Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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
traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 278 of 415 (513449)
06-28-2009 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by lyx2no
03-30-2009 5:07 PM


Re: You've Forced My Hand
lyx2no wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I am unable to respond because I am unable or unwilling to put in the effort to determine what "that thing" is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgetful nuts.
lyx2no wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it is. That is why it doesn't work as an analogy to anything anyone is saying. The first life was not a random event. Atoms and molecules won't join up in any ol' fashion as a box of auto parts will. O2 and 2H2s will with almost no encouragement form into 2H2O
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you serious? So you are now attacking the position of Dawkins?
And what do you think tha information is not persuasive to critics of evolution? For convinced Darwinist( like you) that information is enough.You have great faith,are you now one of the bishops of evolution?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Supensions to lyx2no and traste because the these exchanges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by lyx2no, posted 03-30-2009 5:07 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by lyx2no, posted 06-28-2009 10:05 PM traste has replied

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


Message 280 of 415 (513459)
06-28-2009 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by lyx2no
06-28-2009 10:05 PM


Re: Is lyx2 no the origin of the word idiot?
lyx20 writes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I have lived that I may someday discover the gene responsible for hemorrhoids just so I could name it "Upyores". This was the thought of a child. I now know it only right and proper that I name it "traste"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will recieve a nobel prize if you name it after yourself.(the connection is so slow).Back to the original question:Is lyx2o is the origin of the word idiot? My guess is yes.
" Only stupid people act like barbarians"
Edited by traste, : underlining
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Supensions to lyx2no and traste because the these exchanges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by lyx2no, posted 06-28-2009 10:05 PM lyx2no has not replied

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


Message 281 of 415 (513460)
06-28-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by lyx2no
06-28-2009 10:05 PM


Re:hello!
lyx20 post
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Ridicule is the first argument of the fool.Just like you.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Supensions to lyx2no and traste because the these exchanges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by lyx2no, posted 06-28-2009 10:05 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Theodoric, posted 06-28-2009 10:47 PM traste has replied

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


Message 283 of 415 (513463)
06-28-2009 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Theodoric
06-28-2009 10:47 PM


Re: Re:hello!
Because he talk nonsense things.Why not ask, him or her to provide evidence for his assertions? You are higly bias!!!
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Supensions to lyx2no and traste because the these exchanges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Theodoric, posted 06-28-2009 10:47 PM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 327 of 415 (514288)
07-05-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Granny Magda
06-29-2009 7:46 AM


Re: Interactions
Granny Magda wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mutate and Survive
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on the decades of mutation research you will notice that it does not produce anything new. The research show that mutution is harmful rather than beneficial,since out of 1000 mutation only one is good,yet it is still the same organism.
If intellectual men will the history of fraud science abiogenesis will be on the top.
Its not hard to convinced those people who are already convinced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Granny Magda, posted 06-29-2009 7:46 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-06-2009 1:28 AM traste has not replied

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


Message 328 of 415 (514289)
07-05-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Rahvin
07-05-2009 5:32 AM


Re: Your confidinced troubled me
Rahvin wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasteur did not prove that life cannot arise from nonliving matter. He simply showed that modern living things do not suddenly appear out of nowhere. Abiogenesis is in agreement - we do not expect to see maggots or bacteria form spontaneously from nonliving matter. We do predict that naturally occurring compounds can spontaneously self-assemble into self-replicating molecules and eventually form something we would identify as life.
There's a rather large difference between the two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you serious? Pasteur announced that "never will the doctrine of spontaneous genaration recover from the mortal blow stuck by this simple experiment." This statement remains true today since no laboratory model was able to produce that living thing is from non living thing. And if you ask me whether abiogenesis is spontaneous genaration my answer is yes. In general what does abiogenesis holds? In general what does spontaneous genaration holds? Are they not holding that life is came from non - life? So as you think best what is the difference?
If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.
Its not hard to convinced those people who are already convinced.
Edited by traste, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Rahvin, posted 07-05-2009 5:32 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by themasterdebator, posted 07-05-2009 10:43 PM traste has replied
 Message 332 by Rahvin, posted 07-05-2009 11:03 PM traste has replied
 Message 333 by lyx2no, posted 07-05-2009 11:21 PM traste has not replied
 Message 344 by Blue Jay, posted 07-06-2009 8:04 AM traste has not replied

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


Message 329 of 415 (514290)
07-05-2009 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by themasterdebator
07-05-2009 12:40 PM


