Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,571 Year: 4,828/9,624 Month: 176/427 Week: 89/85 Day: 6/20 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What I have noticed about these debates...
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 46 of 238 (25447)
12-04-2002 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Mr. Davies
12-04-2002 10:58 AM


Hi Mr. D:
quote:
That leads me to ask when is something considered in the realm of Chemistry or Biology? Is abiogenisis chemistry or biology?
Ahh well, there's the rub as it were. In my personal opinion, there's a grey area where organic chemical molecules start taking on the properties we associate with life: replication, heritable modification, etc. The problem, again in my opinion, resides in how we define "life" - a question to which I have no good answer to be honest. Are virii alive? Are prions alive, for that matter? Are self replicating inorganics like certain clay matrices or crystals "alive"? Abiogenesis deals with the transition between non-living organic chemistry and living systems - however you define "living". I will state, unequivocally, that biological evolution deals with what happens AFTER you have a living system, and in spite of the titles of the three articles I referenced (i.e., "biochemical evolution"), doesn't relate at all to the pure organic chemistry of abiogenesis. Give me an organic self-replicator, and I'll be happy to proclaim it "alive", and hence subject to evolution and evolutionary biological study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-04-2002 10:58 AM Mr. Davies has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-04-2002 7:32 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 238 (25488)
12-04-2002 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Quetzal
12-04-2002 1:28 PM


Thank you Quetzal.
Yes, that is something that is an interesting topic. Are Virii or Prions alive. If they are, were they on the Ark? If so then which cow had the "mad cow" disease?
------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Quetzal, posted 12-04-2002 1:28 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2002 3:25 AM Mr. Davies has not replied
 Message 67 by gene90, posted 12-05-2002 7:08 PM Mr. Davies has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 238 (25503)
12-04-2002 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by jcgirl92
12-01-2002 11:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by jcgirl92:
Can do - and will do so! I'll be back!
So, jcgirl, will you back soon to resume this thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 11:00 PM jcgirl92 has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6552 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 49 of 238 (25525)
12-05-2002 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Mr. Davies
12-04-2002 7:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
Thank you Quetzal.
Yes, that is something that is an interesting topic. Are Virii or Prions alive. If they are, were they on the Ark? If so then which cow had the "mad cow" disease?

LOL!
There was only one cow on the ark and a bull...both had mad cow..but the pair of "British government kind" denied there was a problem
On a more serious note, ahem, why would a prion be defined as alive or not? They are a product of an endogenous gene and hence a component of a living being (though with an as yet uknown function)..thought to be copper transport but not clearly established. Whether a virus could be considered alive or not is an interesting question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-04-2002 7:32 PM Mr. Davies has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Quetzal, posted 12-05-2002 4:14 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 50 of 238 (25531)
12-05-2002 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Mammuthus
12-05-2002 3:25 AM


quote:
On a more serious note, ahem, why would a prion be defined as alive or not? They are a product of an endogenous gene and hence a component of a living being (though with an as yet uknown function)..thought to be copper transport but not clearly established. Whether a virus could be considered alive or not is an interesting question.
On prions - well, yeah, it is a gene product. However, the way that a mutant PrPsc can transform normal PrPc versions of the same protein into the infectious version exponentially is sort of like some of the ideas about how early macromolecules reproduced - err, replicated - in abiogenesis. So a prion falls squarely into that grey area between "living" and "non-living" (c.f., the "Lipid World" hypothesis). A better case can be made for virii, of course - they're really just a form of endoparasite with all the bells and whistles removed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2002 3:25 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2002 4:53 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6552 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 51 of 238 (25536)
12-05-2002 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Quetzal
12-05-2002 4:14 AM


