Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The Bathroom Wall

Posted: Oct. 19 2008,13:34

Everything Daniel Smith has said about the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle since I cited it:

Quote

Quote
Krebs cycle

I find no detail into the "how" mentioned in any of this. There is some general discussion of proposed "rules" for evolution:

Quote
From the linked paper's abstract:
"Our results also allow us to derive the rules under which metabolic pathways emerged during the origin of life."

This does not seem to be any kind of detailed pathway for the origin of anything specific but rather a general set of guidelines.

[...]

Instead of just throwing answer fragments at me, how about you get back to me when science has settled on an answer as to how one of life's systems originated.

Remember, my original argument states:

Quote
We may be able to hazard a guess, or propose a natural pathway, but when looked at closely, such explanations will always be found to be unsatisfactorily incomplete.

Bits and pieces don't cut it because when you try to connect them together there's always some big roadblock that pops up.

That's it.

Daniel Smith making a criticism:

Quote

There's no sense arguing with any of you about it. Most of my relevant points--those most devastating to your arguments--are snipped in your responses anyway (Wesley's the worst about this). I guess if you pretend I never said it, it all just goes away, huh boys?

Daniel, sorry to break the news to you, but ignorant blowhards don't have "relevant points". There were certainly none that showed up in your completely ignorant dismissal of the Krebs citric acid cycle.

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 19 2008,13:37

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 19 2008,13:26)

�I'll try a different approach. �The "details" I provide in support of my beliefs are the details of life itself.

The problem you have is that those "details" were worked out by people who would think you were 100% wrong. Just picking up details from other people and using them to support your case is what AIG etc do. When you and yours actually do some of your own research and use facts to prove your case perhaps you'll be entitled to some respect.
�

Quote

It follows from the existence of complex organized systems that such systems are the work of intelligence.

Except it does not "follow" at all, it only follows if you presume your conclusion in advance. And Danny, logically your "complex organiser" would need a yet more "complex organiser" to create it in the first place. Who designed your intelligent designer Danny?
�

Quote

It follows from the existence of extremely complex, intricately organized, mind-boggling systems that such systems are the product of a mind-boggling intelligence.

Yes, the same designer that made my breathing tube the same tube I push food down. Your designer is a fucking moron.
�

Quote

It doesn't follow that extremely complex, mind-boggling, intricately organized systems would be the product of a series of coincidental accidents - especially when no one can provide any details as to what these accidents actually were. �

Details have been provided. Like Behe etc your tactic is simply to put your fingers in your ears or like Dembski you claim that whatever level of detail is provided is "not enough". Luckily the people who count don't think in the same way. All answers are provisional, until better answers come along. You have provided no answers and have not even produced any interesting questions. You already know the answers. Now go invent that time machine so you can go live in the middle ages with the rest of the ignorant believers.
�

Quote

You're the one who believes in a completely unsubstantiated fairy tale - not me.

Millions of words, thousands of experiments discounted so simply. Apparently that is not substantial enough for you. Tell me Danny, one the one side we have the body of work known as "science" contains billions of observations about the way the universe works. On the other we have your "belief" in the way it really happened. To believe that science represents a "completely unsubstantiated fairy tale" is so delusional I can only repeat my previous observation - have you been taking your lithium?
�

Quote

My "think-poof" beliefs are on much firmer ground than your "accident-poof" beliefs are.

Then you'll have no problem providing the 10 items I asked for?
�

Quote

�Life's complexity and specificity of regulation, organization, self-replication, synthesis, etc. speaks to the existence of a creative all knowing God. �

To you they do. And, as we know, you don't count in the slightest.
� �

Quote

Have a nice imagination!

All you think you know was created by humans. They wrote every work in your source of knowledge. And that's as true as the bible as a encyclopaedia. Difference is that one is based on evidence and the other is an attempt to explain the world when science was not around to help.

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

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Oct. 19 2008,13:43

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 19 2008,14:26)

I'll try a different approach. �The "details" I provide in support of my beliefs are the details of life itself. �It follows from the existence of complex organized systems that such systems are the work of intelligence. �It follows from the existence of extremely complex, intricately organized, mind-boggling systems that such systems are the product of a mind-boggling intelligence. �It doesn't follow that extremely complex, mind-boggling, intricately organized systems would be the product of a series of coincidental accidents - especially when no one can provide any details as to what these accidents actually were.

This fails for the same reason that DaveScot's imaginary law "intelligence only comes from intelligence" fails.

Dave argued that it is a law that "intelligence only comes from intelligence." Dave claimed there are no counter examples to his new law. I asserted there are many: human beings (and many other organisms) are counter examples. I remarked that they arose in nature, unguided. Dave disagrees - but he can't claim his law in support of his position. The argument "intelligence only arises from intelligence" is suspended in mid-air, an assertion only, essentially a restatement of the ID position, and can offer no support for the intelligent design hypothesis because the argument assumes its own conclusion. Ultimately the resolution of these questions will be empirical, not tautological, and ID will play no role in devising that solution because it can play no role in positive empirical investigation.

Your argument has the same limitations. You are simply asserting that complex systems - the "details of life" - must be the product of intelligence. Your "argument from impossibility" is just a restatement of that belief, and similarly assumes the correctness of its own conclusion. We assert otherwise - evolutionary mechanisms detailed "ever since Darwin" explain the emergence of complexity. Either assertion and 50 cents gets you a cup of coffee. The hard work begins with empirical research and field investigation - both of which continue apace within the framework of contemporary evolutionary biology. Your argument contributes neither jot nor tittle to that effort.

Which is why, having asserted your belief, you are done. Not just here: there is no scientific context in which your argument can make a constructive contribution to empirical research. Hence it is ignored.

[edits for clarity]

--------------
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: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Oct. 19 2008,14:23

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 19 2008,13:26)

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 19 2008,10:51)

� � � � �

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 19 2008,12:49)

"Detail"

What is it about that word that so frightens all of you?

As before, what level of detail do you have that will help convince us that your think-poof explanation is to be preferred?

