Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   paper against evolution, for intelligent design
Tsegamla
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 100 (72721)
12-13-2003 4:30 PM


I attended a Baptist Christian school during my elementary and middle school years. I was actually assigned a project on evolution. I don't remember why, but I remember that everyone in the class was assigned a topic and I got evolution. It wasn't an argument against it either, it was written as if it was true. The school was even YEC. I didn't understand it well because I was younger, but looking back on it now, I was surprised that it was actually assigned. Perhaps some private schools live up to the "equal time" thing.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 47 of 100 (72752)
12-13-2003 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Warren
12-13-2003 4:14 PM


ID Site
It's going to take awhile to read that. If you have specific parts that you think are most telling it would help hurry things up if you gave them to me.
BTW, here's my prediction:
ID will carry on much as it does now. It will not, even after decades, produce any insights, it will not offer anything to test and it will continue to be more of a political movement than anything else.
It is difficult to come into a well studied area second. You do have a much higher first step. There has to be something specific that you can answer that the existing paradigm can not. Einstein was accepted quickly not because he matched Newtonian mechanics at low speed but because he dealt with things that it didn't and got better answers. It's always tougher to over turn a paradigm that has done well for decades. That's just the conservative nature of the scientific process.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Warren, posted 12-13-2003 4:14 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Warren, posted 12-13-2003 10:26 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Servus Dei
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 100 (72755)
12-13-2003 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rei
12-09-2003 8:34 PM


Read Scripture More Carefully
I am sorry about not replying sooner, I just found this website.
Rei, I wanted to show you your mistakes about saying that God tempts. He absolutley DOES NOT. I just wanted to point out a couple of scriptures that may have you change your mind.
James 1:13-15 clearly states that:
"When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."
http://www.biblegateway.com/...
{Shortened URL display form, to restore page with to normal - Adminnemooseus}
Also, if you look more closely at Numbers 22, you will see that your statement had a condition you forgot to mention. You said:
God told Balaam to go somewhere, and when Balaam went there, God got mad at him for going there and put an angel in his path.
As you can see from Numbers 22:20-22, God tell Balaam to go somewhere IF MEN COME TO GET HIM. THEN HE ARISES (ON HIS OWN), and that is when God gets angry, because BALAAM DISOBEYED GOD'S COMMAND.
Numbers 22: 20-22 says:
God came to Balaam at night and said to him, "If the men have come to call you, rise up and go with them; but only the word which I speak to you shall you do." So Balaam arose in the morning, and saddled his donkey and went with the leaders of Moab. But God was angry because he was going, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as an adversary against him.
http://www.biblegateway.com/...
{Shortened URL display form, to restore page with to normal - Adminnemooseus}
So God never tempts anyone. I will assume that you had truthfully never read this part before, but if you were trying to trick anyone into not believing the bible, then refer back to the forum rules, and look at #7.
http:///WebPages/ForumRules.html
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rei, posted 12-09-2003 8:34 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminNosy, posted 12-13-2003 7:03 PM Servus Dei has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 49 of 100 (72758)
12-13-2003 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Servus Dei
12-13-2003 6:51 PM


Re: Read Scripture More Carefully
Servus, could you be more careful about the thread you post in? It makes it easier for people (newcomers especially) to follow if you stay on topic.
A thread on ID is not a place for Biblical posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Servus Dei, posted 12-13-2003 6:51 PM Servus Dei has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 50 of 100 (72761)
12-13-2003 7:13 PM


When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, "nor does he tempt anyone".
Gen 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that "God did tempt Abraham," and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, [here] I [am].

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 100 (72782)
12-13-2003 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NosyNed
12-13-2003 6:43 PM


