Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 105 of 173 (525166)
09-22-2009 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Theodoric
08-20-2009 10:38 AM


Re: you are ignorant
Theodocric wrote:
Amazing what you get when you quote mine and take things out of context. What it does is make you look dishonest and your arguments weak.
It is not out of context,what Iam implying is that mutation is not beneficial, since out of 1000 only only one is succesful,that is the real reason why I qoute Sagan.
Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.
I know also that qoute,he is implying that mutation serve as a "raw material for evolution" but they cannot because most of them as he wrote are "lethal"
So Sagan did not believe that all mutations were lethal. He understood the importance of mutations.
Does the qoute most of them are "lethal" means to you all mutations are lethal? Or you are just so defensive that is why you cannot comprehend properly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 08-20-2009 10:38 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Theodoric, posted 09-22-2009 10:09 PM traste has replied

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


Message 108 of 173 (525606)
09-23-2009 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Theodoric
09-22-2009 10:09 PM


Re: you are ignorant
Theodocric wrote:
Your implication here is that Sagan was saying all mutations were lethal. You can try to claim otherwise but that is the clear implication of what you said.
Forgive me, if I , forgot to wrote the word "most"
Your habit of making personal attacks when you cannot make an argument is getting very wearying. Do you think maybe you can support your arguments instead of lashing out? You have been caught misrepresenting Carl Sagan and have yet provided no evidence to show your side. You might want to try to or acknowledge you argument was flawed. Or maybe you might want to just lash out with personal attacks again.
Theodocric, I have an outmost respect for those people who argue properly, I mean those people who do not employ ad hominem attacks to depend there position,look at Lynx2no he was addicted to it. Because of that I have a very little respect for him and those people who follow the same way of reasoning. So dont put all the blame to me, when sometimes I employ ad hominem attack,as I said to Lynx2no I, only dance with them. In the mean time I am very busy with my mathimatical research,that is the real reason why I cannot reply immediately. Soon we can debate this issue cogently and equitably,it doesnt mean however that Iam incapable of debating this issue cogently and equitably, becuase I did really employ it.
Let's debate this issue as real intellectual men, ad hominem attack is no help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Theodoric, posted 09-22-2009 10:09 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Theodoric, posted 09-24-2009 9:06 AM traste has replied

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


Message 110 of 173 (531578)
10-18-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Theodoric
09-24-2009 9:06 AM


Re: you are ignorant
Thedocric wrote:
Why did you make no attempt to change this until you were called on it?
As I said ,I forgot.
And then even then claim you were correct.
But my implication is most mutations were lethal,not all.
I am sorry, but you have misrepresented quotes and facts man
times on this forum.
0h, that's cute.Try to point one except the quote from Sagan.
Of course I am going to point out something you say is not true
Not true for you maybe,but there explanation is conflicting,that is cute too.
I have never claimed to be an intellectual and I am very wary of those who feel the need to claim themselves as such.
Yet,you get mad at those people who dont share your beliefs.
It is actually amusing when someone, that obviously does no know or understand a subject, tries to be condescending. You might try a little less of that, but then again it gives you an excuse to attack people instead of actually debating them.
I guess I point out that mutation is a process that break genes so easily, if it means nothing for you I cannot help you. Why not try to minimize Lynx2no's add hominem attack??
Edited by traste, : improving text

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Theodoric, posted 09-24-2009 9:06 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 111 of 173 (532997)
10-28-2009 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Theodoric
09-22-2009 10:20 PM


Re: you are ignorant
Theodoric wrote:
So you have no source. Typical.
I'll already give my reason, why I will not.
You do know there is no scientific law called this don't you. If you have any evidence such a scientific law exists please present it.
Actually it exist and it's not alone,the others are the cell theory,the law of biogenesis,and many others. But those things for you and other poponents evolution doesnt exist, because for you and for other proponents of evolution there is no other explanation of the origin of life other than unguided material process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Theodoric, posted 09-22-2009 10:20 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2009 9:43 AM traste has replied

