RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: Otangelo's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,04:20   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 16 2015,21:35)

Quote
Mulkidjanian, Armen Y.,  Dmitry A Cherepanov, Michael Y Galperin
2003 "Survival of the fittest before the beginning of life: Selection of the first oligonucleotide-like polymers by UV light"  BMC Evolutionary Biology 2003 3:12


Furthermore, its quite dumb to assume that something can survive, that is not alive.... LOL....

and :

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-a....ossible

In Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,05:11   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,01:48)
[quote=Cubist,Nov. 17 2015,03:10][/quote]
Quote
Fortunately, the fossil record here in the RealWorld does contain various transitional fossils, so your question doesn't arise.


I think there is enough evidence to say, the fossil record does NOT confirm the ToE :

Did Darwin also predict that lots of fossils with soft tissue, proteins, collagen, and non-permineralized, would be found ??

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-sanity

In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin’s Dilemma? – JonathanM – May 2012
Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....5....71.html

Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish – 2000
“In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”
Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.....ton.htm

Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
http://phys.org/news.......on.html

Quote
Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?


Once its granted that non-intelligence mechanisms are unable to create information-rich systems, your question is moot.

We know that intelligence outside of the human realm is possible. We have lots and lots of evidence of dualism, and out-of the body experiences, and near death experiences, which indicate that intelligence can exist without being bond to the physical body.

Hey Otangelo, ElShamah, etc., did allah-yahoo-satan-yeshoo-holy-spook "predict that lots of fossils with soft tissue, proteins, collagen, and non-permineralized, would be found"? Is there such a prediction in the bible and koran? LOL

"We know that...". "We" do, in the way that you're asserting?

I accept that some organisms other than humans are 'intelligent' to some degree, but what you're spewing is delusional bullshit.

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

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

   
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,05:23   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 17 2015,05:11)

Quote
Hey Otangelo, ElShamah, etc., did allah-yahoo-satan-yeshoo-holy-spook "predict that lots of fossils with soft tissue, proteins, collagen, and non-permineralized, would be found"? Is there such a prediction in the bible and koran? LOL


Did i mention anywhere any holy book ??!!

All i say is that soft tissue found in fossils indicates a young age, not millions of years.

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,05:38   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,10:20)
If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

What a load of crap. Photolysis generates a net yield of amino acids from simpler precursors. If amino acids were 'destroyed' by uv light, this would not be the case. Nor is it necessary for things to be restricted to the atmosphere.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,05:46   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Nov. 17 2015,05:38)

Quote
What a load of crap. Photolysis generates a net yield of amino acids from simpler precursors.


please provide a scientific source to back up your claim


If amino acids were 'destroyed' by uv light, this would not be the case. Nor is it necessary for things to be restricted to the atmosphere.[/QUOTE]

what do you suggest ? oceans ? prebiotic soup ?

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,06:03   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,03:23)
[quote=The whole truth,Nov. 17 2015,05:11][/quote]
Quote
Hey Otangelo, ElShamah, etc., did allah-yahoo-satan-yeshoo-holy-spook "predict that lots of fossils with soft tissue, proteins, collagen, and non-permineralized, would be found"? Is there such a prediction in the bible and koran? LOL


Did i mention anywhere any holy book ??!!

All i say is that soft tissue found in fossils indicates a young age, not millions of years.

Did anyone mention Darwin before you did??!11!???111!!!1!!111??!!!11?!11!!!!11?!1.................

As Ogre said:

" What the hell does Darwin have to do with anything?

Here's a hint, there's been 150 years of progress, with tens of thousands of papers published every year on evolution, abiogenesis, paleontology, molecular genetics, etc. All of which confirm evolution. None of which support any notion of ID. These papers are as far beyond Darwin could even imagine as my cell phone is to a Victorian detective."