Re: ID Site
NosyNed<< ID will carry on much as it does now. It will not, even after decades, produce any insights, it will not offer anything to test and it will continue to be more of a political movement than anything else.>>
Well, I would expect that assessment coming from someone that has no experience with ID and probably equates it with creationism. On top of that you are probably laboring under metaphysical presuppositions that prevent you from examing the evidence objectively. I suspect you are more optimistic about origin of life research. I wonder why.
I would like to make a point concerning testable ID hypotheses. I'm not aware of what you expect a testable ID hypothesis to be but every ID critic I've talked to has an expectation that a testable ID hypothesis would be a hypothesis that shows something couldn't have originated by any other means than intelligent intervention. This is certainly one form that an ID hypothesis could take but not the one most ID theorists would propose. This is how an ID theorist works. They see certain things in nature that cause them to suspect intelligent design. Is this suspicion unreasonable? No, because even an atheist like Richard Dawkins states:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Now, the non-teleologist follows this advice from Francis Crick:
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.
On the other hand, the ID theorist is open to the possibility that something might look designed because it is designed. They therefore take the next step and ask themselves this question: if this thing was intelligently designed what should I expect to find? If a hypothesis is generated from this line of reasoning it is an ID hypothesis. Here is a two year old post from Mike Gene that explains this in more detail:
"Earlier I posted an article about proofreading. The information flow that occurs within a cell happens at several points. DNA is used to make DNA; DNA is used to make RNA; and RNA is used to make proteins. So goes the classic formulation of the Central Dogma of molecular biology. With information flow comes the issue of fidelity - how faithful is the information transferred? Scientists have long known that proofreading mechanisms exist during DNA replication where nucleotides that are misincorporated during replication are typically removed and replaced with the correct one. Similar proofreading also occurs at the two crucial points of information flow during protein synthesis: the charging of tRNAs and the anticodon-codon interactions of mRNA and tRNA. My recent posting discusses these two forms of proofreading.
After writing up that article for another board, I was thinking about proofreading and it occurred to me that an important step of information flow appeared to lack proofreading, that of transcription (where DNA is used to synthesize RNA). Now, I know a few things about transcription, but I could not recall ever hearing about proofreading being associated with RNA polymerase activity (the protein complexes that synthesize RNA). It struck me that this was a great opportunity to use ID. Here was my logic.
Imagine you need to translate a book from English into German and then German into Chinese. If it was important that this translation was as accurate as possible, you would employ proofreaders at both stages. For example, it would not make much rational sense to employ proofreaders to ensure the German text was accurately translated into Chinese without also using proofreaders during the first step (the English to German translation). It defeats the purpose of carefully scrutinizing the second translation if your first is sloppy.
Thus, using this logic, I predicted that proofreading should exist during transcription (since I strongly suspect cells, much as they are today, were originally designed by a rational agent(s)). Also, given that the degree of proofreading at the level of protein synthesis was so sophisticated, it would not make sense for a rational agent to not also ensure high fidelity at the level of RNA synthesis.
With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have been born out. As it happens, I did a literature search after coming up with this hypothesis and indeed discovered there is some good evidence of proofreading during transcription."
Now even though Mike Gene wasn't the first to discover proofreading during transcription it is clear that ID logic could have been used to predict this. That's the point. I'm not aware of anyone that used Darwinian logic to predict proofreading during transcription nor can I imagine how they could. In fact, the Darwinian view of the cell was an impediment to such a discovery. Consider:
"At this time, the late 1970s, biologists generally viewed the cell as a viscous fluid or gel surrounded by a membrane, much like a balloon filled with molasses." [Sci Amer, Jan 1998].
Why would anyone suspect something as sophisticated as proofreading was going on in a balloon filled with molasses? True, scientists did figure this out but it was in spite of Darwinism not because of it. Recognizing the inner workings of the cell as supremely integrated technology is better than viewing it as random goo. ID is a superior paradigm operationally regardless of whether there is a Designer.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 12-13-2003 6:43 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Warren, posted 12-13-2003 10:42 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 53 by Asgara, posted 12-13-2003 10:49 PM Warren has replied
 Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 1:15 AM Warren has replied
 Message 62 by Loudmouth, posted 12-15-2003 1:13 PM Warren has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 100 (72784)
12-13-2003 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Warren
12-13-2003 10:26 PM


Re: ID Site
NosyNed<< It's always tougher to over turn a paradigm that has done well for decades. That's just the conservative nature of the scientific process.>>
Why do you keep talking about theories being replaced and paradigms being over turned? I'm not advocating that. For the third time, why can't science function perfectly well with more than one theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses? Can you answer that question?
[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Warren, posted 12-13-2003 10:26 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 12:56 AM Warren has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 53 of 100 (72786)
12-13-2003 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Warren
12-13-2003 10:26 PM


