Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::RFJE's Personal Thread

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,10:03

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 19 2009,02:31)

I have to concur with others in the absence of any confirmation from RFJE of a statement from Louis that's actually at issue -- "hydrolysis" and "water solubility" are two different things.

Mr. Wesley,

Just a side note of thanks for showing that two people can disagree agreeably. If I were neutral on this issue, i would have my ears open to you more than to many on this site. I sincerely wish we could put down our swords.

Please forgive me as I have limited time to read the entire thread. I got the impression in this thread that many of you were closed to the idea that water would have hindered or stopped abiogenesis. Part of of it is my fault as I gave wrong data from my source, which has been corrected.

That was part of the initial arguement--that water would have stopped spontaneous generation.

I guess part of the problem is that hydrolysis and would be a chemical reaction on existing proteins, and the context of abiogenesis is formation in an uncontrolled setting, which has never been observed.

However, on water solubilty--Mr. Wesley, couldn't that be a possibility, as far as hindering the chemical processes before they even get started. Again, I realize that we're using a principle on formed proteins to argue against formation, but it seems that is all we have since we haven't observed it.

To really be a theory shouldn't abiogenesis be a testable hypothesis? It has been tested and has not passed the test, or it has never found the right ingredients to make it happen. Isn't true science supposed to abandon or adjust the hypothesis if experimentation shows it to fail?

Obviously life can not be produced through the context of Miller's experiment, even with intelligent interference. I understand the thinking that you can not just give up and say it couldn't happen, but then that forces you to BELIEVE that abiogenesis can happen by random forces of atomic particles. And that one day (as I have people say) you will find the secret.

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,10:30

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,16:03)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 19 2009,02:31)

I have to concur with others in the absence of any confirmation from RFJE of a statement from Louis that's actually at issue -- "hydrolysis" and "water solubility" are two different things.

Mr. Wesley,

Just a side note of thanks for showing that two people can disagree agreeably. If I were neutral on this issue, i would have my ears open to you more than to many on this site. I sincerely wish we could put down our swords.

Please forgive me as I have limited time to read the entire thread. I got the impression in this thread that many of you were closed to the idea that water would have hindered or stopped abiogenesis. Part of of it is my fault as I gave wrong data from my source, which has been corrected.

That was part of the initial arguement--that water would have stopped spontaneous generation.

I guess part of the problem is that hydrolysis and would be a chemical reaction on existing proteins, and the context of abiogenesis is formation in an uncontrolled setting, which has never been observed.

However, on water solubilty--Mr. Wesley, couldn't that be a possibility, as far as hindering the chemical processes before they even get started. Again, I realize that we're using a principle on formed proteins to argue against formation, but it seems that is all we have since we haven't observed it.

To really be a theory shouldn't abiogenesis be a testable hypothesis? It has been tested and has not passed the test, or it has never found the right ingredients to make it happen. Isn't true science supposed to abandon or adjust the hypothesis if experimentation shows it to fail?

Obviously life can not be produced through the context of Miller's experiment, even with intelligent interference. I understand the thinking that you can not just give up and say it couldn't happen, but then that forces you to BELIEVE that abiogenesis can happen by random forces of atomic particles. And that one day (as I have people say) you will find the secret.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

RFJE,

A) Wesley's statement does not mean what you think it means (AFAICT).

B) Water is NOT a problem for the formation of amide bonds (and hence polypeptides). I can take you into the lab, mix the chemicals together in front of your eyes IN WATER and make a new dipeptide. I can then take this dipeptide and do the same reaction and make a tetrapeptide. I can take the tetrapeptide and make an octopeptide, I can take the octapeptide......ALL IN WATER. In fact it's so simple I can get a machine to do it.

Aqueous peptide synthesis has been around for decades. People do this in the lab on a daily basis. The fact that you don't know this is NOT a point in favour of your ridiculous claims about abiogenesis.

