|
Author
|
Topic: Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
Message 90 of 292 (229419)
08-03-2005 6:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by Evopeach
08-03-2005 6:27 PM
|
|
Re: Argument by Very Big Words
One problem I see in your argument is that: 1) DNA is an ineficient coding "language". It has lots of junk and redundancies and is not very well commented at all  2) DNA is not symbolic. The amino acids don't symbolize anything. Neither are they interpreted. They are catalysts in a complex chemical reaction. Would you say crystals are the result of intelegent "programming"?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by Evopeach, posted 08-03-2005 6:27 PM | | Evopeach has replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
Re: Argument by Very Big Words
precicely my point. Good illustration.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2005 6:46 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 95 of 292 (229430)
08-03-2005 6:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by Evopeach
08-03-2005 6:46 PM
|
|
Re: Argument by Very Big Words
Yes so inefficient that the speed of replication of 3,000,000 base pairs every few minutes with accuracy that exceed the current world-wide six sigma asperation of quality. Pitiful!! This is a pointless statistic that doesn't even begin to address the points I raised. DNA is not a meaningful code, it is written in an inefficient "language" and riddled with errors. DNA replication isn't perfect BTW, it is error prone. DNA does not communicate any information, as I said before it's a catalyst in a chemical reaction. Chrioptera made a good analogy with the topography 'coding' the river.
Please don't even try to say that the genetic code is not a code or ribosomes do not read the m-rna, I mean how many scientific texts, papers or citations do want me to provide to drown your rediculous statement where those terms are precisely used and explained as such with the exact terminology. Terminology isn't the issue. We may call it a "sunrise" but that dosn't mean the sun is orbiting us does it?
I think this sort of obfuscation and meaningless assertion is not worth my time. My my, you certainly do think highly of yourself don't you? I'm so sorry Mr. Humble, I thought we were ARGUING IN GOOD FAITH! Have a look at the Forum Rules before toeing the Ad Homenim line.
any real adults out there If you keep using this "tone" I'm sure you will attract the wrath of the admins. I don't think you know what kind of forum you are on but you will be surprised to know that many of us aren't only adults but scientists as well. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-03-2005 06:56 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by Evopeach, posted 08-03-2005 6:46 PM | | Evopeach has not replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
Message 97 of 292 (229435)
08-03-2005 6:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by Evopeach
08-03-2005 6:54 PM
|
|
Are you arguing with yourself?
Why do you keep replying to yourself? Are there two evopeaches?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Evopeach, posted 08-03-2005 6:54 PM | | Evopeach has not replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
Re: In all fairness...
Meh... I think she/he may have been a hit and run.
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 108 of 292 (229629)
08-04-2005 9:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 105 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 1:12 AM
|
|
Re: That's too bad.
My guess is that you are not serious people and truly unable to discuss rationally. Allright then. We will all refrain from speaking to His Majesty. Have a nice day. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-04-2005 09:36 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 105 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 1:12 AM | | Evopeach has not replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 117 of 292 (229692)
08-04-2005 11:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 10:59 AM
|
|
Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
Thus there is no time problem either it can be demonstrated in the lab or it can't. If it can then it is certainly possible that natural, unaided chemistry can create life, that the theory of abiogenesis and evolution have been demonstrated to be completely compatible and demonstrably correct. The theory of Abiogenisis and ToE have little to nothing to do with each other. Thus, they are not at odds. Just to clarify, do you belive in evolution? Also, at what point do you belive the "designer" intervened?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 10:59 AM | | Evopeach has replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 120 of 292 (229718)
08-04-2005 11:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 119 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 11:30 AM
|
|
Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
I am now amazed that the current claim of evolutions is that abiogenesis is somehow peripheral to the theory. It is simply unbelieveable to hear several people say that. Well it is. It allways has been. Here are the dictionary definitions:
abiogenesis Pronunciation Key (b--jn-ss) n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation. evolution Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-) n. ... 1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. 2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. See, they aren't related at all. The rest of your post is really just a rant. Can you answer my previous question as to when/how do you think life began? Also, do you belive in evolution? If so, when did it start. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-04-2005 11:41 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 119 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 11:30 AM | | Evopeach has replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 128 of 292 (229768)
08-04-2005 1:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 122 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 11:57 AM
|
|
Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
I dont see how to have a rational discussion with someone who dismisses the major emphasis of the displipline from 1920 to 2000 and continuing, ie,someone who refuses to face the failed efforts of his forefathers to account for how the establishment of the basis for his lifes work in micro and maco evolution is hung on thin air and has absolutely no rational credible basis for belief ... a religion then based on faith. If you care to suspend your integrity, intellectual honesty and cannot admit to the true state of affairs past and prresent then it is totally enigmatic how to proceed with any degree of confidence in the honesty of any remarks you might make. Ummm... you have no idea what you are talking about. Biology, genetics, ToE, and bioinfomatics have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is an interesting topic, but wether it's a fact or not does nothing for the ToE. Abiogenisis does not need to be true in order for the ToE to be true. Do you understand? I guess I would like to ask, do you want to discuss the ToE, or Abiogenesis?