Thanks in advance for ignoring this request again.

I've answered that once. �(Thanks for not reading my posts.) �I can see though that you're not happy with my answer. �I can see also that you'd like to shift the burden from your own beliefs to mine. ��

I'll try a different approach. �The "details" I provide in support of my beliefs are the details of life itself. �It follows from the existence of complex organized systems that such systems are the work of intelligence. �It follows from the existence of extremely complex, intricately organized, mind-boggling systems that such systems are the product of a mind-boggling intelligence. �It doesn't follow that extremely complex, mind-boggling, intricately organized systems would be the product of a series of coincidental accidents - especially when no one can provide any details as to what these accidents actually were. �

You're the one who believes in a completely unsubstantiated fairy tale - not me. �My "think-poof" beliefs are on much firmer ground than your "accident-poof" beliefs are. �Life's complexity and specificity of regulation, organization, self-replication, synthesis, etc. speaks to the existence of a creative all knowing God. �

No, you didn't "answer" it; you responded with a bunch of irrelevant words. There's a difference between your response and an actual answer. An "answer" would have provided the details that I requested, and that you so desperately crave from science. You provided no details; that was no answer.

Nice try, though.

Likewise your current response is also not an answer. I'm not asking about the "details of life itself": I'm pretty sure that I know a lot more about those than you do. I'm asking for your explanation of how those details came about. You can tell me that you don't understand how life, in all its complexity, came to be, and then you say that it could not have come about by a series of "coincidental accidents". Again, that is not an answer. I didn't ask about how you think it didn't happen; I asked about how you think it did happen. That's not a subtle distinction, but it appears to have escaped you thus far.

Finally, as for my "beliefs", here's the only thing you need to know about those. I accept explanations (not the same thing as a belief) on the basis of evidence. Evidence is required in my world view, and if new evidence comes to light, my views can change. Despite your ignorance about the evidence, and your willingness to remain ignorant until the end of history, there is abundant �evidence for the explanations that I accept. There is, to date, no evidence for your think-poof explanation. Show me some, and you might be surprised at the difference in my attitude.

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

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 19 2008,19:59

the issue here is that daniel is either playing silly semantical games or we have fundamentally different ontologies of what a 'living thing' entails.

i'll safely bet the second. I suspect the first.

science discusses "what does it do", "where is it", "what should we call it", "how many are there" etc. From these descriptions and discussions to me it appears that you are attempting to extract a definition of "what it is", a finely rarefied and reified bit of eternal regression.

I do not think biology needs to supply the sort of ontology that you claim that it does. I also point out that such ontologies, in the guise of many different assumptions and hypotheses, have misdirected the attention of many scientists before you as well. Strawmen arguments built upon the geometry of the spheres are all that you offer here, but your questions are important. To you obviously, and likely to most people who study living things.

The eliminative reductive materialist caricature of biology as a blinkered god-denying atheist enterprise is a big bad boogie man that many have been trained to fear, it doesn't actually exist.

What is a living thing? What is my dog, since we are discussing the origin of such things. What is it? Is the origin of a dog a fundamentally different event, unrelated in any sort of empirical manner, to the origin of a penguin? If so, why? What is a penguin, anyway? I know where they are, and I know what we call them, and I know some things that penguins do, and I'm sure somewhere there is an estimate of how many there are.

But what is a penguin, Daniel?

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

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

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

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

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 19 2008,20:01

rofl. Daniel sayeth

Quote

We can pump your stomach and find the details of what you ate this morning. What we can't do is explain the ultimate origins of the egg.

But, dear friend, not to the level of detail that you are demanding of this narrative of the origin of life. How many eyelash lice were in my eggs, Daniel? How many eyelash lice eggs?

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

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

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

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

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 19 2008,22:06

Is there some kind of executive authority I could be given, whereby I have the right to just smack the shit out of any law enforcement authority who does this kind of thing?

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....rug.php

I think I should be given a License to Smack. It wouldn't require any of the paperwork rigmarole of a License to Kill, but I could be given authority, upon seeing this kind of thing, to smack the bejeezus out of whoever's responsible. You might think an open handed smacking is too mild, but I assure you, if the smacker is sufficiently enthusiastic, you do not want to be on the receiving end of a good smackdown.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 19 2008,22:09

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2008,22:06)

Is there some kind of executive authority I could be given, whereby I have the right to just smack the shit out of any law enforcement authority who does this kind of thing?

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....rug.php

I think I should be given a License to Smack. It wouldn't require any of the paperwork rigmarole of a License to Kill, but I could be given authority, upon seeing this kind of thing, to smack the bejeezus out of whoever's responsible. You might think an open handed smacking is too mild, but I assure you, if the smacker is sufficiently enthusiastic, you do not want to be on the receiving end of a good smackdown.

wow. �this google thing is something else.

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

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

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

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

Dale Husband

Unregistered

Posted: Oct. 19 2008,23:50

From Scientific Vacuity of ID: Lactose Digestion in E. coli:

About DaveScot:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/about/

<blockquote>
DaveScot is a retired microcomputer hardware/software design engineer. He built his first ham radio back in the 1960's and designed his last computer at Dell in 1999 before he got out of the rat race. His employers have included Intel and Microsoft doing the usual things plus things as off the wall as developing O/S software for personal robots at Nolan Bushnell's company "Androbot" in 1981. Last but not least Dave was a USMC sergeant in mid-1970's working in a fighter jet group repairing aviation related electronic equipment. He has loved all the hard sciences all his life, is a convinced agnostic, and has been engaged in the ID debate for a few years.
</blockquote>

An investigation should show why he got out of the computer "rat race" and the Marines. Maybe he was fired for incompetence? I can't imagine a lower life than writing for a hack site like Uncommon Descent (into madness).

dnmlthr

Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,11:13

One midterm down, another coming in 40 hours.

Alright, alright I'll get off your lawn, no need to point that thing at
me!

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

American Saddlebred

Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,13:23

This comes from Glen D via Pharyngula.

wtf?!?!?