You are confusing multiple issues because you know nothing about chemistry and cannot be bothered to alter that. Try to read something relevant for a modicum of understanding. You want people to put down their swords then stop being an intellectually dishonest, vacuous jackass. I supplied you with the basic means to minimally educate yourself about a topic. Do so. Your ignorance does not equal evidence. Returning like a dog to vomit to a nonsensical claim that is ONLY derived from your ignorance of a topic does not constitute "civil intellectual argument". It constitutes wilfully ignorant refusal to abandon a claim in the face of contrary evidence. It is annoying and certainly neither civil, nor intellectual, nor argument.

Abiogenesis is a hugely complex field of science, not "one theory". It is certainly not amenable to "one simple experiment". Of course you'd know this if you bothered to get off your arse and actually do the leg work in the library. Your whines about Miller-Urey type experiments/abiogenesis are nothing more than "Prove biology in one experiment" or "prove physics in one experiment" you are asking for one experiment to support an entire field of study which covers disparate phenomena. No one expects to make "life in a jar" (unless you're talking about synthetic viruses/bacteria, and even THAT is not a simple "one experiment" type scenario).

You are waving your hands about on a topic you are not sufficiently informed to discuss. Inform yourself. People here, myself included, are willing to help very nicely. What we, and I think I can speak for the majority on this one, are NOT willing to do is educate the utterly unwilling nutters who frequent this debate and repeatedly deal with their arcane and well refuted nonsense.

For example no one believes that "abiogenesis can happen by random forces of atomic particles.". This has to be one of the most ignorant expressions of what chemistry is, let alone abiogenesis, I have ever encountered. It's frankly embarrassing, something I'd expect a moderately scientifically literate high school student could understand is nonsense. Someone claiming to be an educated person, capable of intellectual effort should realise immediately the errors in that claim, yet you don't. How curious.

Also, yet again you evade SIMPLE questions designed to engender that which you claim (falsely now in my view) to desire: civil, intellectual discourse.

Louis

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

RFJE

Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:05

I would to address the issue of intelligence.

I believe that fundamental/elementary/intermediate technical understanding in a given field does not necessarily disqualify that person from giving their opinion in that field of study if/because:

1. Part of that field can be explained philosophically, fundamentally, or in general illustration, which many fields of science can.

For instance, I read a book on the theory of relativity. It was not technical, but explained Einstein's philosophical thinking that led him to his famous theory, such as: if only two points are in the universe moving toward each other you can not tell which one is moving unless there is a third point and so on. But I would never how to do his equations.

2. Part of that field i.e. hypotheses, implications or interpretations of that field crosses into the other person's field of study or expertise. For example: There may be a hypothesis that a chemist comes up with that has implications for an electrical engineer. The engineer has 25 years experience, and is able to refute or add data to the hypothesis.

3. Because fundamental understanding in a field is not in itself always a bad thing. Example: An architect and a carpenter. The architect is going to understand the applied science of building. His understanding of this will far exceed the carpenter's. But the carpenter will usually be able to build the designs better because of his experience with tools, materials, and building techniques.

Also because he is a businessman he will use his skills there also to build houses--which knowledge the the architect may not possess. The architect has gone to college and makes $80k a year. The carpenter is a high school drop out, after 15 years as a carpenter crew boss, becomes a general contractor and makes 120k a year.

Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:11

Well well well, how about those questions? Quit stalling.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:25

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,17:05)

I would to address the issue of intelligence.

I believe that fundamental/elementary/intermediate technical understanding in a given field does not necessarily disqualify that person from giving their opinion in that field of study if/because:

1. Part of that field can be explained philosophically, fundamentally, or in general illustration, which many fields of science can.

For instance, I read a book on the theory of relativity. It was not technical, but explained Einstein's philosophical thinking that led him to his famous theory, such as: if only two points are in the universe moving toward each other you can not tell which one is moving unless there is a third point and so on. But I would never how to do his equations.

2. Part of that field i.e. hypotheses, implications or interpretations of that field crosses into the other person's field of study or expertise. For example: There may be a hypothesis that a chemist comes up with that has implications for an electrical engineer. The engineer has 25 years experience, and is able to refute or add data to the hypothesis.

3. Because fundamental understanding in a field is not in itself always a bad thing. Example: An architect and a carpenter. The architect is going to understand the applied science of building. His understanding of this will far exceed the carpenter's. But the carpenter will usually be able to build the designs better because of his experience with tools, materials, and building techniques.

