RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: RFJE's Personal Thread, Because our toilet is already cluttered< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,10:18   

I hope no one minds me setting up this dedicated thread for RFJE. The Bathroom Wall is already clogged with Denial's Devious Delusions and needs no further obstructions getting in the way of knob jokes, assorted off-topicery and LOLcats.

Hence I reproduce RFJE's initial foray into AtBC here and fervently hope he'll join us on this thread.

       
Quote
Evolution and the Origin of Life: Real Problems

The origin of life is one of the biggest problems for evolution, because of it's committment to naturalism.  That is, that all processes in the universe are explainable using only natural laws.  Virtually all other sciences can be explained by natural laws, but there are very real and ignored problems with  how the first life began.

We have all heard of the "primordial soup" model of life.  That at a point in early earth history, the molten earth cooled, and oceans formed.  As rain fell, chemicals in a hypothetical pool organized into proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates.  These molecules then organized into  cellular structures and more complex proteins, DNA, and cell membranes.  

The following are proven chemistry facts that are not shared with the average science illiterate population.  

Observable Chemistry Fact #1

Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis.  It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming  the chains that build proteins.  Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction.

Observable Chemistry Fact #2

Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment.  Why?  Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life.

Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer  to sheild the compounds from  the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists.  ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?  

ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM

Amino acids in living things

1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things.  We're talking mathematics working against it now.

2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers."   Living things have only the left handed amino acids.  When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life.

So intelligent life tried to set up a random mixture of supposed ingredients and could not do it.  It proved that some random amino acids could be produced.

My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.  And in the sense of logic and common sense it is illogical to propose that an effect caused itself.


So hello RFJE, welcome, and for the moment (admin approval pending, and unless you've been restricted to the Bathroom Wall for some reason) consider this thread your home.

All replies are best directed here.

Here are the permalinks to the replies already received (as of 16:00 ish GMT).

Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8 Link 9 Link 10 Link 11 Link 12 Link 13 Link 14 Link 15 Link 16 Link 17 Link 18 Link 19 Link 20 Link 21 Link 22 Link 23 Link 24 Link 25 Link 26 Link 27 Link 28 Link 29 Link 30 Link 31

I hope I've got all the (at least minimally ;)  ) relevant replies in the right order. Let me know if I've messed up.

Right on with the fun!

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,10:57   

Quote
My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.

Can I see your working out please?

It's one thing to say it, but another to explain how you came to that conclusion.

--------------
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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4368
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,11:32   

Way to go Louis...

You Scientists, always so "exact" with your language, always bringing up your "facts".  You're NEVER going to get a new victim ID Creationist to respond if you restrict them to facts! :(

And BTW - I still think that my idea of labeling this thread and playing off the "expelled" thread by calling it "Expectorated" was Teh Ways To Go.  But hey, what do I know, I'm just a "Mr. Marketing", not a "Real Big Time Working Scientist".  

But seriously, I DO think the special thread is the way to go.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,11:33   

Quote
These days and nights of fishing were firmly ingrained in my mind, as I toured one of the caverns in northeastern Arkansas.  As we toured, we came upon some burnt wood
on display.  The guide told us that this wood had been carbon 14ed at 800 AD.  The wood had no signs of decay, and it was not fossilized. I made sure by INQUIRY to the guide, to make sure I had heard him correctly and that the wood was not fossilized.

My point is that here was a man that BELIEVED that this un-fossilized wood was 1200 years old--wood that appeared as is it could have been burnt a year ago--wood that was in a damp cave, with sounds of water flowing in it.  

And little ol' me, the independent thinker, asking myself if this man had ever read in one of his textbooks that water and humidity destroys wood.  

Um ...

Water and humidity do not destroy wood.

Things often associated with water and humidity destroy wood.

Fully submerged wood much older than 800 AD has been found. E.g.

Submerged Forest and old Ship Remains in the Solent
Ballard Finds Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea

Here's an interesting one about the same age as your sample:

Maya Milestone: LSU researcher discovers first wooden ruins, unique artifact from Maya civilization

Ya know what?

I bet you can't come up with a textbook that states that water and humidity destroy wood.

Independent thinking is good. Making up bullshit is bad.

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,11:42   

Quote
I realize that I'm a newbie here, and the sore thumb in everyone's eyes here.  I don't want to be irritating as I see I am.

You're not a sore thumb. Maybe a pimple. But you are irritating. You're just another of a long parade of unjustifiably arrogant and abysmally ignorant fools.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,12:24   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 09 2009,17:32)
Way to go Louis...

You Scientists, always so "exact" with your language, always bringing up your "facts".  You're NEVER going to get a new victim ID Creationist to respond if you restrict them to facts! :(

And BTW - I still think that my idea of labeling this thread and playing off the "expelled" thread by calling it "Expectorated" was Teh Ways To Go.  But hey, what do I know, I'm just a "Mr. Marketing", not a "Real Big Time Working Scientist".  