Re: ID Site
Warren,
I know that I haven't been involved in this thread, and I KNOW that others will have much better replies to your post. I do want to ask one thing of you though; if an intelligent designer designed "proofreading" mechanisms within cellular bodies, wouldn't better proofreaders have been designed?
We know there are copy errors and transcription errors. There are so many episodes of copying going on that many errors get evened out in the mix. This sounds more like an evolutionary adaptation than a "supremely integrated technology".
I'm sure others who are more qualified will follow-up with your post, but even as uneducated in this topic as I am, I can see the flaws.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Warren, posted 12-13-2003 10:26 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Warren, posted 12-14-2003 12:14 AM Asgara has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 100 (72788)
12-14-2003 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Asgara
12-13-2003 10:49 PM


Re: ID Site
Asgara << I know that I haven't been involved in this thread, and I KNOW that others will have much better replies to your post. I do want to ask one thing of you though; if an intelligent designer designed "proofreading" mechanisms within cellular bodies, wouldn't better proofreaders have been designed?>>
Warren<< Well, I think the proofreading is done quite accurately. Especially considering these systems originated billions of years ago. Perhaps the orignal proofreading systems were even better than they are now. It shouldn't be surprising that there has been some deterioration over this amount of time.>>
Asgara<< We know there are copy errors and transcription errors. There are so many episodes of copying going on that many errors get evened out in the mix. This sounds more like an evolutionary adaptation than a "supremely integrated technology". >>
Warren<< I look at it differently. The Darwinian perspective led scientists to view the inner workings of the cell as a random goo up until the 1970's. It is now described as a factory full of nano-machines. Notice what Paul Davies says:
"Each cell is packed with tiny structures that might have come from an engineer's manual. Miniscule tweezers, scissors, pumps, motors, levers, valves, pipes, chains, and even vehicles abound. But of course the cell is more than just a bag of gadgets. The various components fit together to form a smoothly functioning whole, like an elaborate factory production line."
To me it's very straightforward - the cell as "goo" = non-design; the cell as "factory" = design.
Things in nature don't always work perfectly but viewing life at its core as technology makes more sense than viewing it as random goo. On what basis could one predict even crude proofreading mechanisms existing within random goo? The point my previous post was making was that proofreading makes perfect sense from a design perspective and one ID theorist was able to use ID reasoning to predict proofreading during transciption. I fail to see how this prediction could be made using non-teleological reasoning. In any event, no Darwinist to my knowledge ever made this prediction. >>
[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Asgara, posted 12-13-2003 10:49 PM Asgara has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 55 of 100 (72799)
12-14-2003 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Warren
12-13-2003 10:42 PM


not an overturn???
I'm not advocating that. For the third time, why can't science function perfectly well with more than one theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses? Can you answer that question?
Science frequently has to deal with more than one theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses. And those promoting one side or the other keep trying to use their framework to find something which it predicts and the other does not. Some way of separating the two so that the best one can be found. Sometimes it takes a lot of additional data gathering.
The underlying mechanisms of the ToE clearly work and operate at least part of the time. Just as Newtonian mechanics worked and still are useful.
However, the IDists seems to be suggesting that the ToE is not right all the time. There needs to be additions to it. This would, perhaps, allow the evolutionary theory to continue to be useful but it would be a shift as great as the shift to relatavistic mechanics has been.
As a sort of an aside:
I'd like to clarify what you see ID as being.
I'll try my own wording of your position and you can correct it as needed.
You accept all of physics, cosmology and geology as science today accepts it. Science today doesn't know the answer to why the laws of physics are as they are. You say it is because an intelligence made them that way. (The intelligence may be so superior to us that we would think of it as being god-like just as we might appear to be god like to the people of Palestine 2 millenia ago)
You accept all of biology and evolutionary theory except that there have been some specific places where the original (or another ) intelligence has intervened in some as yet to be described way.
Different IDists might now pick and choose where those places are depending on personal preferences. Some (most?) at the origin of life, others for some very detailed complex developments in biochemistry but nowhere else. Others (most) in the step from earlier hominids to H. sapiens.
Have I covered it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Warren, posted 12-13-2003 10:42 PM Warren has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 56 of 100 (72801)
12-14-2003 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Warren
12-13-2003 10:26 PM