WTF...seriously...WTF?!?

I especially love the pics about halfway down...where the guy appears to be examining their priceless artifact by.....rolling it around on the table?

Quote

Groundbreaking "Firsts" by this fossil
These are firsts for true fossilization, not cast or endocast.
Those "molds" have been found previously. This is different because it is true petrification of the actual organ.

First Rock certified to be a petrified human brain by a Brain Anatomy/ Neuro Instructor/ Researcher
First Rock to be certified to be a petrified human brain by a Geologist Phd.
First Rock to be certified to be a petrified human brain by a Physicist.
First Rock to be certified to be a petrified human brain by an M.D.
First Rock said to be a petrified human brain by a Cellular/ Micro Biologist.
First Rock that is a fossil found that has embedded fingerprints, and this is in material harder than case hardened steel.
First Rock with knife serrations in what was soft tissue.
First fossil found that has finger impressions from when it was organic.
This list could go on and on and on...like first fossil with sulchi and gyri identified by a brain anatomy instructor
but you get the picture.

Now, let's go to the possible list.

It is thought to be:

The first human fossil found with petrified blood.
The first fossil found with a bullet inside.
The first certified soft tissue fossil certified by individuals in the established scientific community.

My head hurts.

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,14:14

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 19 2008,11:34)

Everything Daniel Smith has said about the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle since I cited it:

� �

Quote

Quote
Krebs cycle

I find no detail into the "how" mentioned in any of this. �There is some general discussion of proposed "rules" for evolution: � � � � � � � � �

Quote
From the linked paper's abstract:
"Our results also allow us to derive the rules under which metabolic pathways emerged during the origin of life."

This does not seem to be any kind of detailed pathway for the origin of anything specific but rather a general set of guidelines.

[...]

Instead of just throwing answer fragments at me, how about you get back to me when science has settled on an answer as to how one of life's systems originated. �

Remember, my original argument states: �

Quote
We may be able to hazard a guess, or propose a natural pathway, but when looked at closely, such explanations will always be found to be unsatisfactorily incomplete.

Bits and pieces don't cut it because when you try to connect them together there's always some big roadblock that pops up.

That's it.

Daniel Smith making a criticism:

� �

Quote

There's no sense arguing with any of you about it. �Most of my relevant points--those most devastating to your arguments--are snipped in your responses anyway (Wesley's the worst about this). �I guess if you pretend I never said it, it all just goes away, huh boys?

Daniel, sorry to break the news to you, but ignorant blowhards don't have "relevant points". There were certainly none that showed up in your completely ignorant dismissal of the Krebs citric acid cycle.

You cited a lot more than the Krebs cycle Wesley; I seem to remember nylonase, DNT degradation and the mammalian inner ear. �I responded to every one of those. �You snipped all of my responses except for one sentence about the Krebs cycle. �You brought all of it up - not me. �If you only wanted to talk about the Krebs cycle, why did you bring up all those other topics? �

As for the Krebs cycle, I cannot read the entire paper, the most I can find online is the first page. �Let me hazard a guess as to how the paper proceeds: �First they show us an overview of the Krebs cycle, then they show us other systems which have biochemical pathways that utilize similar steps in bits and pieces. �They then theorize that these other pathways could somehow be co-opted into a working citric acid cycle for the utilization of oxygen as a source of ATP. �This will of course all be backed up by the undeniable fact that a working utilization of oxygen would be an extremely useful advantage. �None of this will be worked out to any significant detail as to intermediaries between the two working systems and no explanation will be given as to how a working system can be co-opted without the resultant loss of function being selected against.

Am I close?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." �Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,15:04

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 19 2008,11:37)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 19 2008,13:26)

�I'll try a different approach. �The "details" I provide in support of my beliefs are the details of life itself.

The problem you have is that those "details" were worked out by people who would think you were 100% wrong. Just picking up details from other people and using them to support your case is what AIG etc do. When you and yours actually do some of your own research and use facts to prove your case perhaps you'll be entitled to some respect.

How do you know what those scientists believed? �Where do you get the 100% figure? �Have you done a poll of all scientists who worked out any of life's details (past and present) and found that there was 100% unanimity amongst them as to a belief in God or to what degree God was involved in the origins of life? �I thought not.
� �

Quote

It follows from the existence of complex organized systems that such systems are the work of intelligence.

Except it does not "follow" at all, it only follows if you presume your conclusion in advance.

Please enlighten me. �Explain how complex organization is not evidence of the involvement of intelligence. �Please use only non-living examples since it's the organization of life that's in dispute. �

Quote

And Danny, logically your "complex organiser" would need a yet more "complex organiser" to create it in the first place. Who designed your intelligent designer Danny?

No prior organizer is required if God is eternal.
� � �

Quote

It follows from the existence of extremely complex, intricately organized, mind-boggling systems that such systems are the product of a mind-boggling intelligence.

Yes, the same designer that made my breathing tube the same tube I push food down. Your designer is a fucking moron.

There are a handful of designs that you can nit-pick, but you know that these are insignificant in comparison to the trillions of working biological systems that show mind-boggling organization, regulation and functionality. �Natural selection is the real "moron". �Please explain how that moron created anything.
� �

Quote

It doesn't follow that extremely complex, mind-boggling, intricately organized systems would be the product of a series of coincidental accidents - especially when no one can provide any details as to what these accidents actually were. �

Details have been provided.

Then why don't you show them to me?

Quote

Like Behe etc your tactic is simply to put your fingers in your ears or like Dembski you claim that whatever level of detail is provided is "not enough". Luckily the people who count don't think in the same way. All answers are provisional, until better answers come along. You have provided no answers and have not even produced any interesting questions. You already know the answers.

On the contrary, I don't claim to know any of the answers.

Quote

Now go invent that time machine so you can go live in the middle ages with the rest of the ignorant believers.
� � �

Quote

You're the one who believes in a completely unsubstantiated fairy tale - not me.