And you should stop playing your dishonest games. The so-called 'designer' that you and the other IDiot-creationists are pushing is the so-called 'Abrahamic God' (allah-yahoo-yeshoo-holy-spook) and 'his' helpers (satan, angels, demons, etc.). Calling your imaginary 'God' and 'his' helpers 'the designer' just shows that you're a con man.

By the way, does your 'God' have a penis?

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

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

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,06:16   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,11:46)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Nov. 17 2015,05:38)

       
Quote
What a load of crap. Photolysis generates a net yield of amino acids from simpler precursors.


please provide a scientific source to back up your claim.


Google it. Educate yourself. Yields are low, but nonetheless the reaction proceeds in the direction of formation (depending to some degree on the hydrogen cyanide concentration).


     
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,11:46)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Nov. 17 2015,05:38)

If amino acids were 'destroyed' by uv light, this would not be the case. Nor is it necessary for things to be restricted to the atmosphere.
what do you suggest ? oceans ? prebiotic soup ?


I suggest not-necessarily-the-atmosphere. If your simplistic schema regarding amino acids and uv were true, it simply precludes long-term retention at the surface (depending, of course, on how cloudy it is...). The simple answer then would be: somewhere else. I don't have to join the dots, I'm simply refuting your simplistic argument.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,06:18   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 17 2015,06:03)

Quote
Here's a hint, there's been 150 years of progress, with tens of thousands of papers published every year on evolution, abiogenesis, paleontology, molecular genetics, etc. All of which confirm evolution.


haha, thats a good one.

1. modern science relies on methodological naturalism. Other than natural mechanisms are not permitted as explanation. Since evolution is the only natural proposal of biodiversity, evolution is not the outcome or inference, but the premise. Show one, just ONE scientific paper, that starts with a agostic standpoint, and ends with evolution as the best explanation amongst the two possible ones, that is naturalism, and design. Begging the question is not a exception. Its the norm of 99,999999% scientific papers.

2. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

3. When it comes to origins, rather than provide compelling explanations and elucidation of how natural mechanisms provided the outcome in question, a big part admits ignorance , where , if replaced with intelligent design, the inference would make perfect sense. And the gap rather than closing, is widening, the more science opens the black box.

I am collecting these papers which admit ignorance:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1584-o....science

[QUOTE][ None of which support any notion of ID./QUOTE]

Furthermore, sometime scientific papers slip through that do implicitly admit intelligent design :

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1498-s....plexity

This paper published online his summer is a true mind-blower showing the irreducible organizational complexity (author’s description) of DNA analog and digital information, that genes are not arbitrarily positioned on the chromosome etc.


[QUOTE][And you should stop playing your dishonest games./QUOTE]

Thats a acusation i am acostumed with. I am being called dishonest, and other names all the times. Sorry, that is imho not the way to make a point....


 
Quote
The so-called 'designer' that you and the other IDiot-creationists are pushing is the so-called 'Abrahamic God' (allah-yahoo-yeshoo-holy-spook) and 'his' helpers (satan, angels, demons, etc.). Calling your imaginary 'God' and 'his' helpers 'the designer' just shows that you're a con man.

By the way, does your 'God' have a penis?


So you are unaware why we do make a distinction between creationism, and intelligent design ? Educate yourself better, before making foolish acusations and expose your ignorance.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,06:21   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Nov. 17 2015,06:16)

Quote
Google it. Educate yourself. Yields are low, but nonetheless the reaction proceeds in the direction of formation (depending to some degree on the hydrogen cyanide concentration).


I dont have to make your homework. You raise the argument, you back it up.....

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,06:51   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,12:21)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Nov. 17 2015,06:16)

 
Quote
Google it. Educate yourself. Yields are low, but nonetheless the reaction proceeds in the direction of formation (depending to some degree on the hydrogen cyanide concentration).


I dont have to make your homework. You raise the argument, you back it up.....

HAHA! Oh, the irony. Please yourself. If you want to talk shite on the net, failing to back up your own claim that the absence of an ozone layer is fatally inimical to amino acid synthesis, you carry on.

