|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2007 : 14:18:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
trollboy said:
| The logical conclusion of the study of abiogenesis; if this hypothesis is rejected, is another life form initiated life on earth. |
You really are mentally handicapped, aren't you?
|
Shoo, Shoo, lost puppy go find a fire hydrant to pee on.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 14:27:37 [Permalink]
|
Jerome intoned: | The logical conclusion of the study of abiogenesis; if this hypothesis is rejected, is another life form initiated life on earth. |
As I pointed out already, even if it were somehow proved that life on earth was created by a deity, previous abiogenesis would still be required. You still would have to account for the rise of the deity (or his ancestors) from some galactic hydrothermal vent or warm pond. The usual Creationist objection to this is the claim that God doesn't have to play by such logical rules, and stands outside of time. At that point, their argument is exposed as pure, naked faith, lacking all reason, and cannot be a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/06/2007 21:27:58 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 14:35:47 [Permalink]
|
HH, Thanks for the links very interesting.
Did not an intelligent life arrange preexisting DNA strands to form a virus based on a code already discerned? This is like taking apart a chest of drawers, examining how it was put together, ordering wood, and building your own. Would this lead you to believe that the original chest of drawers was created by random combinations of wood?
Finding amino acids in space is exciting but not terribly unexpected, as many other molecules have also been found.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 15:01:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Jerome intoned: | The logical conclusion of the study of abiogenesis; if this hypothesis is rejected, is another life form initiated life on earth. |
As I pointed out already, even if it were somehow proved that life on earth was created by a deity, previous abiogenesis would still be required. You still would have to account for the rise of the deity's (or his ancestors) from some galactic hydrothermal vent or warm pond. The usual Creationist objection to this is the claim that God doesn't have to play by such logical rules, and stands outside of time. At that point, their argument is exposed as pure, naked faith, lacking all reason, and cannot be a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory.
|
The explanation could be the universe is eternal; time not being linear, in the same manner it is described that the universe could be without boarders. All that exists may have always existed, it only reconfigures from time to time.
These are also questions that are outside of the purview of science if one is to claim science only deals in that which can be tested. Yet, these questions are real and the answers are real.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 16:02:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
the universe could be without boarders. |
We know that the Universe have Boarders.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 18:15:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
the universe could be without boarders. |
We know that the Universe have Boarders.
|
That is funny, you criticize my spelling whist using improper grammar.
That sentence should be: We know that the Universe has boarder.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 19:27:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
the universe could be without boarders. |
We know that the Universe have Boarders.
|
That is funny, you criticize my spelling whist using improper grammar.
That sentence should be: We know that the Universe has boarder.
|
Not that I think spelling is a legitimate criticism, considering my own, but I think Mab does pretty good, considering English is his second language. How good is your Swedish, Jerome? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 20:04:45 [Permalink]
|
I was not going to respond to the post initially, but in another thread Doc made a reference in the post quoted below.
Mabuse said :
This is probably the closest thing you'll ever see Jerome coming to an admission that he's wrong.
In Jerome's defence, I'll have to say...
...
...
...hang on, I'm trying to come up with something positive to say...
...
...
...no.
I'm sorry. I'm too riled up from reading the Abiogenesis-thread to come to think of anything nice.
|
So riled up that the only comment was to point out a spelling error?
I know no Swedish.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 21:36:14 [Permalink]
|
This was also wrong:| That sentence should be: We know that the Universe has boarder. |
It should have been "border," but in the plural. But I think Mab may have pointed out your use of "boarders" simply because it was humorous. Personally, I visualize "boarders,' using grappling hooks to invade our ship.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 01:47:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Jerome intoned: | The logical conclusion of the study of abiogenesis; if this hypothesis is rejected, is another life form initiated life on earth. |
As I pointed out already, even if it were somehow proved that life on earth was created by a deity, previous abiogenesis would still be required. You still would have to account for the rise of the deity's (or his ancestors) from some galactic hydrothermal vent or warm pond. The usual Creationist objection to this is the claim that God doesn't have to play by such logical rules, and stands outside of time. At that point, their argument is exposed as pure, naked faith, lacking all reason, and cannot be a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory. |
The explanation could be the universe is eternal; time not being linear, in the same manner it is described that the universe could be without boarders. All that exists may have always existed, it only reconfigures from time to time.
These are also questions that are outside of the purview of science if one is to claim science only deals in that which can be tested. Yet, these questions are real and the answers are real. |
I doubt anyone understands what you just wrote, including yourself, Jerome.
You are simply trying to confuse issues, by throwing in mystical, even meaningless, gobbledygook. The question, "Why are fairies blue?" is a "real question." But it has no real application to reality. I can see you are trying to hide your God in a cloak of impenetrable mystical nonsense. Science -- and sanity -- works the opposite way. Your use of a God which is outside of and ungoverned by physical and logical rules is the same nonsense that theists have been peddling for centuries.