Millions of words, thousands of experiments discounted so simply. Apparently that is not substantial enough for you. Tell me Danny, one the one side we have the body of work known as "science" contains billions of observations about the way the universe works. On the other we have your "belief" in the way it really happened. To believe that science represents a "completely unsubstantiated fairy tale" is so delusional I can only repeat my previous observation - have you been taking your lithium?

I'm not discounting any of the findings of science. �I think the search for natural origins is a waste of time though. �Scientists have discovered remarkable things! �They've outlined many details of how life's systems work. �All of that is great! �What they are unable to do, and IMO are wasting their time on, is trying to figure out how these systems originated. �They'll never succeed because they're working under the wrong assumption - that life evolved via a series of fortunate accidents. �Trying to find those accidents is a waste of time and resources. �Resources that could be better utilized looking into other areas.� � �

Quote

My "think-poof" beliefs are on much firmer ground than your "accident-poof" beliefs are.

Then you'll have no problem providing the 10 items I asked for?

Ten evidences for God? �OK, I'll give it a shot. �(This is not a top ten, but rather ten off the top of my head)
1. �The extraordinary degree of problem solving inherent in life's systems.
2. �The �extraordinarily complex organization of molecular structures in life.
3. �The endless "catch 22s" that pop up when trying to explain the origins of living organisms.
4. �The existence of a molecular programming language as the basis for all life.
5. �The incredibly complex and inter-reliant environmental conditions necessary for life having all been met here on Earth.
6. �The knowledge it would require to design and create all the functioning systems in the universe.
7. �The fact that there are no natural mechanisms which can be demonstrated to organize functional complex systems.
8. �The pre-existence and abundance of all the molecules needed for life (shows pre-planning).
9. �The fact that physicists are now saying that their equations work better if unseen universes are factored in.
10. �The fact that the only type of causation that avoids an infinite regression is an eternal first cause.� �

Quote

�Life's complexity and specificity of regulation, organization, self-replication, synthesis, etc. speaks to the existence of a creative all knowing God. �

To you they do. And, as we know, you don't count in the slightest.

�
You're right, I don't. �Nor do I claim to.
� � �

Quote

Have a nice imagination!

All you think you know was created by humans. They wrote every work in your source of knowledge. And that's as true as the bible as a encyclopaedia. Difference is that one is based on evidence and the other is an attempt to explain the world when science was not around to help.

If your position is all based on evidence then why can't you show me any?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." �Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,15:15

Quote

Please enlighten me. Explain how complex organization is not evidence of the involvement of intelligence. Please use only non-living examples since it's the organization of life that's in dispute.

WHAT?!?!?!?!

Among non-living things, complex organization is evidence of deliberate engineering (when talking about the amount of complexity seen in human built machinery, that is). So how would non-living examples be relevant to this argument?

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,15:21

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 19 2008,11:43)

�

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 19 2008,14:26)

I'll try a different approach. �The "details" I provide in support of my beliefs are the details of life itself. �It follows from the existence of complex organized systems that such systems are the work of intelligence. �It follows from the existence of extremely complex, intricately organized, mind-boggling systems that such systems are the product of a mind-boggling intelligence. �It doesn't follow that extremely complex, mind-boggling, intricately organized systems would be the product of a series of coincidental accidents - especially when no one can provide any details as to what these accidents actually were.

This fails for the same reason that DaveScot's imaginary law "intelligence only comes from intelligence" fails.

Dave argued that it is a law that "intelligence only comes from intelligence." Dave claimed there are no counter examples to his new law. I asserted there are many: human beings (and many other organisms) are counter examples. I remarked that they arose in nature, unguided. Dave disagrees - but he can't claim his law in support of his position. The argument "intelligence only arises from intelligence" is suspended in mid-air, an assertion only, essentially a restatement of the ID position, and can offer no support for the intelligent design hypothesis because the argument assumes its own conclusion. Ultimately the resolution of these questions will be empirical, not tautological, and ID will play no role in devising that solution because it can play no role in positive empirical investigation.

Your argument has the same limitations. You are simply asserting that complex systems - the "details of life" - must be the product of intelligence. Your "argument from impossibility" is just a restatement of that belief, and similarly assumes the correctness of its own conclusion. We assert otherwise - evolutionary mechanisms detailed "ever since Darwin" explain the emergence of complexity. Either assertion and 50 cents gets you a cup of coffee. The hard work begins with empirical research and field investigation - both of which continue apace within the framework of contemporary evolutionary biology. Your argument contributes neither jot nor tittle to that effort.

Which is why, having asserted your belief, you are done. Not just here: there is no scientific context in which your argument can make a constructive contribution to empirical research. Hence it is ignored.

[edits for clarity]

I never claimed my argument was aimed at aiding empirical research. �All I did was make a prediction based on my belief. �I guess though, my argument could aid in empirical research if it turns out to be correct. �They could stop wasting money and resources on dead-end rabbit trails and focus those resources where they would actually produce results. �

Even then, OOL studies give us valuable insights into the inner workings of cellular life. �Anything that shines a light into an unseen world is valuable. �I just think they're wasting time trying to reconstruct evolutionary pathways - since there are none.

BTW, I just need to address this one issue: �It's often claimed that science would somehow cease to exist if it adopted my beliefs. �This is demonstrably untrue. �Thousands of scientists have believed as I do and produced incredible research. �Even today, their numbers are probably greater than you think. �I myself--because of my belief in God--want to discover more about his creation. �Biochemistry and molecular biology fascinate me. �I feel closer to God when looking at the inner workings of life than I ever did sitting in a church pew. �Belief in God does not kill scientific inquiry, it merely changes its perspective. �If everyone shared the same perspective, life would be boring - right?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." �Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,15:21

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 20 2008,15:04)

Ten evidences for God? �OK, I'll give it a shot. �(This is not a top ten, but rather ten off the top of my head)
1. �The extraordinary degree of problem solving inherent in life's systems.
2. �The �extraordinarily complex organization of molecular structures in life.
3. �The endless "catch 22s" that pop up when trying to explain the origins of living organisms.
4. �The existence of a molecular programming language as the basis for all life.
5. �The incredibly complex and inter-reliant environmental conditions necessary for life having all been met here on Earth.
6. �The knowledge it would require to design and create all the functioning systems in the universe.
7. �The fact that there are no natural mechanisms which can be demonstrated to organize functional complex systems.
8. �The pre-existence and abundance of all the molecules needed for life (shows pre-planning).
9. �The fact that physicists are now saying that their equations work better if unseen universes are factored in.
10. �The fact that the only type of causation that avoids an infinite regression is an eternal first cause.� �

This is merely a list of things that either you don't understand (2, 3, 4, 7, and 9), things that make no sense at all (1 and 10), and fatuous faux-profundities (5, 6 and 10). None of them are evidence for anything beyond your inability to face three simple words - "I don't know."