Also because he is a businessman he will use his skills there also to build houses--which knowledge the the architect may not possess. The architect has gone to college and makes $80k a year. The carpenter is a high school drop out, after 15 years as a carpenter crew boss, becomes a general contractor and makes 120k a year.

Someone call the WAAAAAHmbulance. We've got another whiner.

RFJE,

Your post is standard creationist anti-intellectual, irrelevant wank.

No one said that lack of technical expertise means that you have no right to have or voice your opinion.

All anyone has ever said is that lack of technical expertise means that you have no right for your opinion to automatically be correct (or worthy of serious consideration beyond a cursory examination and determination that it is nonsense).

See the difference? Why do I doubt it.

Your claims re: water and abiogenesis are incorrect. They are falsified by the simple fact that polypeptides can be, and are, made in water. This is not a matter of personal opinion, it is a matter of fact. You can go into a lab and actually DO this.

Louis

P.S. As Dnmlthr said, stop evading, answer the questions.

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

Ideaforager

Posts: 16
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:28

Quote

RFJE:I believe that fundamental/elementary/intermediate technical understanding in a given field does not necessarily disqualify that person from giving their opinion in that field of study ...

Does that persons opinion entitle him to present that opinion in a classroom setting?

Quote

RFJE: Part of that field can be explained philosophically, fundamentally, or in general illustration, which many fields of science can.

For instance, I read a book on the theory of relativity. It was not technical, but explained Einstein's philosophical thinking that led him to his famous theory, such as: if only two points are in the universe moving toward each other you can not tell which one is moving unless there is a third point and so on. But I would never how to do his equations.

If you didn't understand his simplified explanation would you than say that his equations are wrong?

deadman_932

Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:34

I was going to write a big long piece and refer to the growth of science in the previous centuries, and how honest men of faith approached the subject; as reading God's handiwork, in order to better understand the glory of God, but I won't.

I'll just add this to what Louis already said, RFJE: many American theists in particular seem to view science as "the enemy" of their faith. This is a huge mistake.

God can't be taken out of the picture for those that have faith which can withstand scrutiny and questioning -- so there's no need to view "science" and the gathering of knowledge as something to be feared.

Knowledge is power and with it comes responsibility, yes, but there are good theistic and philosophical arguments all around you that God wants humans to find more and more knowledge, and responsibility -- to become better caretakers of themselves and the world in which we all have to live. If you personally believe in a God, then you should also believe that your brain is a product thereof. Whether I happen to agree with that or not is irrelevant. What counts is the logic of your faith, or the lack of faith found in your illogic.

From this perspective, your view is insulting to the very gifts of intellect and curiosity that you will say God instilled in mankind.

The actual evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The investigation of abiogenesis has only begun in the last few decades, really. Your claim that we *cannot* know is one that is solely based on ignorance and a misplaced sense of fear and a culturally-induced grasping for power.

Ask yourself what power really is, to humans on this planet, RFJE. Think really hard about what it means. Imagine yourself *alone* on Mars, say, with tons of gold and a thousand atomic bombs, but no way to affect any other humans directly. Do you have power? No. You couldn't do anything if you wanted, except to yourself. If you want to claim that as power, great, but it ends with you.

Power, on this planet, is the ability to get other living beings to think and do what you want them to, to shape things to your will. Religions wield power, and they also teach children from a young age how to view the world, what to fear and what to love.

Don't keep making the mistakes that other theists have already made...the Galileo and Giordano Bruno episodes didn't make the Catholic Church look good, you know.

If you want to talk about the actual science without having people mock your claims, then you should try not to preach and pose about things you clearly don't know about. Try it, and you'll find a much more receptive and kind-hearted audience. If not, well, then it's easy to just keep making fun of your claims and ideas.

Your choice.

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

silverspoon

Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:53

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,11:05)

3. Because fundamental understanding in a field is not in itself always a bad thing. Example: An architect and a carpenter. The architect is going to understand the applied science of building. His understanding of this will far exceed the carpenter's. But the carpenter will usually be able to build the designs better because of his experience with tools, materials, and building techniques.

