Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 166 of 415 (498816)
02-14-2009 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by traste
02-14-2009 4:47 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
High mathemathics are like differential equation,set theory, abstract algebra,number theory...just to name a few.
this is first year undergrad mathematics. How is this "high mathematics"?
One typical example of the mathemathical absurdness of evolution is that amino acids could get in there proper places in one chance in 10 to the 113(ten followed by 113 zeros).Supporters of evolution acknowledge that
Supporters of evolution (known as 'scientists' or 'intelligent, well-informed non-scientists') acknowledge that people who use the above argument are either intellectually ignorant or just stupid.
Go watch this video, learn something, then come back and we can discuss the merits of abiogenesis constructively...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 4:47 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:35 AM cavediver has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 167 of 415 (498818)
02-14-2009 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by cavediver
02-14-2009 5:00 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
Excuse me!I Have undergone rigid training in mathemathics.Not just a beginner.Since you are implying that mathemathics supports evolution could you give some?If you want to argue with me mathemathically then argue mathemathically not just asserting.You are implying that you are mathemathically smart,but you dont even give mathemathical proof that supports evolution.And I think you cannot read well the evolutionary tetx book say that evolution implies ramdomness otherwise it is product of intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 5:00 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 5:46 AM traste has replied
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 9:25 AM traste has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 168 of 415 (498819)
02-14-2009 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by traste
02-13-2009 9:06 PM


Re: Conclusions
quote:
I thougth you can read well.And what is decay in the following statement"never will the doctrine of spontaneus genaration recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment"?
It's part of the "doctrine of spontaneous generation" referred to.
You can't hope to understand what the experiment proved unless you know what the experiment was.
quote:
Some microbiolgist define spontaneous generation as a theory that living things is come from non living things.If you like to argue with that argue them not me
If they do, then they are not using the words in the exact same sense as Pasteur.
quote:
Since some of you are quoting Pilbeam as a source of your "decay"
Nobody is quoting Pilbeam on this subject. YOU wrongly tried to discuss your arguments in a thread concerning a quote from Pilbeam - even though it had nothing to do with the subject you wanted to discuss.
quote:
I will quote Stephen Meyer
I know who Meyer is. Quoting him won't do you any good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 9:06 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:45 AM PaulK has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 169 of 415 (498822)
02-14-2009 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by cavediver
02-14-2009 5:20 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
First year under graduate are you kidding?It seems you are.Abstract algebra is very different in the algebra in your mind.Since you are saying that they are not high math,could you please give high math in your mind.It does not mean since you dont know those computation they dont exist isnt it?Ill challenge you mathemathically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 5:20 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 5:49 AM traste has not replied
 Message 174 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 6:02 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 170 of 415 (498823)
02-14-2009 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by PaulK
02-14-2009 5:26 AM


Re: Conclusions
Why you are so clever in manupulating facts?The microbiologist I'll talk about use the same sense as Pasteur it was discuss in there book that Pasteur's experiment settle the idea that surrounds spontaneous genaration.You said quoting Miller would not do me any good,you are right but that is if I am supporter of evolution.Im so tired in replying you guys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2009 5:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2009 5:57 AM traste has not replied
 Message 176 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 6:19 AM traste has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 171 of 415 (498824)
02-14-2009 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by traste
02-14-2009 5:25 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
oh dear, you are wallowing, aren't you? The fact that you are asking for a mathematical support of "evolution" shows you have very little understanding of how mathematics works, and no understanding of evolution. The fact that you are confusing abiogenesis and evolution demonstrates you have no understanding of abiogenesis and evolution. You are not doing very well, are you? Your idiot picture of spontanteous formation of a complex cell is so stupid that I will not waste any time with it. Go watch the video, then get back...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:25 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 6:35 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 181 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 6:45 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 182 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 6:48 AM cavediver has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 172 of 415 (498825)
02-14-2009 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by traste
02-14-2009 5:35 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
Blowhard writes:
First year under graduate are you kidding?It seems you are.Abstract algebra is very different in the algebra in your mind.Since you are saying that they are not high math,could you please give high math in your mind.It does not mean since you dont know those computation they dont exist isnt it?Ill challenge you mathemathically.
You appear to be quite challenged already, but if you think you can gut it out with cavediver in math or physics, I'm sure we will all find it quite humorous.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:35 AM traste has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 173 of 415 (498826)
02-14-2009 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by traste
02-14-2009 5:45 AM