Furthermore, they are all non sequiturs. For example, even if physicists need unseen universes to model the universe that we see, how is that evidence for a deity? �Isn't it merely possible evidence for additional universes? There is no logical linkage between any of your items in this list and any deity, other than in your fevered imagination.

Nevertheless, since you seem to think that they are evidence for a deity, why do you choose the Judeo-Christian deity? �Which of the parameters on this list point to that particular deity in preference to Zeus, Odin, Shiva, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

And finally, even if we accept that your particular pet deity is in charge of creation, how do we know that he doesn't work via the processes that we mere mortals call evolution?

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

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,15:26

Quote

They could stop wasting money and resources on dead-end rabbit trails and focus those resources where they would actually produce results.

If their current "rabbit trails" weren't producing results, people would stop spending money investigating them.

Henry

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,15:29

Daniel,

Your argument fails if any example is found. Your responses on the other items were no better informed than what you gave for the Krebs citric acid cycle example. Why spend time trying to demonstrate your ignorance across the board when it is clear enough when looking at one of those? And, of course, the answer to your question on what is in the paper that you were ignorant of when making your uninformed claim is just as wrong as we might expect of an ignorant blowhard. That's a "no", by the way.

Your stated position tells us about your lack of knowledge and nothing else.

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,15:32

Quote

How do you know what those scientists believed?

I don't and it does not matter really.

Quote

Where do you get the 100% figure? �Have you done a poll of all scientists who worked out any of life's details (past and present) and found that there was 100% unanimity amongst them as to a belief in God or to what degree God was involved in the origins of life? �I thought not.

It's quite simple. God does not appear in any peer reviewed scientific papers. Therefore whatever their private beliefs they have not allowed those beliefs to intrude into their day jobs.
Can you show me a peer reviewed paper published in a respectable journal that shows that God was involved in the origin of life?

Quote

Please enlighten me. �Explain how complex organization is not evidence of the involvement of intelligence. �Please use only non-living examples since it's the organization of life that's in dispute. �

Ah, so it's "complex organisation" is it? Tell you what, you tell me how you are defining the difference between "complex organisation" and "organisation" and I'll tell you. Give me an example of each please. So we're all clear.

Quote

No prior organizer is required if God is eternal.

And if God is not eternal then a prior organizer is required? How do you know that God is or is not eternal Daniel? Where are you getting that information? Says so in your book does it?

Quote

There are a handful of designs that you can nit-pick, but you know that these are insignificant in comparison to the trillions of working biological systems that show mind-boggling organization, regulation and functionality. �Natural selection is the real "moron". �Please explain how that moron created anything.

Everything that died before it reproduced was removed from the gene pool. What was left was, on average, better suited to it's environment. Daniel, it's not a "handful of designs" that can be nit-picked, every "design" has features that make it obvious it evolved rather then designed.

Daniel, why are there no animals that use wheels to get around? What stopped the designer implementing that design?

Quote

Then why don't you show them to me?

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Quote

On the contrary, I don't claim to know any of the answers.

Yet you claim to know what the answers cannot be, somehow.

Quote

I'm not discounting any of the findings of science. �I think the search for natural origins is a waste of time though.

The same could have been said for the search for understanding on how the solar system worked. Angels moving the planets did just fine for a long time. If you had been around then you would have happily agreed and wondered why people were building telescopes when you already *knew* the answer.

Quote

Scientists have discovered remarkable things! �They've outlined many details of how life's systems work. �All of that is great! �What they are unable to do, and IMO are wasting their time on, is trying to figure out how these systems originated. �

And when you are proved wrong? What then? Why don't you name some of these "systems" you keep going on about? You say there are trillions of them, name 20.

Quote

They'll never succeed because they're working under the wrong assumption - that life evolved via a series of fortunate accidents.

And the right assumption is what exactly? And you know this because......
Daniel, there are many scientists, no doubt some working on OOL, who believe in a god. How come they are still going to work if they should *know* their search is pointless?

Quote

Trying to find those accidents is a waste of time and resources. �Resources that could be better utilized looking into other areas. � � �

How do you decide, before the work is done, what will pay off? "I don't think I'll invent the first electric generator today, I simply can't see the point in it".

Quote

Ten evidences for God? �OK, I'll give it a shot. �(This is not a top ten, but rather ten off the top of my head)
1. �The extraordinary degree of problem solving inherent in life's systems.

Give us an example, and say why that example works better under "design" then evolution.

Quote

2. �The �extraordinarily complex organization of molecular structures in life.

Things are complex, therefore God? I'm afraid not.

Quote

3. �The endless "catch 22s" that pop up when trying to explain the origins of living organisms.

Such as? Examples please! �

Quote

4. �The existence of a molecular programming language as the basis for all life.

Can this language be translated into French? German? If not, it's not really a language is it? Even machine code can be so translated. Find a different word.

Quote

5. �The incredibly complex and inter-reliant environmental conditions necessary for life having all been met here on Earth.

If the sun was a neutron star and we were living on the outer shell and were 1nm think and 50km wide, people like you would be saying exactly the same thing. It's amazing how well the puddle fits the hole it finds itself in.

Quote

6. �The knowledge it would require to design and create all the functioning systems in the universe.

Again, things are complex therefore design?