When the carpenter tells the architectural engineer no amount of trusses can carry the load of the roof, even after the architect shows the carpenter the calculations that prove it will, well, the carpenter is just being bull-headed and ignorant about the load carrying capabilities of those trusses.

Louis (the chemist from hell) just told you water does not keep polypeptides from forming. He’s the chemist who does this sort of thing every day. Just like the architect, Louis destroyed your argument from ignorance.

edited to replace an and with about.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

khan

Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:00

He's saying being ignorant of a subject is an advantage that enables him to see the 'flaws' that are not seen by the people who have studied and practiced for years?

Is there a medical term for this particular delusion?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

silverspoon

Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:02

Quote (khan @ Feb. 21 2009,12:00)

He's saying being ignorant of a subject is an advantage that enables him to see the 'flaws' that are not seen by the people who have studied and practiced for years?

Is there a medical term for this particular delusion?

Dip-wad comes to mind. That, and I wanted to reach 100 posts.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:06

Quote (khan @ Feb. 21 2009,18:00)

He's saying being ignorant of a subject is an advantage that enables him to see the 'flaws' that are not seen by the people who have studied and practiced for years?

Is there a medical term for this particular delusion?

Abject fuckwittery.

It's in the DSM-IV, look it up.

Louis

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

RFJE

Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:18

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,10:30)

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,16:03)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 19 2009,02:31)

I have to concur with others in the absence of any confirmation from RFJE of a statement from Louis that's actually at issue -- "hydrolysis" and "water solubility" are two different things.

Mr. Wesley,

Just a side note of thanks for showing that two people can disagree agreeably. If I were neutral on this issue, i would have my ears open to you more than to many on this site. I sincerely wish we could put down our swords.

Please forgive me as I have limited time to read the entire thread. I got the impression in this thread that many of you were closed to the idea that water would have hindered or stopped abiogenesis. Part of of it is my fault as I gave wrong data from my source, which has been corrected.

That was part of the initial arguement--that water would have stopped spontaneous generation.

I guess part of the problem is that hydrolysis and would be a chemical reaction on existing proteins, and the context of abiogenesis is formation in an uncontrolled setting, which has never been observed.

However, on water solubilty--Mr. Wesley, couldn't that be a possibility, as far as hindering the chemical processes before they even get started. Again, I realize that we're using a principle on formed proteins to argue against formation, but it seems that is all we have since we haven't observed it.

To really be a theory shouldn't abiogenesis be a testable hypothesis? It has been tested and has not passed the test, or it has never found the right ingredients to make it happen. Isn't true science supposed to abandon or adjust the hypothesis if experimentation shows it to fail?

Obviously life can not be produced through the context of Miller's experiment, even with intelligent interference. I understand the thinking that you can not just give up and say it couldn't happen, but then that forces you to BELIEVE that abiogenesis can happen by random forces of atomic particles. And that one day (as I have people say) you will find the secret.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

RFJE,

A) Wesley's statement does not mean what you think it means (AFAICT).

B) Water is NOT a problem for the formation of amide bonds (and hence polypeptides). I can take you into the lab, mix the chemicals together in front of your eyes IN WATER and make a new dipeptide. I can then take this dipeptide and do the same reaction and make a tetrapeptide. I can take the tetrapeptide and make an octopeptide, I can take the octapeptide......ALL IN WATER. In fact it's so simple I can get a machine to do it.

Aqueous peptide synthesis has been around for decades. People do this in the lab on a daily basis. The fact that you don't know this is NOT a point in favour of your ridiculous claims about abiogenesis.

You are confusing multiple issues because you know nothing about chemistry and cannot be bothered to alter that. Try to read something relevant for a modicum of understanding. You want people to put down their swords then stop being an intellectually dishonest, vacuous jackass. I supplied you with the basic means to minimally educate yourself about a topic. Do so. Your ignorance does not equal evidence. Returning like a dog to vomit to a nonsensical claim that is ONLY derived from your ignorance of a topic does not constitute "civil intellectual argument". It constitutes wilfully ignorant refusal to abandon a claim in the face of contrary evidence. It is annoying and certainly neither civil, nor intellectual, nor argument.

