RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (339) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Doc Bill



Posts: 995
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,21:26   

Hi, Gary!

Happy to see you return to planet Earth, sort of.

However, you seem to still be a fucking moron.

Sorry about that.  I highly recommend alcoholism as a treatment.  Contact Joe G and the other denizens of UD for details.

Fuck you and a pox on you, you pretentious twit,

Doc

  
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,22:03   

Quote
With the understood caveat that some of the information in these definitions may be fundamentally wrong (i.e. 1 says that natural selection is an undirected process.??Depending on how one defines 'undirected' this may or may not be a true statement).

It's when there's one or more positive feedback loops of some sort that selection effects are apt to appear to have been directed, since a positive feedback loop has what amounts to a direction. (The phrase "arms race" is frequently used as an analogy to a type of positive feedback loop.)

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4382
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,22:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,00:21)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,21:45)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 30 2012,20:59)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,20:40)
Gary, I saw this in a conversation you had online:

         
Quote

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?

Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science.  Here's my latest project:  

http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146133

That doesn't have anything to do with the citric acid cycle.

So let's put it another way: Is your statement that I quoted above about the citric acid cycle something that you feel is defensible? Or are you saying that it isn't, but you've been too busy to retract it?


There is some older material to elaborate on that here:

https://sites.google.com/site.......ull.doc

And I can add a paper under construction that might be helpful, for summing other things up:

https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf


But I don’t see anything inherently wrong with what you quoted (other than not going into as much detail as is possible):

       
Quote
Citric acid cycle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......d_cycle

The citric acid cycle — also known as the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), the Krebs cycle, or the Szent-Györgyi–Krebs cycle[1][2] — is a….


If you can show that it is wrong, then I would first have to blame it on Wikipedia, before agreeing that you are right. :D

From my experience though, they are used interchangeably, even though where I have to look for differences can say that the chemistry varies in a way that the forward/reverse TCA of origin of life papers is a more simple way of achieving the present day Citric Acid Cycle and Krebs.  They are otherwise the same to me.  But since what you are describing is more of a details thing that’s maybe more a mission for you to improve the wording of.  

Getting sidetracked on the Chromosome Illustrator project was the result of the paper also needing to better explain how “addressing” (as explained at Biology-Online) works, to make a molecular intelligence model relatively easy to program.  It’s one of the things that I do have to focus my attention on, because of it being needed by all experimenting with the computer model and theory.   But if you find a more precise way to word things then that will become the new priority and I will in minutes make the change so I can get back to work on what makes this theory unique, and scientifically valuable.


You are using the citric acid cycle as an example confirming your concept of "molecular intelligence". If you don't have the biology right, though, it seems that the conclusion would be that "molecular intelligence" fits a counterfactual biology, not the actual biology that we see. I'm not a biochemist, and my biology coursework touching on intracellular processes lies decades in the past, but precious little that you described meshed with my recall.

As for establishing that your description of the citric acid cycle is incorrect, we can utilize your cited source, Wikipedia.

Gary:

   
Quote

It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.


Wikipedia:

   
Quote

The name of this metabolic pathway is derived from citric acid (a type of tricarboxylic acid) that is first consumed and then regenerated by this sequence of reactions to complete the cycle.


There aren't "two identical copies" produced.

Gary:

   
Quote

At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.


Wikipedia:

   
Quote

The reaction [Reverse citric acid cycle] is a possible candidate for prebiotic early-earth conditions and, so, is of interest in the research of the origin of life. It has been found that some of the steps can be catalysed by minerals.


The reference linked makes clear even in the abstract that they are talking about chemical reactions in the lab, not observations of in vitro biochemistry. ZnS catalysis is not what is happening in the bacteria.

Gary:

   
Quote

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it.


Wikipedia:

   
Quote

Products of the first turn of the cycle are: one GTP (or ATP), three NADH, one QH2, two CO2.
Because two acetyl-CoA molecules are produced from each glucose molecule, two cycles are required per glucose molecule. Therefore, at the end of two cycles, the products are: two GTP, six NADH, two QH2, and four CO2


The citric acid cycle does not produce cells.