Are we supposed to just take your original bald photolysis assertion as valid unless 'scientifically' refuted? Why should I do work you won't put in yourself, lazy-arse?

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
fusilier



Posts: 250
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,06:51   

[quote=Otangelo,Nov. 15 2015,19:26]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2015,15:07)
{snip}
Well, was coded, complex specified information and interdependent , irreducible complex systems predicted by the ToE ? {snip}

I hope I'm not too late with this, but in 1918, 35 years before Prof. Behe was born, H.J. Muller proposed the idea of "interlocking complexity" as a consequence of Descent with Modification.

As other posters have already pointed out, "Complex Specified Information" is completely undefined, except as "That ineffable property which only Go ...err, sorry, ... The Disembodied Telic Entity can produce."

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,07:11   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,04:18)
[quote=The whole truth,Nov. 17 2015,06:03]

 
Quote
Here's a hint, there's been 150 years of progress, with tens of thousands of papers published every year on evolution, abiogenesis, paleontology, molecular genetics, etc. All of which confirm evolution.


haha, thats a good one.

1. modern science relies on methodological naturalism. Other than natural mechanisms are not permitted as explanation. Since evolution is the only natural proposal of biodiversity, evolution is not the outcome or inference, but the premise. Show one, just ONE scientific paper, that starts with a agostic standpoint, and ends with evolution as the best explanation amongst the two possible ones, that is naturalism, and design. Begging the question is not a exception. Its the norm of 99,999999% scientific papers.

2. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

3. When it comes to origins, rather than provide compelling explanations and elucidation of how natural mechanisms provided the outcome in question, a big part admits ignorance , where , if replaced with intelligent design, the inference would make perfect sense. And the gap rather than closing, is widening, the more science opens the black box.

I am collecting these papers which admit ignorance:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1584-o....science

[QUOTE][ None of which support any notion of ID./QUOTE]

Furthermore, sometime scientific papers slip through that do implicitly admit intelligent design :

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1498-s....plexity

This paper published online his summer is a true mind-blower showing the irreducible organizational complexity (author’s description) of DNA analog and digital information, that genes are not arbitrarily positioned on the chromosome etc.


Quote
[And you should stop playing your dishonest games./QUOTE]

Thats a acusation i am acostumed with. I am being called dishonest, and other names all the times. Sorry, that is imho not the way to make a point....


   
Quote
The so-called 'designer' that you and the other IDiot-creationists are pushing is the so-called 'Abrahamic God' (allah-yahoo-yeshoo-holy-spook) and 'his' helpers (satan, angels, demons, etc.). Calling your imaginary 'God' and 'his' helpers 'the designer' just shows that you're a con man.

By the way, does your 'God' have a penis?


So you are unaware why we do make a distinction between creationism, and intelligent design ? Educate yourself better, before making foolish acusations and expose your ignorance.

"So you are unaware why we do make a distinction between creationism, and intelligent design ?"

I'm thoroughly aware of why you cdesign proponentsists try to make a distinction between creationism and intelligent design.

"Other than natural mechanisms..."

And your detailed, scientific evidence and compelling explanation and elucidation of the alleged other than natural (just say supernatural, con man) "mechanisms" is? Is 'speaking' things into existence a "mechanism"?  

"Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution."

Really? Then shouldn't you IDiot-creationists stop connecting abiogenesis to evolution and shut the hell up about "origins"?

"if replaced with intelligent design, the inference would make perfect sense..."

You're absolutely right and I've been telling people for years that Fifi the Pink Unicorn God and her herd of My Little Ponies (with some help from the Flying Spaghetti Monster) are the intelligent designers-creators-guiders of everything. I'm sure that you agree with me.

"This paper published online his summer is a true mind-blower showing the irreducible organizational complexity (author’s description) of DNA analog and digital information, that genes are not arbitrarily positioned on the chromosome etc."