But seriously, I DO think the special thread is the way to go.

Expectorated?

Shit! I missed that! That's a GREAT idea. I GOTS to pay more attention when reading.

AHEM Oh busy moderators, could one of you retitle the thread "Expectorated: RFJE's Personal Thread" please?

Thanks

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4368
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,12:28   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,12:24)
AHEM Oh busy moderators, could one of you retitle the thread "Expectorated: RFJE's Personal Thread" please?

Thanks

Louis

Thanks, but really that's ok!  I'm just trying to have some fun with our New BFFs...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,12:48   

Quote (JonF @ Feb. 09 2009,11:33)
 
Quote
These days and nights of fishing were firmly ingrained in my mind, as I toured one of the caverns in northeastern Arkansas.  As we toured, we came upon some burnt wood
on display.  The guide told us that this wood had been carbon 14ed at 800 AD.  The wood had no signs of decay, and it was not fossilized. I made sure by INQUIRY to the guide, to make sure I had heard him correctly and that the wood was not fossilized.

My point is that here was a man that BELIEVED that this un-fossilized wood was 1200 years old--wood that appeared as is it could have been burnt a year ago--wood that was in a damp cave, with sounds of water flowing in it.  

And little ol' me, the independent thinker, asking myself if this man had ever read in one of his textbooks that water and humidity destroys wood.  

Um ...

Water and humidity do not destroy wood.

Things often associated with water and humidity destroy wood.

Fully submerged wood much older than 800 AD has been found. E.g.

Submerged Forest and old Ship Remains in the Solent
Ballard Finds Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea

Here's an interesting one about the same age as your sample:

Maya Milestone: LSU researcher discovers first wooden ruins, unique artifact from Maya civilization

Ya know what?

I bet you can't come up with a textbook that states that water and humidity destroy wood.

Independent thinking is good. Making up bullshit is bad.

I'm not sure what this anecdote was supposed to prove in the first place, even if RJFE was in fact right about the impossibility of old wet wood.  That there are people who will mindlessly parrot what they've been taught regardless of plain evidence to the contrary all about them?

But he's got to know that already.  After all, he comes from a faith tradition.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4368
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,13:32   

Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 09 2009,12:48)
Quote (JonF @ Feb. 09 2009,11:33)
   
Quote
These days and nights of fishing were firmly ingrained in my mind, as I toured one of the caverns in northeastern Arkansas.  As we toured, we came upon some burnt wood
on display.  The guide told us that this wood had been carbon 14ed at 800 AD.  The wood had no signs of decay, and it was not fossilized. I made sure by INQUIRY to the guide, to make sure I had heard him correctly and that the wood was not fossilized.

My point is that here was a man that BELIEVED that this un-fossilized wood was 1200 years old--wood that appeared as is it could have been burnt a year ago--wood that was in a damp cave, with sounds of water flowing in it.  

And little ol' me, the independent thinker, asking myself if this man had ever read in one of his textbooks that water and humidity destroys wood.  

Um ...

Water and humidity do not destroy wood.

Things often associated with water and humidity destroy wood.

Fully submerged wood much older than 800 AD has been found. E.g.

Submerged Forest and old Ship Remains in the Solent
Ballard Finds Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea

Here's an interesting one about the same age as your sample:

Maya Milestone: LSU researcher discovers first wooden ruins, unique artifact from Maya civilization

Ya know what?

I bet you can't come up with a textbook that states that water and humidity destroy wood.

Independent thinking is good. Making up bullshit is bad.

I'm not sure what this anecdote was supposed to prove in the first place, even if RJFE was in fact right about the impossibility of old wet wood.  That there are people who will mindlessly parrot what they've been taught regardless of plain evidence to the contrary all about them?

But he's got to know that already.  After all, he comes from a faith tradition.

Also based on his faith tradition ... He last posted early today, so he's got to be dead for @ 3 days, then come back, right?  So, guess we'll see him just in time to buy us all a round on Darwin's Day.

Unfortunately, also based on his faith tradition, he probably lives up to my Great expectations, and will buy us all a round of fruit juice..

Ha Ha - This is him...




--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,15:47   

**LENGTH AND SLIGHT CHEMISTRY WARNING**

Dear RFJE,

As I’ve said already “Hello and Welcome”, I hope you have a productive and enjoyable time here at AtBC. I’m always amused when people come in espousing well refuted canards, erroneous nonsense, and generally being unpleasant. Especially when they then complain that they are somehow persecuted by the less than pleasant replies such behaviour engenders.

