|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| 4petdinos | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: The Simplest Protein of Life | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Larni Member  Posts: 3976 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Look at one side of a snow flake: now you know what the other side looks like. Can you really be this set in your ways? Children understand this. 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 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 2138 days)  Posts: 565 Joined: |
And their job is to aim for the jugular of you lot's contradictions. If they find the target and strike it well, the cat is satisfied. That serves the advance of science better than you do. The point is if you build your hypothesis on impossible premises, somebody will knock it down. Face it, something from nothing you borrow from bigbangism is invalid. Impossible creationism. They point it out to you. Instead of thanking them for identifying your conceptual errors you lot go into impotent rage. How scientific is that? Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 2138 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Not an explosion of space. Then the observable part of cosmos is expanding into the unobservable part of it. Matter moving in outward uniform direction into the accommodating outside volume, not space itself expanding and the measurable duration of that process since its beginning till the present day is 13.7 billion years. Is that what you believe is the case? Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 18492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 2.8
|
We already know you don't understand information theory, there's no need for you to go about proving it yet again. Perhaps you could find a thread where information theory is the topic and we'll have another go at helping you understand it. --Percy
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Panda Member (Idle past 1884 days)  Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
So, the answer to my question is: "No, Panda. I have not shown any friends what I write on this forum." I suggest that you do. 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
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member  Posts: 6187 From: SSC Joined: |
I understand information theory enough to know that to have a language, information you must have: DNA is the transmitter and the ribosome is the receiver. The information transmitted has alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. Every cell in a human body contains all the information needed to build that human body. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member Posts: 6187 From: SSC Joined: |
What information in the snow flake tells you what the other side looks like? You assume it looks the same but if you put it under a microscope it will look different. Patterns are simply created by matter and energy and never produce an exact copy. No information is required nor is any present. Unless you are saying the snow flake has DNA, is that what you are saying? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Larni Member Posts: 3976 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member Posts: 6187 From: SSC Joined: |
The picture contains no information apart from your observation of the picture. The snow flake contains no information. It has no transmitter or receiver.
Notice the word infer. That means the meterologist can observe how the clouds move and things they do and draw conclusion based upon that observation. There is no information stored in the cloud to cause it to do anything. Unless you are saying the clouds have DNA, is that what you are saying?
Yes it is a very important observation that an amount of rain has fallen to a farmer. The rain falls whether the farmer knows it fell or not. It does not send him a message that it has fallen. He can observe it is falling if he can see it fall. By the way what is your definition of information? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member Posts: 18492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 |
As I said and as the above demonstrates, we already know you don't understand information theory, but this isn't the right thread to discuss it. If you propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics then in my moderator role I will review it as quickly as time permits. --Percy
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member Posts: 18492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 |
--Percy
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member Posts: 6187 From: SSC Joined: |
quote:http://chemistry.about.com/...culescompounds/a/snowflake.htm "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member  Posts: 7918 Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
By looking for the chemistry of life. One of the biggest pieces of evidence are the banded iron formations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formation Production of oxygen from water just doesn't happen regularly in abiotic reactions. However, it does happen regularly in photosynthetic reactions within organisms. This causes a massive buildup of oxygen in the atmosphere where it was not found before. This resulted in the oxidation of iron that was found in water. When iron is oxidated it produces iron oxide, also known as rust, and it become insoluble. This produced massive iron deposits. This is a sure sign of life. These same biochemical reactions also tend to favor one isotope of carbon over another. This can possibly also be used as evidence for the presence of life: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11537367 It does have limitations, but it is shaping up as a promising technology.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member Posts: 7918 Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
No he didn't. Darwin, in that quote, stated that the higher animals evolved from lower life forms. That is, complex life evolved from simple life. For the actual origin of the first life he has a much more theistic description: "having been originally breathed into a few forme or into one "
No it hasn't.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Larni Member Posts: 3976 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
See? 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 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