On prions - well, yeah, it is a gene product. However, the way that a mutant PrPsc can transform normal PrPc versions of the same protein into the infectious version exponentially is sort of like some of the ideas about how early macromolecules reproduced - err, replicated - in abiogenesis. So a prion falls squarely into that grey area between "living" and "non-living" (c.f., the "Lipid World" hypothesis). A better case can be made for virii, of course - they're really just a form of endoparasite with all the bells and whistles removed.[/QUOTE]
Hi Quetzal
I still think prions are distinct. The PrPc version is a normal transcribed and translated gene product with tissue specificity. In sporadic cases of CJD, by unknown mechanisms, enough PrPc is converted to PrPsc to produce pathogenesis. The only way the PrPsc in an infected individual is going to "reproduce" is if someone eats the infected individual. And even then, at least with human prion diseases, infection has a low probability of pathogenesis. But most important, the PrPc to PrPsc conversion is not reproduction or heritable mutation. It is merely converting existing protein from one form to another without generation of more overall prion protein. It is in effect not living..it is more like a catalytic reaction between two states. This is distinct from viruses. The contention that viruses are not alive is based on their inability to reproduce without a host. However, once host transcription and translation machinery have been co-opted the virus can reproduce itself, is subject to heritable mutation, and is subject to all the constraints of population genetics. So in principle I see a virus as a living entity. As for lacking all the bells and whistles..that is true from some viruses. But others are really really complicated with all sorts of bells and whistles..like HIV for example.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Quetzal, posted 12-05-2002 4:14 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 52 of 238 (25556)
12-05-2002 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by zipzip
12-01-2002 5:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
Unfortunately, the whole debate itself is unproductive. Atheists want theists to prove the existence of God. Occasionally, the tables are turned and the atheist is asked to prove the non-existence of God. Both are equally reasonable requests, and both are probably impossible as far as science is concerned.
The Theists are the one making a positive claim, "God exists." It is up to them to provide evidence for this claim.
quote:
What is left are (in the Christianity debate, as most of this site refers to) the Bible's claims as a theist's evidence of the existence of God and a particular atheist's assertions that these same claims are false as his or her proof of God's nonexistence.
The Atheist doesn't have to prove god's non-existence.
The non-existence of God is the default option because there isn't any evidence for God, only personal faith and belief.
quote:
The one has faith in the accuracy of the Bible and the other has faith in the fallacy of the Bible. So it is not really a scientific debate at all but a question of faith.
mmmm, I think it is actually a question of evidence and faith.
Belief without evidence = faith.
It is also not accurate to say that Atheists do not believe in God because they perceive the Bible to be false.
quote:
Which is why I can be a scientist and believe in God at the same time (just like Newton, Gauss, Einstein, and a number of other bright folks).
Einstein didn't believe in God like you probably think he did. He for sure did not believe in a personal god, and also called himself an Agnostic. He did not accept any of the traditional arguments for the existence of God.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by zipzip, posted 12-01-2002 5:55 AM zipzip has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 238 (25557)
12-05-2002 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ten-sai
12-01-2002 4:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Ten-sai:
Hi Mr. Bill!
You said:
What qualifies you to be my peer, mister potty-mouth?
I say:
Do you mean someone with a potty mouth isn't YOUR peer? Maybe you could define "potty-mouth" for us????
Perhaps your flame was directed towards this end:
quote:
I was wondering...are you in a mental hospital for the crimially-insane somewhere and read a lot of law books?
Are you, like Shrafinator, a hypocrite Mr. Bill? Or is your modus operandi to also acquiesce to hypocrites so long as your position is supported? Good sound logic there!
More evidence of sound logic: I made an assertion of a substantive nature, illuminating certain LIES perpetuated, or acquiesced to at the very least, by some members on this forum. It is uncertain at this time if you fall into that category...
Nevertheless, instead of addressing substance, you impliedly conclude I am not your peer. What a bore you are!!! Anyway, before I tell you what qualifies ME as YOUR peer, you must LOGICALLY lay a proper foundation by telling me precisely what are the OBJECTIVE qualifications for a peer. Afterwards, establish YOU are a peer' under the "objective" guidelines (what qualifies YOU to be mine or anybody else's peer?). Good luck!!!!
We can talk about these irrelevant ad hominem things if you want, seeing how you clearly want to avoid getting into a discusion which addresses the logical FALLACY of certain closely held beliefs by the evolution crowd, to wit: "the God of the gaps fallacy" and "abiogenesis is logically irrelevant to evolution"....both untrue, and I bet both of these beliefs are embraced by yourself??? Who is surprised you would get ticked off? My guess is that I was the first to challenge these patently FALSE reliances of yours et al on pseudologic.
One last thing, "Dr." Bill, you wouldn't happen to be a doctor of logic would you? How did I know you weren't?
Peace,
Ten-sai