Quote

7. �The fact that there are no natural mechanisms which can be demonstrated to organize functional complex systems.

Except, er, evolution?

Quote

8. �The pre-existence and abundance of all the molecules needed for life (shows pre-planning).

See neutron star answer.

Quote

9. �The fact that physicists are now saying that their equations work better if unseen universes are factored in.

and therefore god? Nope. Why, Daniel, why does that follow?

Quote

10. �The fact that the only type of causation that avoids an infinite regression is an eternal first cause.

�
So you get round the "everything needs a cause" by saying "everything needs a cause except the first time, because I say so OK!". Sure, whatever.

Quote

You're right, I don't. �Nor do I claim to.

Obtain some humility then. Stop telling intelligent people who do this shit for a living they are wrong.

Quote

If your position is all based on evidence then why can't you show me any?

You've already been shown the evidence. Just because you decided to ignore it is not my problem. Claiming "show me the evidence" when you already have been simply makes you look stupid.

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,15:40

Quote

�I just think they're wasting time trying to reconstruct evolutionary pathways - since there are none.

And you would be willing to bet how much on that?
�

Quote

Thousands of scientists have believed as I do and produced incredible research.

What is it that you believe Daniel?

Here's a simple question then.

If there are no "evolutionary pathways" because godddit then at what point did it happen? Was the first cell "poofed" into existence? Was the first multi cellular organism "poofed" or did it evolve from the first cell? At what point will research, as it will continue whatever you say, draw a blank?

At what point Daniel will science be forced to throw it's hands up and say "we can't find out any more"?

You must *know* that? You seem so sure!

Unlike you Daniel, those "thousands of scientists" produced work that stood or fell on it's merits, not whatever belief system the originator of that work held. That was not considered in evaluating their work. It's simply irrelevant. Atheist and theist scientists seem to manage just fine. I bet you could not tell from a peer reviewed and published paper what the beliefs of the author were, if not then you claim is irrelevant and meaningless is it not? If not, why not? If belief (or no belief at all) adds or subtracts nothing whatsoever then your claim is meaningless.

You simply don't understand that do you?

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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,16:22

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 20 2008,13:32)

� �

Quote

How do you know what those scientists believed?

I don't and it does not matter really.
� � �

Quote

Where do you get the 100% figure? �Have you done a poll of all scientists who worked out any of life's details (past and present) and found that there was 100% unanimity amongst them as to a belief in God or to what degree God was involved in the origins of life? �I thought not.

It's quite simple. God does not appear in any peer reviewed scientific papers. Therefore whatever their private beliefs they have not allowed those beliefs to intrude into their day jobs.
Can you show me a peer reviewed paper published in a respectable journal that shows that God was involved in the origin of life?
� � �

Quote

Please enlighten me. �Explain how complex organization is not evidence of the involvement of intelligence. �Please use only non-living examples since it's the organization of life that's in dispute. �

Ah, so it's "complex organisation" is it? Tell you what, you tell me how you are defining the difference between "complex organisation" and "organisation" and I'll tell you. Give me an example of each please. So we're all clear.
� � �

Quote

No prior organizer is required if God is eternal.

And if God is not eternal then a prior organizer is required? How do you know that God is or is not eternal Daniel? Where are you getting that information? Says so in your book does it?
� � �

Quote

There are a handful of designs that you can nit-pick, but you know that these are insignificant in comparison to the trillions of working biological systems that show mind-boggling organization, regulation and functionality. �Natural selection is the real "moron". �Please explain how that moron created anything.

Everything that died before it reproduced was removed from the gene pool. What was left was, on average, better suited to it's environment. Daniel, it's not a "handful of designs" that can be nit-picked, every "design" has features that make it obvious it evolved rather then designed.

Daniel, why are there no animals that use wheels to get around? What stopped the designer implementing that design?
� � �

Quote

Then why don't you show them to me?

There are none so blind as those that will not see.
� � �

Quote

On the contrary, I don't claim to know any of the answers.

Yet you claim to know what the answers cannot be, somehow.
� � �

Quote

I'm not discounting any of the findings of science. �I think the search for natural origins is a waste of time though.

The same could have been said for the search for understanding on how the solar system worked. Angels moving the planets did just fine for a long time. If you had been around then you would have happily agreed and wondered why people were building telescopes when you already *knew* the answer.
� � �

Quote

Scientists have discovered remarkable things! �They've outlined many details of how life's systems work. �All of that is great! �What they are unable to do, and IMO are wasting their time on, is trying to figure out how these systems originated. �

And when you are proved wrong? What then? Why don't you name some of these "systems" you keep going on about? You say there are trillions of them, name 20.
� � �

Quote

They'll never succeed because they're working under the wrong assumption - that life evolved via a series of fortunate accidents.

And the right assumption is what exactly? And you know this because......
Daniel, there are many scientists, no doubt some working on OOL, who believe in a god. How come they are still going to work if they should *know* their search is pointless?
� � �

Quote

Trying to find those accidents is a waste of time and resources. �Resources that could be better utilized looking into other areas. � � �

How do you decide, before the work is done, what will pay off? "I don't think I'll invent the first electric generator today, I simply can't see the point in it".
� � �

Quote

Ten evidences for God? �OK, I'll give it a shot. �(This is not a top ten, but rather ten off the top of my head)
1. �The extraordinary degree of problem solving inherent in life's systems.

Give us an example, and say why that example works better under "design" then evolution.
� � �

Quote

2. �The �extraordinarily complex organization of molecular structures in life.

Things are complex, therefore God? I'm afraid not.
� � �

Quote

3. �The endless "catch 22s" that pop up when trying to explain the origins of living organisms.

Such as? Examples please! � � � �

Quote

4. �The existence of a molecular programming language as the basis for all life.

Can this language be translated into French? German? If not, it's not really a language is it? Even machine code can be so translated. Find a different word.
� � �

Quote

5. �The incredibly complex and inter-reliant environmental conditions necessary for life having all been met here on Earth.

