wasn't a Christian and had no other perspective. So I sucked it up. We began with something like primordial ooze, life beginning, then apes, eventually man. That's how evolution was presented in American public schools. The hard evidence consisted of various bone fragments and chips. Of course all of the evidence at that time could be placed on top of your desk. Not very scientific.
During the 80's I noticed that the presentation of evolution began evolving. The first one of course is that ToE ignores the primordial ooze bit and begins with hypothetical 1st life form. ( I refer to that as protobug above...my word). Another change that happened was the differentiation on a widescale of microevolution and macroevolution.
Its important to understand that the debate changed. I must admit a lot of the older creationists slowly adjusted to the new rules for debate. Me too!
So, abiogenesis moved outside the purview of evolution. I understand science needs to be broken into smaller buckets as knowledge increases. Now it is no longer an issue for ToE. I suspect that Charlie Darwin might roll over in his grave to know that his "Origin of Species" has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. But I'm not a revisionist so I'll let that small travesty stand. j/k
Evolution itself has morphed in meaning. We were taught over 30 years ago that evolution was ooze to man. Now the term evolution can be applied to random genetic variations within a species. Creationist except this aspect of evolution, changes within a type of organism, that we can observe within our lifespan.
Our problem is when we consider a single celled organism (proto bug) evolving eventually and producing a male and female of a creature, that then produces a human zygote. The information that is packed into that one cell will eventually produce a human being with an anatomical structure, and all the bits functioning together from the beginning of conception to maturity.
That sort of information development, on this grand scale, has not been shown with research. Though there are some experimental results that you can toss at me, the conclusions, when summed together, are not nearly sufficient to make this big jump that we evolved from the proto-bug.
quote:
One of the fundamental problems is that both source code and machine code are very brittle. It takes very little to break it. But life's "source code" is not at all like computer code and is much more flexible and robust.
I do agree that an organic analog computer would be much more robust than a digital computer and its software.
quote:
This is reaching back a couple decades, but have you ever heard of Thomas Ray's TIERRA program? Instead of trying to have actual machine code evolve, he created virtual machines to act as organisms and a flexible code for them to run.
No I haven't. However, I did read a book regarding Rodney Brook's research with small robots. It used something called subsumption architecture. I was an electronics/programming mentor for a high school robotics team and I stumbled upon his research. The students and I had an interesting time talking about that research. I'll look into the TIERRA program.
@dwise1, let me read your post more thoroughly. This old man is getting tired.
*********************************
@Everyone,
Just for the record, I was pretty active at an Artificial Intelligence site. It's one of my programming interests. There was a fellow there that seemed to ramble on anything and everything. He even had a site with original material. He was lambasted by a lot of the board members. I figured as long as the owner/moderators of the board permitted his posting, then I wouldn't give him a hard time.
I'm an optimist and am always looking for something that might take me on a journey of thought outside the norms and conventions of the day. Guys like Alfred might just say something of value. As evolutionist, I thought you might appreciate random rantings because over a long period of time they might produce something intelligible and meaningful. =)
Thanks all,
Chuck

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2012 1:55 AM eclectic1993 has not replied
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2012 2:00 AM eclectic1993 has not replied
 Message 40 by DrJones*, posted 10-25-2012 2:02 AM eclectic1993 has not replied
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2012 2:42 AM eclectic1993 has not replied
 Message 45 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 5:15 AM eclectic1993 has not replied
 Message 128 by dwise1, posted 10-30-2012 8:55 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 171 (676716)
10-25-2012 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by eclectic1993
10-25-2012 1:10 AM


I call the first life form in the evolutionary process 'protobug'. (Is there an actual name?) Whatever it is, it represents the point at which the abiogenesis crowd passes the baton to the evolutionary crowd. I think protobug could actually go two ways. It could 'acquire' more genetic information so that a successive offspring could be classified as being more advanced. Or it could continue on, with 'loss' of genetic information, killing the species.
I think you're making a fairly classic mistake here. "It" would not be an it. To be life at all, the "protobug" would have to reproduce, meaning that there'd be lots of them in short order.
Now, some of this protospecies could have, and doubtless did, degenerate as a result of deleterious mutations. And those individuals would not survive, which would not in fact kill the species --- it would ensure that those particular organisms did not survive and reproduce.
You must never think of mutation as happening to a species, only to an individual. Otherwise you're not going to get the hang of it at all.
---
I don't know if there's a commonly accepted word for the first life. I guess "protobug" is as good as anything, so long as it doesn't suggest to anyone that it was actually a bug.
As evolutionist, I thought you might appreciate random rantings because over a long period of time they might produce something intelligible and meaningful.
Only if subjected to selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by eclectic1993, posted 10-25-2012 1:10 AM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 39 of 171 (676721)
10-25-2012 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by eclectic1993
10-25-2012 1:10 AM