Therefor jesus?

"Thats a acusation i am acostumed with. I am being called dishonest, and other names all the times. Sorry, that is imho not the way to make a point...."

My point is accurate.

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

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

   
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,14:55   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Nov. 17 2015,06:51)

Quote

HAHA! Oh, the irony.


yep......photolysis actually isnt helping your case....

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1556-t....osphere

Ozone plays a beneficial role by absorbing most of the biologically damaging ultraviolet sunlight (called UV-B), allowing only a small amount to reach the Earth's surface. Ozone thus plays a key role in the temperature structure of the Earth's atmosphere. Without the filtering action of the ozone layer, more of the Sun's UV-B radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would reach the Earth's surface.
In the atmosphere Oxygen is freed by the process called photolysis. This is when high energy sunlight breaks apart oxygen bearing molecules to produce free oxygen. One of the most well known photolysis it the ozone cycle. O2 oxygen molecule is broken down to atomic oxygen by the ultra violet radiation of sunlight. This free oxygen then recombines with existing O2 molecules to make O3 or ozone. This cycle is important because it helps to shield the Earth from the majority of harmful ultra violet radiation turning it to harmless heat before it reaches the Earth’s surface.

The assumption of an oxygen-free atmosphere has also been rejected on theoretical grounds. The ozone layer around planet earth consists of a thin but critical blanket of oxygen gas in the upper atmosphere. This layer of oxygen gas blocks deadly levels of ultraviolet radiation from the sun.9 Without oxygen in the early atmosphere, there could have been no ozone layer over that early earth. Without an ozone layer, all life on the surface of planet earth would face certain death from exposure to intense ultraviolet radiation. Furthermore, the chemical building blocks of proteins, RNA and DNA, would be quickly annihilated because ultraviolet radiation destroys their chemical bonds.10 It doesn't matter if these newly formed building blocks are in the atmosphere, on dry ground, or under water.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,14:58   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 17 2015,07:11)

Quote
You're absolutely right and I've been telling people for years that Fifi the Pink Unicorn God and her herd of My Little Ponies (with some help from the Flying Spaghetti Monster) are the intelligent designers-creators-guiders of everything. I'm sure that you agree with me.


I dear you. How couldnt i agree more... LOL...

The problem is with the "God concept" of the so called "invisible pink unicorn."

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1881-w....ht=pink

First, the ipu is NOT infinite (or it wouldn't be a unicorn) so it does NOT compare with an Infinite Creator.

Second, you know that unicorns (especially pink ones) are a literary
construct which DO NOT explain infinite regress (with respect to Uncaused
Cause, or Unmoved Mover).

Third, you don't have people all over the world worshipping the ipu and
claiming to have a personal relationship with this ipu. There are no
worship songs that I am aware of that are sung by congregations to
the ipu.

Fourth, we are not created in the Image of a horse with a single horn, in
that horses in general do not think, create and work with complex mathematics. Horses are not artistic.

Fifth, the ipu is temporal and moves from place to place and experience
duration (and is limited) from a linear progressive consecutive point of
view. (experiences time by moving from place to place).

Sixth, the invisible pink unicorn has negative evidence to its contrary
(to NOT believe it in). It is nonsense and a ridiculous appeal to an
imaginary construct which doesn't deal with the premises of an Infinite
Creator Who explains infinite regressions.

Seventh, the invisible pink unicorn never became a Man and died for the
sins of the world to demonstrate His Self-Sacrificing Love.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,15:03   

Quote (fusilier @ Nov. 17 2015,06:51)
[quote=Otangelo,Nov. 15 2015,19:26]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2015,15:07)
{snip}
Well, was coded, complex specified information and interdependent , irreducible complex systems predicted by the ToE ? {snip}

I hope I'm not too late with this, but in 1918, 35 years before Prof. Behe was born, H.J. Muller proposed the idea of "interlocking complexity" as a consequence of Descent with Modification.