Abiogenesis is a hugely complex field of science, not "one theory". It is certainly not amenable to "one simple experiment". Of course you'd know this if you bothered to get off your arse and actually do the leg work in the library. Your whines about Miller-Urey type experiments/abiogenesis are nothing more than "Prove biology in one experiment" or "prove physics in one experiment" you are asking for one experiment to support an entire field of study which covers disparate phenomena. No one expects to make "life in a jar" (unless you're talking about synthetic viruses/bacteria, and even THAT is not a simple "one experiment" type scenario).

You are waving your hands about on a topic you are not sufficiently informed to discuss. Inform yourself. People here, myself included, are willing to help very nicely. What we, and I think I can speak for the majority on this one, are NOT willing to do is educate the utterly unwilling nutters who frequent this debate and repeatedly deal with their arcane and well refuted nonsense.

For example no one believes that "abiogenesis can happen by random forces of atomic particles.". This has to be one of the most ignorant expressions of what chemistry is, let alone abiogenesis, I have ever encountered. It's frankly embarrassing, something I'd expect a moderately scientifically literate high school student could understand is nonsense. Someone claiming to be an educated person, capable of intellectual effort should realise immediately the errors in that claim, yet you don't. How curious.

Also, yet again you evade SIMPLE questions designed to engender that which you claim (falsely now in my view) to desire: civil, intellectual discourse.

Louis

Dear Mr. Louis,

Thank you for verifying that your stand on "water hinders formations of proteins" is bunk. That settles that. And I understand your evidence.

On your issue that I cannot be bothered to alter my ignorance in chemistry--that is incorrect. I am currently studying chemistry.

"Random forces" is actually ambiguous--you have a point. I should not say "random." I know that the laws of science in chemistry do not change.

Perhaps you could tell me what I should say in science to express the idea of no guiding force that derives from information or intelligence. Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being, and in your book it is not outside intelligence. It must be within of the parameters of the physical universe.

I would like to very much read the materials from the evolutionary perspective on the origin of life, that's why I'm studying chemistry.

If you haven't lost complete patience with me could you answer a few questions:

1. Can you tell me where and when hydrolysis takes place? Are you saying it simply cannot happen in water? Is it only in digestion?

2. I believe you said earlier that amino acids can be synthesized and put in aqueous solutions--why do they not bond and form proteins? Are there other chemicals that must be added as catalysts?

3. If you do not expect to make life in a controlled environment with the most intelligent people in the world present, how can you expect life to form in a diluted pool of water or ocean when no intelligence at all is present?

I actually enjoy discoursing with "y'all" even though you think I'm a nut. I'm learning from a few of you. And no Louis, I do not expect to refute evolution--that would be nutty. My understanding is more from a theological and philosophical standpoint. Though I do wish though to say something to spark even one person's mind to at least consider the evidence from the scriptures.

I understand your frustration when I speak of an issue I have little understanding in. It is the same frustration I and other studied Christians have when a book that contains foreknowledge of already past AND current events is thrown out as a fable book. When the compilation of many uni-themed writings over time contains promises that have, when true faith is applied, evidence of supernatural reality. I feel it is worthy of at least consideration, but everyone has their choice.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:20

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,12:18)

Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being

How would you differentiate between a universe that had been guided into being and one that had not?

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

Ideaforager

Posts: 16
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:34

Quote

I understand your frustration when I speak of an issue I have little understanding in. It is the same frustration I and other studied Christians have when a book that contains foreknowledge of already past AND current events is thrown out as a fable book.When the compilation of many uni-themed writings over time contains promises that have, when true faith is applied, evidence of supernatural reality.

Why do you think that there is so much disagreement among the many groups each consisting of many individuals that dedicate their lives to studying that same book?
Do you think that resolving all of their differences is a more worthy effort than taking on the scientific establishment first?

RFJE

Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:59

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 21 2009,11:34)

I was going to write a big long piece and refer to the growth of science in the previous centuries, and how honest men of faith approached the subject; as reading God's handiwork, in order to better understand the glory of God, but I won't.

I'll just add this to what Louis already said, RFJE: many American theists in particular seem to view science as "the enemy" of their faith. This is a huge mistake.