quote:
The Miller/Urey experimental results produced interesting results. However, to state that it gets us closer to creating life is an overstatement. Extrapolating scientific data toward a particular outcome is okay, it simply isn't scientific. You must admit at that time, evolutionists were excited. It gave them 'hope' that life could be created naturally without divine intervention. After 60 years, it still inspires evolutionists.
I think that you are missing the important point. The real issue of abiogenesis research is to understand HOW life could have formed naturally. The Miller-Urey experiment, by showing that amino acids could form naturally without life really did help there. However it would be very foolish to think that we could reasonably hope to duplicate the whole process from the formation of amino acids all the way through to early life in a single experiment. We are talking about a process that very likely took millions of years and may well have involved a number of different environments. We can better hope for a series of experiments that deal with the high points, like Miller-Urey or one of it's relatives.
quote:
The focus of abiogenesis researchers, I believe, is to create life. Technically, I believe they only need to 'show' it is possible. Of course, anything short of actually creating life falls short of my expectations. Since life has not been created through this process, there is no scientific reason to believe this is possible.
As I've said I disagree that this is the focus, and I hope that the reasoning above explains why I don't think that a Miller-Urey experiment will ever be part of an experiment to create life. There likely will be experiments trying to create simple life, eventually, although they will be hampered by the problem of defining life in the first place. (Any experiment to create life will be trying to create something that just barely counts as life, and if there's no good idea of what would count for that then it's very hard to claim that the experiment conclusively created life even if it was a smashing success).
quote:
I reject the notion that life can be created from non-life. There is no compelling evidence to even suggest this is possible. If you are a supporter of abiogenesis (it's intended goal) then you do so by 'faith'. I'm okay with faith-based science.
Of course there IS evidence that it is possible. The fact that there is no clear boundary between life and non-life. The fact that there is no clear boundary between living and non-living matter - an atom is the same whether it is part of a living being or not. The chemical synthesis of organic compounds - especially the Miller-Urey experiment. In fact, we can say that the formation of life from non-life IS definitely possible in principle, there is simply no real doubt on that point. The question is whether it is possible through natural means under the conditions that would have existed on the early Earth.
quote:
Paul, a hypothesis is a proposal. The problem here, I think, is that you are ranking possibilities without conclusive evidence one way or the other. You are simply "conjecturing" and moving the discussion from science to philosophy. ( I don't mean to offend philosophers). Many university courses combine philosophy and religion.
Being a hypothesis doesn't mean that there isn't evidence supporting it - and the RNA World not only has evidence, it solved a major problem in abiogenesis. That is why I call it an advance.
And there is nothing wrong with ranking proposals in terms of the evidence, didn't I say that I was talking about accepting the best explanation we have ? If we had conclusive evidence for one explanation, we wouldn't need to do that. This isn't a purely philosophical issue, it is a scientific issue - scientists need to judge which avenues of research are likely to be productive. (If I might take an example from physics, the wide acceptance of String Theory isn't due to conclusive evidence - nobody has even come up with a good scientific test for it. And there's a bit of a backlash from some physicists because of that problem).
quote:
I'm a Christian, and I like religion as much as the guy on the pew next to me. But regarding this forum, I would prefer to stick to science. Oh yeah! If I don't practice what I preach, please correct me. I'm very thick-skinned and imperfect, and forget what I wrote minutes earlier.
If you want to say that creationism is just religion and has no real scientific basis then I'm fine with that. But a lot of creationists disagree - they want to claim that science supports their view. Also, if the scientific evidence does support alternatives, and creationism relies on religious belief for support then you should be hardly surprised if people who do not share those beliefs prefer other alternatives which do have scientific support - and that it would be unfair to label that preference "dogmatic faith".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by eclectic1993, posted 10-25-2012 1:10 AM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