As other posters have already pointed out, "Complex Specified Information" is completely undefined, except as "That ineffable property which only Go ...err, sorry, ... The Disembodied Telic Entity can produce."

Behe's Critics' Scaffolding Falls Down

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1656-h....ed#4297

And there's another problem with the scaffolding objection. Behe defines irreducible complexity as requiring not just one part, but "several well-matched, interacting parts."


Even if you end up with an irreducibly complex system by removing parts from scaffolding, you still had to build the scaffolding. How does unguided evolution build the scaffolding by adding parts?

In that regard, adding parts to build scaffolding may be more complicated than ID critics would admit. Adding a part isn't always that simple, even if it isn't indispensible. Sometimes simply getting a functional protein-protein interaction is beyond the reach of Darwinian evolution. In 2004, Behe and Snoke published a paper in Protein Science reporting results of computer simulations and theoretical calculations. They showed that the Darwinian evolution of a simple functional bond between two proteins would be highly unlikely to occur in populations of multicellular organisms. The reason, simply put, is because too many amino acids would have to be fixed by non-adaptive mutations before gaining any functional binding interaction.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 3057
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,15:09   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,14:58)
The problem is with the "God concept" of the so called "invisible pink unicorn."

I have it on good authority the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a Supergod who created your puny God out of boredom one rainy Saturday afternoon.  

Refute that if you can.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Whizz-dumb from Joe Gallien, world's dumbest YEC

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 3057
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,15:14   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,15:03)
And there's another problem with the scaffolding objection. Behe defines irreducible complexity as requiring not just one part, but "several well-matched, interacting parts."


Behe is an idiot whose arguments based on IC were gutted years ago.

Quote
Even if you end up with an irreducibly complex system by removing parts from scaffolding, you still had to build the scaffolding. How does unguided evolution build the scaffolding by adding parts?


Like this.



--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Whizz-dumb from Joe Gallien, world's dumbest YEC

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1703
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,17:49   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,03:48)
We know that intelligence outside of the human realm is possible. We have lots and lots of evidence of dualism, and out-of the body experiences, and near death experiences, which indicate that intelligence can exist without being bond to the physical body.

You do realize "Ghostbusters" wasn't a documentary?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1703
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,17:51   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2015,20:58)
Having fun with the copypastafarian, folks?

More fun than Gaulin's diary/autobiography.

But that bar's pretty low.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11119
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,18:38   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 17 2015,17:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2015,20:58)
Having fun with the copypastafarian, folks?

More fun than Gaulin's diary/autobiography.

But that bar's pretty low.

Gary will be

attention whores, both of them.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,18:44   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 17 2015,17:49)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,03:48)
We know that intelligence outside of the human realm is possible. We have lots and lots of evidence of dualism, and out-of the body experiences, and near death experiences, which indicate that intelligence can exist without being bond to the physical body.

You do realize "Ghostbusters" wasn't a documentary?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1284-n....dualism


Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivi....NDE.htm

division of Cardiology, Hospital Rijnstate, Arnhem, Netherlands (P van Lommel MD); Tilburg, Netherlands (R van Wees PhD); Nijmegen, Netherlands (V Meyers PhD); and Capelle a/d Ijssel, Netherlands (I Elfferich PhD)

"During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11119
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,19:12   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,18:44)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 17 2015,17:49)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,03:48)
We know that intelligence outside of the human realm is possible. We have lots and lots of evidence of dualism, and out-of the body experiences, and near death experiences, which indicate that intelligence can exist without being bond to the physical body.