Re: Your confidinced troubled me
the master debator wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peg, scientific theores changes to meet new data. I don't think you understand the point of the Pasteur experiment. Pasteur was showing that fruit flies will not evolve from meat. This was certainly a correct hypothesis. Pasteur did not show that simple singled celled organisms(which he did not do any tests for in his experiment)could not arise in the conditions found on a young earth. Nobody is denying the validity of Pasteurs findings that fruit flies won't simply spring out of meat, just your attempt to apply this to the current theories of abiogenesis, which have absolutely nothing to do with Pasteur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right scientific data often subjected to change, since when scientist discover new facts it will often challenge traditional beliefs. Take for example the long held notion that the earth is the center of the universe,that the earth is flat,and handling of worms can cause warts. Those are just some of the things that ancient people believe to be true,yet scientific discoveries disprove them. As for Pasteur experiment I never heard any scientific discoveries or experiment disprove it.
If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.
Its not hard to convinced those people who are already convinced

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by themasterdebator, posted 07-05-2009 12:40 PM themasterdebator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by themasterdebator, posted 07-05-2009 10:38 PM traste has not replied

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


Message 334 of 415 (514301)
07-06-2009 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by themasterdebator
07-05-2009 10:43 PM


Re: Your confidinced troubled me
the master debator wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This leads me to believe that you don't correctly understand what Pasteurs experiments are. Can you please tell me in your own words what you think Pasteur did?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterilized water protected from contamination. Any disagreement my friend??? Or maybe you are the one who really did not understand his experiment?
If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by themasterdebator, posted 07-05-2009 10:43 PM themasterdebator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by DrJones*, posted 07-06-2009 1:20 AM traste has not replied
 Message 336 by Coyote, posted 07-06-2009 1:21 AM traste has not replied
 Message 339 by themasterdebator, posted 07-06-2009 2:23 AM traste has not replied

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


Message 338 of 415 (514307)
07-06-2009 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Rahvin
07-05-2009 11:03 PM


Re: Your confidinced troubled me
Rahvin wrote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, an appeal to autority is a logical fallacy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I,think you must review your logic class. A thing will become only an appeal to authority if an only if he or she is not an expert of that field. For example if we talk about gravity and you will quote Darwin that fallacy is appeal to authority since Darwin is not an expert on physics.
Rahvin wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because Pasteur may have said something doesnt make it true.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And why??? Produce your evidence that it is not true.
Rahvin wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotes mean nothing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if I quote Eienstien idea on relativity it means nothing for you?? Or if quote Evariste or Abel ideas on group it still mean nothing for you. What a stupid mind do you have!!!
Rahvin wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasteur produced no mechanism that prevents nonliving matter from forming life. None of his observations did anything of the sort.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Franky I dont like this tone of reasoning, so emotional. Have you ever prove experimentally that he was incorrect.??
Rahvin wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is significant. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that nonliving matter may, through natural chemical reactions, spontaneously result in life. Spontaneous generation is the hypothesis that currently extant life forms spontaneously form from nonliving matter - that is, maggots form from dead meat, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many new forms of spontaneous genaration in the past and many new forms are yet coming as effot have been made to wipe away the increasing evidence of creation. In other words abiogenesis is just another mask of spontaneous genaration. If you look on the history of evolution, to the greece no new had been made. Only wishful speculations and boundless optimism. To be sure there is no discovery of intermediate forms of organism.
Rahvin wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you'd be wrong. Fortunately, you are not responsible for defining terms
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And who give you the authority to say that??? I define terms using logic.
Rahvin wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, spontaneous generation is the hypothesis that currently existing life forms spontaneously form from nonliving matter, such as maggots spontaneously forming from dead meat instead of hatching from eggs laid by a parent fly.
Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that nonliving matter can, through natural chemical reactions, arrange itself into life. Not fully-formed extant life forms, but primitive, barely-meets-the-definition life.
If you can't tell the difference between those two, I can't help you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, my dear you missed my entire point. My entire point is this. Abiogenesis and spontaneous genaration is similar in the sense that both are implying thta life is came from non- life. Is that idea really hard to grasp??
Rahvin wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly enough, greater than 99% of all biologists hold the Theory of Evolution to be an incredibly accurate model of the observed mechanism of change over generations in populations of living things, as well as an accurate explanation for the diversity of life observed on Earth.
That's quite a conspiracy theory you have there.
Now, if you have evidence that the Theory of Evolution is a gigantic fraud, please feel free to illuminate us. If you have no such evidence, I'll be forced to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about, and are simply yet another Creationist arguing from a position of complete ignorance in support of dogmatic belief.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think so and its because of this report:
An increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theoryu at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.---( New Scientist)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Rahvin, posted 07-05-2009 11:03 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-06-2009 5:19 AM traste has not replied
 Message 341 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-06-2009 5:21 AM traste has not replied
 Message 342 by Dr Jack, posted 07-06-2009 6:02 AM traste has not replied
 Message 346 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2009 9:08 AM traste has replied

