Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
nator
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 181 of 304 (316417)
05-30-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by inkorrekt
05-30-2006 9:19 PM


Re: age of the earth
quote:
The fundamental premise of evolution is that everything including the complex systems came into existence by self organization, random choice and mutations.
You forgot natural selection, which is the opposite of random.
quote:
There is no evidence for these phenomenon.
Er, there's no evidence for mutation? Are you sure?
quote:
Whatever evolution is failing to explain, ID only provides an alternative explanation.
What are some falsifiable predictions of ID?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by inkorrekt, posted 05-30-2006 9:19 PM inkorrekt has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 182 of 304 (316507)
05-31-2006 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by inkorrekt
05-30-2006 9:13 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
Just because you are working on evolution does not make it right and acceptable.
Provide a better theory. One that still fits all the facts as well as evolution does.
Chemical Evolution is impossible. It has been proved time and again.
False: nobody has proven that it is impossible. Rather the opposite, experiments keep getting closer, and lots of other gaps in our knowledge are getting filled in with information we didn't have 50 years ago.
If you are going to prove it, then the existing Chemical laws need to be rewritten!!!!!!!!!
I don't need to prove it, just demonstrate that it is possible. And to do that the chemical laws do not need to be rewritten.
Sorry, your argument is just your incredulity against the world. Add a few more exclamation points, no difference.
The world has already solved the problem once eh?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by inkorrekt, posted 05-30-2006 9:13 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Shh
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 304 (316900)
06-01-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by inkorrekt
05-30-2006 9:19 PM


Re: age of the earth
There is no evidence for these phenomenon.
Hi, you included self organising systems in this, but, I bet you can't name one natural system which isn't self organising.
I've tried and I can't come up with a single one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by inkorrekt, posted 05-30-2006 9:19 PM inkorrekt has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 184 of 304 (316916)
06-01-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by inkorrekt
05-30-2006 9:13 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
Just because you are working on evolution does not make it right and acceptable.
I follow the first part, but not the second. In what sense does evolution need to be "acceptable"? Do you mean to say that you won't accept evolution unless the theory is changed in such a way that you don't find the conclusions of it so troubling?
Honestly I don't see the relevance, here, of what is acceptable or not. The question is - what is the accurate model?
If you are going to prove it, then the existing Chemical laws need to be rewritten!!!!!!!!!
Your plurality of exclamation points don't constitute an argument. Would you care to actually support this sweeping statement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by inkorrekt, posted 05-30-2006 9:13 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by inkorrekt, posted 06-02-2006 7:00 PM crashfrog has replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6159 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 185 of 304 (317073)
06-02-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by crashfrog
06-01-2006 7:52 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
I have already written that the classical experiment only yielded equal parts of the D and L forms of glycine and alanine. Such a mixture is biologically useless. Nothing can come out of it. In a mixture like this there cannot be any self organization, random choice or natural selection.Even after millions of years they remain only as mixtures and perhaps time will degrade them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by crashfrog, posted 06-01-2006 7:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 06-03-2006 12:01 AM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 187 by Chiroptera, posted 06-03-2006 1:58 PM inkorrekt has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 186 of 304 (317126)
06-03-2006 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by inkorrekt
06-02-2006 7:00 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
I have already written that the classical experiment only yielded equal parts of the D and L forms of glycine and alanine. Such a mixture is biologically useless.
Oh, hardly. (Didn't you make this erroneous claim once before? I don't get the sense that you're actually reading the posts of your opponents. If you're not doing that, why are you even here?)
Many bacteria use right-handed aminos in addition to the left-handed ones, so an equal mixture is hardly "biologically useless." There's no need to rewrite the laws of chemistry, as you asserted. All that is required is that you actually educate yourself about the chemistry of living things. Also? Glycine isn't handed - it doesn't have D and L forms. That's a pretty surprising mistake for someone who claims knowledge of chemistry to make. Can you explain this discrepancy?
Edited by crashfrog, : Added fact about glycine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by inkorrekt, posted 06-02-2006 7:00 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Rob, posted 06-03-2006 10:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 304 (317218)
06-03-2006 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by inkorrekt
06-02-2006 7:00 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
quote:
I have already written that the classical experiment only yielded equal parts of the D and L forms of glycine and alanine.
Actually, you have already written that the classical experiment only yielded glycine.
At any rate, you were then informed that the classical experiment produced much, much more than this, and furthermore, you have been informed that glycine is not chiral and so does not have D and L forms.
As crashfrog points out, these are odd errors for a person knowledgeable in biochemistry to make, and it is particularly surprising to see them repeated after they were pointed out. Are you ready to admit that you actually don't know much about biochemistry?

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by inkorrekt, posted 06-02-2006 7:00 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by inkorrekt, posted 06-18-2006 7:58 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 188 of 304 (317378)
06-03-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by crashfrog
06-03-2006 12:01 AM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
There you are crashfrog, I thought I'd run you back to the nipple...
Did the rest of you see the conversation elsewhere?
http://EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll -->EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll
Posts 103 through 121 (maybe more)
Rob