Gary:

   
Quote

A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.


Wikipedia:

   
Quote

The regulation of the TCA cycle is largely determined by substrate availability and product inhibition.


I don't see any basis for your conclusion in what Wikipedia is saying. That lack of substrate or overabundance of products inhibits the citric acid cycle indicates that regulation doesn't require much in addition to those.

Gary:

   
Quote

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


Mark Twain:

   
Quote

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.


All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
sparc



Posts: 1651
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,01:04   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,20:03)
The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why.
If so you better don't even think about it.
Science is not about having pompous ideas. It's about developing questions in form of hypothesis based on already known evidence. Some grain of intuition may be involved but a flash of genius is surely the exception rather than the rule Science amateurs like you are like born again christians, they can't understand why others don't see or rather feel and experience the obvious. And this high pitched emotional state surely is incompatible with science which often means hard work, frustration and loosing time with wrong ideas in the first place. Wrong ideas are not a problem and we may actually learn from them. However, I don't get the impression that you are willing to even admit that your ideas could be wrong. In addition, hypotheses have to be formulated in a way that they can be logically and emperically tested. Furthermore, they must be expressed in a comprehensible language. You clearly miss these points.

BTW, since I am convinced that you still belive you have something the world is waiting for and scientists should be interested in: Did you already identify a journal appropriate for your groundbreaking work? Due to the impact you assume I would suggest Nature or Science. You will find the relevant guidelines for authors here and here. I would appreciate if you could keep us updated on your publishing efforts and am especially interested in any response from editors and reviewers.

ETA: You may want to search Amazon for scientific writing.

Edited by sparc on Nov. 01 2012,01:06

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 931
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,07:32   

Time to start keeping score.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
k.e..



Posts: 2815
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,08:45   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2012,04:07)
That's what I was afraid of.  Again, you do realize that the statement promoted by ID is simply wrong?

Anyway, ok.  Now for the next bit.  To have an intelligent cause, you need an intelligence.  What is it?

Animal, mineral or vegitable?


This is the sort of Tard that stinks and you have to scrape off your boots.

At least the crowd over at UD for the most part aren't demented or psychotic.

Gary just needs help and he won't get it by doing what he's doing.

See a shrink and get some drugs man, it's curable.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2835
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,16:58   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2012,22:13)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,00:21)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,21:45)
           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 30 2012,20:59)
           
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,20:40)
Gary, I saw this in a conversation you had online:

             
Quote

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?

Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science.  Here's my latest project:  

http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146133

That doesn't have anything to do with the citric acid cycle.

So let's put it another way: Is your statement that I quoted above about the citric acid cycle something that you feel is defensible? Or are you saying that it isn't, but you've been too busy to retract it?


There is some older material to elaborate on that here:

https://sites.google.com/site.......ull.doc

And I can add a paper under construction that might be helpful, for summing other things up:

https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf


But I don’t see anything inherently wrong with what you quoted (other than not going into as much detail as is possible):

           
Quote
Citric acid cycle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......d_cycle

The citric acid cycle — also known as the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), the Krebs cycle, or the Szent-Györgyi–Krebs cycle[1][2] — is a….


If you can show that it is wrong, then I would first have to blame it on Wikipedia, before agreeing that you are right. :D

From my experience though, they are used interchangeably, even though where I have to look for differences can say that the chemistry varies in a way that the forward/reverse TCA of origin of life papers is a more simple way of achieving the present day Citric Acid Cycle and Krebs.  They are otherwise the same to me.  But since what you are describing is more of a details thing that’s maybe more a mission for you to improve the wording of.  

Getting sidetracked on the Chromosome Illustrator project was the result of the paper also needing to better explain how “addressing” (as explained at Biology-Online) works, to make a molecular intelligence model relatively easy to program.  It’s one of the things that I do have to focus my attention on, because of it being needed by all experimenting with the computer model and theory.   But if you find a more precise way to word things then that will become the new priority and I will in minutes make the change so I can get back to work on what makes this theory unique, and scientifically valuable.