I am, however, for the moment going to ignore all that nonsense and focus on the chemical claims you make. I’m also going to ignore the philosophical and biological errors you make re: origin of life/naturalism/evolution. Others can deal with those if they like. What I’m going to do is make a break down of your chemical claims to make sure I have them correct:

 
Quote
Observable Chemistry Fact #1

Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis. It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming the chains that build proteins. Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction.


a) Amino acids do not simply “break down” in aqueous solution at any appreciable rate at room temperature (and in the absence of other reagents), nor indeed do dipeptides or polypeptides. You can in fact buy aqueous solutions of most amino acids. The hydrolysis of the amide bond is comparatively difficult to achieve, normally requiring more forcing conditions (strong acid or base, or powerful nucleophiles etc). I think what you are trying to get at is that formation of the peptide/amide bond, which since it is a condensation reaction (i.e. the formation of an amide results in the elimination of a small molecule like water), is hindered by the presence of water. Below I have drawn a simple amino acid and a simple dipeptide (no solution structure is implied) to illustrate the difference for you.



Unfortunately, you are clearly unaware of very basic methods in chemical synthesis. Even though these are not claimed to be the precise routes taken during abiogenesis, they clearly demonstrate that water is not necessarily a hurdle to amide synthesis. Take for example the Schotten
-Baumann conditions for peptide synthesis. This is where a biphasic mixture of solvents, one of which is water and the other a water immiscible organic solvent, are used. The simplistic treatment of the various methods of peptide synthesis as equilibrium processes, and hence trivially subject to Le Chatelier's principle, misses many of the other thermodynamic and kinetic factors and is, in this case at least, erroneous.

Solid phase methods of peptide synthesis or use of activating agents like various carbodiimides etc can also be performed in the presence of water. Water isn’t the problem you think it is. Not only that, aqueous phase syntheses of simple poly/dipeptides are not the only methods proposed for the origins of these sorts of molecules.

b) The Miller-Urey experiment included water as part of the design. The last bit of your claim is mistaken.

 
Quote
Observable Chemistry Fact #2

Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment. Why? Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life.

Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer to sheild the compounds from the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists. ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?


a) Oxygen was purposely left out if the Miller-Urey because the best evidence at the time strongly suggested that the early atmosphere had no oxygen in it. Oxygen is a “pollutant” produced by organisms. What Miller and Urey were trying to do was see if simple molecules like amino acids etc could be produced by conditions similar to those proposed on the early earth. Many other experiments of this type have been performed, testing various hypothetical early earth scenarios.

b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation.

c) Evidence for the early atmosphere being free of oxygen is found in the composition of rocks dated back to the Siderian period of the Precambrian.

   
Quote
ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM

Amino acids in living things

1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things. We're talking mathematics working against it now.


a) There are vastly more than 2000 possible amino acid types, another basic chemical misunderstanding on your part. The fact that 22 proteinogenic amino acids (plus a few non-proteinogenic ones) are commonly found in modern organisms, is not a mathematical problem for evolutionary biology or abiogenesis. This is no more a problem than the fact that my route to the pub commonly involves me walking via the park rather than via Uzbekistan. Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). If I were to take a pack of a billion cards and deal 22, that specific 22 card hand is no more or less improbable than any other 22 card hand. There may be reasons the 22 proteinogenic amino acids are the ones we find in modern organisms (thermodynamic stability, specific reactivity etc) but these are very complex and dependant on the chemical environment of the time.

   
Quote
2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers." Living things have only the left handed amino acids. When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life.


a) There are a myriad of perfectly natural ways for homochirality to arise. Not least is autocatalysis (an example, again not specifically related to abiogenesis, but very indicative is my favourite the Soai reaction). Many other ways like crystal templating and chiral transmission etc. Not only that but once homochiral self-replicating systems like those actually proposed for abiogenesis exist then maintenance of homochirality is evolutionarily more favourable.

b) Again, Miller and Urey were not trying to create life in a test tube, they were trying to discover if simple molecules that are the building blocks of life could be produced by the conditions proposed for the early earth at the time. They could, and were. Miller and Urey did what  they were trying to do.

In conclusion, might I suggest that, instead of posting well refuted common misunderstandings of science on message boards, your missionary zeal inspired thirst for knowledge, if it actually exists, would be better served by some time in the library. As I recommended to Daniel Smith, there is a very good book on the current state of abiogenesis research by Pierre Luigi Luisi called “The Emergence of Life”. I also recommend a couple of basic chemistry courses BEFORE you tackle that book.

Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof". As you claim to be a well read layman, it would behove you familiarise yourself with the very basic elements of the science you claim is in error because it contradicts your religious faith. A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis.

Thanks

Louis

ETA: Several edits for formatting etc. More may be needed. Also, RFJE, I have a lot of experience dealing with creationists and I operate a "three strikes" policy. Demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty and engagement and I'll happily spend my valuable time explaining things and debating.



Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 10 2009,13:23

--------------
Bye.

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,16:10   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47)
A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis.

Optimist.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,16:19   

Louis, although you are correct that a walk to the pub usually takes one through a park, I'm sure that on several occasions my route home FROM the pub went through Uzbekistan.

How else do I explain waking up in the morning wearing a yak skin hat?

  
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,16:25   

Speaking of which, so far no sign of the traveler from the "dark side" of the planet - maybe the freshman just needed a Darwinist alley to puke in on his way home...

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,17:12   

This is just where we are in the Biology 111 classes I'm assisting students with.



I'm feeling a little nostalgic.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
jeffox



Posts: 546
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:04   

RFJE wrote:

Quote
ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?


Tons, actually.  Wiki banded iron formation (BIF).  Keep in mind that BIFs can't form in an atmosphere that contains free oxygen.  Also keep in mind that that is the reason why BIFs aren't forming today.  Both of those are easily observable facts.

My 2c, because my hometown was built to house the miners of a BIF in northeastern Minnesota.  That, and I'm studying to be a geology major.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:32   

And people picked on me for breaking the last toy? HAH!
J'ACCUSE!! :angry:

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:32   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,16:47)
**LENGTH AND SLIGHT CHEMISTRY WARNING**

Dear RFJE,

As I’ve said already “Hello and Welcome”, I hope you have a productive and enjoyable time here at AtBC. I’m always amused when people come in espousing well refuted canards, erroneous nonsense, and generally being unpleasant. Especially when they then complain that they are somehow persecuted by the less than pleasant replies such behaviour engenders.

I am, however, for the moment going to ignore all that nonsense and focus on the chemical claims you make. I’m also going to ignore the philosophical and biological errors you make re: origin of life/naturalism/evolution. Others can deal with those if they like. What I’m going to do is make a break down of your chemical claims to make sure I have them correct:

   
Quote
Observable Chemistry Fact #1

Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis. It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming the chains that build proteins. Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction.


a) Amino acids do not simply “break down” in aqueous solution at any appreciable rate at room temperature (and in the absence of other reagents), nor indeed do dipeptides or polypeptides. You can in fact buy aqueous solutions of most amino acids. The hydrolysis of the amide bond is comparatively difficult to achieve, normally requiring more forcing conditions (strong acid or base, or powerful nucleophiles etc). I think what you are trying to get at is that formation of the peptide/amide bond, which since it is a condensation reaction (i.e. the formation of an amide results in the elimination of a small molecule like water), is hindered by the presence of water. Below I have drawn a simple amino acid and a simple dipeptide (no solution structure is implied) to illustrate the difference for you.



Unfortunately, you are clearly unaware of very basic methods in chemical synthesis. Even though these are not claimed to be the precise routes taken during abiogenesis, they clearly demonstrate that water is not necessarily a hurdle to amide synthesis. Take for example the Schotten
-Baumann conditions for peptide synthesis. This is where a biphasic mixture of solvents, one of which is water and the other a water immiscible organic solvent, are used. The simplistic treatment of the various methods of peptide synthesis as equilibrium processes, and hence trivially subject to Le Chatelier's principle, misses many of the other thermodynamic and kinetic factors and is, in this case at least, erroneous.

Solid phase methods of peptide synthesis or use of activating agents like various carbodiimides etc can also be performed in the presence of water. Water isn’t the problem you think it is. Not only that, aqueous phase syntheses of simple poly/dipeptides are not the only methods proposed for the origins of these sorts of molecules.

b) The Miller-Urey experiment included water as part of the design. The last bit of your claim is mistaken.

   
Quote
Observable Chemistry Fact #2

Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment. Why? Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life.

Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer to sheild the compounds from the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists. ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?


a) Oxygen was purposely left out if the Miller-Urey because the best evidence at the time strongly suggested that the early atmosphere had no oxygen in it. Oxygen is a “pollutant” produced by organisms. What Miller and Urey were trying to do was see if simple molecules like amino acids etc could be produced by conditions similar to those proposed on the early earth. Many other experiments of this type have been performed, testing various hypothetical early earth scenarios.

b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation.

c) Evidence for the early atmosphere being free of oxygen is found in the composition of rocks dated back to the Siderian period of the Precambrian.

     
Quote
ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM

Amino acids in living things

1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things. We're talking mathematics working against it now.


a) There are vastly more than 2000 possible amino acid types, another basic chemical misunderstanding on your part. The fact that 22 proteinogenic amino acids (plus a few non-proteinogenic ones) are commonly found in modern organisms, is not a mathematical problem for evolutionary biology or abiogenesis. This is no more a problem than the fact that my route to the pub commonly involves me walking via the park rather than via Uzbekistan. Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). If I were to take a pack of a billion cards and deal 22, that specific 22 card hand is no more or less improbable than any other 22 card hand. There may be reasons the 22 proteinogenic amino acids are the ones we find in modern organisms (thermodynamic stability, specific reactivity etc) but these are very complex and dependant on the chemical environment of the time.