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


Message 113 of 173 (533566)
11-01-2009 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Theodoric
10-28-2009 9:43 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Thedoric wrote:
Do you actually know how science works? One person cannot suddenly claim there is a law.
What I know is scientific method. It begins with observation,gather data and formulate a hypthosis and test the hyphothesis againts those data over and over again, it the hyphthesis doesnt suit it should be abandoned. Since today we observed only that living things came only fron living things that only shows that the law of biogenesis is really a law.In addition since since we dont observed that an organism change into as what Darwin claimed,that also shows that law of reccurent variation is really a law.
Please provide evidence that there is a scientific law called "law of recurrent variation".
Next month I will give you an information about it.
Since you have no sources for other assertions I do not expect much evidence for this claim either
Can you wait for next month? Right now Iam still looking for a job,Iam a little bit busy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2009 9:43 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2009 4:56 AM traste has replied

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


Message 115 of 173 (534416)
11-08-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2009 4:56 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Dr Adequate wrote:
Since we know that at one time there were no living things, and since we know that there are living things now, we know that the "law of biogenesis" is not really a law.
Your implication here is that life just emerged,well that is Abio genesis genesis the new mask of spontaneous generation, abiogenesis is not yet a theory they are just competing ideas so far no one has succeded since abiogenesis is not observable today nor it is observable yesterday this only shows that you are an arrogant because you believe in an unobservable things ,what I mean is things with out related evidence . I agree that "at one time" there is no life in this planet I also believe that at one time there is no car, but I cannot believe that car just emerged, nor I believe that organization, elegance simplicity we observe in living things just emerged, why I don't believe is not a matter of personal incredulity,but its a matter of lacked of evidence.
Edited by traste, : wron spelling
Edited by traste, : add words
Edited by traste, : correcting words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2009 4:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by hooah212002, posted 11-08-2009 4:24 AM traste has replied

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


Message 117 of 173 (536957)
11-26-2009 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by hooah212002
11-08-2009 4:24 AM


Re: Scientific laws
quote:
:
"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth."
So you are referring to the RNA world theory. The RNA world theory states that RNAis the first self replicating molecule, but this theory as one scientist puts it" is fatally flawed because it failed to explained where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecule." In addition RNA cannot function independently without the help from the 2 macromolecules the protein and DNA the three must work together in order to produce life as one article in the new scientist puts it " just take any one of the three and life will grind to a halt" I hope I educate you.
Edited by traste, : add words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by hooah212002, posted 11-08-2009 4:24 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2009 3:42 AM traste has replied

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


Message 118 of 173 (536961)
11-26-2009 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by hooah212002
11-08-2009 4:24 AM


Re: Scientific laws
qoute:
Physorg writes:
Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed, explained Sandford.
Now, while it may not be concrete, it is evidence that simple elements can be formed into the necessary building blocks for life: steps necessary for Abigenesis.
Actually the widely accepted idea of how life began here on earth is the idea of Stanley Miller, his experiment was widely cited by many biology books as an ultimate explanation of how life began through Darwinian mechanism. In 1953 Miller prepared necessary ingredients which he though can produce life, sealed it in a flask and passed and electric spark. A week after he found a "reddish goo" which he found to be rich in amino acids "an essence of protein". Origin of life of scientist felt optimistic of this result because they believe it reflects the first part of Alexander Oparin's molecular drama but almost40 years later those optimism die. Why? The journal scientific american reported that " over the past decades or so doubts have grown about Urey and millers assumption regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiment and computerized reconstruction of the atmosphere suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun which is today is blocked by atmospheric zone would have destroy hydrogen based molecules in the atmosphere, such an atmosphere would not have been conducive to the synthesize of amino acids and others precursors of life.
If you really believe that evolution is correct I want you pay to closed attention to the following report"
The journal new scientist in reported that " an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argued that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials"
I really wonder why those people keep on pronouncing that evolution is correct, which in fact they themselves have serious doubts.
Edited by traste, : add words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by hooah212002, posted 11-08-2009 4:24 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2009 3:35 AM traste has not replied