If the sun was a neutron star and we were living on the outer shell and were 1nm think and 50km wide, people like you would be saying exactly the same thing. It's amazing how well the puddle fits the hole it finds itself in.
� � �

Quote

6. �The knowledge it would require to design and create all the functioning systems in the universe.

Again, things are complex therefore design?
� � �

Quote

7. �The fact that there are no natural mechanisms which can be demonstrated to organize functional complex systems.

Except, er, evolution?
� � �

Quote

8. �The pre-existence and abundance of all the molecules needed for life (shows pre-planning).

See neutron star answer.
� � �

Quote

9. �The fact that physicists are now saying that their equations work better if unseen universes are factored in.

and therefore god? Nope. Why, Daniel, why does that follow?
� � �

Quote

10. �The fact that the only type of causation that avoids an infinite regression is an eternal first cause.

�
So you get round the "everything needs a cause" by saying "everything needs a cause except the first time, because I say so OK!". Sure, whatever.
� � �

Quote

You're right, I don't. �Nor do I claim to.

Obtain some humility then. Stop telling intelligent people who do this shit for a living they are wrong. � � �

Quote

If your position is all based on evidence then why can't you show me any?

You've already been shown the evidence. Just because you decided to ignore it is not my problem. Claiming "show me the evidence" when you already have been simply makes you look stupid.

I could answer all of your questions oldman, but I just don't have the time! �I don't even know how you find the time to come up with all of them! �If you could narrow your "20 questions" down to 2 or 3, I'd be much more likely to answer them all. �I did find one of your questions particularly interesting and will answer that one now: � � �

Quote

�

Quote

4. �The existence of a molecular programming language as the basis for all life.

Can this language be translated into French? German? If not, it's not really a language is it? Even machine code can be so translated. Find a different word.

This is a programming language and it can be translated. �We do it all the time (CATG). �But beyond that, it is actually translated by life's machinery from a polynucleotide sequence into a polypeptide sequence. �It is not only translated, it is transcribed from DNA to RNA, it is edited into codons, it is transported, it is error corrected, and it is converted into said polypeptide sequence - which then goes on to fold itself into complex, extremely specific shapes which carry out the many jobs of inter and intracellular work.

Now, how about giving me a brief synopsis, to the best of your ability, as to how this basic foundational part of life came to be via your theory?

That's just one question for you oldman. �Don't just say "I don't know", give me your best guess. �You have to have some idea how this theory of yours works. �If not, then you are just appealing to authority - which basically means you are unable to think for yourself. �So how 'bout it? �Can you back up all your bluster?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." �Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,16:33

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 20 2008,13:29)

Daniel,

Your argument fails if any example is found. Your responses on the other items were no better informed than what you gave for the Krebs citric acid cycle example. Why spend time trying to demonstrate your ignorance across the board when it is clear enough when looking at one of those? And, of course, the answer to your question on what is in the paper that you were ignorant of when making your uninformed claim is just as wrong as we might expect of an ignorant blowhard. That's a "no", by the way.

Your stated position tells us about your lack of knowledge and nothing else.

Wesley,

You're right. �My argument does fail if any answer is found. �So you're saying that science has found the answer to the origin of the Krebs cycle? �Fine. �I will focus my attention on that. �I spent some time looking for a paper that backs up your contention, but cannot find anything that I can actually read online. (All you've cited so far is a link to an abstract). �Do you have a link that outlines the basic chemical steps that brought us the Krebs cycle? �If not, can you summarize them for all of us here? Thank you.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." �Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,16:41

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 20 2008,16:33)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 20 2008,13:29)

Daniel,

Your argument fails if any example is found. Your responses on the other items were no better informed than what you gave for the Krebs citric acid cycle example. Why spend time trying to demonstrate your ignorance across the board when it is clear enough when looking at one of those? And, of course, the answer to your question on what is in the paper that you were ignorant of when making your uninformed claim is just as wrong as we might expect of an ignorant blowhard. That's a "no", by the way.

Your stated position tells us about your lack of knowledge and nothing else.

Wesley,

You're right. �My argument does fail if any answer is found. �So you're saying that science has found the answer to the origin of the Krebs cycle? �Fine. �I will focus my attention on that. �I spent some time looking for a paper that backs up your contention, but cannot find anything that I can actually read online. (All you've cited so far is a link to an abstract). �Do you have a link that outlines the basic chemical steps that brought us the Krebs cycle? �If not, can you summarize them for all of us here? �Thank you.

Quote

The evolutionary origin of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been for a long time a model case in the understanding of the origin and evolution of metabolic pathways: How can the emergence of such a complex pathway be explained? A number of speculative studies have been carried out that have reached the conclusion that the Krebs cycle evolved from pathways for amino acid biosynthesis, but many important questions remain open: Why and how did the full pathway emerge from there? Are other alternative routes for the same purpose possible? Are they better or worse? Have they had any opportunity to be developed in cellular metabolism evolution? We have analyzed the Krebs cycle as a problem of chemical design to oxidize acetate yielding reduction equivalents to the respiratory chain to make ATP. Our analysis demonstrates that although there are several different chemical solutions to this problem, the design of this metabolic pathway as it occurs in living cells is the best chemical solution: It has the least possible number of steps and it also has the greatest ATP yielding. Study of the evolutionary possibilities of each one-taking the available material to build new pathways-demonstrates that the emergence of the Krebs cycle has been a typical case of opportunism in molecular evolution. Our analysis proves, therefore, that the role of opportunism in evolution has converted a problem of several possible chemical solutions into a single-solution problem, with the actual Krebs cycle demonstrated to be the best possible chemical design. Our results also allow us to derive the rules under which metabolic pathways emerged during the origin of life.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8703096

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

blipey

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,16:46

Daniel Smith:

Quote

I could answer all of your questions oldman, but I just don't have the time! I don't even know how you find the time to come up with all of them! If you could narrow your "20 questions" down to 2 or 3, I'd be much more likely to answer them all.