     
Quote
2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers." Living things have only the left handed amino acids. When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life.


a) There are a myriad of perfectly natural ways for homochirality to arise. Not least is autocatalysis (an example, again not specifically related to abiogenesis, but very indicative is my favourite the Soai reaction). Many other ways like crystal templating and chiral transmission etc. Not only that but once homochiral self-replicating systems like those actually proposed for abiogenesis exist then maintenance of homochirality is evolutionarily more favourable.

b) Again, Miller and Urey were not trying to create life in a test tube, they were trying to discover if simple molecules that are the building blocks of life could be produced by the conditions proposed for the early earth at the time. They could, and were. Miller and Urey did what  they were trying to do.

In conclusion, might I suggest that, instead of posting well refuted common misunderstandings of science on message boards, your missionary zeal inspired thirst for knowledge, if it actually exists, would be better served by some time in the library. As I recommended to Daniel Smith, there is a very good book on the current state of abiogenesis research by Pierre Luigi Luisi called “The Emergence of Life”. I also recommend a couple of basic chemistry courses BEFORE you tackle that book.

Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof". As you claim to be a well read layman, it would behove you familiarise yourself with the very basic elements of the science you claim is in error because it contradicts your religious faith. A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis.

Thanks

Louis

ETA: Several edits for formatting etc. More may be needed. Also, RFJE, I have a lot of experience dealing with creationists and I operate a "three strikes" policy. Demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty and engagement and I'll happily spend my valuable time explaining things and debating.

Egads. Just names and diversions by one means or another. You think you can fool us with such wordwinkery?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:36   

" Pierre Luigi Luisi " is obviously some kind of made-up name. "Loogie Lucy" indeed.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,21:41   

Thanks, you made me feel so welcome, guys and girls.  Should I put the official research first or my thoughts first.
How about the official research.  This is so fun.  And I thought I was really stupid for a minute.  Love y'all.


To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds.

Dehydration Synthesis
Definition

noun, plural: dehydration syntheses

A chemical reaction that builds up molecules by losing water molecules.

It is a type of condensation reaction in which monomers join together into polymers while losing water molecules. This process is carried out by losing (-OH) from one of the monomers and (H) from another monomer. The two unstable monomers join together, and the (-OH) and (H) combine forming water (H2O).

Condensation
a chemical reaction between two molecules which links them together and expels a molecule of water. For example: the joining of two amino acids by a peptide bond during the formation of a polypeptide.

----"AWAY FROM THE WATERY ENVIRONMENT"
As a polypeptide chain forms, it naturally twists and bends into its native conformation. One of the things that helps determine the native conformation of a protein is the side chains of all the amino acids involved. Remember some amino acid side chains are hydrophobic while others are hydrophilic. In this case, the “likes” attract: all the hydrophobic side chains (here represented by yellow beads) try to “get together” in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment, while the hydrophilic side chains are attracted to the outside of the molecule, near the watery environment.References:

   * Berkow, Robert, ed. 1999. The Merck Manual. 17th ed. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Rahway, NJ.
   * Borror, Donald J. 1960. Dictionary of Root Words and Combining Forms. Mayfield Publ. Co.
   * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology, 5th Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)
   * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology: Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)
   * Marchuk, William N. 1992. A Life Science Lexicon. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, IA.

-----LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS EXCLUSIVELY PRODUCED IN ORGANISMS
Only L  amino  acids are constituents of proteins. For almost all amino  acids , the L isomer has S (rather than R) absolute configuration (Figure 3.5). Although considerable effort has gone into understanding why amino  acids in proteins have this absolute configuration, no satisfactory explanation has been arrived at. It seems plausible that the selection of L over d was arbitrary but, once made, was fixed early in evolutionary history.
* W.H. Freeman and Co.

Figure 3.5.  Only L Amino Acids Are Found in Proteins. Almost all L amino acids have an S absolute configuration (from the Latin sinister meaning “left”). The counterclockwise direction of the arrow from highest- to lowest-priority substituents indicates that the chiral center is of the S configuration.


I believe that this will confirm two of the points I made.  In this research I quote, "...all the hydrophobic side chains...try to 'get together' in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment...."

This is in a cell that has DNA, not in a primordial soup.  Just one dissolving peptide bond ruins the protein, or severely hinders it from functioning correctly.  And how many proteins do we need for life?  Nobody can tell, but its going to take more than a few, and of course in the right sequence.  How did this happen randomly with no DNA to guide it?  And where did DNA get the information?

