Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,188 Year: 5,445/9,624 Month: 470/323 Week: 110/204 Day: 10/16 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 128 of 415 (498398)
02-10-2009 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Loudmouth
01-09-2004 8:10 PM


I dont think so.No experiment confirmation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 01-09-2004 8:10 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2009 7:49 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 130 of 415 (498402)
02-10-2009 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by PaulK
10-14-2008 1:35 AM


Re: Conclusions
Biogenesis is not a real scientific law because its againts abiogenesis thats it?I think Im on the thread now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 10-14-2008 1:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 7:52 AM traste has not replied
 Message 133 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2009 7:59 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 131 of 415 (498405)
02-10-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by traste
02-10-2009 7:50 AM


Re: Conclusions
Oh are you defining or imposing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 7:50 AM traste has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2009 7:56 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 134 of 415 (498415)
02-10-2009 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by PaulK
02-10-2009 7:59 AM


Re: Conclusions
What is absolute and correct abiogenesis that disprove long ago by Pasteur?Do you agree if I say if a certain theory is contradictory to prove idea the theory need to be reconsider?I THINK THAT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF GOOD SCIENCE.Do year any experiment producing life from non life?If youy hear your alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2009 7:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2009 9:05 AM traste has replied
 Message 136 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2009 10:59 AM traste has replied
 Message 137 by Wounded King, posted 02-10-2009 11:25 AM traste has replied
 Message 138 by bluegenes, posted 02-10-2009 12:09 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 139 of 415 (498471)
02-10-2009 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by PaulK
02-10-2009 9:05 AM


Re: Conclusions
Oh!Is that all?Isnt he perfomed also experiment about whether abiogenesis genaration could have taken place?In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2009 9:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by lyx2no, posted 02-10-2009 10:36 PM traste has not replied
 Message 141 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2009 11:14 PM traste has replied
 Message 142 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2009 1:30 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 143 of 415 (498774)
02-13-2009 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Coyote
02-10-2009 11:14 PM


Re: Conclusions
Maybe.But dont you know that even some supporters of evolution acknowledge that Pasteur experiment settle the contreversy that surrounds spontaneous genaration?How would you reconcile your view with them?You are so vigilance in spoting that Pasteur is an elderly,how about Darwin is he not an elderly to?You contend that Pasteur work maybe wrong,dont you realize that Darwin's work maybe wrong too because he is an elderly?You have nice verse no doubt you are a great benefit to the fairy tale of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2009 11:14 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 9:06 PM traste has not replied
 Message 148 by bluescat48, posted 02-13-2009 10:13 PM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 144 of 415 (498779)
02-13-2009 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by traste
02-13-2009 8:41 PM


Re: Conclusions
I thougth you can read well.And what is decay in the following statement"never will the doctrine of spontaneus genaration recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment"?That statement remains true no laboratoty models produce living things from non living things.Do you hear some?Some microbiolgist define spontaneous generation as a theory that living things is come from non living things.If you like to argue with that argue them not me..Since some of you are quoting Pilbeam as a source of your "decay".I will quote Stephen Meyer if you ask me who is Meyer will he is one of the supportets of intelligent design,and who is Pilbeam by the way?Meyer said that Pasteur's experiment show that life could not began from non life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 8:41 PM traste has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2009 5:26 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 145 of 415 (498782)
02-13-2009 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Modulous
02-10-2009 7:56 AM


Re: Conclusions
I dont think so.That definiton is correct only for supporters of evolution dont you think so?In my reply in Feb 10 2009 I apologize if I did not recognize evolutionist Francis Hitching as my reference.This what he said "beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reaction water in any case inhibits the growth ofmore complex molecules"Dont you hear about that thing?Or your only so concern to the idea that supports evolution?By the way you imply that circle is not a square I agree as a person who has undergone rigid training in mathemathics I know for sure that there is no such thing,but it does not mean that there is no such thing as difficulties in evolution.In fact chemist Richard Dickerson said"it is therefore hard to see how polymerazation [it is needed to form big molecules]could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primative ocean since the presence of water favors depolymerazation rather tha polymerazation.And biochemist George Wald said "spontaneous dissulution is much more probable and hence proceed rapidly than spontaneus synthesis"He acknowledge "this the most stubborn problem that confronts"evolutionary theory.But the difficulties does not stop there.But for sure you dont know about those difficulties.As a student of mathemathics a branded evolution mathemathically erroneus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2009 7:56 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Coragyps, posted 02-13-2009 10:37 PM traste has not replied
 Message 194 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2009 10:21 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 146 of 415 (498783)
02-13-2009 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
01-04-2004 5:19 PM