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


Message 351 of 415 (514376)
07-07-2009 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by RAZD
07-06-2009 9:08 AM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
Razd wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, it is still an appeal to authority. The fallacy is that it makes the assumption that what the person says is true, rather than relying on the premise itself being true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Take my advice. Join Rahvin in reviewing his logic lesson. There is no assumption in Pasteur's experiment it was proven experimentally my friend. The real assumption is abiogenesis which contradicts current data. The premise of Pasteur's experiment is this. Organic things did not begin from inorganic thing. So the logic is. Every oganic thing came only from organic thing.
Razd wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
you know it's a lot easier, quicker and more consistent to type
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how to enable the html.
Razd wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't have to: this is the essence of science, that theories can be wrong, and the fact that a lot has happened in biology since the time of Pasteur means it is inevitable that something he said was wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no quarel with the idea that theories can be wrong. Newton can be wrong, Hawkings can be wrong,yet the real point is we should rely on current data not just on wishful speculations and boundless optimism. The essence of science is to find problem and solve,while the essence of philosophy is to find an itch and scratch. Since evolutionary research suits to find an itch and scratch,therefore it philosophy not science.
Razd wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Curiously, Einstein was wrong about a cosmic constant. Authorities can be wrong even within their field, and this is why the appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My real point is quoting an authorithy is sensible I say nothing about cosmic constant. Yes an authorities can be wrong but it doesnt mean that quoting them is always alogical fallacy it is sensible to appeal to someone in a particular field when we are not an expert of that thing. Take your basic logic lesson.
Razd wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, now we have the ad hominem logical fallacy, one that betrays an empty argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Your co supporeters here have billions of character assasination,I only dance with them. Lynx2n0 is an exemplary example of them.
Opps!! Its already time I will finished my criticism tommorow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2009 9:08 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Huntard, posted 07-07-2009 6:55 AM traste has replied
 Message 353 by Blue Jay, posted 07-07-2009 7:48 AM traste has replied
 Message 354 by lyx2no, posted 07-07-2009 11:07 AM traste has replied
 Message 356 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2009 9:39 PM traste has not replied

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


Message 358 of 415 (514469)
07-07-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by lyx2no
07-07-2009 11:07 AM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
Hi traste
See it does not work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by lyx2no, posted 07-07-2009 11:07 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by lyx2no, posted 07-07-2009 11:08 PM traste has replied

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


Message 360 of 415 (514471)
07-07-2009 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Blue Jay
07-07-2009 7:48 AM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
Bluejay wrote:
Holy crap!
Im, not you are. I know that you still believe in an intelligent Designer,you are just using evolution to disprove the creation account of christianity.
A premise is a beginning assumption, not a conclusion. Premises are not evidence. You're making it pretty obvious that you haven't actually studied logic, Traste
Yeah, and from that we deduct to support our argument that is what Im doing. Hey gooly!! A premise will become an evidence if an only it was proven and tested.
Did Pasteur test "every organic thing"? Did he even come close? How can the observation that flies don't come from meat translate into the conclusion that nothing living ever came from anything not living?
Dont you know that there is a method in science to take only a part of the whole and study them and from that we deduct our conclusion?
let us turn the table. Did Darwin live for billion of years and observe those gradual change on organism?? Or you are just very bias in viewing things??
This is like saying, "tigers don't eat grass: therefore, nothing eats grass"; or "beetles don't build airplanes: therefore, nothing builds airplanes"; or "Chevrolet trucks get bad gas mileage: therefore, all American trucks get bad gas mileage
This not my logic this is yours.
I hate to be a prick, but you can't prove an experiment experimentally. You can support a hypothesis experimentally. While this is only nit-picking your literary skills, your inability to comprehend and use scientific and logical terms tells me that you don't really know what you're talking about
Fortunately I can speak and write three languages. How about you only one?? Shame on you.!!! I will not waste my time here dealing with bunch of idiots if I dont know what Im, talking about. The only thing you like is to make me believe everything you say, sorry Im not as faithful as you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Blue Jay, posted 07-07-2009 7:48 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Meddle, posted 07-08-2009 12:20 PM traste has replied
 Message 367 by Blue Jay, posted 07-08-2009 2:54 PM traste has replied