The other point is left handed amino acids--only produced in organisms.  Miller's random (with intelligent help) experiment produced left handed and mirror imaged AA which can not produce organic protein.[I]

Do I get an A for effort guys?

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,21:50   

No, you get a D for being illiterate.

Sorry, but I already spent 10 years in college.

Educate yourself, idiot.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,21:56   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,22:41)
Thanks, you made me feel so welcome, guys and girls.  Should I put the official research first or my thoughts first...

Do I get an A for effort guys?

Aw, he's sorta a cute little feller, ain't he?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,22:00   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,21:41)
To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds.
---snip---

lots of sciency-sounding blabbering deleted
---unsnip---

Do I get an A for effort guys?

I am always amazed at how an IDiot can take a tiny nano-bit of information, combine it with a preconceived conclusion, and generate vast amounts of tard.

My hat is off to you, sir. You have taken "fractally wrong" to a new dimension.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,00:59   

Y'know, if I was interested in learning, thought that racemic mixtures was lethal to abiogenesis, and someone mentioned "homochirality", I'd like to think I'd show some Christian humility and take the time to actually find out what "homochirality" was, and if I didn't understand something, ask questions. But then I'm a hardcore propagandist, not an earnest truth-seeker like RFJE.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,05:01   

My purpose is not to be proud. You people lynched me.  I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.  

I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.  But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate.  

My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses.  

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.  Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.  Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,05:21   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,03:41)
Thanks, you made me feel so welcome, guys and girls.  Should I put the official research first or my thoughts first.
How about the official research.  This is so fun.  And I thought I was really stupid for a minute.  Love y'all.


To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds.

Dehydration Synthesis
Definition

noun, plural: dehydration syntheses

A chemical reaction that builds up molecules by losing water molecules.

It is a type of condensation reaction in which monomers join together into polymers while losing water molecules. This process is carried out by losing (-OH) from one of the monomers and (H) from another monomer. The two unstable monomers join together, and the (-OH) and (H) combine forming water (H2O).

Condensation
a chemical reaction between two molecules which links them together and expels a molecule of water. For example: the joining of two amino acids by a peptide bond during the formation of a polypeptide.

----"AWAY FROM THE WATERY ENVIRONMENT"
As a polypeptide chain forms, it naturally twists and bends into its native conformation. One of the things that helps determine the native conformation of a protein is the side chains of all the amino acids involved. Remember some amino acid side chains are hydrophobic while others are hydrophilic. In this case, the “likes” attract: all the hydrophobic side chains (here represented by yellow beads) try to “get together” in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment, while the hydrophilic side chains are attracted to the outside of the molecule, near the watery environment.References:

   * Berkow, Robert, ed. 1999. The Merck Manual. 17th ed. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Rahway, NJ.
   * Borror, Donald J. 1960. Dictionary of Root Words and Combining Forms. Mayfield Publ. Co.
   * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology, 5th Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)
   * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology: Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)
   * Marchuk, William N. 1992. A Life Science Lexicon. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, IA.

-----LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS EXCLUSIVELY PRODUCED IN ORGANISMS
Only L  amino  acids are constituents of proteins. For almost all amino  acids , the L isomer has S (rather than R) absolute configuration (Figure 3.5). Although considerable effort has gone into understanding why amino  acids in proteins have this absolute configuration, no satisfactory explanation has been arrived at. It seems plausible that the selection of L over d was arbitrary but, once made, was fixed early in evolutionary history.
* W.H. Freeman and Co.

Figure 3.5.  Only L Amino Acids Are Found in Proteins. Almost all L amino acids have an S absolute configuration (from the Latin sinister meaning “left”). The counterclockwise direction of the arrow from highest- to lowest-priority substituents indicates that the chiral center is of the S configuration.


I believe that this will confirm two of the points I made.  In this research I quote, "...all the hydrophobic side chains...try to 'get together' in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment...."

This is in a cell that has DNA, not in a primordial soup.  Just one dissolving peptide bond ruins the protein, or severely hinders it from functioning correctly.  And how many proteins do we need for life?  Nobody can tell, but its going to take more than a few, and of course in the right sequence.  How did this happen randomly with no DNA to guide it?  And where did DNA get the information?

The other point is left handed amino acids--only produced in organisms.  Miller's random (with intelligent help) experiment produced left handed and mirror imaged AA which can not produce organic protein.[I]

Do I get an A for effort guys?

RFJE,

Oh dear. I spy quote mines and goalpost shifts. That'll be strike one.

1) Even though formation of the amide/peptide bond is a condensation reaction, as shown above, it doesn't necessarily have to operate in the absence of water (see comment re equilibrium processes). Repeating your original claim when it's been shown to be wrong doesn't reinforce it, especially when all you do is repeat it with copy and pastes you obviously don't understand.