You are using the citric acid cycle as an example confirming your concept of "molecular intelligence". If you don't have the biology right, though, it seems that the conclusion would be that "molecular intelligence" fits a counterfactual biology, not the actual biology that we see. I'm not a biochemist, and my biology coursework touching on intracellular processes lies decades in the past, but precious little that you described meshed with my recall.

As for establishing that your description of the citric acid cycle is incorrect, we can utilize your cited source, Wikipedia.

Gary:

       
Quote

It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

The name of this metabolic pathway is derived from citric acid (a type of tricarboxylic acid) that is first consumed and then regenerated by this sequence of reactions to complete the cycle.


There aren't "two identical copies" produced.

Gary:

       
Quote

At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

The reaction [Reverse citric acid cycle] is a possible candidate for prebiotic early-earth conditions and, so, is of interest in the research of the origin of life. It has been found that some of the steps can be catalysed by minerals.


The reference linked makes clear even in the abstract that they are talking about chemical reactions in the lab, not observations of in vitro biochemistry. ZnS catalysis is not what is happening in the bacteria.

Gary:

       
Quote

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

Products of the first turn of the cycle are: one GTP (or ATP), three NADH, one QH2, two CO2.
Because two acetyl-CoA molecules are produced from each glucose molecule, two cycles are required per glucose molecule. Therefore, at the end of two cycles, the products are: two GTP, six NADH, two QH2, and four CO2


The citric acid cycle does not produce cells.

Gary:

       
Quote

A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

The regulation of the TCA cycle is largely determined by substrate availability and product inhibition.


I don't see any basis for your conclusion in what Wikipedia is saying. That lack of substrate or overabundance of products inhibits the citric acid cycle indicates that regulation doesn't require much in addition to those.

Gary:

       
Quote

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


Mark Twain:

       
Quote

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.


All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.


What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:

 X.V. Zhang, S.P. Ellery, C.M. Friend, H.D. Holland, F.M. Michel, M.A.A. Schoonen, and S.T. Martin, "Photodriven Reduction and Oxidation Reactions on Colloidal Semiconductor Particles: Implications for Prebiotic Synthesis," Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 2006, 185, 301-311.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....007.pdf
 Xiang V. Zhang and, Scot T. Martin, “Driving Parts of Krebs Cycle in Reverse through Mineral Photochemistry”, Journal of the American Chemical Society 2006 128 (50), 16032-16033
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....006.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin....03k.pdf
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....emistry

There is more detail and this illustration in the full version of the theory:  


https://sites.google.com/site.......ull.doc

I can now see how quickly summing it up that way can cause confusion.  Looks like I better include more detail, and put the illustration back in.

In the opposite direction of the cycle there is of course disassembly, as opposed to assembly.  

Another that better shows how the reverse cycle makes a structurally mirror image molecule that next splits in half is here:


http://bitesizebio.com/article....now=off

The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2835
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,18:10   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,12:32)
So your saying that the philosophical underpinnings of science are all wrong?

Interesting that you are using a computer and probably wireless to communicate to me that science is all wrong.

Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.

After having in more detail studied the recent (he died in 1994) philosophical work of Karl Popper it became clear that it was being scientifically misused.  In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.  You believe that a theory can be falsified as easily as a hypothesis, but when reality of how things go in science is considered even your best falsification fails.

Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2040
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,18:46   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.

"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2835
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,19:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,18:10)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,12:32)
Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words.

And on that, I simply follow normal scientific procedure in regard to how a theory (such as String or ID) can beforehand be premised then all are invited to write a theory to explain how that works.  In this case "intelligent cause" must be explained, and what sums up to "Natural selection did it!" answers are not accepted.

Once you know how, it's possible to scientifically meet both requirements of the premise.  And the phrase "natural selection" is such a scientific generalization that once the model is molecularly "developing" into new morphological designs comparisons to Darwinian theory sound like arm-chair philosophers (who of course never wrote one) trying to figure out what a scientific theory is, using philosophy.  If you put a "hole" in the environment that some fall into and never get out of, then it's "natural selection" too.  Before long pointing and parroting the same two generalizations at everything becomes annoying.  Can then see why in this theory such attempts to better explain how intelligence works, are best ignored.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2835
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,19:13   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 01 2012,18:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.