(2)
Message 40 of 171 (676722)
10-25-2012 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by eclectic1993
10-25-2012 1:10 AM


uring the 70s our science books indoctrinated us into the theory of evolution. I wasn't a Christian and had no other perspective. So I sucked it up. We began with something like primordial ooze, life beginning, then apes, eventually man. That's how evolution was presented in American public schools. The hard evidence consisted of various bone fragments and chips. Of course all of the evidence at that time could be placed on top of your desk. Not very scientific.
It must have been a big desk, by the 70s we had found multiple specimens of multiple species of the ancestors of Homo sapiens
So, abiogenesis moved outside the purview of evolution. I understand science needs to be broken into smaller buckets as knowledge increases. Now it is no longer an issue for ToE. I suspect that Charlie Darwin might roll over in his grave to know that his "Origin of Species" has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. But I'm not a revisionist so I'll let that small travesty stand. j/k
But this is not true at all, Darwin's work is very much relevant to the theory of evolution. The book is about the origin of species, you can tell that by it's title, not the origin of life.

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by eclectic1993, posted 10-25-2012 1:10 AM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 41 of 171 (676725)
10-25-2012 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by eclectic1993
10-25-2012 1:10 AM


So, abiogenesis moved outside the purview of evolution. I understand science needs to be broken into smaller buckets as knowledge increases. Now it is no longer an issue for ToE. I suspect that Charlie Darwin might roll over in his grave to know that his "Origin of Species" has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
Here's what "Charlie Darwin" said about the origin of life:
It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter. Charles Darwin, letter to J. D. Hooker, 29 March 1863
But you tell us that now abiogensis has moved out of the purview of evolution, and Darwin would roll in his grave if he knew that this was so?
Bollocks. Darwin, the discoverer of the theory of evolution, knew perfectly well that neither he nor his theory could account for the origin of life, and he said so very clearly. What has evolved on this point is creationist rhetoric --- creationists are now sufficiently dishonest as to pretend that this is not the case. The claims made for evolution have remained the same.
Your other ramblings are similarly inaccurate. For example:
Another change that happened was the differentiation on a widescale of microevolution and macroevolution.
Yeah, I bet you didn't hear those words when you were taught biology in school. This is because biologists hardly ever use them. The "differentiation on a widescale of microevolution and macroevolution" was something creationists started doing when they realized they'd been caught with their pants down. The theory of evolution stayed the same; but creationist rhetoric evolved. Oh, how it evolves!
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by eclectic1993, posted 10-25-2012 1:10 AM eclectic1993 has not replied

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


Message 42 of 171 (676728)
10-25-2012 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Larni
10-24-2012 5:03 PM


Re: Maddenstein
No arguments forthcoming apart from cussing and impotent rage as per usual, Larn?
Now for the sake of overkill and to finish off any feeble stirrings of the absence of reason on your part if such are present:
Not only no two protons are known to let themselves occupy the volume a single one needs to take up and no two protons are known to stay on this way other than on a fancy mathemagical paper describing imaginary exotic conditions quadrillions miles away from any laboratory. Those dudes are well known to have room around them where they move unimpeded relative to each other. Moreover in the case they are all condensed into much less than a single one as the bigbangist fable implies and loves the gullible idiots to believe, the room previously occupied must be vacated necessarily while the room not occupied any way must disappear altogether.
So, what do we do with this vastness of empty room that must be made totally absent itself for the hypothesis to hold?
Remember, it postulates no space at all in the alleged beginning as the putative initial condition of it all 13.7 billion years away from here. How and where to do you remove all the room that is vacant? Vacuum the vacuum? Where do you dump all the emptiness? Hide it up your arse?
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 10-24-2012 5:03 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2012 4:29 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 171 (676729)
10-25-2012 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 4:21 AM


Re: Maddenstein
You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 4:21 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 4:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 44 of 171 (676730)
10-25-2012 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
10-25-2012 4:29 AM


Re: Maddenstein
Problem is yours, Doc. Your peddle pseudo-science as a fact of nature. When caught red-handed in the act you loudly protest the whistle-blowers are mad. Deal with the problem, Inadequate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2012 4:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2012 5:54 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

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


Message 45 of 171 (676731)
10-25-2012 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by eclectic1993
10-25-2012 1:10 AM


Wickedpeddlia is not a good source to learn about Panspermia from. The site is by now totally overrun by dogmatists so is any use as the source of information only on anything not contested in any way, shape or form. It's good for links and no more than that.
Try Brig Klyce and his site Panspermia.org or the Journal of Cosmology to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by eclectic1993, posted 10-25-2012 1:10 AM eclectic1993 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Panda, posted 10-25-2012 5:26 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2012 5:55 AM Alfred Maddenstein 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