Let's look at a basic chemical mechanism for formation of an amide/peptide bond under the Schotten-Baumann conditions I mention above:



Look at step 2 where the chloride ion is eliminated to reform the carbon oxygen double bond. The side product formed at this stage is NaCl which is insoluble in ether. The reaction requires water at this stage to solvate the side product. Not only that but the base, NaOH, is also insoluble in ether, for the reaction to work some water has to be present. Solvolysis of the NaOH requires water (in this instance). So no RFJE, your claims that a) amino acids break down in water and b) that the peptide/amide bind cannot form in the presence of water are false.

2) The formation of long chain polypeptides and protein folding are a very different case from forming simple amino acids (see Strecker synthesis for example) or simple di/polypeptides i.e. the amide/peptide bond. Any polymer forming in any solution adopts a conformation of some description. As the comment you quote (without attribution I note) mentions the conformation of the polypeptide forming depends on the hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of the polymer forming. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not polypeptides can form in aqueous environments (they can and do) but what conformation they adopt in what environment, i.e. their tertiary (and perhaps quaternary) structure.

This was your original claim:

Quote
Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis.  It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming  the chains that build proteins.


Since amino acids demonstrably do not break down (at an appreciable rate at RTP, modest pH etc) in water (in fact they form zwitterions which are horribly stable and a pain in the arse for the synthetic chemist on occasion, you have to pH buffer aqueous solutions of amino acids to get them to behave), and since the presence of water is demonstrably not a problem for the formation of the amide bonds, in fact in many amide forming conditions it's essential, the first part of your claim is false. Not only that, as the article you misquote above notes, water does not inhibit the formation of large polypeptides, the solvation/environment of the forming polypeptide influences the conformation of the polypeptide. So again, your second, goalpost shifted claim based on a quote mine, and your original misunderstood claim are false, based as they are on your lack of understanding of chemistry.

3) No one is proposing that complex proteins got together, in the absence of DNA, right at the start of the origin of life. There are a variety of proposed scenarios, all of which require that you understand chemistry sufficiently to appreciate how an amide bond forms! Again, it would behove you to inform yourself BEFORE you spout off about topics you obviously don't understand. For example, in one scenario, self-replication is all that is required. All of this is covered in the book I recommended.

4) AGAIN, there are a variety of possible, perfectly natural mechanisms for the origins of homochirality. Personally (for a variety of technical reasons I'm not going to go into) I would advocate that on earth autocatalytic processes not unlike the Soai reaction in their kinetics would be the most likely candidate. If only because the process amplifies very slight deviations from racemic mixtures to produce almost perfectly enantiopure material. If you're interested check out the work of Prof Donna Blackmond at Imperial College, London, on the subject. The Wikipedia article I provided for you gives a few basic ideas about the origins of homochirality, please read it. So, again, the fact that there are perfectly natural mechanisms for the origin homochirality demonstrate that your claim that "homochirality is a problem for evolutionists" is false. The fact that the Miller-Urey experiment did not magically poof life into existence in a test tube is not a problem, it wasn't meant to. It's also not the only experiment that is relevant to abiogenesis, which of course you'd know if you bothered to minimally educate yourself on a subject before bloviating about it. So no, nothing you quoted confirms your claim which was:

Quote
2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers."   Living things have only the left handed amino acids.  When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life.

So intelligent life tried to set up a random mixture of supposed ingredients and could not do it.  It proved that some random amino acids could be produced.


Your misunderstanding of the Miller-Urey experiment, and the field of study in general, is not evidence. Sorry.

5) The Miller-Urey experiment was, again, meant to demonstrate that one could produce amino acids from conditions like those proposed for the early earth. Regardless of the specific stereochemistry of the amino acids produced, it was a resounding success in that it accomplished what it set out to do. See above.

6) Where did DNA get its information? The sequence of bases in the primary structure of DNA constitutes information (in the technical sense). You're trying to put the cart before the horse.

7) Ahhh trying to have it both ways I see. Because Miller and Urey were intelligent and set up their experiments, they imparted some magical property "intelligence" to the experiment, therefore intelligence is required to make these things. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, literally begging the question, a logical fallacy. For starters, even though it is controversial, the simplest amino acid (glycine) has been (tentatively) observed in space, i.e. it has formed in the absence of "intelligent input". Even if that were not the case, your claim is still logically fallacious. Not only that but it demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the experiment (or indeed any experiment). Would you say the same thing if the Miller-Urey experiment had failed to produce any amino acids at all? No, you wouldn't, which neatly demonstrates the intellectually dishonest and bad faith mode of argumentation you employ.

8) "One dissolving peptide bond ruins the protein", since no one is suggesting that complex, modern proteins are required for the vastly simpler origins of life and since the peptide bond is actually highly stable, this complaint isn't even relevant.