"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.

Intelligence Design Lab:

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....ngWId=1

You are free to experiment with it too.  But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
olegt



Posts: 1375
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,19:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,19:13)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 01 2012,18:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.

"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.

Intelligence Design Lab:

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

You are free to experiment with it too.  But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.

Modeling does not equal experiment.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2835
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,19:50   

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 01 2012,19:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,19:13)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 01 2012,18:46)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.

"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.

Intelligence Design Lab:

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

You are free to experiment with it too.  But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.

Modeling does not equal experiment.

More modeling (from theory) in this case prebiotic water body systems:

http://originoflifeaquarium.blogspot.com/....pot.com

There are so many possible experiments for so many sciences your logic amounts to denial, but at least the rest of us are experimenting with the theory's models!

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4382
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,21:35   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:58)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2012,22:13)
   
All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.


What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:

[...]


The issue is not whether you referenced sources; it is whether you understood them. The evidence says that you don't understand them. I've already seen the item in your list that was also referenced in the Wikipedia article. As I noted, it does not support your original description.

 
Quote

There is more detail and this illustration in the full version of the theory:  

[...]



Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.

 
Quote

I can now see how quickly summing it up that way can cause confusion.


You have a remarkably obtuse way with words. The "confusion" is quite evidently that you haven't understood what your sources have to say about biological topics.

 
Quote

 Looks like I better include more detail, and put the illustration back in.


The problem is not a lack of detail, the problem is a lack of understanding and accuracy.

 
Quote

In the opposite direction of the cycle there is of course disassembly, as opposed to assembly.  

Another that better shows how the reverse cycle makes a structurally mirror image molecule that next splits in half is here:

[...]


You have confused yourself. Let's review your statement:

 
Quote

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.


You were talking about the citric acid cycle. Offering a graphic of the reverse citric acid cycle is not relevant to a claim concerning the citric acid cycle.

Plus, you need to be more specific: what step in the process are you claiming involves something that is split in half to produce two identical molecules? Where is it? What is the name of the dimer you are talking about?

 
Quote


The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.


Big whoop. Stuff existing that *could* be controlled is not an issue. Finding stuff that *requires* a "designer" of the sort who also happens to have setting universal constants in his toolkit is.

At least we have resolved which response strategy you would select. You picked option (1), the "Timecube" emulation option. I'll adjust my opinion accordingly.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
fnxtr



Posts: 2040
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,21:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,17:13)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 01 2012,18:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:10)
Science is all about experiments that explain how things work, not philosophy.

"Sproing!" goes the irony meter.

Intelligence Design Lab:

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

You are free to experiment with it too.  But from what I can see you are not an experimenter, so oh well.

And you're a cdesign proponenstist who just happens to be a programmer. Colour me shocked.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4382
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,22:01   

Philosophical reading for Gary: Wilkins and Elsberry 2001

Other reading:

Information theory and "complex specified information"

Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2835
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,00:57   

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 01 2012,01:04)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,20:03)
The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why.
If so you better don't even think about it.
Science is not about having pompous ideas. It's about developing questions in form of hypothesis based on already known evidence. Some grain of intuition may be involved but a flash of genius is surely the exception rather than the rule Science amateurs like you are like born again christians, they can't understand why others don't see or rather feel and experience the obvious. And this high pitched emotional state surely is incompatible with science which often means hard work, frustration and loosing time with wrong ideas in the first place. Wrong ideas are not a problem and we may actually learn from them. However, I don't get the impression that you are willing to even admit that your ideas could be wrong. In addition, hypotheses have to be formulated in a way that they can be logically and emperically tested. Furthermore, they must be expressed in a comprehensible language. You clearly miss these points.