Wow, you do really need to look into some anger-management therapy or something.
Wow, being a Christian makes some people really furious and abusive and abrasive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ten-sai, posted 12-01-2002 4:54 PM Ten-sai has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 238 (25560)
12-05-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
12-01-2002 7:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Quetzal
The point is that it is up to the reader to distinguish between the idiot YECs, the misinformed YECs and the well informed and honest YECs. We can't control what uneducated YECs will post on websites!
YECS have to put up with uneducated and completely biased evolutionists just as much as you guys have to put up with misinformed, uneducated and biased YECs.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-01-2002]

No, not "just as much", TB.
There are far, far more "If man evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still around?" folks around than the opposite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-01-2002 7:28 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 12-05-2002 10:05 AM nator has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22605
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 55 of 238 (25567)
12-05-2002 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
12-05-2002 9:38 AM


Hi Allison!
I agree with TB that the uneducated, uninformed and biased populate both sides in great numbers, but I agree with you that those representing the two sides at discussion boards like this are clearly different in their degree of familiarity with science. And I think I know why.
On the one hand, uneducated but sincerely religious people who accept the Creationist perspective are frequent visitors to discussion boards because of the perceived threat of evolution to their religious beliefs. On the other hand, the main reason evolutionists come here is because of the perceived threat of Creationism to science and/or science education, and it takes a certain degree of scientific knowledge and interest just to perceive this threat. This means that on average, at discussion boards like this the number of evolutionists with good scientic backgrounds will always well outnumber Creationists with equally good backgrounds.
I don't believe that one can conclude from this that in the general population those who accept Creationism are in general less informed about science than those who accept evoution, because this is just one little bit of evidence. You'd need more evidence from broader sources to reach the more general conclusion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 12-05-2002 9:38 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 12-05-2002 10:52 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 60 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2002 10:55 AM Percy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 238 (25568)
12-05-2002 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jcgirl92
12-01-2002 9:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by jcgirl92:
You said, "Now let me explain to you the fundamental difference between real science and Creation "science".
Real science always works from the evidence found and observed in nature, then formulates hypothese and theories in order to explain that evidence. If reliable new evidence comes to light, it may strengthen the existing theory, or it may contradict it, in which case the theory is modified or replaced. It is this tentativity, or falsifiability, of science, that makes it so dynamic and powerful. What we think is true about nature can change if the evidence is there."
quote:
*I want to ask are all Evolution-Scientists really as "scientific" as you think? How many times have we heard about a scientist who had doctored up stuff for the sake of the Theory of Evolution?
Almost none.
It almost never happens in science that someone lies or fakes data, because the peer review system is so stringent and the culture demands honesty and integrity. Remember, just because a scientist says something doesn't mean that everyone automatically believes her. Other scientists immediately begin work to replicate the experiments to see if the results are the same.
...and if they do lie or cheat, they are found out by other Scientists, and their entire careers are ruined. The scientific community holds professional integrity to be extremely important.
What happens to all of those hundreds of Creationists who lie about their credentials or who make up data or do shoddy work? Nothing, usually, because within the Creation "science" community, it doesn't so much matter if you do these things as long as what you are saying supports the dogma.
Here are a couple of links; the first is about questionalble Creationist credentials, and the second is a discussion of how creationists handle their errors compared to real science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Scientific Creationism and Error
quote:
Ernst Haekel is notorius! Someone wrote of him, "He became Darwin?s chief European apostle proclaiming the gospel of evolution with evangelistic fervor, not only to the university intelligentsia but to the common man by popular books and to the working classes by lectures in rented halls." Are all Evolution-scientists as unbiased as you would like to think...?
Oh, for heaven's sake, this is from over a hundred years ago!
quote:
You also said, "Creation "science", by contrast, begins not with the evidence found in nature, but with a given interpretation of the Protestant Christian Bible. All of nature must be made to fit into this interpretation of this religious book, which is also held to be without error. So, there is nothing at all which can count against this Bible."
*Both Evolution-scientists and Creation-scientists have their theories with which they interpret the same evidence! You would have to agree that there are not too many scientists who do not have something by which they interpret the evidence they see.
You still don't get it.
Science begins with the evidence. It observes what is in nature. It then creates explanations,called theories, which explain the evidence. Everything in science is subject to change in the light of new evidence.
Creation "science" does not begin with the evidence. It begins with inviolate religious dogma. This dogma can never change, so the evidence must be ignored or forced into the unchangeable dogma.
It is not a simple matter of a different interpretation of the evidence. It is a matter of Creation science claiming the authority of science when they don't even come close to actually doing science.
When the evidence leads them down a certain path, the scientist says, "OK, this is where the evidence leads."
When the evidence lead a Creationist down the same path, they say something like, "The evidence LOOKS like it leads us here, but it really doesn't because the Bible says that it can't. I'll just come up with ANY explanation for this phenomena that fits the Bible no matter how it contradicts the evidence."
quote:
You asked, "However, I am curious; what do you think of Theistic Evolution?"
*Well, I don't think of it at all actually! Don't want to!
Fear of thought.
A sad but common quality of many Creationists.
Why do you fear thinking about Theistic Evolution?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 9:37 PM jcgirl92 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 238 (25572)
12-05-2002 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by zipzip
12-04-2002 1:44 AM