God can't be taken out of the picture for those that have faith which can withstand scrutiny and questioning -- so there's no need to view "science" and the gathering of knowledge as something to be feared.

Knowledge is power and with it comes responsibility, yes, but there are good theistic and philosophical arguments all around you that God wants humans to find more and more knowledge, and responsibility -- to become better caretakers of themselves and the world in which we all have to live. If you personally believe in a God, then you should also believe that your brain is a product thereof. Whether I happen to agree with that or not is irrelevant. What counts is the logic of your faith, or the lack of faith found in your illogic.

From this perspective, your view is insulting to the very gifts of intellect and curiosity that you will say God instilled in mankind.

The actual evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The investigation of abiogenesis has only begun in the last few decades, really. Your claim that we *cannot* know is one that is solely based on ignorance and a misplaced sense of fear and a culturally-induced grasping for power.

Ask yourself what power really is, to humans on this planet, RFJE. Think really hard about what it means. Imagine yourself *alone* on Mars, say, with tons of gold and a thousand atomic bombs, but no way to affect any other humans directly. Do you have power? No. You couldn't do anything if you wanted, except to yourself. If you want to claim that as power, great, but it ends with you.

Power, on this planet, is the ability to get other living beings to think and do what you want them to, to shape things to your will. Religions wield power, and they also teach children from a young age how to view the world, what to fear and what to love.

Don't keep making the mistakes that other theists have already made...the Galileo and Giordano Bruno episodes didn't make the Catholic Church look good, you know.

If you want to talk about the actual science without having people mock your claims, then you should try not to preach and pose about things you clearly don't know about. Try it, and you'll find a much more receptive and kind-hearted audience. If not, well, then it's easy to just keep making fun of your claims and ideas.

Your choice.

Hi deadman,

I don't believe that science is a thing to be feared. Science puts me in awe. I like to go to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago almost as much as an NFL Bears football game in Chicago, and I'm a huge football fan! But that hasn't been my line of work--no.

You said, "God can't be taken out of the picture for those that have faith which can withstand scrutiny and questioning -- so there's no need to view "science" and the gathering of knowledge as something to be feared."

No He can not for and INDIVIDUAL--you are correct. But evolutionary thought has taken God out of the picture politically and socially, and most important educationally.

Science is not my enemy--evolution is, because it denies intelligent design.

I mean, to be intentionally sarcastic here, why would I view evolutionists as my enemies (and I really don't, you just don't believe in anything that implies intelligent design)? I mean just because you guys have said everything in the book to malign, label, and judge me, and cuss me because I misstated a source or disagree with you based on evidence that is not "science" but has EVERYTHING to do with ORIGINS? Have you ever heard of the concept of the punishment exceeds the crime?

You said, "If you want to talk about the actual science without having people mock your claims, then you should try not to preach and pose about things you clearly don't know about. Try it, and you'll find a much more receptive and kind-hearted audience. If not, well, then it's easy to just keep making fun of your claims and ideas."

How much science education do I need when I study the hypothesis of the oxygen catastrophe, and ask the question-- why would the O atoms go predominately underground into the the ground to form CO2 and H2O vapor and then be spewed out by volconoes to form the atmosphere? If there was enough O atoms to form enough water vapor to condense and form oceans, then it would seem to my simple little mind there was quite a bit of O atoms present--what would hinder the atoms from bonding into O2 in the atmosphere?

Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:05

Alright, hold on, let me get this straight. You willingly state that you don't know much about science, yet you are still convinced that an important part of mainstream science has to be wrong.

Don't you see the disconnect here? A yes or no answer will suffice.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

hereoisreal

Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:09

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 21 2009,12:20)

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,12:18)

Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being

How would you differentiate between a universe that had been guided into being and one that had not?

IMHO, in the one that had not, there would be no desire or need to pursue the question. Chance never asks questions nor does it have direction, purpose or meaning.

Zero

--------------
360 miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

RFJE

Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:14

I'm not saying that CO2 and water vapor would have a chemical reaction and form O2. I asking what prevented all those O atoms from bonding with each other in the atmosphere, IF there was enough (as inferred in the hypothesis) O atoms to form enough water for the oceans?