BTW, since I am convinced that you still belive you have something the world is waiting for and scientists should be interested in: Did you already identify a journal appropriate for your groundbreaking work? Due to the impact you assume I would suggest Nature or Science. You will find the relevant guidelines for authors here and here. I would appreciate if you could keep us updated on your publishing efforts and am especially interested in any response from editors and reviewers.

ETA: You may want to search Amazon for scientific writing.

The how to write a science paper websites were already helpful.  In my experience though, the definition of pompous became:  Needing one to crawl to self-appointed journal authority with public policy to immediately reject such theory, while their theory is already well enough presented at Planet Source Code and more.  

Giving into that does honestly set a bad example.  If this is their politics then it’s maybe best to leave them behind, like they asked for.  As it works out, scientists who most matter to the theory and I have no problem figuring out what it’s all about from what they find on Planet Source Code.  Ones who degrade that programming resource are more likely an administrator type or have (anti)religious reasons for demanding I report to a tribunal all set to brush it off for them.

I would seriously rather stay focused on following the evidence where it leads, than get stuck having to explain where we have already been which is more of a job for a gifted scribe.  These days in science papers they are given credit by becoming a coauthor but it is more or less the same thing as in ages past in the search for how we were created.  And by the way Kathy Martin and others worried about being lost, which is not religious until science is written down there too then passed along to future generations through culture and religion.  Respecting the past this way, makes the theory very faith-friendly and useful there.  And where the planet sizzles or has another ice-age that makes technology all gone it’s then only what religion can make sense of that easily carries on.  Not that I become a Jesus it’s actually here more from the emerging legend of Kathy Martin who to spite their religious way of seeing things prevailed, with help from a science guy who focused on the science work while explaining important connections that parallel religion that keeps the search for our Creator going for at least a few more hundred years hopefully forever.  Kathy is a Catholic, so where what she gave to her church for direction that kept it going to spite science change becomes legendary she eventually becomes a Saint.  I’m happy just getting credit as her science guy who helped light the path that she herself took, that won reelection after scientists vowed to make sure she's made gone ASAP.  In Islam one can achieve status as a Prophet behind Prophet Muhammad, and modern scribes there already know where the theory’s at too.

It might of course also be a big help to get something published in a major science journal, even though it’s now at most explaining what’s already here and I sure can’t afford the publishing fees so would have to claim poverty on that.  It’s like one thing adds to another then before you know it the science journalists are useless, but maybe wondering what’s wrong with the heads of scientists who well know what’s going on but just hurl insults and give pompous speeches on their behalf instead of giving me/us real help.  I still need to finish the OOL related Reverse Krebs Cycle illustration that needs molecules drawn to show how they split at the end of the cycle, and have to make a coacervate video and describe propulsion but can’t afford a microscope like that or am in a field that studies its ionics.  I’m simply so overwhelmed by what I need to finish for the theory that dumping all over me for being able to afford only time for that, looks plain scientifically dysfunctional.

Thankfully all is still well on Planet Source Code, where their creator sent best wishes to let me know I’m welcome to submit more like that, anytime.  They only care that the code is all there, like it was.  And I’m sure they don’t like being treated like a toilet either.  The new found scientific empowerment that makes even the greatest of science journals powerless against us is just one more of those things that gives others who are normally left out of the fun the thrill of having experienced real power to themselves change science.  The preferable outcome is here is that the ivory tower has to crawl to Planet Source Code for news of what’s new in science.  And with all considered there’s nothing unscientific or unfair about it.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2835
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,01:06   

And oops, bad missing-word typo above. Should read:

"And by the way Kathy Martin and others worried about this being lost, which is not religious until science is written down there too then passed along to future generations through culture and religion."