A prediction and assertion
... it would not make sense for a rational agent to not also ensure high fidelity at the level of RNA synthesis.
Your whole point here is that the hypothesis of an intelligent designer suggests a "rational" agent. One question that might be asked is how smart, how rational is this agent? Would the design be as good or better than a human would do?
This is something testable. Can humans do a better design for any part which IDists suggest is one of the places where a rational agent acted? How would we determine that?
Would the resulting design look like something designed or something that is generated by specifically "undesigned" outputs of genetic algorithms. Would that distinguish between them?
If none of this can distinguish between them then there is no need for the rational agent. It starts to sound like a god of the gaps approach.
"At this time, the late 1970s, biologists generally viewed the cell as a viscous fluid or gel surrounded by a membrane, much like a balloon filled with molasses." [Sci Amer, Jan 1998].
Exactly how is this a "darwinian" view of the cell? What exactly does this mean? Isn't it simple saying that the details of cell structure were not known at the time. Since all evolutionary theory needs is a faulty replicator it doesn't need to dig further into the cell.
Cell biology, on the other hand, strives to understand the functioning of the cell in greater and greater detail. The advances in understanding from the "bag of goo" was made without any help from ID.
As another possible value to using ID as an underlying way of looking at problems. Could we consider the origin of life question?
Today, there is work going on in this area. We don't have even a candidate pathway to the original replicators.
How would ID help here? Would it not say: "The intelligent designer put the original self replicators in place"?
At that point we could stop the lab work as being as waste of time? What would we look for instead? We certainly wouldn't look for any pathways from pre biotic material to biological material would we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Warren, posted 12-13-2003 10:26 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Warren, posted 12-14-2003 2:08 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 100 (72850)
12-14-2003 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by NosyNed
12-14-2003 1:15 AM


Re: A prediction and assertion
Warren<< "At this time, the late 1970s, biologists generally viewed the cell as a viscous fluid or gel surrounded by a membrane, much like a balloon filled with molasses." [Sci Amer, Jan 1998].>>
NosyNed<< Exactly how is this a "darwinian" view of the cell? What exactly does this mean? Isn't it simply saying that the details of cell structure were not known at the time...Cell biology, on the other hand, strives to understand the functioning of the cell in greater and greater detail. The advances in understanding from the "bag of goo" was made without any help from ID.>>
Warren<< It was also made without any help from Darwinism. The prevailing view of the cell as a bag of soup was perfectly in line with Darwinian expectations. Afterall, it's a seemingly reachable step to go from a prebiotic soup to a soup sequestered in a membrane. But cells are far more like a mini-factory full of a myriad of nanomachines than a soup. Did Darwinian logic predict this discovery? No, it comfortably adapted itself to the old 'soup-view' of the cell. Did Darwinian logic play an important role in this discovery? Nope. The raw data of nuts-n-bolts molecular biology led us to this conclusion.
If the cell turned out to be a bag of soup, I would most likely not be seriously contemplating design. One of the main reasons I suspect design is because the cell has turned out to be far more sophisticated than a bag of soup. Yes, there are people who see no difference between a bag of soup and a factory. Non-teleologists think a factory is no more cause for an ID suspicion than a bag of soup. Me? I respond to the data.
In fact, I will now make an ID prediction. I like to use the metaphors of the soup and the machine. Making a soup requires minimal specifications - add X, Y, and Z and cook over a fire. Making a machine depends on extensive specifications, where specific parts are specifically connected. I therefore predict that when life is eventually created in the lab, the protocol will look more like the assembly instructions for putting together a machine than a recipe for making a soup. >>