I could make you a list so that you can easily keep track of the questions. Unfortunately, it will also allow the rest of the world to keep track of your track-record.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,16:50

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 20 2008,16:22)

I could answer all of your questions oldman, but I just don't have the time! �I don't even know how you find the time to come up with all of them! �If you could narrow your "20 questions" down to 2 or 3, I'd be much more likely to answer them all. �I did find one of your questions particularly interesting and will answer that one now: �

Why, what is it you are so busy doing? 1 multipart question then - where are you getting your information from and how are you so sure that you are right and everybody else is wrong?
� �

Quote

This is a programming language and it can be translated.

Please translate this into English
gatcctccat atacaacggt atctccacct caggtttaga tctcaacaac ggaaccattg ccgacatgag acagttaggt atcgtcgaga gttacaagct aaaacgagca gtagtcagct
� �

Quote

We do it all the time (CATG). �But beyond that, it is actually translated by life's machinery from a polynucleotide sequence into a polypeptide sequence.

Is it? Is it really....That sounds almost scientific.
� �

Quote

It is not only translated, it is transcribed from DNA to RNA, it is edited into codons, it is transported, it is error corrected, and it is converted into said polypeptide sequence - which then goes on to fold itself into complex, extremely specific shapes which carry out the many jobs of inter and intracellular work.

Therefore god? No, I don't think so.
� �

Quote

Now, how about giving me a brief synopsis, to the best of your ability, as to how this basic foundational part of life came to be via your theory?

oldmanintheskydidnotdoit
� �

Quote

That's just one question for you oldman. �Don't just say "I don't know", give me your best guess. �You have to have some idea how this theory of yours works. �If not, then you are just appealing to authority - which basically means you are unable to think for yourself. �So how 'bout it? �Can you back up all your bluster?

I could answer all of your questions Daniel, but I just don't have the time!

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,16:57

Quote

I spent some time looking for a paper that backs up your contention, but cannot find anything that I can actually read online. (All you've cited so far is a link to an abstract). �Do you have a link that outlines the basic chemical steps that brought us the Krebs cycle? �If not, can you summarize them for all of us here? �Thank you.

Daniel, as you said

Quote

What they are unable to do, and IMO are wasting their time on, is trying to figure out how these systems originated.

can you please explain to me why you are wasting your time trying to find a paper you can read online that you already know is wrong and pointless?

If you know they are wasting their time why do you want to waste your time reading their paper? You've just said you don't have time to answer my questions and yet you want to waste more time reading papers you already know cannot explain anything?

Or have you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes?

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

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,17:14

Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 20 2008,13:23)

This comes from Glen D via Pharyngula.

wtf?!?!?

WTF...seriously...WTF?!?

I especially love the pics about halfway down...where the guy appears to be examining their priceless artifact by.....rolling it around on the table?

� � � �

Quote

Groundbreaking "Firsts" by this fossil
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � These are firsts for true fossilization, not cast or endocast.
�Those "molds" have been found previously. This is different because it is true petrification of the actual organ.

First Rock certified to be a petrified human brain by a Brain Anatomy/ Neuro Instructor/ �Researcher
First Rock to be certified to be a petrified human brain by a Geologist Phd.
First Rock to be certified to be a petrified human brain by a Physicist.
First Rock to be certified to be a petrified human brain by an M.D.
First Rock said to be a petrified human brain by a Cellular/ Micro Biologist.
First Rock that is a fossil found that has embedded fingerprints, and this is in material harder than case hardened steel.
First Rock with knife serrations in what was soft tissue.
First fossil found that has finger impressions from when it was organic.
� This list could go on and on and on...like first fossil with sulchi and gyri identified by a brain anatomy instructor
� �but you get the picture.

Now, let's go to the possible list.

It is thought to be:

The first human fossil found with petrified blood.
The first fossil found with a bullet inside.
The first certified soft tissue fossil certified by individuals in the established scientific community.

My head hurts.

haha

Quote

Professor Ed Kleiner, MS., Physics, Physics Professor, UTC, also a prolific and profound escatalogical scholar and instructor.

i suspect that all of these guys are scatological scholars and instructors.

yes i know what they meant. �at least what i think they meant.

ETA by the way, i doubt he is a "Physics Professor" if he only has an MS. not that this sort of false advertising should surprise anyone.

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

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

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

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

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,17:22

Daniel Smith:

Quote

Do you have a link that outlines the basic chemical steps that brought us the Krebs cycle? If not, can you summarize them for all of us here? Thank you.

I think one has to actually go to a library to get the full text of the 1996 paper, or order it via inter-library loan, or otherwise research it. In summary, they examine all possible[i] alternative biochemical pathways that could join to form the Krebs citric acid cycle, which is not anywhere close to Daniel's guess as to approach. More detail is in the paper, which is something Daniel should have read [i]before claiming science did not have any answers.

And, no, I'm not going to attempt to summarize organic chemistry here.

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

Dale_Husband

Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

Posted: Oct. 20 2008,21:32

Quote (Guest @ Oct. 19 2008,23:50)

From Scientific Vacuity of ID: Lactose Digestion in E. coli:

About DaveScot:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/about/

<blockquote>
DaveScot is a retired microcomputer hardware/software design engineer. He built his first ham radio back in the 1960's and designed his last computer at Dell in 1999 before he got out of the rat race. His employers have included Intel and Microsoft doing the usual things plus things as off the wall as developing O/S software for personal robots at Nolan Bushnell's company "Androbot" in 1981. Last but not least Dave was a USMC sergeant in mid-1970's working in a fighter jet group repairing aviation related electronic equipment. He has loved all the hard sciences all his life, is a convinced agnostic, and has been engaged in the ID debate for a few years.
</blockquote>

An investigation should show why he got out of the computer "rat race" and the Marines. Maybe he was fired for incompetence? I can't imagine a lower life than writing for a hack site like Uncommon Descent (into madness).

I guess my sarcastic wit was a little too much for PvM. He also closed a thread in which I was arguing with the fundamentalist moron known a FL. Oh, well, can't argue with the moderators on their own blog, but I'm just making a note of it anyway.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007