You do realize "Ghostbusters" wasn't a documentary?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1284-n....dualism


Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivi....NDE.htm

division of Cardiology, Hospital Rijnstate, Arnhem, Netherlands (P van Lommel MD); Tilburg, Netherlands (R van Wees PhD); Nijmegen, Netherlands (V Meyers PhD); and Capelle a/d Ijssel, Netherlands (I Elfferich PhD)

"During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....r-death

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 3057
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,19:20   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,18:44)
Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands

(facepalm) Now we gotta listen to this woo. You must have to pass a gullibility test in which you reject all science for speculative nonsense to be a YEC.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Whizz-dumb from Joe Gallien, world's dumbest YEC

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,19:46   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 17 2015,19:20)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,18:44)
Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands

(facepalm) Now we gotta listen to this woo. You must have to pass a gullibility test in which you reject all science for speculative nonsense to be a YEC.

To actually believe in YEC one has to be delusional, but to espouse it one only has to be deceitful.  Of course there can be some combination of the two.

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2927
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,20:03   

Meh.

YHWH is a literary construct, too. Like Zeus and Odin.

Yawn.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,21:26   

To Otangelo, science is only useful when he thinks it supports his beliefs.

Just like every other creationist. Shame about that.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,22:24   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,12:58)
[quote=The whole truth,Nov. 17 2015,07:11][/quote]
Quote
You're absolutely right and I've been telling people for years that Fifi the Pink Unicorn God and her herd of My Little Ponies (with some help from the Flying Spaghetti Monster) are the intelligent designers-creators-guiders of everything. I'm sure that you agree with me.


I dear you. How couldnt i agree more... LOL...

The problem is with the "God concept" of the so called "invisible pink unicorn."

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1881-w....ht=pink

First, the ipu is NOT infinite (or it wouldn't be a unicorn) so it does NOT compare with an Infinite Creator.

Second, you know that unicorns (especially pink ones) are a literary
construct which DO NOT explain infinite regress (with respect to Uncaused
Cause, or Unmoved Mover).

Third, you don't have people all over the world worshipping the ipu and
claiming to have a personal relationship with this ipu. There are no
worship songs that I am aware of that are sung by congregations to
the ipu.

Fourth, we are not created in the Image of a horse with a single horn, in
that horses in general do not think, create and work with complex mathematics. Horses are not artistic.

Fifth, the ipu is temporal and moves from place to place and experience
duration (and is limited) from a linear progressive consecutive point of
view. (experiences time by moving from place to place).

Sixth, the invisible pink unicorn has negative evidence to its contrary
(to NOT believe it in). It is nonsense and a ridiculous appeal to an
imaginary construct which doesn't deal with the premises of an Infinite
Creator Who explains infinite regressions.

Seventh, the invisible pink unicorn never became a Man and died for the
sins of the world to demonstrate His Self-Sacrificing Love.

Blasphemer! Bigot! Truth hater! Evil purveyor and worshiper of a false God! Fool! You better pray to Fifi and the FSM and beg them to have mercy on you.

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

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

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,23:50   

[quote=Otangelo,Nov. 15 2015,21:09][/quote]
 
Quote
No evidence that RNA molecules ever had the broad range of catalytic activities


No evidence? That's a lie.

What is peptidyltransferase? I suggest you reply in two parts:

1) Meyer's lie; and
2) The truth.

 
Quote
an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis." The RNA world is thus a hypothetical system behind which there is little positive evidence,

Peptidyltransferase catalyzes the central stem in protein synthesis. What is it? This is a simple factual question.

 
Quote
… investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.

When was that written and what is peptidyltransferase?
 
Quote
The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future.

At least we know the details for peptidyltransferase. Why does Meyer lie to his readers about it?

 
Quote
The best claimed evidence of an "RNA World" includes the fact that there are RNA enzymes and genomes, and that cells use RNA to convert the DNA code into proteins.

Lie.
 
Quote
However, RNA plays only a supporting role in the cell,

Another lie. What is peptidyltransferase?

 
Quote
RNA experts have created a variety of RNA molecules which can perform biochemical functions through what is commonly termed "test tube evolution."

What performs the essential function of peptidyltransferase?
 
Quote
However, "test tube evolution" is just a description for what is in reality nothing more than chemical engineering in the laboratory employing Darwinian principles; that does not imply that there is some known pathway through which these molecules could arise naturally.