The creator was the original designer and interjected the intelligence, knowhow, knowledge etc. onto non-living matter to create every kind of life and the information based adaptability to exist in changing conditions via the molecular processes, machinery and consciousness of thought in the case of humanity. Ummm... I i have no idea what this paragraph is trying to say and how it relates to my question. Do you think you could spell things out a little clearer? Us lesser mortals need a little help.
It was therefore unnecessary to intervene except as necessary in his own determination but not in routine biological or physical processes. Does that help? No, it dosn't. I don't mean to make you lower yourself to our level, your excelence, but do you think you could clarify your position using tiny words better suited to our intelectualy inferior moron brains? This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-04-2005 02:00 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 11:57 AM | | Evopeach has not replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
Good One
e\/opeach was teh own3d. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-04-2005 04:28 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 132 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2005 3:19 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 140 of 292 (229825)
08-04-2005 5:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 139 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 5:06 PM
|
|
Re: That's too bad.
Dismissing me is out of hand is your way of debate and stating your superiority is one way of fallacious reasoning and not useful, its just a big egocentric booster. LOL! Look who's talking.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 139 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 5:06 PM | | Evopeach has not replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 143 of 292 (229856)
08-04-2005 6:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 6:15 PM
|
|
Yet another convoluted condescending rant
Those are some great assetions, do you have any reference, links, papers, to back them up?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 6:15 PM | | Evopeach has replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 147 of 292 (229865)
08-04-2005 6:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 144 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 6:28 PM
|
|
Re: Yet another convoluted condescending rant
You really are a laugh riot! Did you cultivate this personae over several years, or were you just born this way? I can't believe someone as rude, arrogant, abrasive, abusive, headstrong, and downright mean ever even made it onto this board! Why the heck did you come to the EVC? Did you think you were gonna walk in here and have everyone fall to your feet as they whiteness the glory of your intellectual might? I don't even know what your point is half the time! Your like an evil Brad McFall who spent a weekend with Kent Hovind and Michael Behe, swallowed a thesaurus, then came over here to "rain on our parade". I'm done with you. Really I am. From the looks of it, you won't last here long anyway.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 6:28 PM | | Evopeach has replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
Re: No $ For Atheism (Or...I.D.)
Your My hero! Serioussly, I have been reading your books since I was a kid. Heck, my whole fammily has I was fascinated with dinos and my first ideas of them came from illustrations in your books (I was too young to read at the time). Are you really The Rob T. Bakker? Welcome to the EVC! I hope you stick arround. It would also be interesting to have some theological debate with you since you seem to have strong opinions on the matter.
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6521 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 235 of 292 (231394)
08-09-2005 1:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 234 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 1:20 PM
|
|
Re: Talking Points
Thus life is irreducubly complex respecting carbon and there is no demonstrable alternative but to suppose a non-natural source for all carbon and all life forms and their design. Well, essentially you are saying the Big Bang is the beginning of life in this case. Are you suggesting that god kickstarted the big bang? I guess if you NEED to push him back that far that's ok. Untill of course, we find the cause of the Big Bang in which case God will retreat somewhere else we can't get to him.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 234 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 1:20 PM | | Evopeach has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 236 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 1:34 PM | | Yaro has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2