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 1:15 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Silent H, posted 12-14-2003 3:39 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 5:28 PM Warren has replied
 Message 60 by nator, posted 12-15-2003 12:17 AM Warren has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 58 of 100 (72856)
12-14-2003 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Warren
12-14-2003 2:08 PM


quote:
Making a soup requires minimal specifications - add X, Y, and Z and cook over a fire. Making a machine depends on extensive specifications, where specific parts are specifically connected. I therefore predict that when life is eventually created in the lab, the protocol will look more like the assembly instructions for putting together a machine than a recipe for making a soup.
Of course it will because it will be people designing something. When humans do anything that imitates something found in the world, they must put together instructions on how to prepare it.
The problem is nature does not have to work as humans do. Some chemistry lab experiments involve very detailed instructions for other humans on how to get a reaction to move forward toward an end result, where it happens quite naturally in the world by chemicals slowly accumulating (and interacting) in the right environment, over longer periods of time.
Oh by the way warren, nice to see you again after dropping out of how many more threads when your theories can't cut the mustard?
Here's a prediction: Warren will argue until his assertions are found to be inaccurate, or called to actually explain the utility he claims ID has using only real world events, and then Warren will disappear... only to reappear later spouting the same garbage as before.
If you are so confident that ID has something to contribute as a tandem model (with evo) in legitimate science research, why don't you go back to the threads you have abandoned and answer my specific questions regarding how much utility it brings?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Warren, posted 12-14-2003 2:08 PM Warren has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 59 of 100 (72864)
12-14-2003 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Warren
12-14-2003 2:08 PM


?
Warren<< It was also made without any help from Darwinism. The prevailing view of the cell as a bag of soup was perfectly in line with Darwinian expectations. Afterall, it's a seemingly reachable step to go from a prebiotic soup to a soup sequestered in a membrane. But cells are far more like a mini-factory full of a myriad of nanomachines than a soup. Did Darwinian logic predict this discovery? No, it comfortably adapted itself to the old 'soup-view' of the cell. Did Darwinian logic play an important role in this discovery? Nope. The raw data of nuts-n-bolts molecular biology led us to this conclusion.
You have so much scrambled up it is getting hard to sort it out. But I'll try again.
Why would the detailed supporting structure of the cell have anything specifically to do with evolutionary theory? Could you explain that again? You are acting as if this is some amazing finding on your part. It still evokes a "so what?" to me.
The "reachable" bit is still tangling up abiogenesis and Darwinin evolution. Why would you do that if you're supposed to know a thing about the subject?
Also I get the strong impression that you think the "bag of soup" thing means the cell was taken as being something sort of uncomplicated and undifferentiated. That is NOT what the article you have quoted is talking about. What do you think it means? The "bag of soup" analogy used in the article was in reference to a particular characteristic. Do you know what that was? In any case it was an analogy to describe a situation. Not a real description of the view of the cell at the time.
The whole, and only point, you seem to have is that an individual must be careful about what bagage they bring into the examination of any questions. We all talk about "thinking outside the box" but we all have a lot of trouble doing that. I will certainly give you that point. It is absolutely true.
Ok, now we have ID included. Now what? As soon as we see that space aliens guiding the evolution of life on earth enables some insight or progress in our understanding then it will have some credibility. Until then I will go along with the idea that it is not impossible. It has just proved to be completely useless as an approach so far.
I have read over some of your site and haven't seen anything yet other than the point of being careful about being too blinkered when looking for a solution to something. I had asked for your suggestions as to what parts had something really telling to say.
The steps used for "creating life" in the lab will most likely be like a lot of other descriptions of the necessary chemical steps. So I guess your prediction has a high chance of being right if you take that as like assembling a machine. However, a lot of people would liken that to a reciepe for soup. Neither analogy is meaningful anyway.
Another possibility is that we may uncover a good candicate replicator by using the "forced evolution" process I took from "American Scientist" in the thread about what has come from evolutionary science. This would be fitting to neither analogy.
It is here:
http://EvC Forum: What has evolution theory produced? -->EvC Forum: What has evolution theory produced?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Warren, posted 12-14-2003 2:08 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Warren, posted 12-15-2003 3:14 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 60 of 100 (72902)
12-15-2003 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Warren
12-14-2003 2:08 PM


Re: A prediction and assertion
quote:
One of the main reasons I suspect design is because the cell has turned out to be far more sophisticated than a bag of soup.
Actually, cooking anything, including soup, is much more complicated from a biochemical standpoint than most people realize.
True, it isn't the same as metabolism, but just try to tell that to yourself when you put too much heat under your cream soup and it splits, or if you get the acidity wrong and everything curdles or your beans never soften or your vegetables all turn gray or your cabbage turns blue.
There are millions of chemical reactions going on in the cooking of a pot of soup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Warren, posted 12-14-2003 2:08 PM Warren 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