You are correct.Our creator is needed for such complexities and precision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 01-04-2004 5:19 PM sidelined has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 147 of 415 (498784)
02-13-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Blue Jay
02-10-2009 10:59 AM


Re: Ontogeny vs. Phylogeny
Who is Pilbeam in the first place?If I say that I believe that spontaneous genaration is just the same as abiogenesis because that is what Stephen Meyer said we will end quoting people isnt it?By the way could you demonstrate with mathemathical rigor that the complexities and organization observe in life in general came about by random change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2009 10:59 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2009 1:21 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 149 of 415 (498788)
02-13-2009 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
02-15-2007 9:01 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
The real problem is you could not demonstrate those things(complexities observe in life )came by change whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.All current theories that supports abiogenesis is nothing but exposition of ignorance.The real conclusion is "God" did it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2007 9:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Coragyps, posted 02-13-2009 10:43 PM traste has replied
 Message 152 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 12:27 AM traste has replied
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 7:57 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 155 of 415 (498801)
02-14-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by bluescat48
02-13-2009 10:13 PM


Re: Conclusions
At least you accept it is a fairy tale.Because you imply evolution is well supported by evidence,could you please go further from that rather than asserting it is well supported?You could demonstrate whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.Mathemathics plays a big role here since we are talking chance events.But none of you guys ever me a mathemethical proof that the complexities and precision observe in life came by change.The real conclusion is God did it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by bluescat48, posted 02-13-2009 10:13 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 6:11 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 156 of 415 (498802)
02-14-2009 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Blue Jay
02-14-2009 1:21 AM


Re: Ontogeny vs. Phylogeny
It is necessary since we are talking chance events.Randomness imply change events isnt it?So the science of mathemathical probability plays a big role here.Could you demonstrate now?I hope you absorb well your basic algebra so that I dont get any trouble when explaining.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2009 1:21 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2009 4:08 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 157 of 415 (498803)
02-14-2009 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Coyote
02-14-2009 12:27 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
I dont think so that you absorb your mathemathics well.Evolution implies randomness,in fact it implies that the complexities observe in life came by chance.So since the science of mathemathical probabality deal with chance events it plays a big role there.I dont hear any mathemathics supports evolution but mathemathics speak againts it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 12:27 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 3:44 AM traste has replied
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 5:00 AM traste has replied
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 4:58 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5254 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 159 of 415 (498805)
02-14-2009 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Coragyps
02-13-2009 10:43 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
How about the absurdness that the complexities and organaztion in life came about by chance?You have a lotof theories but nothing explains that the complexities in life came by chance.Can you afford to say that the law of trigonometry came because mathemathicians draw zig zag line?Non sense too isnt it?If mathemathics did not came by chance,how about life that is more complex than it?Logic isnt it?Do you agree if I say the computer you are using now came because the computer manufacturing company exploded?Absurdness isnt it?Now how about life that is more complex than computer do they came by accident?Foolishness isnt it?So because every complex things today have a designer,it is logical to say that life too have a designer.Another logic isnt it?So all the current theories that supports evolution as Dean Kenyon puts it has"fundamental flaw".And by the way who is Dean Kenyon?Isnt it he was a former supporter evolution and co author of the book Biochemical Predestanation.If the evidence of evolution is as strong as what you believe,then why he abandoned it?My conclusion that all current theories that supports evolution is nothing but an exposition of ignorance,in the sense that they dont explain how the complexties ,organization,precision came by chance.Do you understand now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Coragyps, posted 02-13-2009 10:43 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 4:40 AM traste has not replied
 Message 192 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-14-2009 6:25 PM traste 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