It's time you simply admitted that you are a theist, and a fundy at that. It serves no purpose for you to continue your lying charade, as everyone's seen through it. How can you be "not religious," when you explicitly argue that "godddidit"? Your pose (including your quote from atheist Bertrand Russell) only makes fundies like yourself look like they are willing to lie all the time, and to trick people. Well, maybe they are, but do you want everyone to know that? Do you want to advertise the desperation of theism in a scientific age?
And please start spelling "borders" correctly. It's not as though you hadn't been helped with that. In a practical sense, your bad spelling simply adds extra mystification to your thoughts, as though they needed that! And it makes it look as though you hold your readers in contempt. (Your contempt for them by abusing truth and logic is bad enough.)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 02:30:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
the universe could be without boarders. |
We know that the Universe have Boarders.
|
That is funny, you criticize my spelling whist using improper grammar.
That sentence should be: We know that the Universe has boarder.
|
Please tell me exactly how my sentence was gramatically wrong. If I made a mistake, I really would like to know... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 02:47:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So riled up that the only comment was to point out a spelling error?
|
It was the only constructive thing I managed to write.
I also wrote half a dozen other posts (in a few threads), that I subsequently had to delete, because they were unbecoming of my station as moderator here on SFN.
Some of the posts of yours in this thread are so obtuse or wise-ass, you've managed to loose any hope of gaining my respect ever again.
When Dude said you're a tool, he simply cannot just mean "not the sharpest tool in the shed", but if I searched every tool shed in the bloody country, I'd be hard pressed to find a more dull tool.
Perhaps you're not really that stupid. You only pretend to be.
"Thick as a brick", they say, but pretending to thicker than the Berlin Wall doesn't do you any good here.
As far an the anti-science stance you're taking, parroting all the standard Creationist talking points, there is no longer any doubt that you are just as dishonest as the Answers-In-Genesis crew. And you while you've shown a glimmer of hope once in a while, you fast revert to being the same git you've always been, taking every chance you've got to provoke by being a smart-ass.
I now realise how you can maintain such a high post count/day. You don't have any friends, beside your on-line presence here. I'm having a hard time deciding if I should pity you for that. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/07/2007 : 04:12:47 [Permalink]
|
Ok, let's cut the crap. Here, in a nutshell, are two views of abiogenesis:
That is difficult to understand, how? Let's do some more.... Every so often, someone comes up with the statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible". Often they cite an impressive looking calculation from the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, or trot out something called "Borel's Law" to prove that life is statistically impossible. These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.
Glossary
Acyl transferase:
An enzyme or ribozyme that synthesizes peptides.
Ligase:
An enzyme or ribozyme that adds a monomer to a polymer, or links two shorter polymers together.
Monomer:
Any single subunit of a polymer. An amino acid is a monomer of a peptide or protein, a nucleotide is a monomer of an oligonucleotide or polynucleotide.
Nucleotide:
Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Uracil. These are the monomers that make up oligo- or polynucleotides such as RNA.
Oligonucleotide:
A short polymer of nucleotide subunits.
Polymerase:
A enzyme or ribozyme that makes a polymer out of monomers. For example, RNA polymerase makes RNA out of single nucleotides.
Ribozyme:
A biological catalyst made from RNA.
Self-replicator:
A molecule which can make an identical or near-identical copy of itself from smaller subunits. At least four self-replicators are known.
Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.
|
The answers to these can be found in the link, and so much for the ewe-necked calculations of various creationist blatherskites.
Furthermore:Science shows us that the universe evolved by self-organization of matter towards more and more complex structures. Atoms, stars and galaxies self-assembled out of the fundamental particles produced by the Big Bang. In first-generation stars, heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen were formed. Aging first-generation stars then expelled them out into space – we, who consist of these elements, are thus literally born from stardust. The heaviest elements were born in the explosions of supernovae. The forces of gravity subsequently allowed for the formation of newer stars and of planets. Finally, in the process of biological evolution from bacteria-like tiny cells (the last universal common ancestor) to all life on earth, including us humans, complex life forms arose from simpler ones.
Upon considering this self-organization of material structures in the realm of philosophy, one may conclude that it happens either because the underlying laws of nature simply are the way they are, or because they were designed by God for this purpose. Since we know that the laws of nature are so self-sufficient that, b |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2007 : 05:25:15 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner, I will tell you.
I do believe in God, based on the complexities of life.
I think man made religion at most times is a tool to control other men.
I think science at times is perverted to control other men.
There is no human endeavor that is exempt from frailties of man.
I do not think that life can come from non life based on current evidence.
Knowing that current human knowledge is incredibly small in comparison to vastness of the universe I will always remain open to new inputs of information.
I seems this argument comes down to two possibilities for the initiation of life. I choose the explanation that conforms to current science (i.e. life comes from life); you choose the opposite, and science is experimenting trying to find life coming from non life. I certainly could opine why you think this; but that would serve no purpose.
Remember this talk was started because it was postulated that anyone who believes in God is either insane or stupid.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 12:58:33 [Permalink]
|
| I seems this argument comes down to two possibilities for the initiation of life.I choose the explanation that conforms to current science (i.e. life comes from life). |
WTF?
You believe that life originated from life?
Where did the life originate from that created life. Was it life? Are you nuts?!?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Abiogenesis