Any biters in the stream?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 06-03-2006 12:01 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Belfry, posted 06-03-2006 10:22 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 06-03-2006 10:55 PM Rob has replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5163 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 189 of 304 (317387)
06-03-2006 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Rob
06-03-2006 10:06 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
Followed your link, and saw a lot of you replying to yourself and going way off topic.
The rules are a little more strictly enforced in the science forums as compared to the coffee house. Watch your step.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Rob, posted 06-03-2006 10:06 PM Rob has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 190 of 304 (317401)
06-03-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Rob
06-03-2006 10:06 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
There you are crashfrog, I thought I'd run you back to the nipple...
You stopped being interesting when you started talking nonsense, so I don't think our discussion in that thread is going to continue. Plus that topic isn't of relevance to this one.
Did you have a comment on the topic of this thread? Or a specific rebuttal to the points I raised in the post you just replied to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Rob, posted 06-03-2006 10:06 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Rob, posted 06-04-2006 12:06 AM crashfrog has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 191 of 304 (317420)
06-04-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by crashfrog
06-03-2006 10:55 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
OFF TOPIC - DO NOT RESPOND

<"Those who cannot be defeated intellectualy by NWR and instead speak with precision... will be silenced by NWR">
Nonesense? Why it was the 'sense' that scared you off my friend.
You don't believe in sense. The irony (and a fatal contradiction) is that you try to make 'sense' of that with all kinds of brilliant maneuvering.
You believe in what you do not know (by your own philosophical absurdity). Whereas some of us believe in what we do know. If we bring faith into the picture, Jesus did not come to inspire 'belief', but to give sight to the blind.
Don't get me wrong, you are free to have faith in evolution. You just have to believe in things that make no sense. And since all information is only abstraction to you (as we discussed in the other thread), you are free to make it (abstraction) up as you go.
I can understand where you are coming from. As you are now, so once was I...
You said, "You're conflating a number of seperate concepts that really have nothing to do with each other. For instance, an "abstraction" is not the same as a "lie." Many abstractions are true.
A book contains no information if no one is able to read it. Information is simply an arrangement of matter - an abstraction - that causes changes in our brains, through our senses, that we recognize as information. If that information happens to be a true statement about the world, it's not because of anything the statement contains in itself; it's because we all have rules about how to create statements that improve the odds that they'll be true. We call those rules "reason."
And, no, I'm not condradicting myself. My statements are both abstractions and true."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And I replied, "A book 'cannot exist' if 'no-one' is able to read it, Because 'no-one' was able to write it. At least, not unless we create an abstraction to imagine such a place.
All lie's are abstractions! Imaginations and inventions. Imposters!
Stop trying to '''''prove''''' abstractions to me please, lest you defeat yourself.
With the Sword of the counsellor, Rob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, this is a forum deticated to a controversial subject. I would like to assert that on one side of the battle, we have individuals (like yourself) who like very much to bully the opposition by declaring that their arguments are abstractions, inferring that there is no truth.
Then, with the majority of popular science (watch out for anything 'pop') on your side, you claim to promote a philosophy that is in fact true, for the purpose of denying truth.
It is far too obvious for you to see, that things are far simpler than you'd like them to be. What is a delight to me, is that within that simplicity, is an infinite sea of knowledge. It is knowable (hence the 'know' in both terms). It is coherent. It is testable. It is based on fact. It is not just believable to suit an agenda, but is in fact the only worldview that forces you to give up your agenda, hence it's unpopular stigma!
You talk about books that don't exist, I talk about the one that existed before creation.
Here is an example of 'reason', 'knowledge', 'light', 'understanding' etc (All synonomous terms):
John 1:1-4
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Sorry for the sermon, but without 'reason', all of this talk is simply abstraction, Rob
Rob, this is both off topic and also on the science side. If you have scientific evidence to present, fine, but sermons carry no weight over here.
Edited by AdminNWR, : message off-topic
Edited by Rob, : Extreme displeasure with arrogance and a lack of willingness to tolerate it.
Edited by Rob, : oops...
Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Any biters in the stream?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 06-03-2006 10:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6159 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 192 of 304 (323021)
06-18-2006 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Chiroptera
06-03-2006 1:58 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
I have not been in this forum for a while.The racemic mixture of amino acids were formed in the classical experiment by Miller and Urey. I had cross referenced this information from a published book. How could this informationbe wrong? anyway, after your posts, I was searching for the D-Glycine. I found only 1 reference. I still need to dig into this. I believe this soup also yielded aspartic acid and alanine. No matter what it is, nothing happened with this soup. No polymer was formed.The bottom line is nothing happened beyond the formation of basic amino acids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Chiroptera, posted 06-03-2006 1:58 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2006 8:16 PM inkorrekt has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 193 of 304 (323029)
06-18-2006 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by inkorrekt
06-18-2006 7:58 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
The bottom line is nothing happened beyond the formation of basic amino acids.
Funny, that is what the experiment was run to determine ... ie
Nothing happened beyond the experiment was a success.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by inkorrekt, posted 06-18-2006 7:58 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by inkorrekt, posted 07-08-2006 2:19 AM RAZD has replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6159 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 194 of 304 (329779)
07-08-2006 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by RAZD
06-18-2006 8:16 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
Nothing happened beyond the experiment was a success
However, this experiment is being quoted as proof for creation of life from non living material.Does this success have anything to do with life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2006 8:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by ReverendDG, posted 07-08-2006 2:33 AM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2006 9:58 PM inkorrekt has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4187 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 195 of 304 (329784)
07-08-2006 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by inkorrekt
07-08-2006 2:19 AM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
However, this experiment is being quoted as proof for creation of life from non living material.Does this success have anything to do with life?
no its not, name one publication that said it was "proof" of anything more than amino acids are possible to create
this is a creationist credited strawman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by inkorrekt, posted 07-08-2006 2:19 AM inkorrekt 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