In other words, it is scientifically irresponsible to kick science just because it's well received in religion too.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2835
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,02:41   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,22:01)
Philosophical reading for Gary: Wilkins and Elsberry 2001

Other reading:

Information theory and "complex specified information"

Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement

William Dembski and the paper that used Avida are both trying to develop theory pertaining to intelligence by working in the opposite direction that I do.  The method thinks in terms of "agents".  Intelligence is somehow detected.  For what it's worth to help get something started, that's all fine by me.  And I hope this theory helps them discover something great from there, using their method.  William likes to explore the science meets religion, and for all we know he might find something interesting.  Science is much about putting yourself in the right place at the right time for discovery and reasons why you're there do not even matter.  After long search that goes nowhere the miracle cure ends up found in a dirty sink from common bread mold.  Only needed sloppy lab sterility procedures and to know what to look for, to make the "Eureka!" happen.

Intelligence theory on the scale of the Theory of Intelligent Design must first have the circuit and algorithm required to experiment with "intelligence" and (technology willing) "intelligent cause" events.  Need a single cognitive model that covers human intelligence, cellular intelligence, molecular intelligence, and is a bonus to next be in String Theory where William might do well in because of liking amazingly complicated math formulas that the rest of us would rather avoid.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
The whole truth



Posts: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,04:37   

Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,05:09   

Gary,
You said:
Quote
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  


Could you explain what it is that JoeG is right about, and give a specific example where science has "gone his way"?

Could you explain what it is that Creationism is right about, and give a specific example where science has supported Creationism?

If you can't then please withdraw the claims.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2835
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,05:30   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 02 2012,04:37)
Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

Good idea!

The only thing I now need to know, is what you are having trouble understanding.  From what I can see I am talking about news and events that are now like ancient history.  So maybe this might help.  It has info on Kathy Martin, Jack Krebs from KCFS, and the ID mayhem that was going on in Kansas that made the theory national news:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet....er.html

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,06:10   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,05:09)
Gary,
You said:
 
Quote
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  


Could you explain what it is that JoeG is right about, and give a specific example where science has "gone his way"?

Could you explain what it is that Creationism is right about, and give a specific example where science has supported Creationism?

If you can't then please withdraw the claims.

 
Quote
The only thing I now need to know, is what you are having trouble understanding.


hmm. I can see this is not going to go well.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
The whole truth



Posts: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,06:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,03:30)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 02 2012,04:37)
Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

Good idea!

The only thing I now need to know, is what you are having trouble understanding.  From what I can see I am talking about news and events that are now like ancient history.  So maybe this might help.  It has info on Kathy Martin, Jack Krebs from KCFS, and the ID mayhem that was going on in Kansas that made the theory national news:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet.......er.html

Gary, what you're talking about is virtually impossible to figure out because of the WAY you talk. So-called "ID theory" (LOL) is incoherent enough without your illiterate, disconnected rambling.

If you have testable evidence of ID by 'the designer', present it straightforwardly and coherently.

And by the way, can you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,07:23   

Quote
It has info on Kathy Martin, Jack Krebs from KCFS, and the ID mayhem that was going on in Kansas that made the theory national news:


But no tests that support ID, right?

Culture wars are one thing. Evidence is another. Decide what it is you want to support.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,07:44   

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 01 2012,09:45)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2012,04:07)
That's what I was afraid of.  Again, you do realize that the statement promoted by ID is simply wrong?

Anyway, ok.  Now for the next bit.  To have an intelligent cause, you need an intelligence.  What is it?

Animal, mineral or vegitable?


This is the sort of Tard that stinks and you have to scrape off your boots.

At least the crowd over at UD for the most part aren't demented or psychotic.

Gary just needs help and he won't get it by doing what he's doing.

See a shrink and get some drugs man, it's curable.

well i for one think we should keep him.  at least he has minded his manners!  i'm sure it will get, mmm, interesting at some point.  surely.  i mean, hell, it's got to, right?  

please?





pretty please?





pssst gary make it interesting pls

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2835
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,08:28   

I first have to say that I had to walk to the store for coffee to keep me awake another 12 hours, so be glad I'm still here for you.  And as always, please don't mind the typos..

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,05:09)
Gary,
You said:
 
Quote
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  


Could you explain what it is that JoeG is right about, and give a specific example where science has "gone his way"?

Could you explain what it is that Creationism is right about, and give a specific example where science has supported Creationism?

If you can't then please withdraw the claims.