Re: Conclusions
quote:
Why you are so clever in manupulating facts?
Does "manipulating facts" mean "telling the truth" ? Because that's all I'm doing.
quote:
The microbiologist I'll talk about use the same sense as Pasteur it was discuss in there book that Pasteur's experiment settle the idea that surrounds spontaneous genaration.
In that case it has no great significance to the modern study of abiogenesis. Because that in no way contradicts the outcome of Pasteur's experiment.
quote:
You said quoting Miller would not do me any good,you are right but that is if I am supporter of evolution.
I said that quoting Meyer would do you no good. And the reason that it will do you no good is that Meyer is mainly a propagandist for ID.
quote:
Im so tired in replying you guys.
Yes, many creationists have a problem in dealing with well-informed and honest people. Maybe you should try to think about why that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:45 AM traste has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 174 of 415 (498827)
02-14-2009 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by traste
02-14-2009 5:35 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
First year under graduate are you kidding?
No, I'm not - given that my university employed me to teach this, I know a little about it High math? Not a term I would use, but I guess my favourite areas would be category theory, algebraic topology, and stochastic calculus.
Now, asking for mathematical support for evolution is like asking for mathematical support for cosmology - it's an idiot question, revealing your ignorance. You may ask for mathematical support for individual components of the body of work that make up cosmology, such as General Relativity, Jeans Instability, etc, but to ask those questions you would actually have to know something about the subject...
Edited by cavediver, : always using too many commas!
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:35 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 6:30 AM cavediver has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 175 of 415 (498828)
02-14-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by traste
02-14-2009 3:16 AM


Re: Conclusions
Because you imply evolution is well supported by evidence,could you please go further from that rather than asserting it is well supported?You could demonstrate whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.Mathemathics plays a big role here since we are talking chance events.But none of you guys ever me a mathemethical proof that the complexities and precision observe in life came by change.
Try this mathematical treatment:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell
Researchchannel.org
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
The real conclusion is God did it.
Nonsense. It sounds more like you are preaching than reporting on the conclusions of science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 3:16 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 6:39 AM Coyote has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 176 of 415 (498829)
02-14-2009 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by traste
02-14-2009 5:45 AM


Re: Conclusions
I must leave you to the more capable hands of cavediver and PaulK as they are far more knowledgeable and kinder than I am.
If you are still trolling around a week from now, perhaps that means you prefer my viciousness and then I will live up to my reputation.
Edited by anglagard, : more better grammer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:45 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 177 of 415 (498830)
02-14-2009 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by cavediver
02-14-2009 6:02 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
Ok.Since you are challenging me mathemathically could we start now?Prove that 1 is 2?.Proving them is just like proving that evolution is true.You could not give a mathemathiical proof of evolution since there is no such thing.And by the way Iam highly esteem in mathemathics how about you?You imply that there is no such thing as mathemathical proof in evolution of course there is no such thing because mathemathics speak againts it.But the mathemathical proof of respested British astrophycist Fred Hoyle show to me that evolution can be refute mathemathically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 6:02 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 7:22 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 178 of 415 (498831)
02-14-2009 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by cavediver
02-14-2009 5:46 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
The video say it is a product of intelligent design dont you get it?I think you have bad eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 5:46 AM cavediver has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 179 of 415 (498832)
02-14-2009 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Coyote
02-14-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Conclusions
Ill ready try that one and that is mathemathically absurd.Unintelligent cause nonsense..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 6:11 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 6:42 AM traste has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 180 of 415 (498833)
02-14-2009 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by traste
02-14-2009 6:39 AM


Re: Conclusions
Ill ready try that one and that is mathemathically absurd.Unintelligent cause nonsense..
What the on-line lecture I referred you to upthread shows is that genetic systems can come about naturally, no deities needed.
Do you have any specific arguments against that, or are you just going to continue preaching?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 6:39 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by traste, posted 03-24-2009 12:03 AM Coyote 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