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


Message 138 of 173 (540337)
12-24-2009 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by cavediver
11-27-2009 3:42 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Cavediver wrote:
No, he was talking about uracil - can you not read?
Actually I can, but I,am not sure about you. Actually he is talking about RNA world theory, because he implied that RNA is the first self replicating molecule.
Who was this scientist? Please provide his name and where he made the quote.
I,am sure that he exist, but I,am not sure that you know him.
Really? Please provide evidence of this. Given the RNA Hypothesis, you might have thought that there would be an idea that this is not true... but that would have required 'thought' and I don't see a lot of that in these posts...
Oh, really !!! Is this the way you argue "horse laugh style" and then claimed that you are a critical minded and deep thinker person?? I,am sure that you just don't know how those molecular systems work yet you assume that you know. Actually as one evolutionist stated that "protein needs DNA for there formation but DNA cannot exist with out the preexisting protein. The formation of protein and DNA is a very elementary topic, in those we understand how protein and DNA work together, in other words they are interdependent, but I know that you will just ignore those inter dependency due to the reason well known to you.
Edited by traste, : inserting word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2009 3:42 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Iblis, posted 12-24-2009 1:28 AM traste has replied

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


Message 139 of 173 (540338)
12-24-2009 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by cavediver
11-28-2009 5:29 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Cavediver wrote:
Ah, I see. So it wasn't New Scientist stating this - it was made within an article - do we have a full, none-quote-mined copy of what Ruse said? Or are the creationists all just copying each other's quote-mine yet again?
So what is wrong in quoting?? The journal only implied that Darwinian evolution failed to explained in light of modern discoveries that is why it said that many scientist of "highest intellectual credentials" do not accept evolution as a genuine scientific theory. So what is your problem??
Edited by traste, : using db codes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 5:29 AM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 141 of 173 (547080)
02-16-2010 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Iblis
12-24-2009 1:28 AM


Re: Scientific laws
The reason you don't know who he is is because he threatens creationists who try to associate his work with their nonsense. For this reason, the places doing your quote-mining for you fail to mention his name and also garble selected words in the pseudo-quotes, just as in your example. ("failed to explained") This is the sort of dishonesty we have come to expect from those whose faith consists of intently "believing things they know to be untrue."
Study the rules of logic and you will understand why many proponents of creation qoute many propopnents of evolution. Do you know why? Because they themselves express doubts of there beliefs, but I understand that those doubts is still still in favor of there beliefs. In short any statements againts them is in favor of them..
Edited by traste, : adding words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Iblis, posted 12-24-2009 1:28 AM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2010 5:48 AM traste has not replied

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


Message 142 of 173 (548174)
02-26-2010 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by hooah212002
11-28-2009 9:44 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Hi,
Alas, but it would do well to teach others to not take ANY quote form a creationist site.
But you should also consider the fact that your knowledge in evolution is not your own. You also qoute them from the people who believe in evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by hooah212002, posted 11-28-2009 9:44 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2010 1:51 AM traste has replied
 Message 145 by anglagard, posted 02-26-2010 2:50 AM traste has not replied
 Message 155 by hooah212002, posted 02-27-2010 6:57 PM traste has replied

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


Message 144 of 173 (548182)
02-26-2010 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Huntard
02-26-2010 1:51 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Hello,
We don't twist their words around to make them say things they are not. Also, have you ever seen an "evolutionist" quote mine a creationist (not as a demonstration on why to avoid such a thing)?
My main point here is the logical consequences of there arguments, like for example if somebody would say a is b and in the second sentences, would say, well I'm not really sure if a is b, and yet insist that a is b because he or she believe it, that is doubtful. Take note also that in the court of law your statements can be use againts you, that is the method being use to determine that somebody is lying.
Edited by traste, : deleting words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2010 1:51 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2010 4:46 AM traste has not replied
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 02-26-2010 4:38 PM traste has replied