I do not know enough about JoeG to be able to comment on their work.  But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

My ID experience long ago started at the KCFS forum where Jack Krebs taught me everything he knew about debating against the theory.  I myself said ID is not science it is a religion which at the time it more or less still was.  I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either.  Along with Mike Gene who loved to find all the most recent recent info on metabolic pathways it was still an excellent learning experience to have been in on.

Since I did not see a Theory of Intelligent Design being possible I instead worked on original models and classroom experiments that were put together mostly at the KCFS forum.  There was also added inspiration by email from Kathy Martin who instead of being negative and hating the idea was encouraging my search for an easy kitchen/classroom experiment to help explain what was later found to be called "self-assembly".  We in turn ended up helping to introduce the concept of "self-assembly" to science teaching, by it being published in a National Science Teachers Association journal.  It might not be as good as the delivering of a science-worthy Theory of Intelligent Design, but was still not bad for amateurs.  At least there was that to show, as something good that came out of the rubble of the public hearing in Kansas that all fell apart on them.  They proved to be right about it being more constructive to call in both sides of the issue to discuss the scientific merit of such a theory.  Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science.  Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life.  Through emergence we express what created us, which we are systematically in the image/likeness of.  Theory can now read so much like Genesis I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4382
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,08:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,02:41)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,22:01)
Philosophical reading for Gary: Wilkins and Elsberry 2001

Other reading:

Information theory and "complex specified information"

Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement

William Dembski and the paper that used Avida are both trying to develop theory pertaining to intelligence by working in the opposite direction that I do.  The method thinks in terms of "agents".  Intelligence is somehow detected.  For what it's worth to help get something started, that's all fine by me.  And I hope this theory helps them discover something great from there, using their method.  William likes to explore the science meets religion, and for all we know he might find something interesting.  Science is much about putting yourself in the right place at the right time for discovery and reasons why you're there do not even matter.  After long search that goes nowhere the miracle cure ends up found in a dirty sink from common bread mold.  Only needed sloppy lab sterility procedures and to know what to look for, to make the "Eureka!" happen.

Intelligence theory on the scale of the Theory of Intelligent Design must first have the circuit and algorithm required to experiment with "intelligence" and (technology willing) "intelligent cause" events.  Need a single cognitive model that covers human intelligence, cellular intelligence, molecular intelligence, and is a bonus to next be in String Theory where William might do well in because of liking amazingly complicated math formulas that the rest of us would rather avoid.

"The rest of us" did not avoid Dembski's math. You obviously either did not read or did not understand the first two links if you think that they indicate Dembski is on the verge of any discovery.

There is already a concept that broadly applies concerning cognitive models: the Church-Turing thesis. And the final link I provided fits right into that framework with identification of evolved effective methods.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2835
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,08:48   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 02 2012,07:44)
pssst gary make it interesting pls


Got speakers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....8Iumd2A

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,08:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,08:28)


I do not know enough about JoeG to be able to comment on their work.


That's odd. I quoted you saying:
 
Quote
The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  


So you are able to comment on their "work" when it suits you, but when pressed you don't know what it is you are supporting.

Quality.
 
Quote
But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

I'm sorry, I missed the relevance of that to my question?
 
Quote
I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either.


So you know that UD has no science worthy theory yet at the same time The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way ?

If they don't have a theory, how can the science be going their way?

 
Quote
Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science.


You believe this somehow supports Creationism or Intelligent Design?

How? Be specific!
 
Quote
Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life.

Except it's not in relation to ID, is it? I'm sure your deity could have made humans out of glass and peanuts had it so chose.
 
Quote
I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".


Then please do so, as that was in fact the question that I asked.

As yet you've given a few examples of what "creationists" like to use in support of their case but we both know that "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" have nothing to do with their Biblical namesakes, and that by "Dust/clay" you are referencing the biblical god.

If it turns out the origin of life depends on light (which of course it will at some level) then to you that'll be "proof" that the bible was right all along because it mentions the word "light".

So your evidence fades away like some much a thing that fades quickly.

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2012,08:56

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  10142 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (339) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]