I'm talking about the peptidyltransferase that is the center of protein synthesis in your body.

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,03:41   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 17 2015,20:55)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Nov. 17 2015,06:51)

       
Quote

HAHA! Oh, the irony.


yep......photolysis actually isnt helping your case.... [...]



You just respond to trigger words. 'Photolysis? Oh yeah, I've heard of that ... lemme see ... I think I've written something on that ...(copypastecopypaste)'.

Photolysis of simpler molecules can generate amino acids (at, admittedly, low yields). Therefore, the thermodynamics of the situation cannot automatically mean that all amino acids will be destroyed by uv. You want a reference? Your own reference was to your own frigging musings! So I'll reference mine in response. Sam says ...

The absence of an ozone layer is hardly a problem under clouds, rocks or the sea, is it? Indeed, holes in the ozone layer today don't result in the instant molecular disintegration of organisms under them. So you are, in short, talking shite.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,05:23   

Quote (JAM @ Nov. 17 2015,23:50)
[quote=Otangelo,Nov. 15 2015,21:09][/quote]
 
Quote
No evidence that RNA molecules ever had the broad range of catalytic activities


No evidence? That's a lie.

What is peptidyltransferase? I suggest you reply in two parts:

1) Meyer's lie; and
2) The truth.

 
Quote
an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis." The RNA world is thus a hypothetical system behind which there is little positive evidence,

Peptidyltransferase catalyzes the central stem in protein synthesis. What is it? This is a simple factual question.

 
Quote
… investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.

When was that written and what is peptidyltransferase?
 
Quote
The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future.

At least we know the details for peptidyltransferase. Why does Meyer lie to his readers about it?

 
Quote
The best claimed evidence of an "RNA World" includes the fact that there are RNA enzymes and genomes, and that cells use RNA to convert the DNA code into proteins.

Lie.
 
Quote
However, RNA plays only a supporting role in the cell,

Another lie. What is peptidyltransferase?

 
Quote
RNA experts have created a variety of RNA molecules which can perform biochemical functions through what is commonly termed "test tube evolution."

What performs the essential function of peptidyltransferase?
 
Quote
However, "test tube evolution" is just a description for what is in reality nothing more than chemical engineering in the laboratory employing Darwinian principles; that does not imply that there is some known pathway through which these molecules could arise naturally.

I'm talking about the peptidyltransferase that is the center of protein synthesis in your body.

[QUOTE][No evidence? That's a lie.

What is peptidyltransferase? I suggest you reply in two parts:

1) Meyer's lie; and
2) The truth./QUOTE]

peptidyltransferase is not your life-saving buoy. It forms peptide bonds between adjacent amino acids using tRNAs during the translation process of protein biosynthesis. Thats a highly specific task, which requires  all other ribosome parts et al.  in place , otherwise it would have no function. Furthermore, there is a huge gap between this advanced peptyl bond formation through  peptidyltransferase , and in a prebiotic word, where this machinery were not in place.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2130-p....origins

How could the gap be closed ? Not only are prebiotic mechanisms unlikely, but the transition would required the emergence of all the complex machinery and afterwards transition from one mechanism to the other. Tamura admits that fact clearly : the ultimate route to the ribosome remains unclear.   It takes a big leap of faith to believe, that could be possible in any circumstances.

The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment.

http://phys.org/news....tml#jCp

But for the hypothesis to be correct, ancient RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes. That's a hard sell; scientists calculate that it would take much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication. Given Earth's age of 4.5 billion years, living systems run entirely by RNA could not have reproduced and evolved either fast or accurately enough to give rise to the vast biological complexity on Earth today.


The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....2793875

(i) RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically;
(ii) RNA is inherently unstable;
(iii) catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only; and
(iv) the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited.

  
  490 replies since Nov. 15 2015,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (17) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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