9) People CAN tell how many proteins (or indeed how many "anything") are needed for "life", minimal "living" systems are currently the objects of extensive research. Your complaint relies on a) ignorance of current research and b) and equivocation on what constitutes "life".

10) A for effort? No. You get an F for failing to minimally educate yourself about a topic before bloviating erroneously about it. My sympathy for you is running out.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,05:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2009,00:32)
[SNIP ME]
Egads. Just names and diversions by one means or another. You think you can fool us with such wordwinkery?

No. We all really know chemistry is a conspiracy to keep you from Jebus. Shhh don't tell anyone.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:07   

Yay. New toy. New toy.
:)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:09   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,11:01)
My purpose is not to be proud. You people lynched me.  I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.  

I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.  But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate.  

My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses.  

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.  Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.  Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom.

RFJE,

Since this has to be one of the more odious posts I've encountered from anyone, I'm counting this as strike two.

1) Lynched you? LYNCHED you? Hardly. You came in making demonstrably erroneous claims in an incredibly arrogant manner (more on this later). Do you seriously expect to be treated politely by everyone you encounter when you do this?

2) "Credentialed" people exist who don't share my "worldview" (whatever that is) or "theory" (which one?). No shit, Sherlock. There is no one, NO ONE, on this board who is unaware of this fact. The trading of authorities is not anything anyone is interested in. The evidence is what matters, not what number of PhDs you might have on your "team" (which to be blunt, if we were going to pull the authority card, which we won't, we'd win by miles).

3) So what if people are more educated than you? Your claims stand or fall on the evidence that supports them, not whether or not someone is more educated than you. It behoves you to inform yourself about the evidence supporting the claims you make. When the evidence does not support them, or refutes them (as is the case here) then you are beholden to withdraw your claims as false. That is the honest and humble thing to do.

4) The "problems" you claim exist for our "theory" (whatever your caricature of it might be) are not problems at all (as demonstrated). They are based on your lack of relevant scientific knowledge and your misunderstandings of what evolutionary biology and abiogenesis constitute. An honest and humble person takes appropriate correction when needed, and bothers to minimally educate themselves on a topic before claiming that problems with as specific piece of science exist.

5)  Elitism. No one has claimed, or is claiming, that an understanding of the relevant science is beyond you. All anyone has claimed, with a great deal of justification, is that your claims are derived from your demonstrable ignorance and lack of understanding of the relevant topics. This is not beyond your ability to correct. This is not elitist, it is a simple fact. In fact I have given you links to basic material that is understandable by an educated layman, and doesn't require a huge quantity of specialist knowledge. I am encouraging you to learn about that which you make claims about. This is the opposite of elitism, it is the very epitome of inclusiveness. You can learn about the relevant science and there are people willing to help. The fact that the relevant science requires that you put in some effort to learn it and understand it is not elitism.

6) Arrogance. Common sense is all that is required to overturn the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists over decades if not centuries? All of these people, experts in their relevant fields, are wrong based on the say so of your "common sense"? And you accuse us of arrogance? No evidence required, no education in the relevant issues or science, no understanding (note I do not say "qualification", because it isn't required)? And you're an expert in humility? Crikey RFJE, I'd love to see how arrogant a non-expert in humility was!

7) " Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom." Translation: I've made claims based on ignorance of science and I was relying on the people I made the claims to to be similarly ignorant. They aren't, therefore it must be their fault my claims are wrong.

Please start acting in good faith, and with a modicum of intellectual honesty and effort.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:09   

Quote (Cedric Katesby @ Feb. 10 2009,12:07)
Yay. New toy. New toy.
:)

Not for long I suspect.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:17   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,05:01)
My purpose is not to be proud.

No, your purpose is to reinforce your preconceived conclusion.
Quote
You people lynched me.

No, as far as I can tell, you are handling that job quite well on your own.  
Quote
I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.  

We are far more familiar with the research than you are, and the fact that there are dissenters on just about every topic in science does not mean that the consensus is wrong.
Quote
I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.  

Then why don't you listen to them, rather than assume that your conclusion is correct even after being shown the errors in your assumptions and your thinking?
Quote
But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate.

Those are minimal requirements for discussion here. Why do you even mention them?  
Quote
My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses.

No, you came here blustering that you know more about chemistry than the experts, and proceeded to demonstrate that you really have nothing new to offer. And yes, there are some "impasses", or unresolved questions, in just about every science. What is the point of that strawman? 
Quote
You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

Clearly your study of humility has left you less than humble.
Quote
Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.  

That's backward in your case then, because your lack of knowledge has only puffed you up, and your godly love has not edified any of us here.
Quote
Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom.

And you are so full of ignorance that you have no room for humility.

bye

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
  452 replies since Feb. 09 2009,10:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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