Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 11:25 AM
31 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, dwise1, GDR, Percy (Admin), ringo, vimesey (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,169 Year: 15,205/19,786 Month: 1,928/3,058 Week: 302/404 Day: 20/96 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 116 of 173 (534423)
11-08-2009 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by traste
11-08-2009 1:55 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Let me point you here: http://www.physorg.com/news176721370.html

from the article:

Physorg writes:

"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth."

Physorg writes:

“Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed,” explained Sandford.

Now, while it may not be concrete, it is evidence that simple elements can be formed into the necessary building blocks for life: steps necessary for Abigenesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 1:55 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by traste, posted 11-26-2009 1:45 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 118 by traste, posted 11-26-2009 2:19 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 129 of 173 (537375)
11-28-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Peg
11-28-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Scientific laws
I, personally, am having a rather hard time finding the original article. However, MANY creo-sites quote this. not a single scientific site does as such. Please, if you can find the original, provide it. I would love to read it.

Edited by hooah212002, : spellcheck


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:30 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:42 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 132 of 173 (537379)
11-28-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Peg
11-28-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Scientific laws
but seriously, i think creationists are looking very closely at what evolutionists say and when they say something that appears to express some amount of doubt, creationists use it. YOu cant blame them can you? I mean the idea that life evolved and was not created is diametrically opposed to their entire belief system.

most of us are not scientists...and those who are seem to be branded as 'not real scientists' if they believe in creation. So its no wonder we pounce on anything that appears to discredit evolution.

Because it is decieptful, peg. Words are misconstrued. They are twisting peoples quotes around and shelling them out to APPEAR that there is doubt, when there isn't any.

Creationism and ID are out to bash Evolution, not prove themselves true. That is how they think they can sway people: by lying and saying that Evolution is wrong and you will go to hell if you question the bible.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:38 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 136 of 173 (537383)
11-28-2009 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by cavediver
11-28-2009 9:43 AM


Re: Scientific laws
so I don't think we even need to look for the article, when the author in question is giving us his own view...

Alas, but it would do well to teach others to not take ANY quote form a creationist site.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 9:43 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by traste, posted 02-26-2010 1:35 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 155 of 173 (548463)
02-27-2010 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by traste
02-26-2010 1:35 AM


Re: Scientific laws
1: Evolution is not a belief system. There is no "belief" in evolution. The sooner you can accept that, the sooner you will see the light.

2: Is anyones knowledge in anything "their own"? Unless YOU do the research, publish the papers, get it perr reviewed, and submit it, YOURSELF, you are using someone elses knowledge. Whenever i quote something, I do my best to verify it against other reputable sources. Anything i have EVER seen documented at a creationist site is drivel. It is wrong.


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by traste, posted 02-26-2010 1:35 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 10:27 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 161 of 173 (548517)
02-27-2010 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by traste
02-27-2010 10:27 PM


Re: Scientific laws
I doubt that, given that even supporters expresses negative comments and attack evolution in private.

Source? or is this another of your statements you make that you have no evidence for. There is no discussion as to the validity/FACT of evolution in scientific circles. The only thing that is debated/argued/questioned: is the manner in which it occurs.

Im pretty sure that scientist like Behe and Kenyon are not among of your" refutable source." You dont need to explain I completely understand the cause.

If behe ever had a legitimately peer reviewed paper on anything, i would consider him a legitimate source. until then? He is nothing.


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 10:27 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 11:23 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 163 of 173 (548528)
02-27-2010 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by traste
02-27-2010 11:23 PM


Re: Scientific laws
Satisfy?

Absolutely not! Not only did you NOT back up your original statement, you just made MORE statements which are devoid of evidence AND not even addressing the topic to which they were a response. You do know what a 'source" is, right? How about "evidence"?

The fact that there is wide disagreement among elite scientific figures, can be considered that they dont have yet the satisfactory explanation of how life began.

Which has fuck all to do with evolution.

You yourself implied that there are still contreversies because you there are still "argued/questioned" yet you considered them as fact.

I understand English is not your first language, but please, don't misrepresent what I say. I said that the FACT of evolution is NOT debated. it is a non-secquitor. however, there IS debate/discussion as to the ways in which the FACT of evolution can occur. BIG difference my misguided friend.

Iam confused. Very confused.

Obviously. Try reading a book on the subject you are debating.

The real reason why you dont read his argument published in prestigious scientific journals like Nature, New Scientist,The Scientific American,etc, its not because he has no replied but its because his replied was prevented to occur by many die hard Darwinist.

No. He is not published, not because of "hateful darwinists" (catchy buzzwords are poor form), but because he is out of his league and his papers are NOT science and have been disproven. You DO remember Dover, yes?

I understand that peer review is the method use to determine the correctness of scientific arguments but in the case of Behe that method is not fair.

Not fair? if he wishes to be a legitimate scientist (he doesn't), then he WILL go through the same rigors that any other scientist goes through in order to be published. until then, he is nothing, a nobody.

Because all the reviewers believe in evolution and they have a prejudiced towards ID.

Hmmm. let's see. IF ID were a serious scientific study, papers WOULD be published. however, since there is no legitimate study EVER conducted, it's not science.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 11:23 PM traste has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019