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


Message 362 of 415 (514473)
07-07-2009 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by lyx2no
07-07-2009 11:08 PM


Re: Congratulations, You Quoter, You
Lynx2no write:
I assure you, it did work on this end. The quote "Hi traste" is in a quote box. What do you see on your screen? What do you expect to see? Do you expect to see a quote box around the quotes on the reply screen? It doesn't, nor is it supposed to. The quote box appears in the preview and post only. In the reply box you get what you type. In the peek mode I can see that you have done it correctly. Regardless, it did work.
I tried it before but it does'nt worked. But not on this time. Maybe I included the quotation mark before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by lyx2no, posted 07-07-2009 11:08 PM lyx2no has not replied

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


Message 363 of 415 (514474)
07-07-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Huntard
07-07-2009 6:55 AM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
Huntard wrote:
Wrong. It was: "CURRENTLY living organic things did not begin from inorganic things
Err, did you not read this.? " Never will the docrine of spontaneous genaration recover from the mortal blow sruck by this simple experiment"
And, pray tell, how did you get to that? What do you base this on?
Read the arguments of proponents of evolution and examine the evidence with out prior conviction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Huntard, posted 07-07-2009 6:55 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by CosmicChimp, posted 07-08-2009 12:29 AM traste has not replied
 Message 365 by Huntard, posted 07-08-2009 1:27 AM traste has replied

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


Message 368 of 415 (514563)
07-08-2009 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Blue Jay
07-08-2009 2:54 PM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
Blue jay wrote:
"Holy crap" is just an expression of surprise
I mean, Im not surprise, you are.
What?
You are higly pretentious!! Are you ashame of your beliefs??
You are using the term premise incorrectly, Traste
Im not, you are.
Premises are not proven nor tested. You only call something a premise if you are not going to test it. If you are going to test it, you call it a hypothesis
For example if my premse is: All educated people went to school. Bleujay went to school. Therefore Bluejay is educated. Is the premise was not tested and proven? If the premise was not tested and proven then the concclusion might be invalid.
Here is your logic:
Statement X applies to fruit flies. Therefore, it applies to all life.
Actually this is very evident to your logic. Frankly Pasteur's experiment is apply to all because, it refers to a condition that life might spontaneously arose.
And, here is my parody of your logic:
Statement X applies to tigers. Therefore it applies to all life.
In this case, statement X is do not eat grass
And, here is my parody of your logic: Statement X is incorrect because it challenge my beliefs.
Frankly Pasteur's experiment challenge all fundamental beliefs that life might arose from non- living thing.
It is your logic. You are trying to derive a universal conclusion from Pasteur’s limited data set, just as I was trying to derive a universal conclusion from my limited data set of tigers
No! Im, trying to derive a specific conclusion and applied it universally. This method ia called,deduction. It like integral calculus from specific to universal.
When a scientist has a little bit of data, he predicts that his conclusions will apply to areas where he has not tested it. But, you cannot say that a prediction based on evidence from sample A is scientifically valid for sample B.
This is an appropriate description of all evolutonary research. For example because they observe microchange,they reason out that micro evolution is possible. But this logic is like saying because a man can jump at 2 meters he might as well jump at 1000000 meters. Very illogical.
Evidence that many important steps of abiogenesis are possible gives us reason to suspect that all life from pre-existing life may not be universal---at least enough reason to entertain further investigation
If we substitute reason with faith and reality with illusion you might getit correctly. If I have boundless optimism and wishful speculations I might to believe that abiogenesis is correct. Fortunately I,am a very reasonable person, and I dont like to believe such things that filled with illusion.
Adhering to Pasteur’s meat-spoilage experiments as the pre-eminent authority on the origin of life is pointlessly dogmatic and counterproductive
Actually lP did not performed such experiment,it was FR.
Actually, I speak and write two languages, one of which happens to be Mandarin Chinese. I’ll leave you to figure out what the other one is. I can also understand and read Spanish, but, whenever I try to speak it, it always comes out as Chinese.
Well, fine. Good job!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Blue Jay, posted 07-08-2009 2:54 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Son, posted 07-08-2009 11:33 PM traste has not replied
 Message 372 by Coyote, posted 07-08-2009 11:51 PM traste has not replied
 Message 378 by Blue Jay, posted 07-09-2009 4:53 PM traste has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024