Doesn't the hypothesis itself guide the O atoms underneath the earth? This was not observed, but it's based upon assumed evidence such as red beds, oxidation of iron of a certain age, and metal oxides in fossilized soils.

Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:14

Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 21 2009,19:09)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 21 2009,12:20)

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,12:18)

Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being

How would you differentiate between a universe that had been guided into being and one that had not?

IMHO, in the one that had not, there would be no desire or need to pursue the question. Chance never asks questions nor does it have direction, purpose or meaning.

Zero

Your willingness to pursue a hypothesis is not evidence for that hypothesis.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

RFJE

Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:19

Quote (dnmlthr @ Feb. 21 2009,13:05)

Alright, hold on, let me get this straight. You willingly state that you don't know much about science, yet you are still convinced that an important part of mainstream science has to be wrong.

Don't you see the disconnect here? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Excuse me, I never said that--you say that. If I have taken science in high school, lived 47 years and watched many science programs, read science mags and books, read ICR materials, then I do know "something" about science.

Don't stall off questions that I ask about the O2 catastrophe by attacking my knowledge of science. Obviously I have a fundamental knowledge or I would not be able to even ask the question!

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:22

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,13:06)

Quote (khan @ Feb. 21 2009,18:00)

He's saying being ignorant of a subject is an advantage that enables him to see the 'flaws' that are not seen by the people who have studied and practiced for years?

Is there a medical term for this particular delusion?

Abject fuckwittery.

It's in the DSM-IV, look it up.

Louis

Technically, Abject Fuckwittery, Recurrent, Severe, with Psychotic Features.

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

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

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:27

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,18:18)

Dear Mr. Louis,

Thank you for verifying that your stand on "water hinders formations of proteins" is bunk. That settles that. And I understand your evidence.

On your issue that I cannot be bothered to alter my ignorance in chemistry--that is incorrect. I am currently studying chemistry.

"Random forces" is actually ambiguous--you have a point. I should not say "random." I know that the laws of science in chemistry do not change.

Perhaps you could tell me what I should say in science to express the idea of no guiding force that derives from information or intelligence. Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being, and in your book it is not outside intelligence. It must be within of the parameters of the physical universe.

I would like to very much read the materials from the evolutionary perspective on the origin of life, that's why I'm studying chemistry.

If you haven't lost complete patience with me could you answer a few questions:

1. Can you tell me where and when hydrolysis takes place? Are you saying it simply cannot happen in water? Is it only in digestion?

2. I believe you said earlier that amino acids can be synthesized and put in aqueous solutions--why do they not bond and form proteins? Are there other chemicals that must be added as catalysts?

3. If you do not expect to make life in a controlled environment with the most intelligent people in the world present, how can you expect life to form in a diluted pool of water or ocean when no intelligence at all is present?

I actually enjoy discoursing with "y'all" even though you think I'm a nut. I'm learning from a few of you. And no Louis, I do not expect to refute evolution--that would be nutty. My understanding is more from a theological and philosophical standpoint. Though I do wish though to say something to spark even one person's mind to at least consider the evidence from the scriptures.

I understand your frustration when I speak of an issue I have little understanding in. It is the same frustration I and other studied Christians have when a book that contains foreknowledge of already past AND current events is thrown out as a fable book. When the compilation of many uni-themed writings over time contains promises that have, when true faith is applied, evidence of supernatural reality. I feel it is worthy of at least consideration, but everyone has their choice.

1) It's not Mr Louis.

2) I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

3) You're currently studying chemistry? And STILL asking the sorts of questions you are? Get a better teacher.

Louis

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

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:31

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:19)

Quote (dnmlthr @ Feb. 21 2009,13:05)

Alright, hold on, let me get this straight. You willingly state that you don't know much about science, yet you are still convinced that an important part of mainstream science has to be wrong.

Don't you see the disconnect here? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Excuse me, I never said that--you say that. If I have taken science in high school, lived 47 years and watched many science programs, read science mags and books, read ICR materials, then I do know "something" about science.

Don't stall off questions that I ask about the O2 catastrophe by attacking my knowledge of science. Obviously I have a fundamental knowledge or I would not be able to even ask the question!