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


Message 149 of 173 (548359)
02-27-2010 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Taq
02-26-2010 4:38 PM


Re: Scientific laws
Hello,
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872)
As you see Darwin observed the difficulties of the evolution of the eye, what we need is a document to show that the eye undergone gradual changes( by means of Darwinian mechanism) but as we see no such document exist, if it really exist then we can observed a partially formed eye. Like for example an eye with out a retina, an eye eye with out a cortex. Can you find me one?
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. .
If reason really tell Darwin that the eye evolved, then he should observed the following
evolutionary stages of the eye. The following are the stages, which Darwin though necessary to support his idea.
1.photosensetive cell.
2.aggregates of pigment cells with out a nerve.
3.an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin.
4.pigment cells forming a small depression and then a deeper depression.
5.the skin over the depression gradually taking a lens shape.
6.evolution of the muscles that allow that alllow the lens to adjust.
Maybe you would reason out that all of these are viable because we observed it living things today. As Professor Jerry Coyne reason out;
"The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.’5
And Dennet put the idea in a dominant way he said;
"‘ rare accident giving one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this improvement helps it to have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulatethis was Darwin’s insighteyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.’7
But other scientist are not comfortable of these views like for example; Melnick he concluded that eye could not undergone evolution by means of Darwinian process he said;
"its immense complexity and diversity in nature, as well as its beauty and perfection in so many different creatures of the world, defies explanation even by macroevolution’s most ardent supporters.’8 And university of Salford biologist Laurence R. Croft said;
"precise origin of the vertebrate eye is still a mystery. The fascinating thing about the evolution of the eye is its apparent sudden appearance."
In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection.
Here is the problem of this reasoning. "The monophyly of the Articulata (= Annelida + Panarthropoda), proposed by Wgele et al. (1999), is contradicted by all molecular data that support either Ecdysozoa (including Panarthropoda), or Lophotrochozoa (including Annelida), or usually both."
In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance
If those things really exist how does division of the parts and coated by pigments show the gradual transition?
With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."
Again if you are correct then fossil record must support these view even Darwin acknowledge it "the crucial importance of this requirement to the theory of evolution was fully understood by Darwin, who stated that, in searching for the gradations through which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look at its lineal progenitors. Indeed we ought; though he himself could not do so. It is deceptive to the reader to create a seriation beginning with eye spots as seen in unicellular organisms and call them, as does Duke-Elder (1958), the earliest stage of evolution."
Did scientist observed those transitional forms? Croft observed that" it remarkably similar. Indeed the basic features of the eye in different vertebrates are very much the same despite great variations in their mode of life and adaptation to habitat. Furthermore, unlike other organs such as the heart, there is no long evolutionary history with the eye. In essence the eye of a newt is as complex and fully developed as that of a man."
Just a reminder do not hold on the idea that natural selection formed those new organ because this idea is seriously challenge today. Isn't it good to hold only what is testable.? Certainly.
Edited by traste, : editing db codes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 02-26-2010 4:38 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2010 7:05 AM traste has replied
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 02-27-2010 1:22 PM traste has replied
 Message 167 by Taq, posted 03-02-2010 10:46 AM traste has not replied

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


Message 156 of 173 (548500)
02-27-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Granny Magda
02-27-2010 7:05 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Hello,
Poor. very poor.
I understand. Is this rating due to psychological reason, or belief system?
It is a pathetic spectacle to watch creationists abuse this quote yet again.
As I told you, and your co supporters that if reason really tell Darwin that the eye evolved, then we can observed the following evolutionary stages which Darwin though necessary to prove his theory.
1.photosensetive cell.
2.aggregates of pigment cells with out a nerve.
3.an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin.
4.pigment cells forming a small depression and then a deeper depression.
5.the skin over the depression gradually taking a lens shape..
6.evolution of the muscles that allow that alllow the lens to adjust.
Darwin believe that this shoul be observed, yet you did not reply to this argument, instead accusing me of being irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2010 7:05 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Granny Magda, posted 02-28-2010 9:48 AM traste 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