quote:
At the same time, we know from the Bible that God is (or wishes to be) our personal saviour and that he intervenes in the world actively as well, in the sense that he desires an interactive relationship with us and makes himself known to us in many ways.
What ways?
quote:
He claims that he is "the way the truth and the life." If he is right, then to reject him out of hand is the most dreadful mistake a person can make. In other words, we are wise to evaluate his claims seriously.
You are assuming that the Bible is true, and that Jesus existed, and if he existed, was actuallythe son of god, of course.
quote:
If the Bible is right everything we learn about the natural world will all fit in the end.
But what if the Bible is wrong and it doesn't fit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by zipzip, posted 12-04-2002 1:44 AM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by zipzip, posted 12-06-2002 7:31 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 58 of 238 (25573)
12-05-2002 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Ten-sai
12-04-2002 8:22 AM


quote:
The response I received from Shrafinator vindicated any potential error in profiling a typical liberal American woman who indeed may have become the men they?ve always wanted to be?
Yep, you sure do fear women.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Ten-sai, posted 12-04-2002 8:22 AM Ten-sai has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 238 (25578)
12-05-2002 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
12-05-2002 10:05 AM


quote:

I don't believe that one can conclude from this that in the general population those who accept Creationism are in general less informed about science than those who accept evoution, because this is just one little bit of evidence. You'd need more evidence from broader sources to reach the more general conclusion.
--Percy

Hey Percy!
How is this for some evidence?
The "Yes But" problem
It pretty clearly correlates level of education with the liklihood of disbelief of evolution; the less education one has, the more likely it is that you disbelieve evolution, AND the more likely it is that you do believe that God created the Earth and everything in it 10,000 years ago.
[Fixed quoting. --Admin]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 12-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 12-05-2002 10:05 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2002 10:59 AM nator has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6552 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 60 of 238 (25579)
12-05-2002 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
12-05-2002 10:05 AM


On the one hand, uneducated but sincerely religious people who accept the Creationist perspective are frequent visitors to discussion boards because of the perceived threat of evolution to their religious beliefs. On the other hand, the main reason evolutionists come here is because of the perceived threat of Creationism to science and/or science education, and it takes a certain degree of scientific knowledge and interest just to perceive this threat. This means that on average, at discussion boards like this the number of evolutionists with good scientic backgrounds will always well outnumber Creationists with equally good backgrounds.
I don't believe that one can conclude from this that in the general population those who accept Creationism are in general less informed about science than those who accept evoution, because this is just one little bit of evidence. You'd need more evidence from broader sources to reach the more general conclusion.
***********************
I disagree. Why wouldnt "professional creationists" (if you can take that seriously)not be equally compelled to defend their ideas in this kind of forum or try to forward their agendas? Other than Behe, are there any creationist "scientists" that even have a background in sceintific fields remotely related to evolution? From everything I have read of them or from them (including Behe), they cling to the same cartoonish versions of science and the same fallacies as their less informed confederates. On the one hand, one cannot conclude that all creationists are less informed about some aspects of science i.e. maybe there are some excellent creationist physicists or engineers etc....but when it comes to evolution, they turn off the part of their brains that is capable of scientific inquiry...thus far, I have never seen or heard of an informed creationist population geneticist, zoologist, etc etc. and if they do exist, they certainly do not appear to be representative of the movement.
Do you have evidence of a greater scientific understanding among creationists from a wider sampling than EvC?
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 12-05-2002 10:05 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by gene90, posted 12-05-2002 7:13 PM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 71 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-06-2002 1:48 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024