Since the ICR is positively anti-science (they do what Feynman would call "cargo cult science", i.e. they make the appearance of doing science without actually doing any) then I'd strongly argue that you not only know nothing about science, but that you actually know less than nothing due to the fact that what you "know" is inimical to actual science.

Louis

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

hereoisreal

Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:36

Quote (dnmlthr @ Feb. 21 2009,13:14)

Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 21 2009,19:09)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 21 2009,12:20)

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,12:18)

Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being

How would you differentiate between a universe that had been guided into being and one that had not?

IMHO, in the one that had not, there would be no desire or need to pursue the question. Chance never asks questions nor does it have direction, purpose or meaning.

Zero

Your willingness to pursue a hypothesis is not evidence for that hypothesis.

And why would some one want to ‘differentiate’ when there are not two?

Zero

--------------
360 miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:36

Louis, you beat me to the punch. On the topic of relying on denialist sources, I only have this to add.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

RFJE

Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:47

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,13:27)

1) It's not Mr Louis.

2) I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

3) You're currently studying chemistry? And STILL asking the sorts of questions you are? Get a better teacher.

Louis

I am told to not come on here preaching about things I "nothing" about. Preaching would imply--you think you are an authority on this issue.

So I question things--not science--but hypotheses that have a purpose of explaining our origin without a designer.

I am then told my questions are stupid. So your saying just shut up and join us. Is that the way the entire scientific establishment does to those who deviate from THE THEORY?

Even if I become an MD or a PhD, you'll never acknowledge me as a scientist because I believe in God. You probably would have mocked Issac Newton (who believed in God), though he co-discovered calculus. You would probably mock my doctor who has Bible verses on his office wall. Maybe they should take away his credentials. That's the same reasoning you're using. A Phd, or a MS, or a BS who works or writes articles in defense of intelligent design, and hence has an affiliation with ICR is not a scientist. LUDICROUS!

FrankH

Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:47

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:14)

I'm not saying that CO2 and water vapor would have a chemical reaction and form O2. I asking what prevented all those O atoms from bonding with each other in the atmosphere, IF there was enough (as inferred in the hypothesis) O atoms to form enough water for the oceans?

Doesn't the hypothesis itself guide the O atoms underneath the earth? This was not observed, but it's based upon assumed evidence such as red beds, oxidation of iron of a certain age, and metal oxides in fossilized soils.

What O2 in the atmosphere? The ancient atmosphere of the Earth was a reducing one, not like today's oxidizing type.

Likewise, the early oceans were bereft of free O2 and it wasn't even blue. No, the dissolved Iron in the ocean gave it a distinctively green color.

So why do you think the early atmosphere was oxidizing? As for why was there H2O and therefore the O2, there is plenty of H2O in space but no free O2.

As to the BIF, below such formations you do not see FeO. This is not "assumed". How does your science explain the BIF? The one where the Earth went from a Reducing to an Oxidizing atmosphere explains a lot with no hand waving.

Again, how does creation science explain the BIF?

I'll also ask you this, why is your god the correct version? You do know that even if Evolution is 100% wrong and there was some divine agency, your god is one of thousands of options.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:55

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:47)

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,13:27)

1) It's not Mr Louis.

2) I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

3) You're currently studying chemistry? And STILL asking the sorts of questions you are? Get a better teacher.

Louis

I am told to not come on here preaching about things I "nothing" about. Preaching would imply--you think you are an authority on this issue.

So I question things--not science--but hypotheses that have a purpose of explaining our origin without a designer.

I am then told my questions are stupid. So your saying just shut up and join us. Is that the way the entire scientific establishment does to those who deviate from THE THEORY?

Even if I become an MD or a PhD, you'll never acknowledge me as a scientist because I believe in God. You probably would have mocked Issac Newton (who believed in God), though he co-discovered calculus. You would probably mock my doctor who has Bible verses on his office wall. Maybe they should take away his credentials. That's the same reasoning you're using. A Phd, or a MS, or a BS who works or writes articles in defense of intelligent design, and hence has an affiliation with ICR is not a scientist. LUDICROUS!

That's quite an accusation. Back it up.

ETA: Because you would never throw accusations around without being able to back them up sufficiently, would you?

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

deadman_932

Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006